A Radical Idea to Limit National Discord: Restrict Trump's Voice on Mainstream Media

The pain, the anguish, their overwhelming sense of loss, was not an act. Grief, despair, even more than a tinge of desired revenge, could be discerned from the amalgam of parents who lost children at the hands of undocumented immigrants, witnesses Donald Trump presented last Friday as counter evidence to the trauma of family disruptions he created by ordering a zero-tolerance border security policy that wound up forcibly separating children from parents. 

Trump hoped to win a contest of optics. His congregation of aggrieved parents lamenting their permanent loss of a child versus pictures and audio in Spanish of crying children wailing for their mothers. 

During the run-up to his election Trump trotted out a similar group of parents to buttress his claim that illegal migrants are dangerous. That they are murderers and rapists. That they are the worst elements of Latino society. 

Statistics, however, do not support his argument, unless you are willing to accept, as he did Friday from a parent, an unsubstantiated claim that 60,000 Americans have been killed by “those people” since the beginning of the century.

On the contrary, statistics from the FBI and other law enforcement agencies show violent crimes are committed by illegal immigrants at a rate lower than the number perpetrated by native-born American citizens. Crime in major cities such as New York, where many illegals live, is at or near record lows. In Germany, where more than a million refugees have received sanctuary, crime is down. Yet Trump disseminates falsehoods by saying crime is up in Germany, part of his dissembling strategy to inject fear into the populace. 

The demonization, the dehumanization of the Latino community is a crucial part of Trump’s governing and election strategies. He must inflate bogeymen to fan fear and resentment among white Americans. It seems to be working. His approval rating among rank and file Republicans is at 90% (https://nyti.ms/2MS7Edj). I’d venture to say it is even higher among Republican politicians. 

Trump’s lies become ever more outrageous. As do those from the pols who would follow his footsteps. Technology is making their obfuscations easier and more infernal as Timothy Egan displayed in The New York Times (https://nyti.ms/2MQtCNM).

It is futile to try to match outrage with Trump. Sadly, his “true believers” cannot be swayed to abandon falsehoods for truth. Their allegiance, strangely enough, is reinforced by evidence of Trump’s lies (https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-trumps-washington/trumps-cynical-immigration-strategy-might-work-for-himagain). 

So scrubbing their brains won’t work. What should be done? Sadly, again, it must be said that effort should not be wasted on the “lost.” Triage provides the example. Put effort behind those who may be educated and informed by facts and decency. 

In Trump-world the news cycle races from outrage to unbelievable seemingly in nano seconds, nano tweets. The media, at least the media that cares about our democracy, must not let his transgressions be forgotten or supplanted by trivial pursuit of a nonsensical tweet or action. They need to stay focused on what really matters. 

The story of the day, of the last week, is Trump’s treatment of children at the border, not his wife’s jacket or his press secretary’s ouster from a restaurant. As Michelle Goldberg opined in The Times, “We have a crisis of democracy, not manners” (https://nyti.ms/2MZPUx1). Politico’s Marc Caputo and Daniel Lippman provided added perspective: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/25/liberals-attack-bondi-sanders-trump-667934.

Trump repeats, retweets, lies until they are accepted as truth by his followers. In this dastardly endeavor Fox News is complicit. Not only does it broadcast misinformation and untruths that Trump regurgitates as fact but it also chides other media outlets for failing to preempt their regular programs to air Trump campaign rally speeches (https://apnews.com/7ea133bf32394cd6aaa1b0a6040a436d).

Responsible, fact-based media must repeat and repeat his faults. They cannot allow him to gain legitimacy beyond his delusional core. 

This is a war of optics. We know on whose side Fox News is. We know MSNBC and CNN are against him. CBS, NBC, and ABC must choose dedication to truth over a warped interpretation of balanced reporting that gives equal weight to Trump’s lies. Our democracy is at stake. 

