BLIND HATRED

         The Buddha once observed:  “Holding onto anger is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die.”   

          

         This quote occurred to me recently as I continued to watch the intense hatred against President Obama play out day after day in American politics.  As a longtime fan and observer of American politics and reader of Presidential biographies including those of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton, I can’t recall any other President being subjected to such intense, unremitting hatred.  Bu why?   He is highly intelligent, a family man with no scandal hanging over him, with a beautiful, intelligent wife and two lovely daughters. 

          

          Roosevelt was despised by Wall Street because they saw him betraying his own kind.  Truman got his share of hatred, of course, and certainly Nixon was roundly despised by members of the Democratic caucus. So was Clinton to a lesser degree. Still all of these Presidents were able to garner across-the-aisle support on key issues important to the nation and eventually got a lot done despite many skeletons in their closets.  On the other hand, try to think of any support President Obama has received from the other side, even on important national issues that Republicans formerly had proposed, such as the Affordable Care Act.  Bet you can’t think of one.  Once upon a time, for example, construction projects that help create job and improve the nation’s infrastructure were slam-dunk certain to get immediate support from both Republicans and Democrats.  No longer.  Yet, the President’s jobs bill had construction and infrastructure at its core elements, but it was DOA on Capitol Hill.

          As the record shows, leaders of the House and Senate Republicans early on vowed to thwart Obama at every turn, and threatened to punish any of its members who cooperated with the Administration, even on issues that were in their own best interest.  This is not my opinion; that’s on the record.  And, to give the devil his due, as my mother use to say, they have been true to their word.  Senator Mitch McConnell set the tone shortly after the 2008 election when asked what the GOP’s priority would be following Obama’s election, he said: Denying President Obama a second term.  That’s a curious thing to say right after an election.

          When a crop of Tea Party candidates were elected in 2010 and 2012, things got much worse.  They now control the House of Representatives and are threatening to shut down the Government and/or let the U.S. default on its debt unless Obamacare is defunded.  In my opinion, it’s not so much Obamacare per se as denying President Obama a large-scale signature achievement like health reform.  The GOP is deathly afraid it will succeed and to keep that from happening are putting out scary, distorted misinformation about what it will do to average Americans and the economy.

 

          The Administration shares some blame for allowing things to get to the point for allowing its enemies to define it rather than defining the legislation early on itself and regularly putting out information on its main provisions and benefits.  But, still.
   

          Interestingly, when you ask people why they don’t like the President, some say he’s arrogant and aloof, a bad politician who won’t compromise and doesn’t like to schmooze and deal with Congress to help win over more of their support.  But, that doesn’t distinguish President Obama.   President Washington hated White House get-togethers where he was expected to make small talk; so did President Jefferson and countless others since then.  Some others say he is a closet Muslim. And despite massive evidence to the contrary, a surprising number of Americans still believe he was not born in this country. Nobody wants to say out loud “because he is Black” but that’s a major reason, and the major overriding reason.

          Recently, the University of Rochester published its findings about where racism remains the strongest.  Not surprisingly, it’s in the Cotton Belt and in other former slave states.  Seeing that study I thought to myself: I wonder where most of the Tea Party House and Senate members come from?  Again, not surprisingly, the vast majority of House members represent those same states.  Does this mean racism alive and well only in the South?  Of course not.  Look at the racial reaction to the selection of the latest Miss America.  Or check out the comments on Facebook when President Obama’s name is mentioned as the worst President ever. 

          This fruitless effort at killing Obamacare is seriously damaging the Republican brand and the GOP chances in upcoming elections, but these Tea Party members and other racist elements in the Congress don’t seem to care.  They keep drinking their own poison and hoping it will fatally damage Obama’s presidency regardless of what the long-term consequences are for its own party.  Hatred can make us all do stupid things.  That’s one of the reasons it is sometimes called “blind hatred.”

Jerry

NEW BEGINNINGS

         With its falling leaves and other signs of seasonal change, September is often seen as verdant nature’s way of waving goodbye until next spring.  But, I like to think of autumn as a time of new beginnings:  Our kindergarteners are starting a brand new adventure, middle school children are making the big jump to high school, presenting new challenges to themselves and certainly to their parents.  And many of you recently dropped off your children at college, a wrenching and searing experience quite like no other for both children and parents alike.

         For some, this is a time of adjustment to a new neighborhood and new schools.  Others to new love relationships.  To a new job.  In some sense, our lives are always becoming, regardless of age, whether we have just recovered from a serious illness or are mourning the loss of a spouse or partner.

 

         As in so many areas of life, poets best capture the spiritual phenomenon and the challenges of new beginnings, as poet John O’Donoghue does in this poem, “For A New Beginning:”

In out of the way places of the heart

Where your thoughts never think to wander

This beginning has been quietly forming

Waiting until you were ready to emerge.

