H. L. Mencken on William Jennings Bryan

I've always enjoyed H.L. Mencken, having first encountered him as a sharp critic of the "New South" and America's rising middle class, which he called the "Booboisie." Today we rarely encounter writing of this quality in our newspapers. Moreover, the demagogues of talk radio and television could learn a thing or two from Mencken.

I just encountered Mencken's obituary of William Jennings Bryan, who died shortly after participating in the famous "Scopes Monkey Trial" in Dayton, Tennessee. For me, much of Mencken's judgment could be applied to some of the more conservative, evangelical Christian leaders in this country who peddle hatred and anti-intellectualism like desperate salesmen. Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell come to mind. (The photograph shows Clarence Darrow, left, and William Jennings Bryan, right, in Dayton during the trial.)


The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 27, 1925

William Jennings Bryan

It was plain to everyone, when Bryan came to Dayton, that his great days were behind him -- that he was now definitely an old man, and headed at last for silence. There was a vague, unpleasant manginess about his appearance; he somehow seemed dirty, though a close glance showed him carefully shaved, and clad in immaculate linen. All the hair was gone from the dome of his head, and it had begun to fall out, too, behind his ears, like that of the late Samuel Gompers. The old resonance had departed from his voice: what was once a bugle blast had become reedy and quavering. Who knows that, like Demosthenes, he had a lisp? In his prime, under the magic of his eloquence, no one noticed it. But when he spoke at Dayton it was always audible.


When I first encountered him, on the sidewalk in front of the Hicks brothers law office, the trial was yet to begin, and so he was still expansive and amiable. I had printed in the Nation, a week or so before, an article arguing that the anti-evolution law, whatever its unwisdom, was at least constitutional -- that policing school teachers was certainly not putting down free speech. The old boy professed to be delighted with the argument, and gave the gaping bystanders to understand that I was a talented publicist. In turn I admired the curious shirt he wore -- sleeveless and with the neck cut very low. We parted in the manner of two Spanish ambassadors.

But that was the last touch of affability that I was destined to see in Bryan. The next day the battle joined and his face became hard. By the end of the first week he was simply a walking malignancy. Hour by hour he grew more bitter. What the Christian Scientists call malicious animal magnetism seemed to radiate from him like heat from a stove. From my place in the court-room, standing upon a table, I looked directly down upon him, sweating horribly and pumping his palm-leaf fan. His eyes fascinated me: I watched them all day long. They were blazing points of hatred. They glittered like occult and sinister gems. Now and then they wandered to me, and I got my share. It was like coming under fire.


II

What was behind that consuming hatred? At first I thought that it was mere evangelical passion. Evangelical Christianity, as everyone knows, is founded upon hate, as the Christianity of Christ was founded upon love. But even evangelical Christians occasionally loose their belts and belch amicably; I have known some who, off duty, were very benignant. In that very courtroom, indeed, were some of them -- for example, old Ben McKenzie, Nestor of the Dayton bar, who sat beside Bryan. Ben was full of good humor. He made jokes with Darrow. But Bryan only glared.

One day it dawned on me that Bryan, after all, was an evangelical Christian only by sort of afterthought -- that his career in this world, and the glories thereof, had actually come to an end before he ever began whooping for Genesis. So I came to this conclusion: that what really moved him was a lust for revenge. The men of the cities had destroyed him and made a mock of him; now he would lead the yokels against them. Various facts clicked into the theory, and I hold it still. The hatred in the old man's burning eyes was not for the enemies of God; it was for the enemies of Bryan.

Thus he fought his last fight, eager only for blood. It quickly became frenzied and preposterous, and after that pathetic. All sense departed from him. He bit right and left, like a dog with rabies. He descended to demagogy so dreadful that his very associates blushed. His one yearning was to keep his yokels heated up -- to lead his forlorn mob against the foe. That foe, alas, refused to be alarmed. It insisted upon seeing the battle as a comedy. Even Darrow, who knew better, occasionally yielded to the prevailing spirit. Finally, he lured poor Bryan into a folly almost incredible.

