Morning Fog

Star Witnesses Are Not Heroes

Yesterday, after watching the Thursday broadcast of the latest Congressional Hearings into the attack on the U.S. Capitol, I sat down to write a reaction, but the words just didn't mesh the way I wanted, and I abandoned the effort. Fortunately, that work was done for me by Washington Post contributing editor Matt Bai in Friday's paper. It's spot on, in my view. If you can access the Post, have a look for "These January 6 Witnesses are Doing the Right Thing Now. But They're Not Heroes."

If you can't access the Post, I offer here a few tortured phrases of my own:

Cipollone, Pottinger, Matthews, and others who testified that night are all White House staffers, confessed stalwart Republicans, several with military experience, all of whom took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Pottinger and Matthews resigned after January 6 because of what they saw and heard that day. The question that arose in my mind was "Why so late?" They could not have been blind to all the illegal shenanigans Trump had been up to for months before, attempting to deny his election loss and engineer a steal.  

I was especially puzzled by how cool and detached these witnesses remained, even when reviewing Trump's televised message to the nation on January 7, the one in which, far from condemning the insurgency he sparked, he yet again implied that the election had been stolen. Outrageous, unpatriotic, and just plain crazy to boot. But asked their views of that statement, Cipollone, Matthews, Pottinger, and others tiptoed. Some ventured that Trump's statement was "unhelpful," others intoned that it was "not what we needed." Weren't they appalled that the gutless wimp they worked for was repeating an insidious, self-justifying lie? Was it only on January 6 or 7 that they recognized that the president was unhinged and the entire White House (themselves included) had been covering up for him for months? 

Sorry, but circumstances suggest they "came clean" for Congress (and we can be grateful that they did) but only because the end was in sight, and they hoped to salvage their reputations in hopes of an appointment in the next Republican administration. No heroes here, folks.

Baby Huey In The White House

I wonder if many people these days recall the character in the "funnies," as we used to call them, named "Baby Huey." Read all about him here on Wikipedia (make a donation to support them while you're there); but he looked like this:

and, though I hadn't thought about him in years, the name and its related image suddenly popped into my head as I considered our OUTgoing U.S. President's latest childish fit. After lying [savor the double-entendre here]  in his crib for weeks, soiling his diaper at least daily while single-mindedly insisting it wasn't fair for him to have to get up from his cocoon and go face his creditors, but being largely ignored, he suddenly came to life to throw tantrums about the covid relief bill and the defense authorization bill.

Analysts in the press, on television, and on social media are all yapping about Trump's reasons for jumping into the legislative process at the last moment, even though his own party's legislators had been led to believe the terms they negotiated were acceptable to him -- in fact, in the case of payments to individuals, the maximum he would accept. These pundits theorize that Trump really was concerned that people needed more support to keep their heads above water; or that there was "waste" spending in the bill that could be used more wisely.  These are valid concerns. After all, Morning Fog has itself argued that the payouts would have only token effect. 

But it's completely wrong to attribute such concerns to Donald J. Trump. In four years, haven't we learned that every move he makes is strictly for his personal benefit?  I submit that Trump's real and only concerns are to satisfy his craving for attention, to re-attract media attention to himself; to give him the opportunity to appear to be championing the cause of the common man, to provide him a pretext for slamming Congress; to complicate and delay the transition process; to make it seem he is still active and effective as President; to get him more air time to press his completely false claims of fraud in the election, and to reinforce the loyalty of his base.  Period.

It's depressing to see all our opinion-makers struggling to explain Trump's actions in logical terms. It's all about him, as it always has been. 

The lesson here, for all of us, but maybe especially for Trump fans, is that it's all a swindle. It's been four years of swindle. None of us should let ourselves be manipulated any more.  

Is Insanity Contagious?

As noted here before, the fellow waiting in the wings to try out the job of ex-President greeted the election outcome with outrageous and incendiary falsehoods. Since that time a few days ago, I've heard people who know Trump well, including family members, staffers, and commentators, claim that Trump really believes that he, Trump, won the election and it's being stolen from him. Incredible as that may seem, I can almost believe it. I said years ago that Trump - to put it in terms that people in Trump country would have readily used in the small towns of the 1950s and 60s - is "tetched," that he "ain't quite right in the head."

