Did you happen to watch the episode of The American Experience aired on PBS last night? It was about Robert F. Kennedy. It was excellent, overall. I am astounded that after 38 years, my sense of grief, of loss, and of having seen the death of hope in America is still so palpable, such a punch in the gut.
Yes, I was in tears by the end.
As I have said before, John F. Kennedy's assassination was the first body blow that knocked the wind out of the collective American body; the twin killings in 1968 of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and of Bobby Kennedy comprised the knockout punch, the death blow to fundamental American optimism--to hope for the future, to the expectation that things really would keep getting better, to the idea that we could make the world a better place for everyone, not just those already priviledged with wealth and power.
One of the ironies of Bobby Kennedy's life and death is that his brother's assassination made Bobby a better person [probably even better than his brother--Ed.]. His grief opened not just his mind, but his heart, to the needs of the disenfranchised and dispossessed, and compelled him to speak out against injustice, including America's ever-escalating presence in Vietnam. Eisenhower sent the first advisors; JFK sent more; JFK's hand-picked successor, Lyndon Johnson, made it a conflagration. Bobby, an ardent anti-Communist, at first supported Johnson's policies, but as the war dragged on and our entanglement worsened, he came to realize it was a mistake . . . and frequently wondered whether John, had he lived, would have been wise enough to see that and pull America out before it was too late.
We'll never know. I am somewhat chagrined to say that I doubt it--for it took the constant fruitless escalation to demonstrate the error of being there in the first place. The overarching great shame of the entire fiasco is that Ho Chi Minh came to America after WWII hoping for our assistance in throwing out the French colonial power. He was a nationalist. He became a communist only because we rejected his request in favor of our "ally," France. [And we all know how helpful France has been since, don't we?--Ed.]
One of the other ironies of Bobby's life is that it took his brother's death for Congress to pass John's Civil Rights Act. The national outpouring of grief in the wake of JFK's senseless death propelled Congress to pass the bill that had been languishing in the national legislature for several months before Lee Harvey Oswald pulled the trigger 3 times in Dallas in November, 1963.
An additional irony is that just as "only Nixon could go to China," only a Southerner could get meaningful civil rights legislation passed, and Texan Lyndon Johnson used his prodigious political skill to push the bill to passage.
Johnson was often a despicable human being, but it is still a shame that Vietnam became the bete noire of his presidency; he actually accomplished great things in domestic policy and legislation . . . but it's all been underappreciated in the wake of Vietnam. [Not that the same could be said for Dubya. His domestic policy seems to consist of undoing everything good done in the past 40 years . . . and if his misadventure in Iraq minimizes historical recognition of that, all the worse for us. It was breathtaking how relevant what Bobby said against the war in Vietnam still sounds today. If you didn't watch The American Experience episode last night, please be sure to watch it when PBS airs it again. It's well worth your two-hour investment.--Ed]
As engrossing and instructive as the episode was, however, I do have a quibble. In discussing Bobby's growing recognition of American racial injustice, Nicholas Katzenbach (long-time member of the Kennedy inner circle) tried to demonstrate how limited RFK's initial understanding was by saying "Bobby used to compare the discrimination against blacks to, to [sic] the 'No Irish wanted.' And you know, that that [sic] was a wrong, a wrong comparison; one, I think, that was actually resented by blacks, despite the fact that he meant it well."
If Katzenbach meant Bobby was wrong in the long term, he is correct. The Irish, after all, eventually could assimilate, unlike blacks, whose mere skin color prevented them from doing the same no matter how much time passed.
If Katzenbach meant Bobby was wrong to make the comparison at all, however, Katzenbach himself is in error. I have seen editorial cartoons and commentaries dating to the early 19th century that clearly show the Irish as being, in the opinion of the WASPs in America and the English in the UK, just as ape-like and primitive as any black was seen to be. In their oversized upper lips, their knuckle-dragging posture, their low foreheads, their tendency to be lazy, drunk, and overly aggressive, the Irish as drawn in the cartoons and discussed in the commentaries were as black as blacks . . . except in skin-color. Were you to see one of these scurrilous cartoons with the caption removed and the skin-color indeterminate, you'd interpret it as anti-black, too.