I allude to his astounding argument against the notion that man is a mammal. I am glad I heard it, for otherwise I'd never believe it. There stood the man who had been thrice a candidate for the Presidency of the Republic -- and once, I believe, elected -- there he stood in the glare of the world, uttering stuff that a boy of eight would laugh at! The artful Darrow led him on: he repeated it, ranted for it, bellowed it in his cracked voice. A tragedy, indeed! He came into life a hero, a Galahad, in bright and shining armor. Now he was passing out a pathetic fool.


III

Worse, I believe that he somehow sensed the fact -- that he realized his personal failure, whatever the success of the grotesque cause he spoke for. I had left Dayton before Darrow's cross-examination brought him to his final absurdity, but I heard his long speech against the admission of expert testimony, and I saw how it fell flat and how Bryan himself was conscious of the fact. When he sat down he was done for, and he knew it. The old magic had failed to work; there was applause but there was no exultant shouts. When, half an hour later, Dudley Field Malone delivered his terrific philippic, the very yokels gave him five times the clapper-clawing that they had given to Bryan.

This combat was the old leader's last, and it symbolized in more than one way his passing. Two women sat through it, the one old and crippled, the other young and in the full flush of beauty. The first was Mrs. Bryan; the second was Mrs. Malone. When Malone finished his speech the crowd stormed his wife with felicitations, and she glowed as only a woman can who has seen her man fight a hard fight and win gloriously. But no one congratulated Mrs. Bryan. She sat hunched in her chair near the judge, apparently very uneasy. I thought then that she was ill -- she has been making the round of sanitariums for years, and was lately in the hands of a faith-healer -- but now I think that some appalling prescience was upon her, and that she saw in Bryan's eyes a hint of the collapse that was so near.

He sank into his seat a wreck, and was presently forgotten in the blast of Malone's titanic rhetoric. His speech had been maundering feeble and often downright idiotic. Presumably, he was speaking to a point of law, but it was quickly apparent that he knew no more law than the bailiff at the door. So he launched into mere violet garrulity. He dragged in snatches of ancient chautauqua addresses; he wandered up hill and down dale. Finally, Darrow lured him into that fabulous imbecility about man as a mammal. He sat down one of the most tragic asses in American history.


IV

It is the national custom to sentimentalize the dead, as it is to sentimentalize men about to be hanged. Perhaps I fall into that weakness here. The Bryan I shall remember is the Bryan of his last weeks on earth -- broken, furious, and infinitely pathetic. It was impossible to meet his hatred with hatred to match it. He was winning a battle that would make him forever infamous wherever enlightened men remembered it and him. Even his old enemy, Darrow, was gentle with him at the end. That cross-examination might have been ten times as devastating. It was plain to everyone that the old Berserker Bryan was gone -- that all that remained of him was a pair of glaring and horrible eyes.

But what of his life? Did he accomplish any useful thing? Was he, in his day, of any dignity as a man, and of any value to his fellow-men? I doubt it. Bryan, at his best, was simply a magnificent job-seeker. The issues that he bawled about usually meant nothing to him. He was ready to abandon them whenever he could make votes by doing so, and to take up new ones at a moment's notice. For years he evaded Prohibition as dangerous; then he embraced it as profitable. At the Democratic National Convention last year he was on both sides, and distrusted by both. In his last great battle there was only a baleful and ridiculous malignancy. If he was pathetic, he was also disgusting.

Bryan was a vulgar and common man, a cad undiluted. He was ignorant, bigoted, self-seeking, blatant and dishonest. His career brought him into contact with the first men of his time; he preferred the company of rustic ignoramuses. It was hard to believe, watching him at Dayton, that he had traveled, that he had been received in civilized societies, that he had been a high officer of state. He seemed only a poor clod like those around him, deluded by a childish theology, full of an almost pathological hatred of all learning, all human dignity, all beauty, all fine and noble things. He was a peasant come home to the dung-pile. Imagine a gentleman, and you have imagined everything that he was not.

The job before democracy is to get rid of such canaille. If it fails, they will devour it.

The Future of the Republican Party?

I saw this posted in Chelsea and couldn't resist sharing. Can you believe there are still people out there who honestly believe she is the future of the Republican party? If she's the future, we can just assume that the Republicans will be even more ill-informed and ignorant than they are now. As Bill Maher observed on Jay Leno last night, referring to Palin's failure to know that Africa is a continent: "That's some mighty powerful stupid."

The Election

Obviously I haven't had a chance to use this forum to reflect on the election, and even now do not have the time to respond properly. Needless to say, I'm overjoyed at the result and relieved that we won't have to put up with four years of McCain and Palin - especially Palin! Nevertheless, I'm afraid we haven't seen the last of her, given her media whoring over the last week. She's determined to remain in the national spotlight and may just get the chance in the near future.

Yes, there is plenty to celebrate in President-elect Obama's victory. It represents a signal moment in U.S. history - a moment that is already prompting reconsideration of this country's direction around the globe. Nevertheless, I'm a political realist and understand that presidents are not "saviors" in the messianic sense, able to single-handedly lead a nation to salvation or some idealized, patriotic "promised land." The latest issue of Time casts Obama in the role of FDR, potentially offering a "New New Deal." As an admirer of the Depression-era New Deal, I fervently hope that Obama will succeed in changing the governmental paradigm of the last eight years. The country needs bold action and leadership that is willing to tackle fundamental problems - economic and social. Washington, of course, isn't the same place it was in 1933 when Roosevelt had a clear popular mandate to effect change. Obama will not have the opportunity to experiment in the same way FDR and his "brain trust" attacked the Great Depression. Still, we can hope that the severity of the current crisis prompts a unity of purpose between the White House and Congress in the coming months.

Some Thoughts on the Election

Where to start . . . Given my history on this blog one might have expected me to rant and rave about the election over the last several weeks. First, I guess I've been too shocked at the depravity of the McCain/Palin campaign to respond in any meaningful fashion. But if you've followed the race, you know what I'm talking about - thinly-veiled bigotry, the standard-issue Republican fear-mongering, and outright lies. In the end, McCain thoroughly compromised his ideals in an effort to secure the support of his party's right wing, aligning himself with the very elements of Republican intolerance and fascism for which he had expressed disdain just eight years ago. Rather than running on his more moderate record, he adopted the Rove playbook and thus firmly allied himself with the Bush/Cheney "axis of evil." The scariest part of it all is that he could still win!

Looking at a map of Republican support around the country, it's clear that there's still a substantial element of the electorate that is just ignorant enough to accept the Republican falsehoods. Although McCain and Palin liked to trumpet loudly the claim that these areas represented the most patriotic and thus the most "American" parts of the country, these districts are now distinguishing themselves for having evolved the least - politically and intellectually - over the last 40 years. Indeed, these Americans seem to celebrate their ignorance, and herald as a virtue their disdain for education, liberalism, and real democracy. And while they often align themselves with the principles of the "Founders," one is compelled to observe that the likes of Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison would have regarded them as the "mobocracy," barely capable of self-government.

Obviously I pray that Barak Obama wins this election. Yet I'm enough of a political realist to understand that even Obama will be no savior capable of reversing entirely the perilous course now followed by the U.S. But Obama does offer a more enlightened vision of how that can be accomplished. Nevertheless, even if Obama is elected, the forces of intolerance, anti-intellectualism, and bigotry will continue to rally, redoubling their efforts to create a theocratic, fascist state anchored by the Republican party's hawks and evangelical terrorists.

If the pollsters are wrong, and McCain pulls off an upset reminiscent of Harry Truman's 1948 victory over Dewey, I will not stand in "loyal" opposition to a Republican president and his "hockey mom" second-in-command whose foreign policy expertise is limited to a neighborly proximity to Russia. Indeed, with a McCain/Palin victory I would do whatever possible - and legal - to foment disloyal opposition in an effort to unseat these usurpers of the Constitution. Their continued strength in this country represents a cancer on the body of the commonwealth, a cancer that needs to be excised through a revolution in the ballot boxes.

Of course, over the last several days (and at this very moment), Republican operatives are engaging in illegal activities to steal the votes of ordinary citizens. As Paul Weyrich, one of their evangelical leaders, pointed out as early as 1980, they do not want a large voter turnout. They do not want an informed electorate. They do not want a truly participatory democracy. So they foment ignorance, misinformation, and fear, to keep people away from the polling places on election day. Don't let them steal your vote! Don't be a consumer of their ignorance and fear-filled messages. Don't let them further corrupt the Constitution and trample on the liberties that document protects. Turn back the tide of nascent fascism in this country. Cast a vote for rationalism and hope.

Palin Bumpersticker

If I lived in the 'burbs and drove a car regularly, this bumper sticker would be on my car. Leave it to the "religious right" to spin this into a political asset for Palin.

A Call to Arms - Anne Lamott

I can't resist re-posting this piece by the always-entertaining Anne Lamott.

"A Call to Arms"

How to handle the fury brought on by this election? Register voters, hit the streets, pray. Stop talking about her. Talk about Obama.

By Anne Lamott Sept. 16, 2008

I had to leave church Sunday morning when it turned out that the sermon was not about bearing up under desperate circumstances, when you feel like you're going crazy because something is being perpetrated upon you and your country that is so obscene that it simply cannot be happening.

I sat outside a 7-Eleven and had a sacramental Dove chocolate bar. Jeez: Here we are again. A man and a woman whose values we loathe and despise -- lying, rageful and incompetent, so dangerous to children and old people, to innocent people in every part of the world -- are being worshiped, exalted by the media, in a position to take a swing at all that is loveliest about this earth and what's left of our precious freedoms.

When I got home from church, I drank a bunch of water to metabolize the Dove bar and called my Jesuit friend, who I know hates these people, too. I asked, "Don't you think God finds these smug egomaniacs morally repellent? Recoils from their smugness as from hot flame?"And he said, "Absolutely. They are everything He or She hates in a Christian.

"I have been in a better mood ever since, and have decided not to even say this woman's name anymore, because she fills me with such existential doubt, such a sense of impending doom and disbelief, that only the Germans could possibly have words for it. Nor am I going to say the word "lipstick" again until after the election, as it would only be used against me. Or "polar bear," because that one image makes me sadder than even horrible old I can stand.

I hate to criticize. And I love to kill wolves as much as the next person does. But this woman takes such pride in her ignorance, doesn't have a doubt in the world about her messianic calling, that it makes anyone of decency feel nauseated -- spiritually, emotionally and physically ill.I say that with love. As we say in Texas. (Also, we say, "Bless her heart.")

We felt this grief and nausea during the run-up to the war in Iraq. We felt it after the 2004 election. And now we feel it again.

But since there are still six weeks until the election, and since the stakes are as high as the sky, which should definitely not be forced to endure four more years of the same, we have got to get a grip. There are millions of people to register to vote, millions of dollars to be raised. We really cannot go around feeling flat and defeated, with the need to metabolize the rotten meat that this one particular candidate and the media have forced upon us.

One of the tiny metabolic suggestions I have to offer -- if, like me, you choose not to have her name on your lips, like an oozy cold sore (I say that with love) -- is to check out a Web site called the Sarah Palin Baby Name Generator. There you can find out what she and her husband would have named you if you had been their baby. My name, Anne, for instance, would be Krinkle Bearcat. John, her running mate, would be named Stick Freedom. George would be Crunk Petrol. And so on.

First of all, go find out what your own name would be. Then for one day refuse to use the name of these people who are so damaging to earth and to our very souls -- so, "I don't have to understand anything, it's all fuzzy math. Trust me. I'm the decider." From now on, when working for Obama, talk about Obama, talk about his policies, the issues, the economy, the war in Iraq, poverty, the last eight years, Joe Biden. You don't have to mention Crunk Petrol, or his sidekick, Shaver Razorback.

And you sure as hell don't have to mention Claw Washout -- she is absolutely, hands-down the most ludicrous person ever to be nominated. She's a "South Park" character. There was a mix-up. Mistakes were made.

Everything you need to know about how to bear up during these two months is already inside you. Go within: Work on your own emotional acre. Stand still, and hurt, and feel crazy. Then drink a lot of water, pray, meditate, rest. Rest is a spiritual act. Now, I am a reform Christian, so it is permissible for me to secretly believe that God hates this woman, too. I heard God slam down a couple of shooters while she was talking the other night.