For a long time it has watched your desire

Feeling the emptiness grow inside you

Noticing how you willed yourself on

Still unable to leave what you had outgrown.

It watched you play with the seduction of safety

And the grey promises that sameness whispered

Heard the waves of turmoil rise and relent

Wondered would you always live like this.

Then the delight, when your courage kindled,

And out you stepped onto new ground,

Your eyes young again with energy and dream

A path of plenitude opening before you.

Though your destination is not clear

You can trust the promise of this opening;

Unfurl yourself into the grace of beginning

That is one with your life’s desire.

Awaken your spirit to adventure

Hold nothing back, learn to find ease in risk

Soon you will be home in a new rhythm

For your soul senses the world that awaits you.”

Jerry

RUNNING SCARED

        It’s puzzling to watch the Tea Party and others on the Far Right in their efforts to defund and/or repeal Obamacare.  Usually, when one political party loses a major political battle in Congress, it reluctantly picks up the pieces and moves on to fight another day.  But, not in this case.

         President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) in March of 2010 – more than three years ago.  And, as we speak, major provisions of the law are being implemented.\

 

         Yet, some on the Far Right are still fighting a rear-guard action by threatening to shut down the Government or allowing the U.S. government to default on its debt.  Some House members are even trying to find ways to impeach the President.   Moderate and center-right Republicans see these extreme efforts as foolish and counterproductive and want no part of them.  They remember only too well, for example, what happened in the 1990’s when the GOP-led House shut down the government.  Sure, the House of Representatives has held votes some 40 times to repeal Obamacare, but everyone knows these are symbolic gestures to appease the firebrands in their midst.

 

         So, why all this resistance by so many this late in the game?  As former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau and others have suggested, the GOP resistance is not based on fears that Obamacare will fail, but that it will succeed.  That’s the GOP’s worst nightmare.  They see it coming and there’s no realistic way to stop it.  They know that even if the GOP holds on to its majority in the House in the 2014 off-year elections and wins control of the Senate, President Obama with his veto power will still have the final word.

         In the meantime, they have to put up a good face and continue demonizing Obamacare as a “train wreck” and unworkable and proposing desperate measures that have zero chance of becoming law.  That plays well with their base and they desperately need to solidify it.  At the same time, they certainly understand the only possible chance the GOP has to repeal Obamacare is if it wins the House, the Senate, and the Presidency in 2016 and that’s a tall order.  Moreover, by the time President leaves offices in January 2017, the early startup problems will have been forgotten and millions of Americans will have reaped the benefits of Obamacare for themselves and their families.

         Health care reform is something Presidents of both parties have been trying to achieve since the early 1900s when Republican President Theodore Roosevelt first tried to push through health care reform.  And now the first African-American President, whom the GOP has tried desperately to thwart at every turn for the last five years, is on the brink of implementing one of the most significant, far-reaching social programs in U.S. history, certainly the most important since Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

   

         The long-term impact of this achievement will have enormous political implications for both political parties and that must send icy chills up the spines of Republicans everywhere.

Jerry

IS THE POPE CATHOLIC?

       This tired old joke has made a strong comeback, but not as a joke.   With the arrival of Pope Francis I, people are a starting to ask the question in earnest.  Not surprising, either, because Francis is acting and talking like no other Pope in my lifetime or probably in yours.

   

         The most recent departure from norm is the comment he made about gays during a news conference on the way home from the World Youth Congress in Brazil.   “Who am I to judge,” he asked and the rhetorical question was so startling to reporters that it made the front page of newspapers around the world, including the Washington Post and the New York Times.

         Who am I to judge, they asked?  That’s what Popes do, cried commentators and comics alike, some seriously, some in jest.   And it’s true that most pronouncements from the Vatican reported in both the secular and religious media for the last half century have had to do with the Pope condemning one thing or another or excommunicating an errant priest or nun who dared to question Catholic teaching and tradition.

         As a result, one could easily be excused for thinking that the only things the Pope and the Vatican seemed to care about was abortion, contraception, sexual orientation, same-sex marriage, and the condemnation of anyone who dared suggest that women should become priests.  And – oh, yes - solidifying their power base.

         Then here comes Pope Francis talking and acting like a simple pastor to the world, in the best sense of that term, declaring that God’s love and redemptive power extends to everyone who seeks to do good and lead moral lives, including gays, people of other religions or no religion, even atheists.  Breaking tradition and outraging traditionalists, he washes the feet of prisoners at a Rome detention center, including two women, one a Serbian Muslim woman and the other an Italian Catholic.  He tells clerical careerists looking to climb the next rung on the career ladder to get out of their offices and chanceries and deal with real people and their real problems and concerns.  To the end, he has resurrected the image of the good shepherd, pointing that a good shepherd deals with his sheep up close and personal, to the point that shepherds must get down and dirty and even smell like sheep.

