Bob Schwartz

Category: Politics

Too Much of Nothing


The last post was called a political break, with the prospect of returning immediately to earnest observations about the current campaign. For those who didn’t read it, that post included a Marx Brothers movie and a Weekly World News exclusive about Mitt Romney and Bat Boy. Now that’s a break.

If it’s possible for political junkies to overdose, this may be it. There are already a bunch of posts drafted and ready, political and otherwise (this is a blog about everything, not just politics). But just for a moment, the will to post seems to have gotten a little lost.

So the political break continues. In the same spirit of free association that gave rise to the guest appearance of Bat Boy, here is some commentary from Bob Dylan. “But when there’s too much of nothing, nobody should look.”:

Now, too much of nothing
Can make a man feel ill at ease
One man’s temper might rise
While another man’s temper might freeze
In the day of confession
We cannot mock a soul
Oh, when there’s too much of nothing
No one has control

Too much of nothing
Can make a man abuse a king
He can walk the streets and boast like most
But he wouldn’t know a thing
Now, it’s all been done before
It’s all been written in the book
But when there’s too much of nothing
Nobody should look

Too much of nothing
Can turn a man into a liar
It can cause one man to sleep on nails
And another man to eat fire
Ev’rybody’s doin’ somethin’
I heard it in a dream
But when there’s too much of nothing
It just makes a fella mean

Political Break: Mitt Romney and Bat Boy


“Sometimes I think I must go mad.”

That’s a quote from the Marx Brothers movie Horse Feathers (1932). And that’s how a lot of us feel right about now, after months of campaign craziness and days of political bombshells. There will be plenty of time for insightful analysis and cogent commentary. But just for a moment, a break.

Here’s something from the movie:

Retiring President of Huxley College: I am sure the students would appreciate a brief outline of your plans for the future.

Professor Quincy Adams Wagstaff (Groucho Marx): What?

President: I said the students would appreciate a brief outline of your plans for the future.

Wagstaff: You just said that! That’s the trouble around here: talk, talk, talk! Oh, sometimes I think I must go mad. Where will it all end? What is it getting you? Why don’t you go home to your wife? I’ll tell you what, I’ll go home to your wife and, outside of the improvement, she’ll never know the difference. Pull over to the side of the road there and let me see your marriage license.

President: President Wagstaff, now that you’ve stepped into my shoes…

Wagstaff: Oh, is that what I stepped in? I wondered what it was. If these are your shoes, the least you could do was have them cleaned.

And here’s something from the Weekly World News in March of 2007, during Mitt Romney’s first unsuccessful run for the Presidency:

Mitt Romney Doesn’t Believe He Is Running Against A President

A political conundrum has been solved, and the solution is a startling answer to what has been going wrong so far for the Romney-Ryan ticket.

Both candidates spent the first 24 hours of the current foreign crisis injudiciously and recklessly criticizing the President, in the face of being chastised by both Democrats and Republicans for their amateurish efforts.

The obvious question to ask both of them is what foreign policy expertise or experience informs their criticism. This would be their likely answer: well, what foreign policy expertise or experience did Barack Obama have when he took office in 2009?

Exactly. Precisely. Except for one thing. This isn’t candidate Obama they are running against. This is a man who has for four years been negotiating the wild waters of global politics, and in the view of many, though clearly not all, he isn’t doing a bad job.

That’s where the revelation came in. In a nearly literal sense, they don’t believe Barack Obama has been President for these four years. They may not subscribe to “birther” notions that would legally disqualify Obama from holding the office, though we aren’t sure of that. But functionally, they seem to believe that the smart but shallow and inexperienced young Senator who took office in 2009 is the same man they face now.

They believe they are running against young Senator Obama—or maybe even younger community organizer Obama, law student Obama, pot-smoking college student Obama. The only thing they have to do is run a better campaign than the unsuccessful John McCain did. Maybe this isn’t a clinical break from reality, enough to put their mental stability in doubt, but the effect has been to raise real questions about their political stability.

The President has tried to help them. In his speech at the Democratic National Convention, he announced loudly, plainly and unequivocally, “I am the President.” Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan apparently weren’t listening, and even if they heard, they still don’t believe.

The Politics of Economics: Fix the Broken and Ease the Pain

The great political lesson of the Great Depression was to fix the broken economy and ease the people’s pain. More than politics, this was a moral lesson too. Anything less—one and not the other—would have simply been wrong, politically and morally.

In many situations—the medical is one of them—it may not be possible to fix what’s broken without causing more pain in the process. But that doesn’t relieve you of the responsibility to do everything possible to at least diminish that pain, both the original and whatever has been added.

In some ways, this is precisely where the politics of this election sits right now.

Even with the complex metrics of how bad things have been and how much or how fast they may be improving, neither party is unaware that there are problems to be fixed.

The Republican party wants us to believe that they are the ones to better fix these problems. Maybe they are, maybe not.

But the real distinction concerns the pain.

The Republicans seem to say that the pain already being felt and the pain that the fixes may inflict are a necessary and unavoidable phenomenon. Easing the pain will only make things worse and extend the problems, something we cannot afford. In response, some have pointed out that a number of the Republican policy makers are themselves feeling little or no pain.

The Democrats, in a position that is somehow ridiculed, seem to believe that while pain can never be eliminated, there is every reason to ease it whenever possible. That won’t always be possible, but at least it is worth exploring and trying.

In the medical context, there are still people who refuse to take painkillers, believing that it somehow makes you weak or that you are subject to becoming an addict. But medicine also recognizes that pain itself is tremendously stressful on the body, and the healing itself can be compromised by deep, chronic, unrelieved pain.

The same thing goes for the body politic. For those of us who were not there for the Great Depression, we have only family stories or history books. While our current woes are thankfully not that severe, there is plenty of pain to go around, and some of will it stay around for a while. Easing that pain is every bit as important as fixing problems. Mercy is never weakness, whatever some politicians may say.

Barbara Jordan And The National Community

Well I am going to close my speech by quoting a Republican President and I ask you that as you listen to these words of Abraham Lincoln, relate them to the concept of a national community in which every last one of us participates:

“As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.” This — This — “This expresses my idea of Democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no Democracy.”

In preparation for the Democratic National Convention—in preparation for being an American—everyone must hear and read Congresswoman Barbara Jordan’s keynote address to the Democratic National Convention in 1976, “Who Then Will Speak for the Common Good?”

Even if Barbara Jordan (1936-1996) had not been an extraordinary woman with an extraordinary story, this speech would deserve regular listening and reading, and all the accolades it has received.

Her story is that of a girl raised in segregated Houston. A gifted student, she attended Texas Southern University instead of the University of Texas, which at the time was still segregated.  She was a national champion college debater, and went on to Boston University School of Law.

In 1966, she became the first African American woman elected to the Texas Senate. Then in 1972 she became the first African American woman from a southern state to serve in the House of Representatives. Her skill at pragmatic political compromise was matched by unyielding commitment to the Constitution and to the ideals of America.

(A movie about her life is in development, based on the biography Barbara Jordan: American Hero, starring Academy Award-nominee Viola Davis.)

Barbara Jordan was one of the great American orators of the 20th century. When Professors Stephen E. Lucas and Martin J. Medhurst asked 137 leading scholars to recommend speeches on the basis of social and political impact, Barbara Jordan’s keynote address  was near the top at number 5. In fact, of the top 13 American political speeches of the century, two were made by her. The only other speaker to appear that high on the list twice  is FDR:

1. Martin Luther King, Jr.      “I Have A Dream”
2, John Fitzgerald Kennedy    Inaugural Address
3. Franklin Delano Roosevelt    First Inaugural Address
4. Franklin Delano Roosevelt    Pearl Harbor Address to the Nation
5. Barbara Charline Jordan    1976 DNC Keynote Address
6. Richard Milhous Nixon    “Checkers”
7. Malcolm X    “The Ballot or the Bullet”
8. Ronald Wilson Reagan     Shuttle ”Challenger” Disaster Address
9. John Fitzgerald Kennedy    Houston Ministerial Association Speech
10. Lyndon Baines Johnson    “We Shall Overcome”
11. Mario Matthew Cuomo    1984 DNC Keynote Address
12. Jesse Louis Jackson    1984 DNC Address
13. Barbara Charline Jordan    Statement on the Articles of Impeachment

Her number 13 speech on the Articles of Impeachment against Richard Nixon came in 1974, two years after she took her seat in the House, two years before the keynote address. It is nearly the equal and a fitting companion to that later speech. In the wake of the Watergate revelations, as the impeachment of Richard Nixon moved forward, both Democrats and Republicans stood up to uphold the Constitution against this attempted subversion. America and the House Judiciary Committee had the good fortune to have at its service a very new Congresswoman from Texas:

Today I am an inquisitor. I believe hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that I feel right now. My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total. I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution….

James Madison again at the Constitutional Convention: “A president is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution.”