It is a radical stance from a (retired) journalist but we are navigating choppy, unchartered political waters. Evidence of national discombobulation is everywhere, at restaurants movie theaters and public gatherings. Comity has evaporated. Moreover, at this time of national agitation we cannot expect any soothing thoughts or gestures from the provocateur-in-chief.  

Democrats are divided as to the most proper way to respond. Do they follow Michelle Obama’s encouragement to “go high” when Trump and his acolytes “go low,” or do they listen to Congresswoman Maxine Waters’ call for in their face confrontation whenever and wherever Trumpsters appear in public.

My take is trading insults and belligerence would not be effective. It wouldn’t change any of Trump’s committed voters and could turn undecideds and independents into abstainers in the upcoming midterm elections and in 2020 as they would not distinguish any difference between the parties. 

A more effective countermeasure requires the cooperation of the mainstream media. Fox News has all but changed its name to Trump News. Trump and Fox News have become a circle of reactionary misinformation, demagoguery and bigotry. 

But is it ethical for the mainstream media to limit, even censor, Trump? Here’s part of Bryan W. Van Norden’s reasoning (Van Norden is a professor of philosophy at Wuhan University, Yale-NUS College and Vassar College):

“Donald Trump, first as candidate and now as president, is such a significant news story that responsible journalists must report on him. But this does not mean that he should be allowed to set the terms of the debate. Research shows that repeatedly hearing assertions increases the likelihood of belief—even when the assertions are explicitly identified as false. Consequently, when journalists repeat Trump’s repeated lies, they are actually increasing the probability that people will believe them” (https://nyti.ms/2lyyr2c).

Trump will always have Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and extreme right wing news outlets to spout his venom. There is no need to inflict the populace at large with his mean-spirited, egotistical, abusive monologues. The mainstream media should concentrate on exposing the consequences of his actions on our citizenry, those who long to become part of the American fabric, and the rest of the world that depends for leadership on a stable, liberal, democratic United States. 

Hillary's Nomination Inspires Awe, Trump's Pronouncements Inspire Fear

Unfolding on the television screen Tuesday night—jubilation, repressed for almost a century. A major political party had just nominated a woman as its presidential candidate for the very first time, four years shy of a century since women were granted the right to vote.

Anyone with a sense of watching history in the making, regardless of their belief in Hillary Rodham Clinton, could not help but be moved. More than one lump had difficulty finding its way down my esophagus. I turned to Gilda, sitting beside me. Her face was contorted in tears.

Politics took second place to history, just as it did eight years earlier when Barack Hussein Obama captured the Democratic Party nomination by acclimation, thanks to a magnanimous gesture by his then rival, Hillary. Now it was her primary competitor, Bernie Sanders, who moved that party rules be set aside and all ballots be reflected to show support for Hillary as the party’s nominee. 

It was a moment to savor, another milestone on our nation’s sometimes halting march to total equality.

Earlier in the week Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton separately addressed a Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Charlotte, NC, to different reviews. Trump was reported to have received a warmer reception, but I wonder how anyone who has served in our military could applaud a candidate who insulted a war hero (Senator John McCain) during the primary season by saying he prefers heroes who do not get captured and who has given Russia indications that he would not quickly and decisively respond through NATO to any infringements on the sovereignty of our allies, and that he would consider recognizing Russia’s annexation of the Crimean peninsula inside Ukraine and lifting the sanctions imposed on Russia because of its actions. Plus, Wednesday he invited Russia to hack Clinton’s email server to “find the 30,000 emails that are missing.” 

Trump has been savaged by Democrats, naturally, and Republicans for suggesting that a foreign power inject itself into our election process by cyber-attacking an American citizen, presidential candidate and former secretary of state. If Trump doesn’t believe the missing emails were all personal but contained government data, he has effectively asked Russia to seek out and peer into classified U.S. documents. 

Some of his backers defend his comment by saying they were made in jest, but as the saying goes, “many a truth was said in jest.” In Trump’s case, many a truth about his true feelings have been said extemporaneously.  