Figure out one thing you can do every single day to be a part of the solution, concentrating on swing states. Money, walking precincts, registering voters, whatever. This is the only way miracles ever happen -- left foot, right foot, left foot, breathe. Right foot, left foot, right foot, breathe. The great novelist E.L. Doctorow once said that writing a novel is like driving at night with the headlights on: You can only see a little ways in front of you, but you can make the whole journey this way. It is the truest of all things; the only way to write a book, raise a child, save the world.

As my anonymous pal Krinkle Bearcat once wrote: Laughter is carbonated holiness. It is chemo. So do whatever it takes to keep your sense of humor. Rent Christopher Guest movies, read books by Roz Chast and Maira Kalman. Picture Stick Freedom in his Batman underpants, having one of his episodes of rage alone in one of his seven bedrooms. Or having one of his bathroomy little conversations with Froth Moonshine. (Bless their hearts.) Try to remember that even Karl Rove has accused him of being a lying suck.

Reread everything Molly Ivins and Jim Hightower ever wrote. Write down that great line of Molly's, that "freedom fighters don't always win, but they're always right." Tape it next to your phone.

Call the loneliest person you know. Go flirt with the oldest person at the bookstore.

Fill up a box with really cool clothes that you haven't worn in a year, and take it to a thrift shop. Take gray water outside and water whatever is growing on your deck. This is not a bad metaphor to live by. I think it is why we are here. Drink more fluids. And take very gentle care of yourself and the people you most love: We need you now more than ever.

The "Angry Left"

The other night President Bush referred with contempt to the "angry left" in his address to the Republican convention. Of course the Left is angry - as are many Americans who would never identify themselves with the Left or liberals in general. We're angry that this president and his administration have hijacked the Constitution. We're angry that they've subverted basic human rights - for citizens and detainees alike - in the name of national security. We're angry because this administration has made ideological orthodoxy the litmus test for government office. We're angry because the Justice Department was crippled by unethical and illegal conduct. We're angry because the Bush administration is responsible for the deaths of thousands of American soldiers - and many more thousands of innocent citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan. We're angry because Bush and Cheney have turned back the clock on efforts to protect the environment. We're angry because this administration's energy policy caters to the interests of "big oil" and "big coal" while scarcely acknowledging the necessity of developing alternative energy programs. We're angry because Bush and the Republicans pander to the anti-intellectualism of the fascist, evangelical right wing. And the list goes on and on and on. The Republican party should take the opportunity this week to apologize to the American people for the last eight years, while promising to right the wrongs of the Bush administration.

As for McCain and Palin . . . McCain has drifted farther and farther to the right in an effort to appease the fascist wing of his party, reversing his previously moderate views on numerous issues. Moreover, while he talks about fixing the mess in Washington, neither he nor his campaign advisers have offered specific ideas on how that might be accomplished. In fact, four years of John McCain would look very much like the last eight years of George Bush. A responsible energy policy? The Republican convention crowds' chants for more drilling suggest otherwise. Tax reform? McCain would make the Bush tax cuts permanent, benefiting corporations and the wealthiest Americans.

And Palin? Her daughter's pregnancy, as Democratic leaders correctly intoned, is a non-issue and has no bearing on her ability to serve as vice-president. However, her anti-intellectualism, as well as her views on abortion, gun control, and evolution, should have disqualified her from consideration. For example, shortly after taking office as mayor of her small Alaska town she investigated the possibility of banning certain books in the local public library, while trying to fire the librarian as well. Is this the kind of person we want just a heartbeat away from the presidency? Someone who is so ideologically short-sighted and intellectually limited that she would even think about pulling books from library shelves simply because they don't square with her evangelical, conservative mindset? This is neither Nazi Germany nor Soviet Russia. No thank you.

Throwing My Hat in the Ring - Crowson '08

I've finally had enough of both McCain and Obama, so I'm throwing my hat in the ring for the presidency. I figure I can't do any worse than Bush, since the only place to go is UP from here. You can see the first news coverage of my stealth campaign here. Vote early and often!