As I said, however, it's a quibble. In its entirety, the program was stunningly evocative of a time and place too many Americans nowadays wrongly think is irrelevant. Please take the time to watch it when PBS airs it again. You will not regret it.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Through The Looking Glass--Darkly
Hey, mashing up Alice and St. Paul is no more weird than what Dubya said last week while he was in Vietnam (38 years late [thank you, Jay Leno--Ed.]).
He had the gall/temerity/stupidity to announce that "the lesson" of the Vietnam War was that America will win as long as America doesn't give up. Excuse me, but we did give up--what the heck did Dubya think that exodus by helicopter from the US Embassy in Saigon in 1975 was, a sightseeing tour? And remember, we didn't do that until we'd poured hundreds of thousands of young American lives down the drain in a cause the public had turned against at least 7 years before. We "lost" Vietnam in 1968 after the Tet Offensive changed the American general populace's mind that we were winning. This despite the fact that as a purely military matter, we "won" the Tet Offensive. That wasn't the way it was perceived at home. Perception became fact, despite the facts.
So much for Dubya responding to the "thumpin'" he admitted the GOP took in the recent election. He's already backtracking on his pledge to chart a new course in Iraq. If that statement he made in Vietnam wasn't a new incarnation of "stay the course," I'd like to sell you several bridges in New York City.
We all know Dubya isn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer . . . and that he wasn't exactly a serious student while in college . . . but his 180° wrong interpretation of America's Vietnam experience goes beyond reconfirming either or both of those observations. His ignorance of history is willful, thus dangerous. Of course, several of us were out crying in the wilderness about this before he dragged us into Iraq to avenge Saddam Hussein's dissing his daddy, but no one paid attention then.
The real resulting horror is that more young Americans are dying every day the Iraq debacle continues. Oh, but not his kids, or the kids of anyone else in his circle. Just as during Vietnam, not him nor any of his fellow rich young men. too bad that in the furor over Dan Rather's getting suckered into using faked documents to establish that Dubya had help avoiding the normal consequences of his National Guard "service," everyone seems to have forgotten that the woman who confirmed the documents were fake also confirmed that what those documents said was in fact true.
And what those documents said was that Dubya wasn't where he was supposed to be when he was supposed to be there, and that strings had been pulled and influence exerted to protect Dubya not just from having to go to Vietnam (on time [thank you again, Jay Leno--Ed.]), but from the usual consequences of not going.
I know this is not a unique question on my part, but I have to ask it anyway: why is it that the chicken hawks are the loudest war mongers? My answer: to cover up their own inadequacies. They think that if they bray loud and long enough, no one will notice that they didn't really serve when they had the chance. How wrong they are!
Yet the horror and the slaughter go on.
He had the gall/temerity/stupidity to announce that "the lesson" of the Vietnam War was that America will win as long as America doesn't give up. Excuse me, but we did give up--what the heck did Dubya think that exodus by helicopter from the US Embassy in Saigon in 1975 was, a sightseeing tour? And remember, we didn't do that until we'd poured hundreds of thousands of young American lives down the drain in a cause the public had turned against at least 7 years before. We "lost" Vietnam in 1968 after the Tet Offensive changed the American general populace's mind that we were winning. This despite the fact that as a purely military matter, we "won" the Tet Offensive. That wasn't the way it was perceived at home. Perception became fact, despite the facts.
So much for Dubya responding to the "thumpin'" he admitted the GOP took in the recent election. He's already backtracking on his pledge to chart a new course in Iraq. If that statement he made in Vietnam wasn't a new incarnation of "stay the course," I'd like to sell you several bridges in New York City.
We all know Dubya isn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer . . . and that he wasn't exactly a serious student while in college . . . but his 180° wrong interpretation of America's Vietnam experience goes beyond reconfirming either or both of those observations. His ignorance of history is willful, thus dangerous. Of course, several of us were out crying in the wilderness about this before he dragged us into Iraq to avenge Saddam Hussein's dissing his daddy, but no one paid attention then.
The real resulting horror is that more young Americans are dying every day the Iraq debacle continues. Oh, but not his kids, or the kids of anyone else in his circle. Just as during Vietnam, not him nor any of his fellow rich young men. too bad that in the furor over Dan Rather's getting suckered into using faked documents to establish that Dubya had help avoiding the normal consequences of his National Guard "service," everyone seems to have forgotten that the woman who confirmed the documents were fake also confirmed that what those documents said was in fact true.
And what those documents said was that Dubya wasn't where he was supposed to be when he was supposed to be there, and that strings had been pulled and influence exerted to protect Dubya not just from having to go to Vietnam (on time [thank you again, Jay Leno--Ed.]), but from the usual consequences of not going.
I know this is not a unique question on my part, but I have to ask it anyway: why is it that the chicken hawks are the loudest war mongers? My answer: to cover up their own inadequacies. They think that if they bray loud and long enough, no one will notice that they didn't really serve when they had the chance. How wrong they are!
Yet the horror and the slaughter go on.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Give Me Your Hat--I'm Going To Puke In It
Two items that hit the news yesterday were at least as stomach-churning as any of the banquet scene courses in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
First, the Republicans in the US Senate have voted Trent Lott to be their # 2 in command. Other GOP senators interviewed about it, including John McCain and Chuck Hagel, brushed aside the specter [pun intended for you political junkies out there--Ed.] of Lott's remarks several years ago lauding Strom Thurmond's segregationist stand in his run for the US presidency in 1948. "It's old news, Lott's a good man, Americans believe in redemption" were the official themes of the day. Right. The real themes of the day were that (1) the GOP will do anything to hold onto whatever vestiges of power it has--in this case, via obstructionism (Lott is a master of the Senate's rules and knows how to keep bills the GOP doesn't like from getting full Senate consideration), and (2) people of color who belong to or who support the GOP in its present incarnation are fools--or tools--or dupes--or worse.
Second, O.J. Simpson is now promoting a book and Fox (it figures) TV special called something like "If I Did It, This Is How," regarding the murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and of her visitor Ron Goldman. Even the book's publisher says it's a confession of O.J.'s guilt. Has anyone connected to this beyond-tawdry enterprise given a thought to how this will affect O.J.'s children with Nicole? "I'm your father, and I didn't murder your mother, but if I had, here's how . . ." That is utterly sick.
The only remotely possible good that could come from this is that Nicole's and Ron's families can garnish any profits generated by it as at least partial payment of the multimillion dollar civil trial judgment they won against O.J. (for having caused Nicole's and Ron's deaths). O.J. hasn't paid one single penny of that judgment to date.
But is it worth the cost?
I suspect the Brown and Goldman families think not.
First, the Republicans in the US Senate have voted Trent Lott to be their # 2 in command. Other GOP senators interviewed about it, including John McCain and Chuck Hagel, brushed aside the specter [pun intended for you political junkies out there--Ed.] of Lott's remarks several years ago lauding Strom Thurmond's segregationist stand in his run for the US presidency in 1948. "It's old news, Lott's a good man, Americans believe in redemption" were the official themes of the day. Right. The real themes of the day were that (1) the GOP will do anything to hold onto whatever vestiges of power it has--in this case, via obstructionism (Lott is a master of the Senate's rules and knows how to keep bills the GOP doesn't like from getting full Senate consideration), and (2) people of color who belong to or who support the GOP in its present incarnation are fools--or tools--or dupes--or worse.
Second, O.J. Simpson is now promoting a book and Fox (it figures) TV special called something like "If I Did It, This Is How," regarding the murders of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and of her visitor Ron Goldman. Even the book's publisher says it's a confession of O.J.'s guilt. Has anyone connected to this beyond-tawdry enterprise given a thought to how this will affect O.J.'s children with Nicole? "I'm your father, and I didn't murder your mother, but if I had, here's how . . ." That is utterly sick.