But if Trump does believe this fantasy, he is most certainly the only one. The spectacle of his family members, political supporters, staffers - people like Baby Trump and campaign guru Lewandowski - repeating this tripe publicly is disgusting (there's that favorite Trump work again!)  They are all people who not only should but DO know better. As responsible, concerned citizens, they could  say, as many have done, that all votes need to be counted, and that recounts will be called for in some places. But there is no reason in the world to use the language they are using, unless they seek to spread dissent, sow doubt where none exists, and incite violence. It's like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, and should be prosecuted. Good that so many of them are on film and tape with these statements.

Just an hour ago I received an anonymous chat message, the first of what I'm sure will be many, seeking to spread the same misinformation. With a cleverly designed cartoon (it shows a ballot being inserted into a red box, which is labeled Stop the Steal and which looks cleverly like the ballot counters many jurisdictions use, being shredded as it goes in, and a long message with multiple bullet points, all of which are totally false). As that message's lead-in says, "I didn't think I'd ever see anything like this is America." Ironically, I agree. Amen to that! I'm sure it's from a blind telephone number, but those things can be traced, so I'll be actively looking to the investigative sites I expect to be set up by the FCC, or my telephone company, to which to forward such viciously intended, actionable trash talk. 

Breaking The National Political Logjam, Part II

Back on October 7, Morning Fog opined that the main burden of finding common ground among the U.S.'s two bitterly divided political factions will rest with the Democratic Party. Not because I necessarily expect them to win the election two days hence (on that, I give them 60-40 odds), but because we cannot expect any effort toward finding common ground from Trump, who has striven mightily to spike existing divisions and to open new ones. So even in the event of a Trump win, the Democrats will provide the only hope of conciliation.

Is conciliation necessary? Yes, probably, if we want to think of ourselves as one nation. In fairness, I reject the idea that we enjoyed sublime unity before Trump came along; all he did was make things worse for political advantage. On the other hand, I also reject the idea that we can't get past our divisions once Trump disappears; I believe we are more united than we realize, it's just the politicians who foster cataclysmic notions.  

It will be essential to try restoring a greater sense of commonality. For me, the crux of the current problem is civic - too many people have too many options to work, play, socialize, communicate, and reside among people who are just like themselves on one or more yardsticks (political, economic, educational, racial). It's natural, I suppose, to do that, but it results in division rather than diversity. We've lost environments where people will meet other people whom they don't pick.  

One of those was the military. Predating our current all-professional armed services, we had the draft. Readers of Morning Fog a few years ago may recall that I have more than once argued for restoration of conscription, among other reasons because it spreads the burden of service. It ends up giving our population a better appreciation of what the military is about; it gives the country a military leadership with a greater appreciation of its democratic legitimacy, and it helps bring together people from all sorts of places and backgrounds. Is there a war movie that doesn't have those scenes of the hardened Brooklynite New Yorker and the Kentucky farm boy having to learn each other's ways? [Schumer? McConnell? Sort of?]A draft could do this even more effectively now that women are accepted in most military roles. 

The draft had a lot of benefits but it would still need improvements for the 21st century. The new environment should bring in more participants, and a broad cross-section of the population. It would need to be truly random in its application to the population (unlike the old Selective Service System, which too often ended up applying only to the poor and less privileged, with "exemptions" available to those who had the influence or money to obtain them. [George W. Bush?] That only means that it must very strictly mandatory for those selected. If picked, you will serve, no cop-outs. And that would be quite possible if it were not just for the military but for a wide variety of "social service" activity too. Something for everybody, regardless of physical condition, learning ability, race, religion, or riches.  If all U.S. persons (let's include immigrants too) were in the pool, only a small percentage would need to be selected. I could imagine that a few years after such a program got up and running, those who had been in it would be much sought-after by employers.

Dream on, you say? Yes, this is pie in the sky, and would be hard, if not impossible, to bring to reality. Let's keep it in mind, though, as an incorporation of some of the key elements of a national plan to reintroduce us to one another. 