 

         By casting his lot with the poor and the marginalized in society, and living in accordance with that belief, Francis is not only modeling the behavior of Francis of Assisi, his patron saint, but the example of the Man who started this whole movement more than 2,000 years ago.  He too cast his lot with the poor and the outcast, hanging out with tax collectors and sinners, including thieves and prostitutes, the very dregs of society.  And warning his followers not to judge lest they be judged.  His message of love and forgiveness also included everyone.  He was truly the world’s first Catholic

.  

         After centuries of seeing Popes acting like imperial majesties, wrapped in the livery and trappings of Medieval and Renaissance potentates, more concerned with power than their original charter, it is exhilarating for us older Catholics in particular to see Francis getting the Catholic Church back to basics and putting Christianity’s founder and his message back in the driver’s seat.

Jerry  

BACK FROM THE BRINK

         As many of you have heard, two weeks ago, I suffered a massive heart attack.  With so much heart damage, blocked arteries, etc., things did not look good.  A priest gave me the last rites and the family stood watch not knowing which way things would go that Sunday and into Monday.  Then, gradually I got better and now two weeks later I am home and working on a recovery program. 

         The main reason I am writing this – besides letting people know first-hand how I am doing – is to share my takeaways from this experience in case it may be helpful to others going through the same experience.

         First and foremost, I am deeply grateful to get another chance at life, that most precious of gifts which we all tend to take for granted until it is deeply threatened.  One of the nurses in the cardiac care unit, knowing what I had been through, put it best when she said: “God clearly has something more for this patient to do.”  I believe that and I want to spend a lot of more time listening and paying attention to what God has in mind.

         Secondly, I got a renewed appreciation of the incredible family I have – my wonderful wife of 45 years, Brigitte, and my sons, John and Andrew.  The love and care they showed me, and one another, during these past two weeks was extraordinary.  I hope never to take them or family for granted again.

         Next, my relatives, friends, and former colleagues.  The outpouring of genuine love and concern was deeply touching and humbling, reminding me again of how lucky I have been over the years to have such quality people grace my life.  There were so many visitors that at one point a nurse asked my wife:  “Is this guy a Senator or something?”  In addition to the visitors, many people sent messages expressing their concern and offering prayers and best wishes.   In particular, I want to mention my Jesuit colleagues – current and former Jesuits – whose bonds of friendship were forged more than a half century ago and still remain as strong as ever.  The same is true for some of my former colleagues at the FAA.  It was a deeply satisfying reminder that in this throwaway society some good things really do last.

 

          Last but certainly not least, I have gained a deeper appreciation of health care providers – doctors, nurses, and technicians.  The care I received at Fairfax Inova Hospital – a mere seven minutes from home – was nothing short of extraordinary.  A special tip of the hat to the nurses who do the dirty work and provide the unheralded but critical care for patients around the clock.  I can say unequivocally, without the slightest bit of hesitation, that Nurse Ratchett is dead.  Or at least she would never make it at Fairfax Inova Hospital.

 

         My hospital experience also deepened my conviction of the need for a universal health care system.  It saddens me to think that the kind of care I received is out of the question and out of reach for so many of my fellow .Americans.  They have no choice but to die.  That’s deeply wrong and this country must so something to correct that injustice.  I intend to do what I can as a private citizen to help promote that cause.

         Finally, to so many of you out there on Facebook and other social media who sent best wishes and prayers, I can’t thank you enough.  I would like to acknowledge each one of you personally, but as I am sure you understand that is not possible.

         So, to sum up, what is my overriding takeaway from this experience?  I’d say all in all it was a really good couple of weeks.

Jerry

             HAS THE HOUSE GOP FINALLY 
                            SNAPPED?

         Watching the Tea Party led House of Representatives defeat one bill after another in its effort to roll back the New Deal, the Fair Deal, or block any Obama Deal brings to mind the oft-quoted comment an unnamed U.S. major reportedly made during the Vietnam War.  The major reportedly told correspondence Peter Arnett of a Vietnam provincial capital that had been bombed: “It became necessary to destroy the town to save it.”

         If that’s not its aim, it’s hard to figure out what the House Republican caucus is up to.  From the outside, it appears they are trying to dismantle the current framework of economic and social policies that date back to the 1930s and which have been supported by Democratic and Republican Presidents alike since then.  Examples include programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and other programs that provide a basic hunger safety net for the poor and disadvantaged, to cite just one category.  To Tea Party advocates, it appears that any government programs to help the poor are considered “socialist” programs that have no place in our (their) society.