The Constitution charges the president with the task of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, and yet the president has counseled his aides to commit perjury, willfully disregarded the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, concealed surreptitious entry, attempted to compromise a federal judge while publicly displaying his cooperation with the processes of criminal justice.

“A president is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution.”

If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that eighteenth century Constitution should be abandoned to a twentieth-century paper shredder. Has the president committed offenses and planned and directed and acquiesced in a course of conduct which the Constitution will not tolerate? That is the question. We know that. We know the question. We should now forthwith proceed to answer the question. It is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision.”

America was at a crossroads in 1976, which by coincidence was the bicentennial year of our birth as a nation. Democracy had been threatened at the highest level from within, and democracy had prevailed. But democracy, we should have known, is always under threat, and when it is, the question is not only how to uphold it but what exactly we mean by democracy, that is, what exactly is it that we are defending?

In 1976, as the keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention, Barbara Jordan spoke as eloquently as anyone has about our “national community.” She stood in front of an audience at Madison Square Garden in New York and explained the promise and challenge of the American Constitution and democracy in a way that has not been equaled since:

It was one hundred and forty-four years ago that members of the Democratic Party first met in convention to select a Presidential candidate. Since that time, Democrats have continued to convene once every four years and draft a party platform and nominate a Presidential candidate. And our meeting this week is a continuation of that tradition. But there is something different about tonight. There is something special about tonight. What is different? What is special?

I, Barbara Jordan, am a keynote speaker.

When — A lot of years passed since 1832, and during that time it would have been most unusual for any national political party to ask a Barbara Jordan to deliver a keynote address. But tonight, here I am. And I feel — I feel that notwithstanding the past that my presence here is one additional bit of evidence that the American Dream need not forever be deferred.

Now — Now that I have this grand distinction, what in the world am I supposed to say? I could easily spend this time praising the accomplishments of this party and attacking the Republicans — but I don’t choose to do that. I could list the many problems which Americans have. I could list the problems which cause people to feel cynical, angry, frustrated: problems which include lack of integrity in government; the feeling that the individual no longer counts; the reality of material and spiritual poverty; the feeling that the grand American experiment is failing or has failed. I could recite these problems, and then I could sit down and offer no solutions. But I don’t choose to do that either. The citizens of America expect more. They deserve and they want more than a recital of problems.

We are a people in a quandary about the present. We are a people in search of our future. We are a people in search of a national community. We are a people trying not only to solve the problems of the present, unemployment, inflation, but we are attempting on a larger scale to fulfill the promise of America. We are attempting to fulfill our national purpose, to create and sustain a society in which all of us are equal.

Throughout — Throughout our history, when people have looked for new ways to solve their problems and to uphold the principles of this nation, many times they have turned to political parties. They have often turned to the Democratic Party. What is it? What is it about the Democratic Party that makes it the instrument the people use when they search for ways to shape their future? Well I believe the answer to that question lies in our concept of governing. Our concept of governing is derived from our view of people. It is a concept deeply rooted in a set of beliefs firmly etched in the national conscience of all of us.

Now what are these beliefs? First, we believe in equality for all and privileges for none. This is a belief — This is a belief that each American, regardless of background, has equal standing in the public forum — all of us. Because — Because we believe this idea so firmly, we are an inclusive rather than an exclusive party. Let everybody come.

I think it no accident that most of those immigrating to America in the 19th century identified with the Democratic Party. We are a heterogeneous party made up of Americans of diverse backgrounds. We believe that the people are the source of all governmental power; that the authority of the people is to be extended, not restricted.

This — This can be accomplished only by providing each citizen with every opportunity to participate in the management of the government. They must have that, we believe. We believe that the government which represents the authority of all the people, not just one interest group, but all the people, has an obligation to actively — underscore actively — seek to remove those obstacles which would block individual achievement — obstacles emanating from race, sex, economic condition. The government must remove them, seek to remove them. We.

We are a party — We are a party of innovation. We do not reject our traditions, but we are willing to adapt to changing circumstances, when change we must. We are willing to suffer the discomfort of change in order to achieve a better future. We have a positive vision of the future founded on the belief that the gap between the promise and reality of America can one day be finally closed. We believe that.

This, my friends is the bedrock of our concept of governing. This is a part of the reason why Americans have turned to the Democratic Party. These are the foundations upon which a national community can be built. Let all understand that these guiding principles cannot be discarded for short-term political gains. They represent what this country is all about. They are indigenous to the American idea. And these are principles which are not negotiable.

In other times — In other times, I could stand here and give this kind of exposition on the beliefs of the Democratic Party and that would be enough. But today that is not enough. People want more. That is not sufficient reason for the majority of the people of this country to decide to vote Democratic. We have made mistakes. We realize that. We admit our mistakes. In our haste to do all things for all people, we did not foresee the full consequences of our actions. And when the people raised their voices, we didn’t hear. But our deafness was only a temporary condition, and not an irreversible condition.

Even as I stand here and admit that we have made mistakes, I still believe that as the people of America sit in judgment on each party, they will recognize that our mistakes were mistakes of the heart. They’ll recognize that.

And now — now we must look to the future. Let us heed the voice of the people and recognize their common sense. If we do not, we not only blaspheme our political heritage, we ignore the common ties that bind all Americans. Many fear the future. Many are distrustful of their leaders, and believe that their voices are never heard. Many seek only to satisfy their private work — wants; to satisfy their private interests. But this is the great danger America faces — that we will cease to be one nation and become instead a collection of interest groups: city against suburb, region against region, individual against individual; each seeking to satisfy private wants. If that happens, who then will speak for America? Who then will speak for the common good?

This is the question which must be answered in 1976: Are we to be one people bound together by common spirit, sharing in a common endeavor; or will we become a divided nation? For all of its uncertainty, we cannot flee the future. We must not become the “New Puritans” and reject our society. We must address and master the future together. It can be done if we restore the belief that we share a sense of national community, that we share a common national endeavor. It can be done.

There is no executive order; there is no law that can require the American people to form a national community. This we must do as individuals, and if we do it as individuals, there is no President of the United States who can veto that decision.

As a first step — As a first step, we must restore our belief in ourselves. We are a generous people, so why can’t we be generous with each other? We need to take to heart the words spoken by Thomas Jefferson:

Let us restore the social intercourse — “Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and that affection without which liberty and even life are but dreary things.”

A nation is formed by the willingness of each of us to share in the responsibility for upholding the common good. A government is invigorated when each one of us is willing to participate in shaping the future of this nation. In this election year, we must define the “common good” and begin again to shape a common future. Let each person do his or her part. If one citizen is unwilling to participate, all of us are going to suffer. For the American idea, though it is shared by all of us, is realized in each one of us.

And now, what are those of us who are elected public officials supposed to do? We call ourselves “public servants” but I’ll tell you this: We as public servants must set an example for the rest of the nation. It is hypocritical for the public official to admonish and exhort the people to uphold the common good if we are derelict in upholding the common good. More is required — More is required of public officials than slogans and handshakes and press releases. More is required. We must hold ourselves strictly accountable. We must provide the people with a vision of the future.

If we promise as public officials, we must deliver. If — If we as public officials propose, we must produce. If we say to the American people, “It is time for you to be sacrificial” — sacrifice. If the public official says that, we [public officials] must be the first to give. We must be. And again, if we make mistakes, we must be willing to admit them. We have to do that. What we have to do is strike a balance between the idea that government should do everything and the idea, the belief, that government ought to do nothing. Strike a balance.

Let there be no illusions about the difficulty of forming this kind of a national community. It’s tough, difficult, not easy. But a spirit of harmony will survive in America only if each of us remembers that we share a common destiny; if each of us remembers, when self-interest and bitterness seem to prevail, that we share a common destiny.

I have confidence that we can form this kind of national community.

I have confidence that the Democratic Party can lead the way.

I have that confidence.

We cannot improve on the system of government handed down to us by the founders of the Republic. There is no way to improve upon that. But what we can do is to find new ways to implement that system and realize our destiny.

Now I began this speech by commenting to you on the uniqueness of a Barbara Jordan making a keynote address. Well I am going to close my speech by quoting a Republican President and I ask you that as you listen to these words of Abraham Lincoln, relate them to the concept of a national community in which every last one of us participates:

“As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.” This — This — “This expresses my idea of Democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no Democracy.”

Thank you.

Judge Richard Posner: “I’ve Become Less Conservative Since The Republican Party Started Becoming Goofy.”


Last month, Judge Richard Posner of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago gave an interview to NPR’s Nina Totenberg.

Richard Posner is one of the most widely-respected judges and legal analysts in the country. Brilliant and forthright, he is admired by people across the political spectrum for his integrity, insight and elegant reasoning.

He has traditionally been identified as a conservative and with the Milton Friedman school of economics, but lately he has been reassessing that alignment:

“There’s been a real deterioration in conservative thinking. And that has to lead people to re-examine and modify their thinking….I’ve become less conservative since the Republican Party started becoming goofy.”

