Overlooked due to all the other chaos initiated by Donald Trump over the weekend was news that the first official movie screening in the White House theater since the inauguration was Finding Dory .  This Pixar animated film, according to IMDB.com, is the story of a memory challenged blue tang who:

somehow became separated from her parents as a child. With help from her friends Nemo and Marlin, Dory embarks on an epic adventure to find them.

It did not take long for social media to point out the disconnect between the movie’s plot and Trump’s executive order which attempted to block many such reunions in the United States.

The Hollywood Reporter made a second observation.  Movie studios have always made their complete catalog of films available to the White House.  Therefore, why Finding Dory when one has access to the plethora of engaging movies released in the past few month?  Compare Trump’s choice to Michelle Obama’s choice for the family’s final screening:  Hidden Figures.

The Reporter provided additional insight about the cinema tastes of the current White House occupant noting that Trump had also requested the Bryan Cranston/James Franco comedy Why Him?, which garnered a 39 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes.  One can imagine press secretary Sean Spicer justifying this selection by claiming it actually had the highest rating in the history of Rotten Tomatoes, PERIOD.  Or maybe Trump just wanted a film whose approval rating mirrored his own.

For fear of seeming to be an elitist, I must admit I too enjoy an inane movie now and then.  I cannot count how many times I have watched Animal House or Ghostbusters.  Or reruns of Seinfeld to the point I can almost recite the dialog of entire episodes.  But as a steady diet, it leaves me wanting.  Cinema is a powerful medium through which visual storytelling enlightens us about who we are and the world we live in.

The occupant of the White House, especially if he chooses not to read books or listen to diverse opinions, would be well served to take advantage of films which bring perspective and context to the decisions he faces on a daily basis.  The following is one example I would suggest as a good starting point.

Eye in the Sky (Entertainment One, 2015)

It’s too bad Trump did not watch this under-appreciated film before launching the raid on al Qaeda in Yemen last weekend. He would have heard General George Matherson (played by the late and sorely missed Alan Rickman) describe how success in the war against terrorism cannot be measured solely using body counts.  Explaining how the United States and its allies must win the propaganda war as well as physical engagements, Matherson tells his colleagues, “If they kill 80 people, we win the propaganda war.  If we kill one child, they do.”

According to medics on the ground in al Bayda province, the casualties from last weekend’s raid included “at least eight women and seven children aged between three and 13 years old.” (BBC News, February 2, 2017) The administration’s assessment of the raid?

Brave US forces were instrumental in killing an estimated 14 AQAP members and capturing important intelligence that will assist the US in preventing terrorism against its citizens and people around the world.

Matherson might have thought otherwise.  I can imagine him saying, “The administration may view the civilian deaths as collateral damage.  In truth, they are the new faces on al Qaeda recruitment posters.”

I certainly understand how Trump might want to escape the serious business of running a country by watching an animated film or the latest in a long string of James Franco mediocre comedies.  But even with his reported short attention span (per Art of the Deal ghostwriter Tony Schwartz), two hours watching a movie which articulates the legal and moral issues a righteous nation must confront even when fighting terrorism seems like a much better investment than an Atlantic City casino.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

The Wednesday morning quarterbacking is in full swing.  Journalists and pundits are pontificating what each campaign did right or wrong and the challenges facing both major political parties.  Being a political junkie, that was my first instinct.  This morning I woke up with a different perspective.

This shift in mindset comes not from the questions posed the day after the election, but those raised during the campaign.  Here are just a few.

• Can Hillary Clinton hold the Obama coalition together?
• Are there enough disenchanted white voters to secure a Trump victory?
• In reference to various campaign decisions, is this strategy or event designed to solidify the candidate’s base or broaden it?

Tuesday night, analysts, using data from the exit polls, addressed these queries and mostly confirmed the conventional wisdom that we are a nation divided by gender, race and age.

Then, as they always do following a contentious election, commentators quickly shifted to the topic of “healing the deep divisions among the American electorate.”  And equally sad, just as THEY always do, the candidates followed the script.  In his acceptance speech the president-elect said:

Now it’s time for America to bind the wounds of division; have to get together. To all Republicans and Democrats and independents across this nation, I say it is time for us to come together as one united people.

In her concession speech, Hillary Clinton urged the country to come together.

Last night I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country. I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans.

What neither candidate did was take responsibility for creating what I have coined “the basial divide” during the campaign.  Microsoft Word does not recognize the term “basial.”  It is a derivative of the non-word “basism,” which, draws on the definition of racism.

A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among various political groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own political affiliation is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular political group is inferior to the others.

Race, gender and age are accidents of birth.  How individuals in these three categories migrate to one party or another’s base of support is the result of political discourse.  Therefore, it is the message from each candidate or party, in hopes of solidifying its base, which creates the political and cultural divide.

For argument sake, imagine each presidential candidate followed their post-election call for unity during the campaign.  What would it have required?  Please keep in mind, I am going to use extreme examples to make this point.

Donald Trump could have held a campaign event in a field of migrant workers instead of on the border.  He could have explained how undocumented workers are exploited when employers know they can pay lower wages without fear of their employees filing complaints with the Department of Labor.  He could have asked his supporters, “How many of you, given the opportunity to spend eight hours a day in the sun picking strawberries, would take that job?” At the Republican convention, they could have shown a video of the nominee’s encounter with migrant workers.  Trump could have asked, “Shouldn’t a GREAT AMERICA reward a hard day’s labor with a fair wage?”

Hillary Clinton could have shown how her theme of economic justice applied to all Americans.  She could have said, “I do not condone what the Bundy’s did in Nevada and Oregon, but I understand it.  If I were a rancher, I’d wonder why government subsidizes private ventures, but charges me fees if my cattle graze on public lands. STRONGER TOGETHER means we have to put ourselves in other people’s shoes, even when we disagree with them.”

Or how climate change is about more than rising oceans or more violent storms.  Clinton could have said, “Farmers in the grain belt should be just as concerned about the impact of rising temperatures on their assets as beachfront property owners on the two coasts.”  I don’t recall seeing  a Democratic rally in the heartland or a television spot which made that point.

Why are these scenarios unrealistic?  Because bringing America together is hard.  Because it requires taking the time to make well-reasoned and well-articulated arguments as opposed to campaign slogans or thirty second sound bites. Because candidates would rather spend their time in arenas, being cheered by thousands of supporters who were always going to vote for them (i.e. their base).  Because they fear being rejected if they venture into hostile political territory.

I believe there is a chance to re-unite Americans.  I believe this because I saw it happen.  And the individual who helped me see this is often characterized as one of the most divisive figures in national politics, filmmaker Michael Moore.  On October 6, he traveled to Wilmington, Ohio, an overwhelmingly Republican town which was devastated when DHL shuttered a major regional processing center.  He called his one-man show, “Michael Moore in Trumpland.”  For 73 minutes, he talked with a largely hostile audience.  He empathized with their economic plight and their fears.  And then made the case why Hillary Clinton’s policies would do more for them than Donald Trump’s.

We’ll never know what impact Moore’s experiment had.  After all, there were only a few hundred people in attendance.  It does not matter.  What does matter is there was no name-calling or violence and after the performance, Moore joined many in the audience at a neighboring bar.  Next election cycle, maybe the candidates should try this.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP