DeSantis and the Metamorphosis of MAGA

Ron DeSantis is decidedly a mean, ruthless SOB, but I doubt that he could ever compete with Trump for the wackadoodle vote. He’s more of a Richard Nixon type, isn’t he? Dirty, devious, but neither demented nor, hard as he tries, certifiably covfefe. No, he just isn’t sufficiently (and unabashedly) bonkers to inspire cosplayers wearing horns and warpaint to assault the U.S. Capitol.

So, if DeSantis becomes the Republican candidate in 2024, the GOP’s character will necessarily change. Certainly, Mr. DeSanctimonious (as Trump calls him) will retain both the racists and the evangelicals (where else would they go?), but—oh, mercy! — they will be such a grim and grumpy lot when deprived of the delirium of Trumpist hoopla. Where has all the fun gone? The rallies? The torchlight parades? The glossolalia? What a bummer!

Because, let’s face it: Ron is little more than a conventional gangster from Central Casting—tricky, calculating, creepy. Nothing fantastical or fabulous or woo-woo messianic about him. Less a con-man than a thug, DeSantis really IS what he IS, and truthfully (c’mon man) that ain’t much of a show!

I suspect, therefore, that a whole passel of the most zealous MAGAS—should The Mad King Donald finally be dumped—will simply lose their will to live—or, what basically amounts to the same thing—their will to dress up like horned Vikings and throw lethal tantrums in the King’s honor. A few may even feel so crappy about being abandoned that they simply slide off into the nearest gutter and metamorphose into gigantic dung beetles. So it goes.

Will Democracy Be Lost?

In these days preceding the 2022 mid-term elections, many Democratic pundits are prophesying darkly that a Republican takeover of Congress (which seems likely) would signal that “democracy has been lost.” Frankly, though, I find that formula both simplistic and calculating—intended mostly to arouse an apathetic electorate to vote for Democrats.  Still, beneath the agit-prop cliché lies a deeper, more genuine anxiety—primarily about the nature of  our “democracy” itself. 

Because, truthfully, what people generally mean when they voice concerns that “democracy will be lost” is not really a fear that government expressing the “will of the people” (the American demos) will disappear. (Where would it go? What external power would suppress it?). 

No, what they worry about is that this demos—this “we the people”—has in recent years undergone such a fundamental shift in attitudes/values that it may (by “democratic” vote, but also by “democratic” apathy and “democratic” stupidity) acquiesce to unconventional forms of governance that are incompatible (and indeed irreconcilable) with our long-established legal structures and with the rights guaranteed by our current constitution. Thus, the fear is not that democracy may be lost, but rather that it may have already been irreversibly changed, whether by conscious choice or by mere absent-mindedness of the “people.”

In short, when someone says “save our democracy,” what he/she really means is “preserve our present constitutional conventions!”—i.e., democracy, of course—only not brute and unrestrained mob rule, but rather “limited democracy as we now know it.” 

Isn’t it interesting that, viewed from this perspective, the Democrats seem to be the real conservatives in this election?

Trump’s Nuclear Stash

Frequently, in coffee shops and take-out joints, condiments and sweeteners are displayed in self-serve bins. Predictably, I suppose, many customers of such businesses have an irresistible urge to cram handfuls of these “freebies” into purses or pockets. It’s a compulsion, isn’t it?, generated by some atavistic “get ahead” instinct. The freeloaders have no real physical need for such extras, and they have no actual plan for what they might ultimately do with them. Indeed, these items will probably wind up in a junk drawer or a glove compartment—only, in time, to be tossed away.

Yet there’s a delicious little thrill in “sneaking away” with this stuff, and the freeloaders feel vaguely self-satisfied and, yes, self-aggrandized by their preposterously cheap (albeit minor) acquisition. (Yeah! King of the hill!) They “took” something that some dumb bunny had stupidly made available and that others, therefore, couldn’t take, and they (the freeloaders) thus added to their personal STASH of stuff—a stash that they figure makes them somehow richer, more powerful and, well, “better” than those poor suckers who don’t have, somewhere in their junk drawers, multiple individual packets of powdered coffee creamer and artificial sweetener.

. 

THIS, I think, is the best analogy for Trump’s seemingly heedless, almost knee-jerk absconding with truckloads of classified documents. They were available, they might be handy sometime, and so, why not? Ya never know. Most of all, they added to the vast STASH of stuff that he—king of the hill—“owns” and “controls.” (And no, he probably wouldn’t ever use them or even know exactly what or where they were: he really is too intellectually lazy to be that organized.) 

Only trouble with this analogy is that, as most ordinary crap-collectors know, it is not illegal to sneak away with random handfuls of help-yourself condiments. But it IS illegal to cram your personal basement with nuclear plans and codes—even if you have no idea what to do with them and have merely taken them in order to punk the suckers who made the stuff available, at a preposterously cheap price. That, after all, is the Art of the Deal, isn’t it—acquiring lots of stuff by punking suckers?

How Con-Men Get Off Scot-Free: the “Think System.”

Donald Trump has always reminded me of another great con-man— “Professor” Harold Hill in “The Music Man.” The phony professor—who in reality knew nothing about music—conned people into believing they would somehow instinctively “know” how to play musical instruments by merely “thinking” about a nice tune. No other instruction was provided—because Hill had no actual skill and no actual plan other than absconding with the money he had bilked from the townspeople. 

Similarly, Trump conned his “patriots” into believing that they could stage a coup d’état by merely “thinking” about a nice government overthrow. No other direct instruction was provided by Trump, who himself had no clear plan (other than staying in office and on TV for four more years), but who apparently figured that his “think system” would work and that those goons and village idiots would somehow instinctively “know” and DO what was necessary to keep him in office. 

They did stuff, of course—but it was as disastrously horrible as Professor Hill’s boys’ band’s rendition of Beethoven’s Minuet in G. 

So here’s my question:  can a con-man who basically DOES NOTHING—other than rile up and encourage people to “think about”fantasies—be charged with a crime? If so, what crime? Stupidity? Selfishness? 

Laziness? Greed? Assholery? All of these behaviors are, of course, deplorable—but surely too widespread to be criminalized, lest most of the populace wind up in prison. No, only the people who actually DID something illegal—breaking, entering, assault, etc.—i.e, only the village idiots—will ever be brought to trial. Certainly not the do-nothing con-man-in-chief.

The con-men, Professor Hill and Donald Trump, both get off scot-free.

Mind the Gap!

A few observations on travel to Europe after an absence of three years: 1) Europeans no longer use money. They use cards, mostly with little contactless symbols. They will not take cash, even at Mighty Burger in the food hall of St. Pancras Station. 2) Bicycles rule everywhere, especially in Paris, and the “bike-bastards” don’t stop for stop signs—or pedestrians. 3) All reservations for everything must be made online. It’s pointless to try to phone or drop by the box office. 

 4. Supermarkets, especially in England, have rows of self-service checkout machines and perhaps two machines that (unwillingly) take cash. A lone, harried attendant supervises all of this confusion—and there’s always confusion. In France, the self-service machines tend to be out-of-order, which means that the frazzled cashier must “help” you outsmart the system. 5. French trains still run exactly on time. English trains do not. 

6. Everybody hates Boris Johnson, and almost everyone hates Emmanuel Macron, so naturally, they both remain in power. 7. Public transportation—in both Paris and London—is superb; they are SO far ahead of rinky-dink, user-unfriendly American systems. 8. So you see, the Londoners are right: there will ALWAYS be a gap. A gap between Europeans (concerned about improving the quality of human life) and America (concerned about carrying firearms in public). ALWAYS. Mind the gap.

Certain Alienable Rights: Il faut cultiver notre jardin!

 

It is comforting, but false, to assert, with Thomas Jefferson, that some ineffable, omniscient and omnipotent authority--Nature, God, Nature's God, whatever--has endowed all of humankind with certain "inalienable" rights. Strictly speaking, nothing in the universe, except entropy (i.e., disorder, deterioration and death), is inalienable. In fact, in the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson was writing high-falutin' humbug--intended, quite unabashedly, to justify revolution and political alienation from bonds connecting the colonies to Great Britain. To this end, Jefferson--magisterially but without evidence--proclaimed that the Universe itself had willed immutable and infinite rights--"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"--to our very mutable and very finite species.

But—and this is an important “but”—some rights DO, if accepted and sustained over appreciable periods of time, become so “deeply rooted” (a favorite notion among Supreme Court conservatives) that they are viewed by society as fundamental, necessary, and beneficial to the proper functioning of the commonwealth itself—i,e, as “constitutional.” Thus consecrated by "use" if not by the "universe", they come to be simply taken for granted as a part of the nation’s legal framework, as “settled law”—stare decisis. These long-internalized rights face little threat of being eliminated or changed for (Jefferson’s words) “light or transient causes.” Other rights, though—rights more recently accorded in response to changes within the society itself—and actually vital in present-day society—because their roots are not yet deep, because they are not yet simply taken for granted—such rights ARE indeed subject to alienation by powerful authorities not yet persuaded of these rights’ settled (i.e., “constitutional”) status.

Now, in the ongoing course of human events, it has become necessary for Americans to face the very real likelihood that one such recently-granted right—a woman’s personal control of her own reproductive processes—will be withdrawn by a SCOTUS so obsessed with deep roots that it is willing to ignore the value of the growing plant itself. Roe v. Wade is about to be overturned, and with it, the incipient constitutional right of a woman to control her own pregnancy. 

I'm not sure that my term "incipient right” is quite appropriate. But TIME is the key factor here, isn't it? Though rights are never inalienable, as we have seen, they do become firmly "constitutional" OVER TIME. What SCOTUS is attempting to do, it seems, is "weed out" a growing plant that they themselves planted (with Roe v. Wade). They don't want to acknowledge that its root system is already firmly established; they don't want Americans to come to regard this plant as an essential element of our  collective garden.

We must make them see that they are wrong!

Which means, I guess, that we all have more gardening work to do. Il faut cultiver notre jardin. This valuable right must be planted everywhere, nurtured everywhere, defended everywhere--from pests, predators, and stupid jurists, who--alas--don't seem capable of distinguishing a right from a rutabaga.

And we must persist—OVER TIME. Only thus, through our very human actions and interventions—and our persistence—will we ultimately ensure that this 'incipient' right to choose becomes, for  all practical and conceivable purposes, inalienable within our constitutional framework. I know, I know: everyone is SO tired, and America’s women are so legitimately pissed off. SCOTUS itself is dishonoring the Constitution and breaking faith with its pledge to the American people. Sad, sad. But onward!

War Kills Civilians (Duh)!

The media, in these days of early April, 2022, are filled with horrific images broadcast from devastated cities in Ukraine--entire communities bombarded, occupied, pillaged and, finally, abandoned by Russian troops.

Yes, let us direct our anger (this time) against Russia and the Russian soldiers who committed such gruesome killings of civilians in Ukraine. But in our outrage, let us never forget that the REAL enemy is war itself—war which has so long preoccupied our species’ collective thinking that all major countries devote entire universities to its study—as an academic discipline—a science!

War is the enemy! War, which in its irrationality, “excuses” and legitimizes atrocities by releasing angry, bitter, fearful, zealous, stupid human beings from the legal and moral restraints imposed by reason and ideals of brotherhood.

War “crimes” are certainly not new. In Delacroix’s painting below, we see Catholic Christian crusaders nonchalantly slaughtering Orthodox Christian civilians during the Sack of Constantinople (Fourth Crusade, 1204.) It was a three-day bloodbath, for which, to be fair, in 2004, Pope John Paul II voiced a tepid apology—800 years after the event. In return, the Pope’s “cordiality” was then tepidly acknowledged by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, who opined with typical religious hokum that “the spirit of reconciliation is stronger than hatred.” One must be very patient, of course, mustn’t one?

Obviously, my pessimistic whataboutism in no way absolves the Russians in Ukraine (or the Germans in Poland, or the French in Algeria, or the Americans in Vietnam). As Dorothy Parker observed (about heterosexuality), the frequency of a phenomenon does not make it “normal”—merely common. But the undisputedly “common” appeal of wartime lawlessness certainly lends a sad perspective to the tendency of humans—of ALL humans, regardless of nationality or culture—to resort to “crimes against humanity” for resolving, ur, very “human” differences. 

So perhaps we should focus our anger and energy on the enormous (perhaps insurmountable) task of somehow eradicating war itself, not just from the policies of nation-states, but from ALL acceptable (and thinkable) “possibilities” available to ALL of human beings. I confess, I do not entertain much hope for the success of such an enterprise. But perhaps the commitment itself constitutes a sort of salvation, at least for individuals, if not for entire societies—hopeful evidence that our species, though instinctively inclined to hate, is in extremis capable of a measure of that high-minded transcendance we sometimes label “humanity.” 

Ukraine and Human Nature: Poo-Tee-Weet.

In my more Hubert Humphrey youth, I used to believe that there really WAS an arc of history bent toward “progress.” I believed that most human beings, at bottom, just wanted to be left alone to live their lives in peace, that most people had no desire to harm others. Well, I gave up that naïveté about the same time I gave up religion. But still, it took me a damned long time, despite all the overwhelming evidence, to realize that—at any given moment—at least half of humankind does NOT want peace and security, but rather YEARNS for the excitement of anger, violence and conflict—with family, neighbors, co-workers, people of other colors, faiths, nationalities. And that the boundaries between peace-lovers and conflict-lovers are not fixed in either space or time: the same average joe might, depending upon external events and his own psychological state, transform overnight from a Milquetoast to a Minotaur. So, I conclude, sadly, that there is nothing meaningful to say about the war in Ukraine, or about human nature itself, except—as Vonnegut’s canary incoherently chirrups at the end of Slaughterhouse Five: “poo-tee-weet.” 

Here’s a picture of the “Tsar Cannon” in Moscow. (It was never actually used in battle: too big). So it goes.

Love a Country, Hate Its Sin

I have always been a Russophile: I love the literature, the music, the art. But this war in Ukraine is criminal and unforgivable. I want to blame Putin alone—leaving aside the Russian people themselves— even though that is probably naïve. Still, c’est compliqué. I feel a bit like I felt during America’s wars in Vietnam and Iraq—betrayed in my love for a country by that country’s stupid, brutal and ultimately “wrong” leaders—plus their credulous minions, of course. How long, and up to what point, is it possible to maintain one’s love of a country in spite of that country’s insane/inhumane policies? How long can one hate a country’s sin and still love that country?  Question to revisit in upcoming U.S. elections? …

The Perils of Putin’s Pauline

In general, I think the news networks are giving us an accurate picture of events unfolding in the war in Ukraine. But I do sometimes feel “manipulated” by interviews and photo narratives that are clearly chosen for their emotional impact (and viewer “appeal”) rather than actual “newsworthiness.” Of course, we all sympathize with the victims of Putin’s war. It’s a given. But I wish CNN et.al. would keep us focused on the overall tragedy and less obsessed with mawkish melodrama (“viewers may find these images disturbing”). This war is clearly NOT a simplistic Hollywood movie in which, yes, the good guys are tied to the tracks, but are ultimately—we knew it all along—rescued (hurrah!) from the clutches of the villain. This is NOT the “The Perils of Putin’s Pauline,” designed to give virtual (and safe) frissons to TV audiences and good ratings to CNN. To indulge in such manipulation of the news amounts to journalistic bad faith. Stop cheapening the suffering by using it for tabloid-style screeching, sermonizing, and money-making.

War-Lust and Vicarious Death

At the first Battle of Manassas (Bull Run) in 1861, Washington bigwigs, lawmakers and socialites were so enthralled by the idea of WAR between the North and South, so eager to witness bloodshed and, of course, to celebrate the thrill of victory, that curious coteries of looky-loos and wannabe warriors packed picnic baskets, hopped in their landaus and journeyed to nearby Manassas for a jolly afternoon of “picnic basket tailgating” and battle watching on the banks of Bull Run.

 Alas, as Super Bowls go, the Bull Run Bowl was a real disappointment to the fans of the boys in blue. It was a rout. And that picnic! Well, it was absolutely ruined! Thoroughly discombobulated, before they had even finished the chicken wings, the panicked picknickers had to hitch up their horses, grab their spyglasses and parasols and beat a hasty retreat back to Washington in the wake of the even hastier Union troops.

 

So, this wasn’t going to be a “fun” war after all. What a disappointment to the Washingtonian beau monde.

 

Human beings love war, don’t we? Indeed, we love it even more than we love the many other forms of death-making that we have so ingeniously invented: beheadings, hangings, firing squads, crucifixions, stonings, impalings, auto da fés, etc.—many of which, when publicly-sanctioned, have also been creatively turned into spectator events. But a nice war, well, that’s really “da bomb.”

 I’ve adopted a sarcastic tone (in case you haven’t noticed), but I am actually pretty distressed by this undeniable human trait—which I, to my bemusement, share. I, too, am fascinated by the prospect of a new war—one of which is currently brewing in Ukraine, a former “affiliated state” which Russia apparently wants to reclaim and on whose borders the Russian army has built up an impressive striking force. At this moment, all that remains is for President Putin to give the signal to invade. Everyone is waiting breathlessly, picnics at least metaphorically packed, ready to watch on our home screens (thanks to “embedded” journalists) the incarnadine spectacle of masses of Ukrainians being slaughtered by Russians (and perhaps a bit vice-versa).

And since, for once, Americans will not be directly involved—merely Ukrainian and Russian homo sapiens with whom we have only the most tenuous of biological links—we can unabashedly enjoy the killing. It’s them, not us.

Of course, if it isn’t our guys out there dying, the actual outcome will be somewhat less thrilling—it will be someone else’s victory—but we’ll still have the adrenaline rush of witnessing the death of others while not dying ourselves.

Call it “vicarious death.” 

 

Because war isn’t just about “solving” otherwise insoluble conflicts—as we are sometimes told by dotty political scientists seeking rational explanations for nonsensical human behavior. Rather, wars are sometimes—indeed often—manufactured merely because human beings passionately need to watch others die in order to more thoroughly enjoy being themselves alive. 

 

That isn’t an entirely neighborly thought, is it? Well, never mind. Shut up, Ken, and prepare your picnic for the upcoming Ukrainian Bowl.

                      

 

Kapus, Muumuus and Abortion

Having just returned from a very enjoyable week in Kauai, Hawaii's northernmost and greenest island, I have been thinking a lot about "kapu"--i.e., the complicated system of religious taboos that regulated almost all aspects of Hawaiian life prior to the arrival of Europeans. 

I do not pretend to be familiar with all these taboos, nor do I have any real understanding of the world view that birthed and nurtured them. I simply learned a few, probably the most titillating and/or unsettling among them--and began to wonder what, if any, connection there might be between these specific Polynesian practices and other religious/political systems in other cultures and contexts.

What immediately strikes me is that people everywhere, regardless of the specifics of their taboos, seem to accept their legitimacy and willingly live within their bounds--provided (a big proviso) that no other alternative is available. People within a particular "closed" culture do not, in general, question the objective validity or, indeed, universality of their culture's moral code, and they submit, often zealously, to the strictures it imposes upon human conduct.

Thus in traditional Hawaii: if thou art female, thou shalt not eat bananas, pigs, coconuts or even poi; indeed thou shalt not eat anything at all in the presence of males. If thou art male, thou shalt have thy penis subincised (i.e., slit on the underside) and shalt remove thy loincloth when in the presence of a great chief or a female ali'i of superior rank (as a sign of respect). Both male and female shall enjoy sexual relations of all sorts with people of all ages and genders, whenever and wherever the happy opportunity presents itself, except only that thou shalt not take thy pleasure with individuals whose social status is appreciably different from thine own. And thou shalt not touch--or even look at-- the chief's hair or fingernail clippings. 

On penalty (sometimes) of death! (Though escape to and exile within a "city of refuge" might be possible.)

I, of course, coming from a different culture and having internalized an entirely different system of kapus, find these strictures at best irresponsible and at worst cruel and illogical. They just don't seem right, you know.

But to the ancient Hawaiians, they were just that--right. The kapus guided them daily and provided structure and significance to their actions, joys and sufferings. These rules (and the religious assumptions underlying them) made as much sense to the Hawaiians as they seem nonsensical to today's Westerners. 

Because they "fit" with the Hawaiians' view of the world and the nature of the universe.