During the interview, he wondered aloud about what Chief Justice John Roberts must be thinking, having gone from conservative hero to goat because of his vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act:

“All of a sudden you find out that the people you thought were your friends have turned against you, they despise you, they mistreat you, they leak to the press. What do you do? Do you become more conservative? Or do you say, ‘What am I doing with this crowd of lunatics?’”

One of life’s more subtle and hard-to-accept lessons is this: You may think that you are known by the esteemed company you keep, but you do well to pay close attention to the esteemed company you lose.

The Body Electric: Mitt Romney and Walt Whitman


Those who love America and poetry should love Walt Whitman. So should Mitt Romney.

Just as the Civil War was a dividing line in our history, Whitman was the line in poetry and culture. His lyrical innovation and his exuberant celebration of all things human and exciting—including sex and beautiful bodies—limited appreciation by nineteenth century readers. If Whitman seemed out of place then, he is right at home now:

Of Life immense in passion, pulse, and power,
Cheerful—for freest action form’d, under the laws divine,
The Modern Man I sing.

Why should Mitt Romney care about Walt Whitman?

Whitman was more than just an expert on being himself and singing about himself. He recognized that constancy and consistency is not a part of the artist’s makeup. And so he wrote the mantra for all those who stand so accused:

Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.

Romney should also care as a student of the Presidency. The most memorable poems about an American President (and there are surprisingly few) were written by Whitman. On the death of Abraham Lincoln, he wrote not one but two famous elegies that are still read and recited today.

From O Captain My Captain:

O CAPTAIN! my Captain! our fearful trip is done;
The ship has weather’d every rack, the prize we sought is won;
The port is near, the bells I hear, the people all exulting,
While follow eyes the steady keel, the vessel grim and daring:
But O heart! heart! heart!
O the bleeding drops of red,
Where on the deck my Captain lies,
Fallen cold and dead.

From When Lilacs Last in the Door-yard Bloom’d:

WHEN lilacs last in the door-yard bloom’d,
And the great star early droop’d in the western sky in the night,
I mourn’d—and yet shall mourn with ever-returning spring.

O ever-returning spring! trinity sure to me you bring;
Lilac blooming perennial, and drooping star in the west,             5
And thought of him I love.

Finally, while Mitt Romney may have never read the poem I Sing the Body Electric, there is an extraordinary scene in the third verse. It is a pastoral picture of a tall older man—fifteen years older than Romney—standing with his five grown sons. He is deeply beloved for who he is and what he has done. It is not just the way that Mitt Romney wants to be seen; it may be the way he is seen by those who do know and love him:

I know a man, a common farmer—the father of five sons;
And in them were the fathers of sons—and in them were the fathers of sons.

This man was of wonderful vigor, calmness, beauty of person;
The shape of his head, the pale yellow and white of his hair and beard, and the immeasurable meaning of his black eyes—the richness and breadth of his manners,
These I used to go and visit him to see—he was wise also;
He was six feet tall, he was over eighty years old—his sons were massive, clean, bearded, tan-faced, handsome;
They and his daughters loved him—all who saw him loved him;
They did not love him by allowance—they loved him with personal love;
He drank water only—the blood show’d like scarlet through the clear-brown skin of his face;
He was a frequent gunner and fisher—he sail’d his boat himself—he had a fine one presented to him by a ship-joiner—he had fowling-pieces, presented to him by men that loved him;
When he went with his five sons and many grand-sons to hunt or fish, you would pick him out as the most beautiful and vigorous of the gang.

You would wish long and long to be with him—you would wish to sit by him in the boat, that you and he might touch each other.

“I Shook The Hand Of The American Dream”: Rick Santorum And The Weirdness Of The Tortured And Overextended Metaphor


This is about Rick Santorum speaking at the Republican National Convention. But it is not about politics.

It is about rhetoric, as in writing and speechifying.

Rick Santorum is a fearless stylist. Some of us love sweater vests, and were happy to see someone so openly and proudly wearing them.

But as a speaker, his RNC speech, while obviously heartfelt and clearly partisan, contained an over-the-top device that all writers and all speakers and just about any communicator needs to avoid: the tortured and overextended metaphor.

To begin with, metaphors are tricky for anybody, even the most seasoned writer. When a metaphor is off by more than a little, the term we use to describe it is “torturned.”

Beyond the tortured metaphor is the extended one. Even an apt metaphor gets its strength from its ability to surprise and hook our imagination. Like all great moments, it is here and should soon be gone. The extended metaphor milks that moment dry.