Now that he’s the Republican nominee, many of his comments are scripted, vetted by staff so they are politically correct. But when Trump says it’s time to chuck political correctness, his true colors come out. His opinions on immigrants, Muslims, our prisoners of war, our allies, the use of torture, his admiration for dictators, reveal his inner thoughts, ideas that are counter to many of our nation’s cherished ideals.

Trump says we need new plans but he gives few details, arguing he doesn’t want to tip his hand. But why should the public trust Trump when he has filed several bankruptcies that have enriched him while financially hurting creditors, suppliers and their employees? It makes no sense to trust he will do what’s right for America. His history shows he does what’s right for Trump.

Pillow Talk: Let’s talk spouses—It’s no secret that the closest confidantes of presidents have been their spouses, from Abigail Adams to Edith Wilson to Eleanor Roosevelt to Nancy Reagan to Barbara Bush to Hillary Clinton to Laura Bush to Michelle Obama. 

The choice of the next first spouse to whom the next president will seek counsel is between a former model-loving mother-businesswoman and a former president of the United States. 

Hands down, I know which person the country needs at the next president’s side.

Tales Worth Retelling

In an interview with People magazine, the nation’s First Couple related their personal experiences with racism. 

“There’s no black male my age, who’s a professional, who hasn’t come out of a restaurant and is waiting for their car and somebody didn’t hand them their car keys,” President Barack Obama told People. The magazine reported he said “it had happened to him.”

A car key handoff of a different kind happened to one of my magazine’s salesmen, Mike B., in Detroit more than 30 years ago. Arriving late for an appointment in downtown Detroit, Mike hastily handed his rental car keys to a garage attendant. Only the person wasn’t a garage attendant, a fact Mike discovered when he returned to the garage. 

It took the police less than an hour to locate the now stripped-to-the-bones stolen rental car. Aside from his dignity, that’s not all Mike lost that day. Seems Mike had a quirky habit of stashing his wallet under his car seat, no doubt a bonanza the car thief and his cohorts had not anticipated finding. 

The People article also included Michelle Obama’s story of shopping in Target while first lady. “The only person who came up to me in the store was a woman who asked me to help her take something off a shelf. Because she didn’t see me as the first lady, she saw me as someone who could help her.”

Mrs. Obama sees that as an example of racism, an illustration of a (presumably white) woman assuming a black woman is an employee and asking her for help. Perhaps. But I’m more inclined to believe the customer looked to her as a taller,  bigger woman who could more easily reach the product she wanted to buy. While shopping in a supermarket or discount store I am often asked by women to reach merchandise on higher shelves. And since I’m generally dressed neatly, they many times presume I’m a store manager. I’m also wondering if Michelle was wearing a red polo short that day, the standard apparel worn by Target associates. 

On the other hand, I agree with Mrs. Obama’s other examples of racism encountered by her husband. “He was wearing a tuxedo at a black-tie dinner, and somebody asked him to get coffee,” she recounted, while noting that before becoming president “Barack Obama was a black man that lived on the South Side of Chicago, who had his share of troubles catching cabs.” 

The status of race relations in America is at its lowest level in 17 years, according to a study released last week by CBS News and The New York Times. In 2009, 66% of those polled thought race relations were “good.” This year that percentage has dropped to 45%, a 31.8% decline. As could be expected in light of the Eric Garner and Michael Brown killings, as well as other incidents around the country where whites—police officers and civilians—shot unarmed Afro-Americans, the black community is more inclined to believe its members have been targeted for less than equal treatment.

Hard to blame them, but I wonder if the Barack Obama factor isn’t at play here. Instead of signaling a new era of racial acceptance, his election and re-election as president have fostered latent bias and overt racism. There just are too many people—white people—who cannot accept that the leader of the Free World is black. 

They see members of Congress publicly dis the president. They watch Fox News commentators throughout the day disrespect him. Both groups are not attacking his policies, for in truth he has done what his Republican predecessors have (including a surprise opening of a new era of relations with a devoutly Communist country). They are attacking his person. It’s thus a small leap of conscience for the individual bigot to gratify and carry out his or her own prejudices, even if it results in bodily harm to an Afro-American. 

