It is a sad commentary on the current state of not only American politics but also American civility that the death of a prominent U.S. Senator (and decorated veteran) is a cause for partisan fighting. Nevertheless, as the death of John McCain has illustrated, that's where we are.
In the past, flying the American flag at the White House at half-staff would have been a given, a fact worthy of no more in the news than a brief acknowledgement. Instead, under T****, it became a source of headlines over a period of several days. First, the flag was flown at half-staff for a day, along with a T**** tweet that expressed family condolences but nothing else. The next day, the flag was back to full staff, at which point a media firestorm erupted that ultimately brought veterans groups into the fray. This apparently let T**** to conclude something that would have been obvious from the beginning not only to any experienced politician but to any human being with an iota of common sense: spitting on the memory of a war hero makes other war heroes, the kind that vote regularly, deeply unhappy. Ultimately, T**** reversed course, lowered the flag again, and followed up with a tweet on McCain closer to the one he should have originally sent.
And, not to put too fine a point on it, but for the record: all of this from a man who objects to NFL players of color using the National Anthem as a background for making a point about a public issue.
I think we can say that this is the juncture at which the T**** hypocrisy has gone from epic to galactic.
When it comes to John McCain, of course, there are two, albeit interrelated sides to his story: his military service, which deserves to be exalted, and his political career, which can be said to be something of a mixed bag. To get some idea of the extend to which the latter is true, take a look at this, and then take a look at this. The latter is worth noting especially in the context of his unsuccessful 2008 presidential campaign, at which point he had moved away from the center and more toward the politically-correct extreme-right ideology that defines the modern Republican Party. Nevertheless, he still tried to conduct his campaign on the assumption that all of us are citizens of the same democracy, worthy of respect for that reason alone, and that elections were the arena for sorting out our differences on how to govern the country, not for promoting gossip and slander about each other. This moment has been circulated a great deal over the past several days, but it's worth sharing any number of times, in part because it makes my point about his conduct in 2008.
McCain received a great deal of criticism from within his own party for his defense of Barack Obama, and some of that criticism suggested that he lost that election in part because he was not tougher on Obama personally. To a degree, this line of "thinking" is meant to explain the subsequent rise of the Tea Party, the "birther" movement, and T****'s presidency.
The problem with it, however, is that it is both unfair to McCain, and unfair to reality.
John McCain didn't lose the presidency because he failed to launch a success ad hominem campaign against Obama. He didn't even lose because, to borrow a phrase, he selected a running mate with the apparent I.Q. of a dead flashlight battery (although G-d knows she didn't help). He lost because he was the candidate of a political party bereft of new ideas, and hopelessly wedded to ideas whose history carries the overwhelming stench of failure.
Until the September Wall Street crash, the polls and pundit consensus was that, in spite of public antipathy for the Iraq war, the election was McCain's to lose. I am neither a pollster or a paid media pundit, but I can tell you that, based on having followed elections (up to that point) for 40 years, I thought that the election was McCain's to lose. I saw Obama as (compared to Hillary, whom I had supported in the primaries) too liberal and too inexperienced to successfully compete against McCain. Obviously, I was wrong, and I'm delighted that this was the case. But it was the crash that gave Obama the opening he needed to get his message across to enough voters that he could win.
And the crash was the inevitable love-child of two failed policies joined at the hip: tax cuts paid for with Federal Reserve debt, and two wars paid for the same way. The history of Vietnam and the Reagan years should have taught Republicans to know better. But the Republican Party is no longer a political party because it no longer incubates ideas. It is a cult of fanatics who think that history will inevitability award their unwillingness to learn, when in fact history teaches exactly the opposite: those who cannot adapt do not survive.
John McCain did not let the Republican Party down, anymore than he let his country down in Vietnam. The GOP let McCain down. As well as his country, its supporters, and itself. This leaves we the people, we the living, to continue to do what he expected us to do in 2008: sort through our differences without losing faith in each other or in ourselves. And, above all, without weaponizing the flag that is designed to bring us together.
As for the senator, fair winds and following seas to the far horizon, and peace and grace to his family and friends.
Wednesday, August 29, 2018
Saturday, August 18, 2018
How "Never" Are The President's GOP Critics?