And so without further ado, this excerpt from Rick Santorum’s speech:

America is still the greatest country in the world – and with God’s help and good leadership we can restore the American Dream.

Why?

I held its hand. I shook the hand of the American Dream. And it has a strong grip.

I shook hands of farmers and ranchers who made America the bread basket of the world. Hands weathered and worn. And proud of it.

I grasped dirty hands with scars that come from years of labor in the oil and gas fields, mines and mills. Hands that power and build America and are stewards of the abundant resources that God has given us.

I gripped hands that work in restaurants and hotels, in hospitals, banks, and grocery stores. Hands that serve and care for all of us.

I clasped hands of men and women in uniform and their families. Hands that sacrifice and risk all to protect and keep us free. And hands that pray for their safe return home.

I held hands that are in want. Hands looking for the dignity of a good job, hands growing weary of not finding one but refusing to give up hope.

And finally, I cradled the little, broken hands of the disabled. Hands that struggle and bring pain, hands that ennoble us and bring great joy.

“I shook the hand of the American dream…. Hands looking for the dignity of a good job…And finally, I cradled the little, broken hands of the disabled.”

While Rick Santorum may be wrong on the issues, he has proved himself a man of conscience and conviction (maybe one of the reasons he failed to get his party’s nomination). But as a speaker, the image of those hands with eyes wide open, looking for a good job, may be one that sticks with us.

The Romneys And The Regular People


Wild speculation continues to spin about what the Romneys don’t want to reveal in their tax returns. Low tax rates? Offshore investments? Questionable tax shelters?

Following Occam’s razor, the simplest explanation is that they simply don’t want to bolster what we already know: the Romneys are not regular people. We have seen glimpses of that in the little bits of disclosure, but year after year of low-tax ultra-income would just make the point more overwhelming and concrete.

Ann Romney seems to be a good person who has been a good wife and mother. She has suffered from health problems, maybe more than her fair share. Compassion demands that we regard that suffering without criticism and with open-hearted empathy.

But her speech to the Republican National Convention was ridiculous in the literal sense. She talked about the plight of regular people as if she had long-time close relationships with lots of them and had deep, first-hand understanding of their struggles. Anything is possible, but that is far-fetched. There is nothing wrong with the Romneys’ life. People are entitled to their lives and experiences; sometimes it’s not even a matter of choice when those rarefied lives are foist on them by circumstances.

Over the years that Mitt Romney has clumsily been running for President, pundits of both parties have offered a simple solution to him and, presumably, to his wife: just be yourself, whoever that is. America hates phonies. The Republicans ought to know this, given how often they charge President Obama with that crime.

Mitt Romney is not a regular person, and has never been. Neither is Ann. Maybe you can win the Presidency as an openly stratospherically rich and out of touch person, maybe you can’t. But watching someone try so hard to hide that is not only poor politics, it is downright depressing.

Donald Trump, The Birth Certificate And The WMDs


Donald Trump continues to pump up the question of Barack Obama’s birth certificate, even on the eve of the Republican National Convention. In fact, the big “surprise” he has in store for the convention may have something to do with that (publication of the President’s “actual” birth certificate, perhaps?)

There are two sides to the question of Barack Obama’s birth: one small group that seemingly refuses to accept the reality that he was born in the United States, and one very large group—including plenty of Republicans—who can’t understand how there is a small group still denying that reality.

This is all about reality, and the way that politics deals with it.

The underlying truth about the curious stubbornness of “birther” partisans is not that they deny the President was born in Hawaii. It’s that they deny and refuse to accept that he is the President, wherever he was actually born. They will never be satisfied by any proof that Barack Obama wasn’t born outside the United States, because as a necessary political matter, he really was born outside.

We faced a similar issue nine years ago. In the prelude to the Iraq War, two possible realities fought it out, and there were large numbers of both believers and skeptics about the reality of WMDs, which was the casus belli. Some circumstantial evidence was offered for their existence, which didn’t quite satisfy a number of reasonable people. But as a political matter, WMDs had to exist, and since there was no way of definitively answering the question short of invasion, invade we did. All these years later, there is broad consensus that there were no WMDs. But that hasn’t stopped a small but durable band of believers from still insisting that they were there, because as a political matter they have to have been. For them, there will never be enough proof to the contrary.

It may not seem like it in the midst of this election season, but politics actually has some good uses. Denying reality is not one of them. Politics is supposed to serve reality, not the other way around.