         Yet, SNAP has been an integral part of any Farm Bill passed by the Congress for the past 80 years, and by general consensus it has been highly successful, as columnist Melinda Henneberger points out in the July 12^th Washington Post.   Basically, she reports experts as saying it has kept the bottom from falling out from underneath the people living on the margins of our society.  Yet, the House recently passed a Farm Bill without the SNAP provisions.  Go figure.

         In the process of targeting the “socialist” programs that many Tea Party supporters and other right-wing Republicans believe create a country of dependency, they are also destroying the traditional GOP as we know it: A GOP that actually worked with Democrats to get the people’s business done.

         On immigration, for example, conservative columnist David Brooks writes in the July 12^th New York Times that if the House fails to pass the Senate’s immigration bill:  “This could be a tragedy for the country and political suicide for Republicans, especially because the conservative arguments against the comprehensive approach are not compelling.  After all, the Senate bill fulfills the four biggest conservative objectives.”  These include economic growth, reducing the debt, reducing illegal immigration, and avoiding a European-style demographic collapse.

   

         Another conservative New York Times columnist, Ross Douthat, writes in his column titled “The Farm Bill and the Common Good:  “… (W)ithout a vision of the common good, a party is basically just a faction, seeking only the interests of its constituents, with no sense of its responsibilities to the country as a whole. And the Obama-era Republican Party’s worst tendency has been toward just this sort of factionalism: Not an ideological extremism, exactly, but rather a vision of government that you might call “small government for thee, but not for me,” in which conservatism is just constituent services for the most reliable Republican groups and voters.”

         With conservative columnists writing such columns, I as a liberal Democrat should be gleeful watching the opposition party implode, but history provides ample evidence that it never serves the greater good when one party, in a two party system, loses its way.

Jerry  

STIRRINGS IN THE DESERT

       Like many Catholics who have been wandering in a desert since the death of Pope John XXIII in 1963, I like what I see so far in Pope Francis I.  But, I am afraid to get my hopes up too high.  After all, our desert sojourn has been 50 long years, and in the intervening years we watched the gradual erosion of many of the hopes of reform sparked by John XXIII.

   

          Still, it’s hard not to get excited by Jesuit Pope Francis.  Just the selection of the name Francis was a stroke of genius.  Not only does it underscore the new Pope’s commitment to the poor – which he demonstrated unequivocally as a bishop and later Cardinal in Argentina – it tantalizes with the suggestion that Pope Francis will follow up on God’s mandate to St. Francis to “rebuild my church.”

          Since becoming Pope, Francis has gotten all the optics right – from getting rid of the glitter and gold and other trappings of royalty and referring to himself as “the bishop of Rome” (instead of Pope or Supreme Pontiff) to reaching out to peoples of other faiths, or no faith at all.

   

          My high hopes for Francis were further boosted by reading ON HEAVEN AND EARTH.  Originally published in 2010, this book “brings together a series of conversations between then Cardinal Bergoglio, Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires, now Pope Francis I, and Rabbi Abraham Skorka, an Argentine rabbi, biophysicist, and professor of biblical and rabbinical literature at the Seminario Rabinico Latinoamericano in Buenos Aires.

          Bergoglio and Skora – who have become close friends over the years – had been promoting interreligious dialogue for years among Catholics, Judaism, Islam, and the world at large on matters of faith and reason.  This book brings together a series of their conversations on theological and worldly issues such as “God, fundamentalism, atheism, abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, same sex marriage,” and others.  They don’t agree on everything, of course, but their attitudes towards one another are marked by strong friendship and deep mutual respect.  And, of course, there is a great deal of common ground on so many of these issues.

          The new Pope shows the same level of respect toward those of other faiths, or no faith at all, referring to the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church, for example, as his brother.  And declaring that all peoples who are moral and do good are redeemed and heaven bound, even atheists.  The fact that this last statement caused heartburn among the rigid traditionalists at the Vatican is a sign that Francis is moving in the right direction and is not afraid to challenge orthodoxy.

          Yet, while many Catholics and others see these “symbolic” signs as encouraging, they want to see more positive steps by the new Pope on such issues as priestly celibacy, women priests, equality for women in the Church, as well as more forthright action dealing with priestly pedophilia and cleaning up the Vatican Curia.

   

          Meantime, as we wait impatiently for the next shoe to drop, we must keep in mind that symbolic actions are not meaningless actions.  Symbols are at the heart of Catholicism and getting the symbols right is crucial and central.  Already Francis has shown by word and example that the Catholic Church is no longer “catholic” in name only but an organization that makes Jesus and His open-arms approach to all peoples the central focus of the Church, not a remnant of the Roman Empire ensconced on the banks of the Tiber desperately clinging to power and prestige.