Since our current president began, nearly three years ago, to become a major force within the Republican Party, and subsequently became the current occupant of the White House, there has been a small cadre of commentators, party officials, and campaign consultants who have publicly identified themselves as "Never-[his last name]." Since TRH has taken the position that it will not give the current present the publicity oxygen he doesn't deserve by using his last name, we'll just refer to these people, in today's post and otherwise going forward, as "Nevers."
At any rate, if (like me) you spend a significant about of time on Twitter, you know who most of these people are. They are not, however, a uniform movement of thought, apart from their antipathy toward Trump. Some of them, for example, are people with a high degree of institutional loyalty toward the Republican Party, or toward institutional conservatism (e.g., think tanks and foundations), who feel that the current president's sordid and criminal lifestyle has tarnished the ability of those institutions to advance their traditional beliefs. They don't object to the Administration's policies as much as they object to the personal conduct of its leader and his subordinates (to say nothing of his children). A few of them are people who have issue-specific objections (e.g., immigration), and a very few are people who feel that the conservatism of American politics has veered in directions that are ultimately too extreme to be fairly called conservatism.
I follow a number of these people on Twitter, principally to maintain a sense of what's going on, intellectually and otherwise, on the other side of our ideological divide. I find myself "liking" much of it, re-tweeting some of it, occasionally responding to it (sometimes with support, sometimes with criticism). Initially, and perhaps naively, I did this in the hope that doing so would lead to a dialogue of a more expansive nature, one that might be in some small way the beginning of a larger effort to bridge that divide and perhaps move all of us toward real solutions for Americans that most, if not all of us, could support.
What was I thinking?
Much of my attempts at dialogue were with Tom Nichols, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College and a staunch Reaganite who, in spite of his political beliefs, voted for Hillary Clinton and encouraged others to do so. This led a number of Clinton supporters to attempt to engage him in a dialogue with on a broader array of issues, with varying degrees of success (mine, alas, were not particularly successful). To his credit, he objected to Mitch McConnell's political shell game with Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. But the conduct of the current Administration has not either moved him from supporting the Republican Party or a broad array of conservative principles generally.
In fact, the support he has gotten from liberal Tweeters has not even moved him more generally to a more positive view of liberals as individuals. Take a look at the following tweet from him, and you'll see what I mean. He stills seems to hew to the literal party line that liberals are just congenital squabblers, incapable of uniting with anyone outside of their "tribe" for the sake of supporting a larger goal. And, with perhaps a handful of exceptions, the tweets of other "Nevers" are not much different in this regard.
Which has led me to wonder, in response, how much the "Nevers" are truly to be trusted with respect to the sincerity of their objections to the current President.
Are those objections so strong that they are willing to give up the various fruits of the poisonous tree? Would they be willing, for example, to give up the Republican Congress' middle-of-the-night tax cuts for the haves at the expense of the have-nots? Would they join Dr. Nichols in repudiating the process that wrongly denied Garland the opportunity for a hearing on his nomination? Would they, for that matter, repudiate the handshake deal between the current president and Anthony Kennedy to replace Kennedy on the Court with one of his former clerks? Would they support the concealment of that clerk's previous records, to prevent whatever apparent political dynamite that lies therein from seeing the light of day?
Quite frankly, it is the history of the modern Republican Party--and, for that matter, the modern conservative movement--that should inspire more questions about the sincerity of the Nevers than any such questions that could be directed at liberals. Every time they want to talk about 1960 and the Chicago graveyards, we should remind them about 1968 and the sabotage of the Vietnam peace talks Or 1972 and a certain hotel break-in (and a certain subsequent cover-up). Or 1980 and the delay of the release of the Iranian hostages. Or 2000, and Florida. Or two frigging years ago, and an election that in all probability was won by Vladimir Putin.
In fact, here's a challenge to the Nevers. You want to come together with us in opposing the current president and his systemic attempts to profit from the systems he is supposed to be administering for the benefit of us all? Then let's start with the application of the so-called "Biden rule." Let's let the American people "weigh in" on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, and see what that yields. It would be one small but real way to make up for your participation in the disaster that gave us Justice Son-of-Anne-Gorsuch.
And, going on from there, let's stop President What's-His-Name from taking the dominant human rights issue of our time--the international refugee crisis and its subsequent impact on our immigration process--and pass the bipartisan 2013 immigration bill on which John Boehner sat in a doomed attempt to keep his Speakership of the House of Representatives. A bill supported by 68 Senators, enough to ratify a treaty (and when was the last time that happened?).
And one last thing, relative to the refugee crisis and its root cause: let's come together and figure out a way that all of us can agree on and support to stop the only planet we currently have to live on from burning to a crisp.
Well, there it is. A path out of our current hell, and a means by which the Nevers can demonstrate their good faith, and we can demonstrate ours.
Your move, Nevers.
At any rate, if (like me) you spend a significant about of time on Twitter, you know who most of these people are. They are not, however, a uniform movement of thought, apart from their antipathy toward Trump. Some of them, for example, are people with a high degree of institutional loyalty toward the Republican Party, or toward institutional conservatism (e.g., think tanks and foundations), who feel that the current president's sordid and criminal lifestyle has tarnished the ability of those institutions to advance their traditional beliefs. They don't object to the Administration's policies as much as they object to the personal conduct of its leader and his subordinates (to say nothing of his children). A few of them are people who have issue-specific objections (e.g., immigration), and a very few are people who feel that the conservatism of American politics has veered in directions that are ultimately too extreme to be fairly called conservatism.
I follow a number of these people on Twitter, principally to maintain a sense of what's going on, intellectually and otherwise, on the other side of our ideological divide. I find myself "liking" much of it, re-tweeting some of it, occasionally responding to it (sometimes with support, sometimes with criticism). Initially, and perhaps naively, I did this in the hope that doing so would lead to a dialogue of a more expansive nature, one that might be in some small way the beginning of a larger effort to bridge that divide and perhaps move all of us toward real solutions for Americans that most, if not all of us, could support.
What was I thinking?
Much of my attempts at dialogue were with Tom Nichols, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College and a staunch Reaganite who, in spite of his political beliefs, voted for Hillary Clinton and encouraged others to do so. This led a number of Clinton supporters to attempt to engage him in a dialogue with on a broader array of issues, with varying degrees of success (mine, alas, were not particularly successful). To his credit, he objected to Mitch McConnell's political shell game with Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. But the conduct of the current Administration has not either moved him from supporting the Republican Party or a broad array of conservative principles generally.
In fact, the support he has gotten from liberal Tweeters has not even moved him more generally to a more positive view of liberals as individuals. Take a look at the following tweet from him, and you'll see what I mean. He stills seems to hew to the literal party line that liberals are just congenital squabblers, incapable of uniting with anyone outside of their "tribe" for the sake of supporting a larger goal. And, with perhaps a handful of exceptions, the tweets of other "Nevers" are not much different in this regard.
Which has led me to wonder, in response, how much the "Nevers" are truly to be trusted with respect to the sincerity of their objections to the current President.
Are those objections so strong that they are willing to give up the various fruits of the poisonous tree? Would they be willing, for example, to give up the Republican Congress' middle-of-the-night tax cuts for the haves at the expense of the have-nots? Would they join Dr. Nichols in repudiating the process that wrongly denied Garland the opportunity for a hearing on his nomination? Would they, for that matter, repudiate the handshake deal between the current president and Anthony Kennedy to replace Kennedy on the Court with one of his former clerks? Would they support the concealment of that clerk's previous records, to prevent whatever apparent political dynamite that lies therein from seeing the light of day?
Quite frankly, it is the history of the modern Republican Party--and, for that matter, the modern conservative movement--that should inspire more questions about the sincerity of the Nevers than any such questions that could be directed at liberals. Every time they want to talk about 1960 and the Chicago graveyards, we should remind them about 1968 and the sabotage of the Vietnam peace talks Or 1972 and a certain hotel break-in (and a certain subsequent cover-up). Or 1980 and the delay of the release of the Iranian hostages. Or 2000, and Florida. Or two frigging years ago, and an election that in all probability was won by Vladimir Putin.
In fact, here's a challenge to the Nevers. You want to come together with us in opposing the current president and his systemic attempts to profit from the systems he is supposed to be administering for the benefit of us all? Then let's start with the application of the so-called "Biden rule." Let's let the American people "weigh in" on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, and see what that yields. It would be one small but real way to make up for your participation in the disaster that gave us Justice Son-of-Anne-Gorsuch.