Mind you, I am not exonerating blacks from contributing to the lower level of good race relations. I’d like to see more bootstrapping in their community. I want them to project more family values, better maintain neighborhoods, embrace education not as a stepping stone to a professional athletic career but for its ability to contribute to a more meaningful and rewarding life. They have allowed a culture of drugs and violence to dominate too many of their surroundings. 

Yes, Afro-Americans have historical, and let’s not forget physical, hurdles not experienced by other minorities. But the success of Obama and corporate leaders such as Richard Parsons and Kenneth Chenault should provide inspiration beyond recording studios, ball fields and arenas. 

A Woman's Place (Is Up to a Man)

Ann Romney Blinked: Post-conventions, there was lots of talk about which candidate’s wife conjured up a more touching, if not so truthful, remembrance of the tough financial times she and her husband had starting out their lives together. 

Ann Romney pictured their struggle in a basement Boston apartment, eating tuna casseroles and pasta off an ironing board doing its best impression of a dining room table, while Mitt studied for his Harvard law and business degrees at a desk made from an old door propped up on two sawhorses. 

Not to be outdone, Michelle Obama related how she could see the pavement whizzing by from the holes in the floorboards of Barack’s car; his best pair of shoes were a size too small. 

Oh, how far the seemingly destitute have come!

I’m not sure if the First Lady has retracted any of her depiction, but Ann Romney fessed up to David Gregory on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, “We have not had a financial struggle in our lives, but I want people to believe in their hearts that we know what it is to struggle.” 

For sure they did, as Ann began suffering from multiple sclerosis in 1998. Good thing her husband can afford quality health insurance, or to pay for her treatment out of pocket in case a new insurance company would deny her coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Unless, of course, she’d choose to be covered under provisions of Obamacare that requires insurance companies to extend coverage even for pre-conditions. 

For the record, I was less than impressed by David Gregory’s big moment with Mitt. I watched Meet the Press after returning home from my weekly softball game. Gregory’s questions were softer than the pitches I hurled. What a wasted opportunity to pin Romney down to specifics. He tried once or twice, but for the most part he failed to ask probing questions. 

It also was interesting to hear Romney talk about the country’s Judeo-Christian heritage, considering many Christian sects don’t consider Mormons to be part of their faith. 

A Woman’s Place: Recent articles and events struck me as indicators the world is far from accepting women as equals with men. First there was the controversy in Missouri generated by Rep. Todd Akin on the issue of “legitimate rape” and the ability of a woman’s body to fend off uninvited sperm. That an elected congressman in this day and age could harbor such nonsense is beyond the pale. He’s a deeply religious man. I wonder how much his ignorance is engendered by his religious teachings.

Which brings us to the first article, (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/world/middleeast/05iht-letter05.html?_r=1&bl), a depiction of a woman’s place according to the new rulers of Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood. In case you haven’t yet clicked on the link, here’s how the writer, Mona El-Naggar, started her article, “Women are erratic and emotional, and they make good wives and mothers — but never leaders or rulers. That, at least, is what Osama Abou Salama, a professor of botany at Cairo University and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, told young men and women during a recent premarital counseling class.”

The Muslim Brotherhood apparently does not believe such women as Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, Benazir Bhutto, or Golda Meir were good leaders or rulers. It doesn’t look promising for the women of Egypt, many of whom protested last year in Tahir Square in the hope they would achieve equal status from a post-Mubarak government.

It doesn’t look too rosy to the northeast of Egypt, either. Israel made the desert bloom, but it cannot cultivate tolerance among its religious zealots. Even with their lives at stake, Haredim, the ultra Orthodox, adhere to dictates that endanger the Jewish state. A long-time deferment from compulsory military service has been lifted, so Haredim are now being drafted. The Israeli military has long been an assimilator and equalizer, but the Haredim are offering stiff resistance to modernity, as can be seen in last Sunday’s Review submission in the NY Times by Shani Boianjiu, “What Happens When the Two Israel’s Meet” (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/opinion/sunday/what-happens-when-the-two-israels-meet.html?partner=rss&emc=rss). 