          That is a huge change.  Still, getting the right people in place to implement that change in a far-flung church of 1.2 billion Catholics throughout the world is an enormous challenge.  From all signs thus far, though, Francis seems to warm to the challenge.  Let’s hope God grants him the time to pull it off.

 

          Stay tuned.  This could get exciting.  Hope springs eternal.

Jerry

THIS TOO SHALL PASS

         It’s frustrating but comical at the same time to see the reactions of politicians and the news media over the latest “scandals” in Washington:  Benghazi, the IRS and the Tea Party, the Justice Department and the Associated Press, and only God knows what else is next up in the queue.

         The conservatives on Capitol Hill are running around like demented windmills, bumping into each other in an effort to schedule hearings.  And the news media, with all the perspective of gerbils on a wheel, plunge ahead as if they are on to something major that has never happened before.

         Meanwhile, right on cue, FOX News and the Tea Party wing nuts are intoning the dreaded word “Watergate” and drawing comparisons between President Obama and President Nixon.  Michelle Bachman and her ilk are even calling for the President’s impeachment.  The reason this works with a certain segment of American society is that Bachman and her Tea Party folks are painting on a fresh canvas.  For many of her adherents, history began yesterday, so these are brand new, unprecedented charges. 

         Which brings me to a larger point:   With all of the current emphasis on the U.S. falling behind in math and science competency, why does no one seem to be concerned about the abysmal lack of historical perspective that has such an enormous impact on American politics?  I am not talking about ancient history, just contemporary American history that would help put today’s events in some kind of rational perspective.  The lack of this perspective is what fuels the ignorance that fuels American politics.

         Some prominent examples:  Joseph McCarthy and the witch hunt he launched, the China Lobby and pernicious ramifications it had, giving birth to the domino theory that gave us Vietnam and 55,000 Americans dead.  The Iran-Contra scandal during the Reagan Administration’s second term.  Fourteen Reagan Administration officials were indicted.  Do any conservatives remember that?  President Reagan is not unique.  No party in recent memory has escaped the “second term blues.”  President Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky affair is a glaring example.  That overshadowed his entire second term, leading to his impeachment by the House of Representatives.  Yet, both Reagan and Clinton are now revered as icons in their respective parties.

         Can President Obama overcome these latest crises, his supporters nervously wonder?  Of course he can, unless these charges can be traced back to the White House and the Oval Office, and there is no evidence of that. So, my guess is that these charges are probably much ado about nothing -- or deja vu all over again.  The people seem to agree with the latest polls showing the President's approval ratings holding steady despite it all.

         So, in absence of White House involvement, the President has to put on a happy face and not escalate the crisis by over-reaction.  To that end, I was encouraged by a recent article in the New York Times about the President and his Chief of Staff Denis McDonough instructing the White House staff not to get distracted and to focus its attention on the critical agenda ahead: “revamping immigration laws, reaching a budget deal, and carrying out the health care law.”

         If the President is able to reach out to the other side and accomplish these three initiatives – or just two of the three -- he won’t make it to Mount Rushmore, but he will have accomplished a mighty agenda, considering what he has already accomplished despite the hand he was dealt when he came into office and the entrenched opposition he faced during his entire administration.

         So, for his supporters who may be wavering, let me assure you:  Hang tough -- take a look at recent Presidential history.  This too shall pass.

Jerry

          

       

HOW TO SPOT AND DEAL WITH “ASSHOLES”

               A few months ago, I read a helpful little book with the rude, but fetching title of ASSHOLES: A THEORY.  With a title like that, it fairly jumped off the shelf at Barnes & Noble begging to be bought.  I couldn’t resist.

         I hadn’t thought of it recently until this morning when I was flipping through the Washington Post and read a story about Senator Ted Cruz of Texas in the “Style” section. http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/a-nation-comes-around-to-noticing-ted-cruz/2013/05/06/47a96986-b40e-11e2-9a98-4be1688d7d84_story.html

  

         In a eureka moment, it struck me that this guy should be the poster child for that book.  He’s perfect.  If I were Aaron James, the book’s author, I would put Cruz on the dust check for the next edition of the book.  Cruz is Hall of Fame quality and he achieved his preeminence just four months after joining the Senate.  That’s impressive.

         But first let’s talk about Aaron’s theory.   None of us really needs a philosophical discussion of what constitutes an “asshole” because we’ve been dealing with them all our lives.  Still, it’s interesting to hear what a PhD from Harvard and an associate professor of Philosophy at the University of California has to say on the subject.  His book deals not only with how to spot them, but explains why they are so deeply aggravating and annoying.  And how to deal with them and manage them.