But just imagine the horror of the purse-lipped and puritanical missionaries as they debarked intending to evangelize some poor brown savages only to find themselves obliged, on a daily basis, to compare this "perverted" world view to their own, clearly (to them) holy, and objectively true understanding of the human condition. 

Of course, the missionaries’ Jesus view brought with it its own kapus, its own dietary and sexual rules, its own pariahs and punishments—all of which seemed right and moral to the missionaries, but which confused and frightened the Hawaiians. Ultimately, though, since the Jesus view also brought guns and gunships, the Hawaiians (pragmatically, albeit perhaps reluctantly) ditched the old kapus and adopted the new ones--thereby switching their allegiance to a world view with more firepower and greater global prestige-- but in so doing, losing not only their lifestyle, but their land and often their lives as well (usually from measles, a sort of collateral kapu-penalty of Christianity).

So what's my point? Really, it's just the obvious, I guess: religions and their affiliated kapus are relative—useful creations of the societies /cultures they serve to legitimize and underpin. And as such man-made constructs, they "work" only when their assumptions about ultimate reality are accepted and embraced by the bulk of the cultural entity that birthed them.

If, on the other hand, rival world views present themselves and vie for the allegiance/embrace of a people hitherto unaware of such an alternative, confusion, conflict and disorder are likely to arise. Both “old believers” and “new believers” will grow alternately defensive, agressive and, above all, angry. They will feel aggrieved and threatened by the “others” and, of course, by the world view, religion and kapus of these heretics, blasphemers, perverts, savages, criminals, etc.

As I indicated, this happened in Hawaii, until, ultimately, the Hawaiians were obliged to admit defeat, accept the new order and--in accordance with a "new" kapu, wear modesty muumuus to cover naked breasts, thus pleasing the “new” god by acquiescing to his peculiar sexual predilections.

A similar kapu conflict may be occurring now in the U.S. as a whole (not just Hawaii). The evangelical right—pretty much adherents of the stern Bible-based kapu-system the missionaries brought to Hawaii—are feeling themselves threatened on all sides by “others”—Muslims and imams, Jews and rabbis, Catholics and priests, Mexicans and quinceañeras, gays and Halloween—and even other non-white evangelicals who may share the same Bible, but don’t seem to follow the same kapus. 

Also, and especially threatening, are those who reject ALL overarching world views and instead base their behavior exclusively upon science—i. e., rational thinking applied to observable and testable facts. This system allows no categorical "shalts" and "shalt nots" derived from some transcendent and omnipotent authority. Rather, says this view, humans must use reason and evidence to determine their behavior when confronted with such questions as:

--whether or not to commit adultery, whether or not to circumcise a baby, whether or not to eat meat on Good Friday, whether or not to wear a head covering, whether or not to consume shrimp, whether or not to seek a divorce, whether or not to obey one's parents, whether or not to masturbate, whether or not to cut one's hair, whether or not to use electricity, whether or not to have an abortion, whether or not to wear a muumuu.

Because there still remain a considerable number of these angry, frightened, and politically zealous evangelicals within America’s borders, I fear they may (narrowly) win the next several elections held in our Great Reactionary Republic. But I am confident that, like the kahunas and their kapus, these votaries of an "old" world view (Christianity, especially the fundamentalist kind) are, in the long term, doomed to disappear--very slowly, very painfully--kicking and screaming and perhaps killing along the way. Already, indeed, some of their most primitive and most barbarous kapus have been rejected by the America's general culture--e.g., legal strictures against non-whites, women, homosexuals. And though some setbacks are to be anticipated, the legality of abortion will, ultimately I think, be resolved in a similar way: by leaving this decision to the reason and conscience of the sole sentient being involved (the pregnant woman).

In short, I am hopeful that a scientific world view is on the way IN and that, consequently, irrational kapus are on the way OUT--no longer taboo, no longer forbidden. Rather, shouldn’t our modern kapus be viewed as primarily "fashion”—acts of no transcendent significance—rather like wearing a muumuu? Put one on if your reason tells you it's a useful, enjoyable, practice. But please, not because you fear ostracism or punishment, or because you hope to be able to eat poi (finally) with the men and boys (subincised or not) in hula heaven.