The only remotely possible good that could come from this is that Nicole's and Ron's families can garnish any profits generated by it as at least partial payment of the multimillion dollar civil trial judgment they won against O.J. (for having caused Nicole's and Ron's deaths). O.J. hasn't paid one single penny of that judgment to date.
But is it worth the cost?
I suspect the Brown and Goldman families think not.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Is It Safe To Come Out Yet?
Has all the mud been slung? Now that election day is here, are we finally free of negative campaigning? Can I stop ducking and covering now?
Why do candidates "go negative," anyway? Poll after poll after poll indicates that the public hates it, is turned off by it, and generally has no use for it. However, return after return after return indicates that "going negative" works. Which is the real reason it continues to plague us.
I suppose this is a variation on the old product marketing and advertising notion that no one cares whether you remember a product positively or negatively, just that you do in fact remember it. "The Selling Of America" continues apace. Actually, it's a tough situation. The person or party on the receiving end of the first mud slung must respond in kind if s/he does not want to be called a wimp . . . or a loser . . . or worse. You doubt this? Exhibit # 1 in support of my contention: Michael Dukakis's ill-fated presidential run.
Still, negative campaign ads are a strong argument against a totally unregulated free market. Would that we could rein in the excesses of the marketplace (in all areas, not just politics--note as an aside that commercial speech has never been afforded the total protection given to political speech. You can't just go yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, unless it's true, that is.) Too many people, however, fail to recognize the uniqueness of our First Amendment. Political speech, even crass and false political speech, is absolutely protected and sacrosanct. I see no end, ever, to negative political advertising. The ultimate moral of the story provides another lesson in being a member of a truly free society, however: freedom requires self-restraint. Just because you can do something does not mean that you should. We could probably stop most negative advertising if we could convince people not to be the first one to sling mud. OK, OK. How many "r"s are there in "fat chance"?
A more important question: did you vote yet? I did. And I was amazed. I got to my polling place at about 10:30 a.m. and was the 107th voter. That means that 106 people had already voted in the 2 1/2 hours my polling station had been open. I think the pundits who predicted lower than usual (even for off-year elections) turn-outs were wrong. I am glad to see it.
For the life of me, I cannot fathom anyone who complains about the system yet who does not participate in it. One of my uncles is in this crowd. He is politically astute and aware, but he hasn't even registered. He sees no point it voting. [OK, maybe he's not as astute as I said. Better yet, he is astute about the substance of the issues, even if not so much about the process.--Ed.] I think he's nuts. We both live in a part of the country that is much farther to the right than we tend to be. We both tend to lose on more issues than we tend to win.
Nonetheless, I maintain that even in a losing effort, our voices matter. If we present enough numbers, we cannot just be ignored or blown off. Our opinions must be considered when the majority implements its plans. Besides, participation is a good civic exercise, in and of itself. I shudder to consider what my uncle is teaching his son and daughter about what is important about being an American, and how important it is to be heard, even when not winning. Despite what Vince Lombardi said, winning not only isn't everything--is it not even the only thing. Somebody out there help me--what's the quote carved into the outer facade of Memorial Stadium on the University of Nebraska main campus in Lincoln? "Not in the victory but in the participation, not in the glory but the effort, . . ." I know I don't have it memorized correctly. My spotty memory, however, does not make the point less valid: participation matters for its own sake. It reinforces both a sense of community and respect for diversity (of opinion, one hopes), qualities vital to the success and even survival of any civilization.
OK, all you wags out there. I know you are saying there is no sign of civilization or even of intelligent life here. Heck, I've said it myself, only partially in jest. But the right to complain about, to poke fun at, to castigate the system should be limited to those with a stake IN that system. That means to those who participate. Yes, not participating is a form of participation . . . but it's like silence. It's inherently ambiguous. Did you not vote because you agree with how everything is going now? Did you not participate because you just don't care? Did you not participate because you are ignorant of the issues? Did you not participate because you feel it's useless?