And, going on from there, let's stop President What's-His-Name from taking the dominant human rights issue of our time--the international refugee crisis and its subsequent impact on our immigration process--and pass the bipartisan 2013 immigration bill on which John Boehner sat in a doomed attempt to keep his Speakership of the House of Representatives. A bill supported by 68 Senators, enough to ratify a treaty (and when was the last time that happened?).
And one last thing, relative to the refugee crisis and its root cause: let's come together and figure out a way that all of us can agree on and support to stop the only planet we currently have to live on from burning to a crisp.
Well, there it is. A path out of our current hell, and a means by which the Nevers can demonstrate their good faith, and we can demonstrate ours.
Your move, Nevers.
Saturday, August 11, 2018
Death Of An Empire, British-Style
Supposedly, according to Benjamin Franklin, death and taxes are the only certainties in life. Here's one more you can add to that list: empires crumble. If you've read any history, or were taught it by anyone competent, you know that history is about the rise and fall of empires that seemingly had everything they needed to exist indefinitely. That kind of security is an illusion, in part because successful empires, like successful people, become complacent. Humans have a natural tendency, even need, to gravitate internally to a sense that their lives are relatively stable. They view their successes as permanent monuments because they feel a need to be in control of their lives.
And successful empires, composed of successful people, function much the same way. Their leaders view their prosperity, their institutions and their cultures as things that will endure long after they are gone, because doing so relieves them of the need to do any further hard thinking about their futures. They can enjoy the fruits of their labors, more often than not the fruits of others' labors, secure in the fantasy that things will never change.
Except that, of course, they do. Humans change, from generation to generation, and from location to location. Which raises the need for empires to adapt to the changes. Some make a half-hearted effort to do so, while some pretend that they don't need to do so at all. The former fall apart slowly, due to the half-hearted nature of their efforts. The latter fall apart much more quickly, because they make no efforts at all.
I would argue, especially on the strength of recent events, that the British Empire is an example of the former.
In its imperial conduct, Great Britain's history is hardly a tale of unalloyed wisdom. On the one hand, at its absolute peak in the previous century, its physical, political, economic and cultural reach literally circled the entire globe, an accomplishment never seen before or equalled since. "The sun," it was said, "never sets on the Union Jack." On the other hand, its treatment of its colonial subjects was often far less civilized than its self-image would otherwise suggest. In at least some cases, that treatment led to serious reversals for the British, including the losses of colonial possessions covering all of North America and the entire Indian subcontinent.
Still, the British Empire, in one form or another, has lasted for literally centuries, and, in the process, done much to spread the enactment of democratic principles all over the world. Even in the loss of nearly all of its colonies, it has managed to preserve aspects of its culture, as well as extensive economic relationships, with many of its former global subjects. At the same time, it embarked on a new phase of its existence, as part of an economically integrated Europe. All of this demonstrates an ability to adapt that does much to explain the Empire's longevity.
But that ability may be coming, alas, to an end. And the root cause of that ending may be found in the inability of its two major political parties to adapt to a changing world.
On the one hand, the Conservative Party, like its Republican counterpart here in the U.S., is now dominated by the likes of Nigel Farage, a man who can't stand the idea of living or working next to people who don't "look or sound" like him. As a consequence, he led the successful fight to extract Britain from the European Union, which was supposed to open up a whole new world of economic opportunity for the British, freed of the alleged tyranny of European rules and regulations--and especially freed of European travel rules that increased the number of immigrants to Britain.
Only now, the whole thing doesn't look like such a good idea. Britain has effectively entered an economic world in which nothing is certain, in which it will have to fend for itself on trade issues in a world where nations now function on a much more independent basis where trade is concerned. As a result, British citizens have resorted to stockpiling food and other basic necessities. As for Farage, the man who started it all, there might be reason to think that, suddenly, when confronted with evidence that his great cause was not so great after all, he might even agree with that assessment of it.
On the other hand, you have the Labour Party, which ought to be in a position politically to exploit the failure of the Conservatives to leave Europe without consequences. Ought to be, but isn't. Labour, like its Democratic counterpart in the U.S., has a seemingly unlimited capacity for shooting itself in the foot . And, when that tendency is combined with the institutional anti-Semitism of much of the British intellectual classes, you end up with a party identified with hatred, and not with progress.