No, the world does not look very egalitarian these days. 

Sanitizing Santorum

I'm getting tired of always hearing about Rick Santorum’s humble background, that his grandfather was a coal miner, so he can easily identify with working class voters.

Why is it never brought out that his father was a clinical psychologist and his mother a nurse? (Both worked for Veterans Administration hospitals.) D’ya think it's because coming from educated, decently well-off parents might shatter Rick’s working stiff image?

Pundits were quick to point out Santorum has three higher education degrees and his older children attend college, even as he mocked President Obama for advocating post-high school education or training for everyone. But I’ve yet to hear anyone talk about his parents.

Santorum’s choice to ignore for the most part his parents’ background in favor of his grandfather’s is just the latest Republican camouflage of not so presidential behavior. Ron Paul disavowed bigoted newsletters that went out under his name for years. Newt Gingrich twice cheated on wives, even as he now professes to be religious and a faithful defender of marriage.

Santorum and his wife of 21 years, Karen Garver, are hyped as a model couple, with seven living children, all home schooled. But imagine, if you will, what Republicans would say about Michelle Obama if she had had an affair with a doctor 40 years her senior. And not just any doctor. This physician not only was the obstetrician who delivered Karen as a baby but also, during their six year relationship, was an abortion provider. GOP leaders and pundits would be excoriating Michelle if this had been her. But nary a word is said about Karen Garver’s years-long flirtation with Dr. Tom Allen of Pittsburgh.

Aside from policy, politics is an industry built on image. Newt may truly have loved each wife during her time with him, but his callousness in tossing them aside underscored his political treachery when he was a leader of the House Republicans. He gave his word to support a tax increase compromise under George Bush 1, then reneged on the deal when it came up for a vote. Ron Paul can’t say he was unaware of the newsletters, that they went out just once. His failure to stop their continued distribution spotlights his latent, true feelings. Santorum, and his wife, can claim to be straight-arrow Catholics. But let’s not be ready to superimpose their values on the rest of society.

My Wife's Better Than Yours

Did it surprise you that all of the remaining Republican presidential hopefuls think their current wives would make suitable first ladies? (I say “current” in deference to Newt Gingrich’s prior two wives, the second of which he left because he reportedly did not feel she was fit enough to hang around with him in the White House, the way he feels about current squeeze Callista.)

During last night’s 19th GOP presidential primary debate, the candidates were asked why their wives would make great first ladies. I turned off the television right before they answered, reasoning it would be fluff. But when I viewed it this morning (here’s a link: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/26/gop-candidates-gush-about-their-wives-gingrich-points-out-callista-is-artistic/), I realized there was more insight into the candidates from their responses than from almost anything else they said last night or in prior confrontations.

Ron Paul had the least to say about his wife of 54 years, with another anniversary coming up February 1. Carol has been a mother to their five children and grandmother to 18. Paul’s “aw, shucks” attitude reflected his homespun values. He plugged the Ron Paul Cookbook she authored.

Mitt Romney’s condescension of the common man came through immediately. After Paul took just 19 seconds to praise his wife, Romney started his 87-second dissertation by saying he would take a little more time and be more serious. To his credit (?), he quickly realized his gaffe and apologized to Paul for dissing his response. Ann Romney, he said, is a real champion and fighter, having survived multiple sclerosis and breast cancer. Unspoken, but clearly obvious to anyone who has followed Gingrich’s marital history, is Romney’s allegiance to his wife of 42 years, while Gingrich walked out on his first two wives during their periods of illness (cancer and multiple sclerosis). Romney also used his wife’s beliefs to encourage marriage before babies.