         Aaron’s theory is this: “A person counts as an asshole when, and only when, he systematically allows himself to enjoy special advantages in interpersonal relations out of an entrenched sense of entitlement that immunizes him against the complaints of other people.  So, by example, “the asshole is the person who habitually cuts in line.  Or who frequently interrupts in a conversation.  Or who weaves in and out of lanes in traffic…. Or, anyone who has ever uttered the phrase:  ‘Do you know who I am?’”  I have another one that immediately qualifies a person as an “asshole:” anyone who abuses and mistreats a waiter or waitress.

         What distinguishes an “asshole” from a mere jerk, says Aaron, is “the way he acts, the reasons that motivate him to act in an abusive and arrogant way.  The asshole acts out of a firm sense that he is special, that the normal rules of conduct do not apply to him.”  He doesn’t care what you think of his behavior.  He’s special.

         Now, for me to single out Cruz from a star-studded roster in Washington is quite an honor. It’s a crowded field and on Capitol Hill alone he is competing with the likes of Mitch McConnell and Eric Cantor, to name just two.  Then, of course, covering politics and the news, FOX News has perennial stars like Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, not to mention frequent guests, Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin.  To be fair, left wing politicians such as Sen. Chuck Shumer also display asshole qualities, and MSNBC and other liberal outlets have their stars, such as Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Bill Maher.  But, they’re my assholes, so to speak, so I look on them more leniently.

         Finally, there are “asshole” types who have their own blogs – with pretentious Latin names in their links -- and who opine and pontificate on this and that subject, including delicate matters such as politics and religion, as if they have something worthwhile to say on either subject.

         They’re the worst kind of “assholes.”

Jerry 

THE UNHAPPY WARRIOR

          William Wordsworth’s early 19^th century poem “The Happy Warrior” – rarely seen or recited in its original form any more – has been kept alive in this country through politics.   In nominating Alfred E. Smith as the Democratic candidate for President in 1928, N.Y. Governor Franklin Roosevelt used the term to characterize Smith for his upbeat, intrepid spirit.

          Later, that same term was applied to Roosevelt himself during his 12 years as President.  FDR exemplified the happy warrior, even during the throes of the Great Depression and World War II.  Newsreels and newspaper photos rarely, if ever, displayed a dour, defeated looking President.  Always the smiling face, with chin uplifted, instilling courage and hope in the midst of the worst of times. His fireside chats, mostly about hope, rallied a nation to believe that tomorrow was going to be a better day.

          Likewise, one of Ronald Reagan’s greatest gifts was his infectious smile and upbeat attitude that exuded hope and a sense that everything was going to be all right even when it wasn’t.  This attitude was a welcome relief to the country following a defeatist President who whined and complained of the country’s “moral malaise.”

          More recently, during the 2012 Democratic Convention, President Obama referred to his running mate Joe Biden as the “happy warrior.”  Scrappy and combative, but never defeated, Biden has that same “happy warrior” attitude.  You get the impression that he likes doing battle in the political arena.

          Which brings me to President Obama.  As widely reported in the news media, his recent news conference was a display of just the opposite.  He was “an unhappy warrior.”  Even we strong supporters cringed when we witnessed the exchange between the President and Jonathan Karl of ABC News.  Karl asked the President if he still had enough “juice” to get his agenda enacted, the President resorted to whining and self-pity, suggesting his hands were tied because of the recalcitrant Congress.

          The President is absolutely correct on that point of the Congressional opposition, of course.   No President since FDR has inherited a bigger mess than he did when becoming President in January 2009.  And certainly no President, in the face of such difficulties, has ever faced the level of entrenched political opposition he has faced, even in his second term.  FDR enjoyed huge Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate when he proposed his New Deal initiatives.   Lyndon Johnson, also cited for effectiveness with Congress, also had majorities in both houses and was able to get signature legislation enacted because the country was still mourning the death of President Kennedy.  JFK had originally proposed the Civil Right bill, for example, and other important measures were later enacted under Johnson.

          So, to be fair, President Obama does not have any of those advantages and his political opposition is heavily concentrated and unusually fierce.  For example, Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, one of the Republican sponsors of the defeated bill requiring more extensive background checks for gun owners, said one of the reasons for the bill’s defeat is that some GOP members did not want to hand Obama a victory because they don’t like him.  This despite the fact that an overwhelming number of Americans favor more extensive background checks.

          Still, the President cannot take to the podium every time things are not going well and blame it all on Congress.  He is beginning to sound whiny and defeated.  He cannot afford to do that, either for himself or the country.

 

          Although the clock is ticking, there is still time for the Administration to get important legislation enacted – including more extensive background checks for gun owners, an immigration bill, and deficit reduction.  Americans strongly favor all three, but the latest polls show that they fault President for failing to provide the necessary leadership.  So, the President has to pick up his game and use the full range of political tools he has at his disposal.  He has to hold his nose and do more schmoozing on Capitol Hill, repugnant as that is for him, and he must hit them where they hurt if they don’t cooperate.  He has a lot of weapons in that political arsenal.