Two great political parties. Two great institutions of a historically great nation. Both now dominated and stained by the consequences of their bigotry, including the loss of the ability to adapt to a world that is changing, and will continue to change, whether either party likes it or not.
Unless one or both of them learn to change themselves, and to adapt, the sun may yet set on the Union Jack for good.
And successful empires, composed of successful people, function much the same way. Their leaders view their prosperity, their institutions and their cultures as things that will endure long after they are gone, because doing so relieves them of the need to do any further hard thinking about their futures. They can enjoy the fruits of their labors, more often than not the fruits of others' labors, secure in the fantasy that things will never change.
Except that, of course, they do. Humans change, from generation to generation, and from location to location. Which raises the need for empires to adapt to the changes. Some make a half-hearted effort to do so, while some pretend that they don't need to do so at all. The former fall apart slowly, due to the half-hearted nature of their efforts. The latter fall apart much more quickly, because they make no efforts at all.
I would argue, especially on the strength of recent events, that the British Empire is an example of the former.
In its imperial conduct, Great Britain's history is hardly a tale of unalloyed wisdom. On the one hand, at its absolute peak in the previous century, its physical, political, economic and cultural reach literally circled the entire globe, an accomplishment never seen before or equalled since. "The sun," it was said, "never sets on the Union Jack." On the other hand, its treatment of its colonial subjects was often far less civilized than its self-image would otherwise suggest. In at least some cases, that treatment led to serious reversals for the British, including the losses of colonial possessions covering all of North America and the entire Indian subcontinent.
Still, the British Empire, in one form or another, has lasted for literally centuries, and, in the process, done much to spread the enactment of democratic principles all over the world. Even in the loss of nearly all of its colonies, it has managed to preserve aspects of its culture, as well as extensive economic relationships, with many of its former global subjects. At the same time, it embarked on a new phase of its existence, as part of an economically integrated Europe. All of this demonstrates an ability to adapt that does much to explain the Empire's longevity.
But that ability may be coming, alas, to an end. And the root cause of that ending may be found in the inability of its two major political parties to adapt to a changing world.
On the one hand, the Conservative Party, like its Republican counterpart here in the U.S., is now dominated by the likes of Nigel Farage, a man who can't stand the idea of living or working next to people who don't
Only now, the whole thing doesn't look like such a good idea. Britain has effectively entered an economic world in which nothing is certain, in which it will have to fend for itself on trade issues in a world where nations now function on a much more independent basis where trade is concerned. As a result, British citizens have resorted to stockpiling food and other basic necessities. As for Farage, the man who started it all, there might be reason to think that, suddenly, when confronted with evidence that his great cause was not so great after all, he might even agree with that assessment of it.
On the other hand, you have the Labour Party, which ought to be in a position politically to exploit the failure of the Conservatives to leave Europe without consequences. Ought to be, but isn't. Labour, like its Democratic counterpart in the U.S., has a seemingly unlimited capacity for shooting itself in the foot . And, when that tendency is combined with the institutional anti-Semitism of much of the British intellectual classes, you end up with a party identified with hatred, and not with progress.
Two great political parties. Two great institutions of a historically great nation. Both now dominated and stained by the consequences of their bigotry, including the loss of the ability to adapt to a world that is changing, and will continue to change, whether either party likes it or not.
Unless one or both of them learn to change themselves, and to adapt, the sun may yet set on the Union Jack for good.
The Casualties Of Our Current President
First, and of least importance here, an announcement of a change in policy. Namely, mine. This is the last time TRH will use the name of Donald Trump in discussing the issues of the day, even as it relates to him. Henceforce, I will only refer to him here as "the current President."
Why?
For the simple reason that, past and present, he has always lived for self-promotion. That's why is name is always the most prominent feature of every building he has ever built. Of every product or service he has attempted to promote. Of just about every aspect of his public life that you--or rather, he--can name. It's all he really cares about. Not his family, his "projects," or even his Presidency. Everything with him is all about getting and seeing his name out there. And that is a process in which I will no longer participate. If promotion is truly the air that he breathes, then I am willing to do my part to suffocate his Presidency. His Presidency, mind you, and not him personally. I have no wish to turn him into a martyr. (So, any FBI agents looking at this, shoo. Nothing to see here.)
