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