          And, most importantly, he needs to play the happy warrior, even if he has to fake it at times.  He should never let his opponents see him "bleed," as he did in the recent news conference.  Once they smell blood in the water, they’ll go into a feeding frenzy and absolutely nothing will get done.

 

Jerry

FREQUENTLY WRONG; NEVER IN DOUBT

          This morning’s New York Times carried an opinion piece, “A Back Seat for Safety at the FAA,” that fairly jumped off the page as I was reading it over breakfast in the wee hours of the morning.

         Written by the former Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, the piece alleges that the FAA has gotten too cozy with the industry it is supposed to regulate and, as a result, safety has suffered.  Nothing could be further from the truth and the accidents statistics bear that out.

         The last fatal commercial airline accident happened more than four years ago – on February 12, 2009, to be precise – when a Colgan Airways plane, en route from Newark, N.J. to Buffalo, N.Y. slammed into a house, killing all 49 on board and one person in the house.  Tragic as that was, it happened more than four years ago, which is a phenomenal record.

         Just reflect on that for a minute.  It means transporting billions and billions of passengers – the equivalent of flying the entire U.S population, over and over again, in all kinds of weather – without anyone suffering so much as a scratch.

         This safety achievement didn’t happen by accident.  And, make no mistake, the FAA had a major role to play in this achievement.

         When I came to the FAA in 1974 as a public information officer, major commercial airline accidents were commonplace. Routinely, I had to call home to tell my wife that I would be working late fielding calls on this or that airline accident.  Then, over the years, as new technology and improved procedures were introduced, gradual safety improvements were made.  But, most of these improvements came as a result of a “forensic approach” to safety during the “fix and fly” period.

 

         The forensic approach means that the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) goes to the accident scene and sifts through the smoking wreckage, looking for the flight data and cockpit voice recorders, and searching for other clues as to what might have happened.  Then, weeks or even months later, the Board determines a probable cause and recommends such and such improvements.

         It’s no wonder that these technology improvements were grimly dubbed “tombstone technology.”

         But, using the forensic approach only hit a wall when all the “low hanging fruit” had been picked clean.  Accidents no longer seemed to happen for predictable causes or in bunches, but increasingly became random and unpredictable.  The FAA focus then began to shift in the direction of preventing accidents before they occurred.  This required a dicey, politically risky regulatory shift on the part of the FAA because members of Congress and the general public like regulatory agencies to use the “tough guy” approach to enforcement.  It makes them feel better.  The problem is that it only gets us so far.

         There was and still is a place for strict enforcement, to be sure, but relying solely on the “tough cop” approach was driving underground critically needed information that the industry possessed but was afraid to divulge to the FAA.   FAA inspectors recall going into airline maintenance shops and seeing signs on the walls warning, “Don’t Talk to the FAA.”

         This led to a courageous political decision by the FAA leadership at the time to begin working more closely with industry to tease out the information needed to prevent accidents before they happened.  And it has paid huge safety dividends. “Working together” is not necessarily a synonym for “cozy.”

         So when you read Op Ed pieces like the one in today’s New York Times, don’t be deceived by seemingly authoritative titles and automatically take so-called expert opinions at face value.  Experts of all stripes can be wrong as we frequently see in so many spheres of our public life.  As President Kennedy learned after the Bay of Pigs debacle, be careful of experts.

 

         They’re frequently wrong but never in doubt.

Jerry

AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW

        

Yesterday’s gun control vote frustrates me, but maybe not for the same reasons it does some. I, too, wanted the measures to pass, but the sole cited reason for its failure – Senators caving under the pressure of the NRA – is a simplistic explanation. Not wrong, really, but avoiding the lesson that will have to be learned to succeed the next time.

         

The President staked meaningful measures for gun control on the outpouring of emotion in reaction to Newtown. The President and leading Democrats gambled that they had the moral authority and political power to seize the moment.  The polls and the American people were with them. They failed to utilize the political finesse inside the walls of Congress success on this issue will require.  Obama, Reid and others bet on this power, and they miscalculated.

         

Here’s what I see as the crux of the issue: President Obama offered no real cover to those Republicans who might have crossed the aisle to vote with him. He has continued to make this a binary argument: join me, or be with the NRA. By blaming the NRA, they fuel its success. Obama has not built a third-way, big tent approach that I think is very possible to create.

         

Make no mistake, the NRA is not the only opposition. They are the far-forward noisy edge. And, of course they have money and influence. But the President, who had so much going in his favor, has a credibility problem on this issue. President Obama laid the groundwork for this failure in his “clinging to guns and God” comments. Photos of him shooting skeet at Camp David were reminiscent of Dukakis in the tank. He revealed a kind of outsider’s scorn for gun culture in America. He equated that culture more recently with the events in Newtown.