Now, on to a discussion of his casualties.
My current work as an attorney takes me back and forth between Baltimore and Washington, D.C. on a routine basis. Because of the limited nature of public transportation in Maryland, which has a lot to do with racial issues*, I'm forced to do a large portion of that by car, rather that by taking advantage of the forms of public transit that other large metropolitan areas can take for granted. I don't like having to do that, because the resulting four-hour commute daily is exhausting, even using the Washington Metro for part of it. But I do it.
It does, however, give me the opportunity to see how people drive on a regular basis. And I can tell you that how people drive has changed a lot over the past two years. It's gotten much, much worse.
Not a day goes by that I don't see an accident, and frequently more than one, along my route. Many of them appear to be little more than fender-benders, fortunately. But I can tell you that their number has increased dramatically. And sometimes, they are much more than fender-benders. Not long ago, I saw two instances of cars that had caught fire--one on my trip to D.C., and one on the way back. I have no idea if anyone was hurt in either instance, or how badly they may have been hurt. But the possibilities in that regard are as tragic as they are obvious.
Frankly, I view this increase in stressed-out driving as a consequence of living under the current President. It's difficult to know what else it can be related to successfully. Even if his policies aren't always directly affecting people, his behavior and conduct generally have left many people wondering, from day to day, whether or now the United States is truly a safe, stable place in which to live. Whether he's selling (or giving away) our domestic resources to Republican donors or foreign businesses, or helping Vladimir Putin turn the nation into a new Soviet republic, more and more people are beginning to wonder about their future. As in, whether or not they will have one.
Stressed-out driving is bad enough but, when even one life is lost, it's a tragedy with ripple effects that are not always easy to measure. Sometimes, they can even radiate around the world.
Here is one recent, especially tragic example.
Amy Meselson, an immigration attorney who devoted her life to saving refugees, and who did in fact help save many of them, committed suicide last week at the relatively young age of 46. You can read about her life and her work here. Whatever your feelings about immigrants and immigration may be, especially refugees, it cannot be doubted that she saved many lives to an extent that will have long-lasting benefits for the refugees and everyone whose paths they cross. Nor can it be doubted that her loss is a savage and tragic loss for all of us, especially for immigration attorneys and advocates such as my wife (and me, for that matter).
Ms. Meselson suffered from depression, and it will no doubt be tempting for some--especially immigation-haters--to blame her death on herself. But that is why it is important to read the entire obituary, and not become mesmerized for political reasons by that one fact. She worked for a long time on behalf of the world's most vulnerable people, accomplishing more than most people do in a longer lifetime. Consider the following paragraph:
We don't need more Laura Ingrahams; we need more Amy Meselsons. We can't afford the loss of even a single one. The loss of her life is a casualty that can and should be laid at the feet, publicly, of the current Administration and its selfish, racist pursuit of the interests of rich white men. Along with the stressed-out motorists I see every day.
And when you read a piece like this, that chronicles the current President's dereliction of duty to the people of the entire nation, whether they voted for him or not, whether they have white, black, red, yellow or brown skin, you should know that you are looking at the tragedy of an Amy Meselson or a stressed-out motorist times thousands. Give our current President enough of a chance, and it can easily become millions.
The casualties of this President are real. They mount on a daily basis. How many of them will have to mount before the current crisis ends?
Well, as always, that depends on you.
*A subject I will be discussing more extensively in future blog posts, especially as the current gubernatorial campaign here in Maryland heats up this fall.
Why?
For the simple reason that, past and present, he has always lived for self-promotion. That's why is name is always the most prominent feature of every building he has ever built. Of every product or service he has attempted to promote. Of just about every aspect of his public life that you--or rather, he--can name. It's all he really cares about. Not his family, his "projects," or even his Presidency. Everything with him is all about getting and seeing his name out there. And that is a process in which I will no longer participate. If promotion is truly the air that he breathes, then I am willing to do my part to suffocate his Presidency. His Presidency, mind you, and not him personally. I have no wish to turn him into a martyr. (So, any FBI agents looking at this, shoo. Nothing to see here.)