Important Note: After writing but before publishing this, I was reading today's newspaper and was surprised to find that one-time Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg has proposed a similar "civilian service corps" in his book Trust. Leave it to Pete to be ahead of me (I could be more inspired to vote the Dem ticket if he were heading it).  However, if the summary I read is accurate), he suggests participation in this corps be voluntary. I think that would just lead to the self-selection of certain sorts of folk - people already inclined toward seeing good in others. A random selection with no opt-outs would be a far better way to get a true cross-section involved.

When Common Sense Fails

In my youth (that is, up until about four years ago), I thought that elections in this country were largely decided by the basic common-sense and decency of American voters.  From farmers to fine artists or physiotherapists, from geezers to first-time-voters, and regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, or any other factor, the one feature they shared was a very highly refined bullshit radar. 

Most Americans, I thought, would have seen through a man whose every utterance was a lie or exaggeration; whose response to any bad outcome attributed to him was to blame someone else; whose public discourse was so larded with self-aggrandizement, and who was foul-mouthed and insulting to all.  No such luck!  Common sense failed in 2016, leaving me and many others surprised at the end of election evening.

Since then I've noticed it's a pretty clear pattern with Trump that when he is applying epithets to someone or something, his words can almost always be read as applying to himself.  Examples: Disgusting? (No contest, that's you, Donald!)  A hoax? (Says the empty vessel himself?)  The 2020 election will be fraudulent? (If so, it's you and Putin who will have made it so.)  Disgraceful?

Let's dwell on that one a sec: I thought it disgraceful that so many Americans could have abandoned their good sense in 2016 to vote for Trump.  And it seems even more disgraceful, after three-and-a-half years of experience with the real Trump, that while Biden has a decent if conceivably evanescent lead, polls indicate 40+% of voters still support Trump. He has a real possibility of winning a second term. Really?  Doesn't common sense tell us this election should be a landslide, say, Trump 10%, Biden 90%?  We need a landslide if we are going to stop him from claiming victory.  

I continue in the hope that clear-eyed American voters will now reject Trump, and that they will see the equally crucial need to vote out Trump enablers (meaning at the moment any Republican candidate) and return Democratic majorities in both houses. Without that, the country will remain deadlocked and ultimately ungovernable. But they need not be large majorities, and luckily, given what we know about the body politic, there will still be a few Republicans, enough to slow the Democratic bandwagon on at least some issues and force some compromises, because a Democratic government without some checks and restraints could create its own set of problems. 

Sensible, Thinking Persons

"... every sensible, fair-minded person was surely thinking ... [that]  the hearings that brought both Kavanaugh and Ford to tears were driven by a partisan quest for power without regard for the human collateral damage."

That's a quote from a recent column by Kathleen Parker on the Kavanaugh hearings.

Now, I don't often agree with K.P., who is one of those many rightist pundits whose every utterance is guided by partisanship. But here I confess I think she's entirely correct.

Partisan quest for power? Spot on! Ms. Parker's beloved Republicans have, for three decades, engaged in a "partisan quest for power," a quest that grew ever more reckless, and culminated in "Senator" Mitch McConnell's racist-based refusal to cooperate in any way with the president the people elected in a landslide. 

Of course the nomination of a justice has long been partially political, and Democrats have played the game too. But with McConnell, the party realized that what it clearly was losing through elections -- an electoral mandate -- could be achieved by dominating the Supreme Court instead.  Sooo much easier to have a select group just rule your views as the law of the land, than to have to win elections from a bunch of ingrates who just couldn't see how going backwards was a positive thing. 

Thus was born the uber-bitter extreme politicization of the Supreme Court nomination process that has wrecked at least two lives (but not Mitch's). It's brave of Kathleen to admit it. Will her life also be wrecked for having done so?

Kerfuffle At U of Virginia Over Hiring A Trump Aide

A recent dispute at U-VA offers an interesting follow-up to my last post.  In Charlottesville, where last year a neo-Nazi rally turned deadly and Trump suggested that there were good people on both sides, the University of Virginia, a respectable bastion of academic freedom if not exactly a 1960s-style Berkeley, has agreed to hire one Marc Short as a senor fellow at the University-affiliated Miller Center.  The Center, according to the Washington Post, focuses on "presidential scholarship and public policy."  Mr. Short (who by the way has an MBA from U-VA) just left the White House staff last week, where he was legislative affairs director for the President.