         

That was a political mistake. People don’t really trust President Obama on this issue. And he overreached.

        

It’s going to take someone who understands gun-owning Americans to succeed.  I think meaningful legislation will come from a leader who believes the following:

         1. It’s not Gun Control. The art here is to de-tooth the slippery-         slope argument made by the NRA, and to build a more broad-based coalition of reasonable argument. The slippery-slope argument is that the government will create gun laws for the common good and then move toward taking away guns. Start by coming up with new words. Ask someone if they support gun          control, and get narrow support, ask someone if they support background checks, and the support is much bigger.

         2. Don’t try to exploit a tragedy. Actually, understand how to          exploit a tragedy. It’s a crime and public safety issue. Everyone hated Newtown. Yelling at your neighbor about guns to soothe pain doesn’t solve it. It will take an argument something along these lines: we don’t want to take away your guns. We want to make it less likely that guns end up in the commission of a crime, and less likely to be discharged in accidents.

         3. Know of what you speak. If you think the answer is eliminating high-capacity magazines or certain kind of weapons, then know what you are talking about. Automatic and semi-automatic are the “actions” used by a weapon to operate, sort of like standard and automatic transmissions are used by automobiles to operate. Most of my friends think anything with a          banana clip and that is black is an “automatic weapon.” Why is this important?  Like it or not, Americans know a lot about guns, just not the Americans who want to get rid of them.

         4. Make sure you don’t actually want to take away guns.  Some          people do. They see the answer as taking back guns, and eliminating the Second Amendment. European countries take this approach. It’s fine if that’s what you believe. But if you want to create successful legislation in this country, don’t make common cause with those people. They are less representative of the country at large than the lunatic fringe of gun ownership.

         5. Criminals do kill people, not just guns. This should be a crime          and public safety issue, not another part of the cultural war. Build on that idea, not what you don’t understand about why people would “want” to own a certain kind of weapon, or whether or not they “need” to own one. Some people like to go out into the desert and blast away at inanimate objects. They have that right.

I don’t think President Obama and Senators Reid and Feinstein are the right lawmakers to solve this problem. I think they are the perfect lawmakers to help the NRA raise money to defeat commonsense solutions. I want success, not just rhetoric. That's possible with the right kind of leadership.

John Lavey

A PARLIAMENT OF WHORES

          That’s the title, if you recall, of a late 1980’s book by satirist P.J. O’Rourke about the meretricious ways of Washington.  It’s a very funny book that takes no prisoners and leaves no stone unturned.  The title came to mind this morning as I was reading news reports on the shameful vote by the U.S. Senate yesterday on gun control legislation.

         This was not representative government at work.  It was a perfect example of the best government money can buy.  The Senators who opposed the bill did not vote the wishes of their constituents because the majority of Americans even in red/gun states are in favor of expanded background checks.

         Before yesterday’s vote, a member of Congress reportedly said that if the vote were secret and behind closed doors the bill would sail through the Senate without a hitch.  Implied is that some members could “not afford” to vote publicly in favor of the legislation.  What a sad commentary.

         Imagine a Senator who voted “no” coming home after the vote yesterday. When his son or daughter asked him how he voted, if he were honest he would have to admit he did not vote his conscience.  He was afraid to vote his conscience -- he might tell his son or daughter – because he might not get elected to another term in the Senate if he did that.  Can you imagine how his children must have reacted?  But, Daddy, you told us to be brave and to stand up and act on principle and do what was right no matter what.  And, Daddy, what about protecting school kids like the ones who were killed at Newtown?

         Okay, a trifle over dramatic, but the larger point is what kind of person with any sense of self-dignity would want a job where you had to leave your conscience at home and vote however influential lobbyists, such as the NRA, told you to vote?  Apparently, a few, if yesterday’s vote is any indication.  Prostitution is the world’s oldest profession and it is not just practiced by poor, unfortunate young women driven to it by circumstances.  It flourishes at the very top of our government by men in pinstripe suits.

         Yesterday’s vote does make you appreciate the political courage of Senators like Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, who put principle ahead of politics and joined a coalition of Senators to cobble together a bipartisan package.  Let’s hope their constituents reward them for their courage and statesmanship.  And, let’s hope that constituents of those who cowardly caved in yesterday will be told by their constituents in 2014 and 2016:  “Sorry, we can’t afford to re-elect you.  We sent you to Washington to vote for our interests and the interests of the American people.  Instead, you put your own interests first.”

         As the President said yesterday, it was a shameful day in Washington, but yesterday’s vote was only Round One.  Someday we’ll get this right.

Jerry