Now, on to a discussion of his casualties.
My current work as an attorney takes me back and forth between Baltimore and Washington, D.C. on a routine basis. Because of the limited nature of public transportation in Maryland, which has a lot to do with racial issues*, I'm forced to do a large portion of that by car, rather that by taking advantage of the forms of public transit that other large metropolitan areas can take for granted. I don't like having to do that, because the resulting four-hour commute daily is exhausting, even using the Washington Metro for part of it. But I do it.
It does, however, give me the opportunity to see how people drive on a regular basis. And I can tell you that how people drive has changed a lot over the past two years. It's gotten much, much worse.
Not a day goes by that I don't see an accident, and frequently more than one, along my route. Many of them appear to be little more than fender-benders, fortunately. But I can tell you that their number has increased dramatically. And sometimes, they are much more than fender-benders. Not long ago, I saw two instances of cars that had caught fire--one on my trip to D.C., and one on the way back. I have no idea if anyone was hurt in either instance, or how badly they may have been hurt. But the possibilities in that regard are as tragic as they are obvious.
Frankly, I view this increase in stressed-out driving as a consequence of living under the current President. It's difficult to know what else it can be related to successfully. Even if his policies aren't always directly affecting people, his behavior and conduct generally have left many people wondering, from day to day, whether or now the United States is truly a safe, stable place in which to live. Whether he's selling (or giving away) our domestic resources to Republican donors or foreign businesses, or helping Vladimir Putin turn the nation into a new Soviet republic, more and more people are beginning to wonder about their future. As in, whether or not they will have one.
Stressed-out driving is bad enough but, when even one life is lost, it's a tragedy with ripple effects that are not always easy to measure. Sometimes, they can even radiate around the world.
Here is one recent, especially tragic example.
Amy Meselson, an immigration attorney who devoted her life to saving refugees, and who did in fact help save many of them, committed suicide last week at the relatively young age of 46. You can read about her life and her work here. Whatever your feelings about immigrants and immigration may be, especially refugees, it cannot be doubted that she saved many lives to an extent that will have long-lasting benefits for the refugees and everyone whose paths they cross. Nor can it be doubted that her loss is a savage and tragic loss for all of us, especially for immigration attorneys and advocates such as my wife (and me, for that matter).
Ms. Meselson suffered from depression, and it will no doubt be tempting for some--especially immigation-haters--to blame her death on herself. But that is why it is important to read the entire obituary, and not become mesmerized for political reasons by that one fact. She worked for a long time on behalf of the world's most vulnerable people, accomplishing more than most people do in a longer lifetime. Consider the following paragraph:
Ms. Meselson had dedicated her career to defending hundreds of vulnerable immigrants from deportation and helping them navigate the gaps between the child welfare and national security bureaucracies. She recruited volunteers from corporate law firms to represent foster children in immigration cases, and she successfully lobbied for a special juvenile section in immigration court.That's not the life of a person defined by depression. But I believe that the end of her life came about at the intersection of her illness and the current "policy" on immigration in the U.S. (if one can dignify it by an increasingly abused word). And let's be clear, as Laura Ingraham made clear this past week on the Fox Network: that policy can be reduced down to the phrase "Get rid of 'em all." It's no longer just about the undocumented anymore; it's about those who, in Ms. Ingraham's words, make our country no longer "look" like it used to.
We don't need more Laura Ingrahams; we need more Amy Meselsons. We can't afford the loss of even a single one. The loss of her life is a casualty that can and should be laid at the feet, publicly, of the current Administration and its selfish, racist pursuit of the interests of rich white men. Along with the stressed-out motorists I see every day.
And when you read a piece like this, that chronicles the current President's dereliction of duty to the people of the entire nation, whether they voted for him or not, whether they have white, black, red, yellow or brown skin, you should know that you are looking at the tragedy of an Amy Meselson or a stressed-out motorist times thousands. Give our current President enough of a chance, and it can easily become millions.
The casualties of this President are real. They mount on a daily basis. How many of them will have to mount before the current crisis ends?
Well, as always, that depends on you.
*A subject I will be discussing more extensively in future blog posts, especially as the current gubernatorial campaign here in Maryland heats up this fall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)