If the last, why are you living in America? America is not just a place--it's an idea--and to fail to help express the idea (by participating in voting) is to KILL the idea.
"Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you . . ."
Why do candidates "go negative," anyway? Poll after poll after poll indicates that the public hates it, is turned off by it, and generally has no use for it. However, return after return after return indicates that "going negative" works. Which is the real reason it continues to plague us.
I suppose this is a variation on the old product marketing and advertising notion that no one cares whether you remember a product positively or negatively, just that you do in fact remember it. "The Selling Of America" continues apace. Actually, it's a tough situation. The person or party on the receiving end of the first mud slung must respond in kind if s/he does not want to be called a wimp . . . or a loser . . . or worse. You doubt this? Exhibit # 1 in support of my contention: Michael Dukakis's ill-fated presidential run.
Still, negative campaign ads are a strong argument against a totally unregulated free market. Would that we could rein in the excesses of the marketplace (in all areas, not just politics--note as an aside that commercial speech has never been afforded the total protection given to political speech. You can't just go yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, unless it's true, that is.) Too many people, however, fail to recognize the uniqueness of our First Amendment. Political speech, even crass and false political speech, is absolutely protected and sacrosanct. I see no end, ever, to negative political advertising. The ultimate moral of the story provides another lesson in being a member of a truly free society, however: freedom requires self-restraint. Just because you can do something does not mean that you should. We could probably stop most negative advertising if we could convince people not to be the first one to sling mud. OK, OK. How many "r"s are there in "fat chance"?
A more important question: did you vote yet? I did. And I was amazed. I got to my polling place at about 10:30 a.m. and was the 107th voter. That means that 106 people had already voted in the 2 1/2 hours my polling station had been open. I think the pundits who predicted lower than usual (even for off-year elections) turn-outs were wrong. I am glad to see it.
For the life of me, I cannot fathom anyone who complains about the system yet who does not participate in it. One of my uncles is in this crowd. He is politically astute and aware, but he hasn't even registered. He sees no point it voting. [OK, maybe he's not as astute as I said. Better yet, he is astute about the substance of the issues, even if not so much about the process.--Ed.] I think he's nuts. We both live in a part of the country that is much farther to the right than we tend to be. We both tend to lose on more issues than we tend to win.
Nonetheless, I maintain that even in a losing effort, our voices matter. If we present enough numbers, we cannot just be ignored or blown off. Our opinions must be considered when the majority implements its plans. Besides, participation is a good civic exercise, in and of itself. I shudder to consider what my uncle is teaching his son and daughter about what is important about being an American, and how important it is to be heard, even when not winning. Despite what Vince Lombardi said, winning not only isn't everything--is it not even the only thing. Somebody out there help me--what's the quote carved into the outer facade of Memorial Stadium on the University of Nebraska main campus in Lincoln? "Not in the victory but in the participation, not in the glory but the effort, . . ." I know I don't have it memorized correctly. My spotty memory, however, does not make the point less valid: participation matters for its own sake. It reinforces both a sense of community and respect for diversity (of opinion, one hopes), qualities vital to the success and even survival of any civilization.
OK, all you wags out there. I know you are saying there is no sign of civilization or even of intelligent life here. Heck, I've said it myself, only partially in jest. But the right to complain about, to poke fun at, to castigate the system should be limited to those with a stake IN that system. That means to those who participate. Yes, not participating is a form of participation . . . but it's like silence. It's inherently ambiguous. Did you not vote because you agree with how everything is going now? Did you not participate because you just don't care? Did you not participate because you are ignorant of the issues? Did you not participate because you feel it's useless?
If the last, why are you living in America? America is not just a place--it's an idea--and to fail to help express the idea (by participating in voting) is to KILL the idea.
"Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you . . ."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)