Newt Gingrich came off as the Uriah Heep of presidential prospects, pandering to one and all. Earlier in the debate Romney accused him of shifting his message and promising multi-million programs based on the states he was visiting. Now, answering CNN’s Wolf Blitzer’s question, Gingrich fawned over all the wives, acknowledging their credentials to be first lady (of course, he doesn’t believe their husbands would make great presidents, compared to him, that is).

For 80 seconds he gushed over Callista, his wife of 11 years, and her artistic bent, saying she would encourage the study of arts in education. How that jibes with budget-slashing efforts across the country to remove art and music programs from school curricula was not addressed. But Gingrich did manage to slip in a veiled thrust at current first lady Michelle Obama when he said his wife was “very patriotic about American exceptionalism.”

Passion has been one of the hallmarks of Rick Santorum’s candidacy. It clearly came out when talking for two minutes, two seconds about his wife of more than 20 years (by the way, CNN, would it have been too much trouble to display a still picture of Karen in her absence from the debate audience?). The Santorums have gone through a lot—one of their eight children dying two hours after birth, their youngest suffering from a genetic disorder.

Santorum speaks from the heart when he espouses family and religious values. No one can judge personal decisions made by another, but I found myself wondering about Karen Santorum’s drive and career—a neo-natal intensive care nurse for nine years who went on to earn a law degree. “And then when she got married, she gave that up, she walked away and walked into something that she felt called to do, which was to be a mom and to be a wife,” said Santorum.

I’m a little uncomfortable with anybody “called to do” something.

On another personal note, Gilda and I will celebrate 39 years of marriage tomorrow. As I’m not running for president, she has no chance of becoming the nation’s first lady. She’ll just have to continue her role as first lady (and chief executive) of our household.

Righteous Indignation

And so it was that, exactly one year to the day when the next president of the United States will be inaugurated, we are being served a full portion of righteous indignation by one Newt Gingrich.

Perhaps with an eye toward this Sunday’s NFL conference championship games, Newt tapped into an old football axiom, that the best defense is a strong offense. He verbally exploded with righteous indignation during Thursday night’s South Carolina presidential primary debate, challenging CNN’s John King for repeating charges made by his second wife that Newt wanted an open marriage.

Why is it that “family values” has only a one-way meaning for conservative Republicans? Why do they decry the supposed lack of family values among Democratic politicians, tsk-tsking affairs by Gary Hart, John Edwards, Bill Clinton, et al, but turn a blind eye when one of their own transgresses? They ignore the fact that Ronald Reagan impregnated Nancy before saying “I Do.” They forget that while Gingrich and his GOP pals in Congress Henry Hyde and Bob Livingston were lambasting Clinton and calling for his impeachment, they were conducting their own extra marital affairs, six years running, by the way, in Newt’s case.

How does Callista, wife number three of the cherubic (let’s be nice and not call him portly) former speaker of the House, a reportedly devout Catholic who sings for pay in her church’s choir, jibe her faith with being a marriage buster, with engaging in pre-marital sex, and, since she was of child-bearing age back then, of having sexual relations not for pro-creation purposes? Since she’d become first lady if Newt were elected, these are not irrelevant questions given the raking over the coals Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton suffered when their husbands ran for office and were elected. The public looks to the president’s wife as a beacon of rectitude, not as a sexual predator. How could she or any Newt administration figure counsel abstinence, or integrity, or the sanctity of marriage when the hopeful commander-in-chief couldn’t keep his saber sheathed in front of another woman?

Gingrich’s response is that his past is his past. If it’s a problem for people, so be it, but he’s moved on. These personal failings, he believes, are not to be equated with policy failings by his opponents. Newt can flip-flop between beds, but Mitt Romney is not allowed to change his position from abortion rights to right-to-life.

Perhaps the best summation of Gingrich’s strength as a candidate and possible leader of the free world came from John Oliver of The Daily Show. Thursday night he said Gingrich would be the best person to negotiate with China. “Chinese culture is based on shame,” said Oliver, “and Newt Gingrich has none.”