An online petition nicely encapsulates the protest view: "The university should not serve as a waystation for high-level members of an administration that has directly harmed our community and … attacks the institutions vital to a free society.... we do not object to dialogue … [but] to the use of our university to clean up their tarnished reputations."

Short is a long-time Republican operator, and has predictable history with a variety of GOP figures ranging back decades. In his latest job, he obviously would have had to support some of the more controversial Trump positions. He has recently conceded that the White House could have handled the Charlottesville incident better. The University and the Miller Center are defending his appointment as representing the spirit of bipartisanship.

I feel certain that Mr. Short's appointment is secure, the opposition won't gain much traction. It's the norm, and it's legitimate.  After all, as Americans, I think, we mostly accept the revolving door between government (even administrations we don't like), business, and academia. We expect that those who serve in government (both career civil servants and the Presidential appointees) will support the policies of the President for whom they work, and that elected politicians will likewise naturally favor their party's positions.

But this small tempest does raise some interesting questions. It seems to me Trump's excesses have created new obstacles to this easy acceptance of those who themselves too easily accepted, and even supported, lies, racism, humanitarian abuses, and very possibly illegal meddling in an election. These are not things we became used to dealing with in previous administrations. When exactly should we expect an official's moral code to make him/her say "enough?"  And when she/he fails to do so, is it sufficient - when offenses reach trumpian egregiousness and even unlawfulness - for them to just apologize for a mistake in judgment as they move on to exercise their awful judgment elsewhere?  And does their level of commitment make a difference - a cabinet Secretary, or a ? 

Tough questions. History tells us they aren't new ones. I don't have definitive answers. But I feel certain that those who want to pass through the good ol' revolving door in future should legitimately expect to encounter a lot more pushing back from the other side. It's another way (not a good one) that Our National Embarrassment will have altered our political system. Maybe something Mr. Short will want to consider in his new role of examining "presidential scholarship and public policy."

What's Nice About Trump

A classic bit of handed-down wisdom, usually attributed to one's mother, is "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." It's so ingrained in our culture that even though I can't remember my own mother ever giving me such advice (she herself was not inclined to dreaming up "nice things" to say), I suspect it's part of the reason I haven't written more about our current President than I have done.

But I've given it some thought, and I've been trying to discern the positives about the ONE. 

And I think I have found one.

It's nice that he doesn't seek to hide his faults. Far from it. Every day, he provides us new and incontrovertible evidence that he is, at various times or at the same time, craven, ignorant, bigoted, xenophobic, petulant, incompetent, or dangerously out of touch with reality and truth. The latest such self-revelation is his reported and well confirmed reference to "shithole" countries.  

This openness is a trait worth commending. It saves us a great deal of trouble. We really don't need to waste time reading books like Fire and Fury. Anyone who didn't know, at least a year ago, everything this book supposedly "reveals," just wasn't paying attention to Trump the candidate or Trump the elected President.

There's more nice stuff to be said about Trump. For example, it's also nice that he apparently just can't stop himself from revealing his true nature, even though he so frequently regrets what he has said and attempts to walk it back afterward. Compare this kind of inadvertent self-revelation to the far more controlled utterances of maundering Mitch McConnell or the sinister stony silence of Mike Pence, and I'm sure we can all see what a blessing we have in Trump.

Since the topic of immigration has arisen, I'll just note that Trump's preference for having more Norwegian immigrants and fewer from those "shithole countries," contains an inner contradiction (no surprise there, huh?). To wit:  It's only the desperate folks who come from poor countries who might even want to immigrate here now. Norwegians and most of those other more economically successful nationalities that Donald prefers can see, even if some of us here at home cannot, that we have a shithole President who is turning us into a shithole country. And they want no part of it.

 

 

 

 

Is There Truth In Fake News?

What a great tale unfolded yesterday, as the right-wing self-appointed media watchdog group "project veritas" (lower case is entirely justified by the group's activities) apparently used a shill with a fake story about being sexually assaulted by Roy Moore in the hope that the Washington Post would publish it and could later be unveiled for its "liberal fake news" bias.

Fortunately for many of us, the Post did its homework, and found that the woman's story lacked truthiness. Bigtime. Overall, this little incident has some interesting repercussions:

Project Veritas's credibility has suffered a big blow. The strategy of using stalking horses with fake stories also loses legitimacy, if it ever had any.  It's now clear that there is no truth in Veritas, but a lot of fakery in their project.

By contrast, the Post's rep shines brighter now.

How poetic that would-be Senator Moore owes the Post for saving him from another damaging allegation. Even supposing he had nothing to do with it (sure!), and even if the story were published and later revealed as untrue, it would have stuck in the minds of some voters. I do hope Moore plans to thank the Post. (Wait for it!) 

Finally the PV likely damages, to a small degree, Moore's chance of being elected. On this subtopic, another intriguing aspect. I do believe, however credible the accusations against Moore may be, that it's not legit to insist he step down as a candidate, until the facts have been vetted. That makes it all the more poetic (or is it pathetic?) that those crying most worriedly for him to bow out are his Republican political allies.  I have no doubt they know which way the wind blows, and they know why that breeze stinks so badly.

A Letter To A Past President

Dear Dopey:

You have cemented your place in history as the ONE! (=Our National Embarrassment). We all knew you were an empty-headed, amoral, self-absorbed, unqualified demagogue but you fooled your way into the White House.  Shame on us! Once.

But after six months of your tomfoolery, despite our hopes that something good might materialize from your Presidency, I think most of us who aren't mentally deranged are fed up. I certainly am. Your belated and inappropriate reaction to the recent violence in Charlottesville, Virginia laid bare your lack of a moral compass. Further, as the media and politicians sought to maintain a veneer of polite democratic discourse by asking themselves 'who is to blame' for such violence, that question is only rhetorical:  YOU are to blame. Throughout your campaign, you purposely stirred the hornet's nest, you fomented and encouraged hatred and racism; you cynically exacerbated rifts in our national unity. The fatalities in Charlottesville lie at your door, like one of those bags of dogshit that jokesters used to put on people's doorsteps and light on fire. You tried to stamp it out, but gosh, it just made a worse mess.

Long story short, your political legitimacy is forfeit, except with the diehard base that you tried so hard to appease.    

So you need to go.  I mean, before the next election 3+ years away. I'm sure you've realized that, haven't you? You are trampling the Constitution as well as cherished American values. 

In some quarters, there has been talk that you should resign. It's true you should, but I don't see that as a solution that you would ever accept. 

So I'm signing up for the impeachment option. The process would likely be messy. It would be divisive. Your party, in particular that pillar of civic virtue and guardian of governmental rectitude, Mitch McConnell, would have to take the lead (hey, why should Democrats dirty themselves with cleaning up your mess?). And sadly, you could do a lot more damage to our nation in the intervening months or years. Perhaps worst, impeachment would leave us in the hands of the puritanical Pence. A Presidency is a terrible thing to wreck - worse even than "beautiful statues."  So impeachment isn't perfect but it may be the best option we have.

Or...

Wait - have you considered suicide?  Now, I don't mean to make light of suicide.  Generally our society abhors it, and takes steps (counseling and the like) to discourage those considering it, be they troubled teens or despairing oldsters. But that's because we assume those people have some redeeming social value, some contribution to make.  

So let's have a look: I know, I know, right off the bat, doing yourself in doesn't sound like your style, any more than resigning. But it's not hard to imagine that a supreme egotist like you could become terribly wrought up over your abject failure to achieve anything, or/and be driven to despair at the consequent ravaging of your reputation. This move would eradicate the stink of wimpiness that hangs about you now, and put you back in the mold of the daring iconoclast - the first U.S. President to off himself!  Just imagine the headlines!  Sounds perfect, doesn't it?

Before I go (and before you do) I feel you owe me for suggesting a perfect solution, so just one request:  You've got to persuade that Pence guy to go with you. Make it like, a lover's pact (you know he never really loved you ... he just used you). Or maybe stage it as a terrorist attack - even more headlines!