Bush League

Two articles in the New York Times this week continue the process of revealing the corruption and ignorance that have guided the Bush administration's disastrous policy in Iraq. First, testimony from the former Pentagon official who oversaw the government's contract with KBR (Kellogg, Brown, and Root), suggests he was removed from his post because he acted as a whistleblower by questioning $1 billion in charges. It should be noted that Houston-based KBR, which provides food and housing to U.S. military personnel in Iraq, was a subsidiary of Halliburton, for which Dick Cheney had once served as CEO. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, notes that this situation “is startling, and it confirms the committee’s worst fears. KBR has repeatedly gouged the taxpayer, and the Bush administration has looked the other way every time.” It also provides ammunition for critics who have charged that KBR has benefited significantly (upwards of $20 billion thus far) from its close relationship with Bush. The article ( "Army Overseer Tells of Ouster Over KBR Stir") provides startling details on how KBR executives had easy access to key Defense Department and White House figures to effectively circumvent the oversight process. Corruption between contractors and the government during wartime is hardly a new problem. However, this administration has made cronyism a spectator sport when it comes to handing out lucrative government contracts.

Even more troubling is news of a security agreement that the White House is pressuring Iraq to sign by July 31st. According to an op-ed piece in the Times, "the 'strategic alliance' that President Bush is proposing eerily resembles, in spirit and in letter, a failed 1930 treaty between Britain and Iraq that prompted a nationalist eruption in Baghdad, a pro-Nazi military coup and a pogrom that foreshadowed the elimination of Baghdad’s ancient Jewish community." Is this administration so ignorant of history or so unrealistically idealistic that it thinks this "alliance" will produce positive results in a situation already disastrous? The White House obviously doesn't want Congress to debate - or vote - on the agreement's merits because they've crafted it in such a way to avoid the usual channels of Senate treaty ratification. Technically, it isn't a treaty. The Times concludes that "rarely has the proverb about repeating history been more vividly signaled." If the Iraqis approve this alliance, the U.S. should be prepared to deal with the potentially horrific results in the coming years. While the British found that they could not control the situation during the 1930s, Iraq is certainly a more volatile environment now than it was then. Sure, we may not witness a pro-Nazi military coup or anti-Jewish pogrom similar to the 1930s. Nevertheless, we can be certain that no good will come of it, nor will the Iraqi people accept treatment as a quasi-colonial state.

Campaign Overload (and a dose of flowers)

Is anyone else out there sick of the presidential campaign? The election is five months away and I'm already over it. The Obama-Clinton melee was bad enough, and for those of us who claim allegiance to the Democratic party, painful to watch. Just as the party should have been uniting in its excoriation of the Bush administration, it bloodied itself in a costly battle of egos and overspending. As for "McBush," his rightward drift from a moderate Republican record simply reflects his desperate attempts to pander to the more conservative wing of his party. Given his recent behavior, it's clear that a vote for McCain would prove the equivalent of handing Bush a third term - a disastrous prospect for this country. And although Obama's election would herald a paradigm shift in the American political landscape - while injecting a much-needed shot of JFK-like youthfulness and enthusiasm - there is no guarantee that he can reverse the treacherous course plotted by Bush. Indeed, I'm concerned that an Obama administration would resemble that of Jimmy Carter - characterized by an earnest desire to effect change but hindered by the bureaucratic and ideological roadblocks that define politics inside the Beltway. The bottom line, unfortunately, is the reality that the next four or even eight years will not right the wrongs of Bush's two terms of damaging - and unconstitutional - policies.

Perhaps as the election nears I'll become more eager to follow the campaign. I'm keenly interested, for example, in the vice presidential choices. Both candidates will need to choose a running mate who can deliver either a key state or critical bloc of voters. For McCain, that may mean selecting someone who can satisfy the now lukewarm right wing of the Republican party. With an Obama/Clinton ticket out of the question, Obama will have to find a running mate who can deliver some of the constituencies to which Hillary appealed, especially organized labor. We can only hope that undecided voters in both camps will be so fed up with Bush, and insecure with the prospect of continuing his policies under McCain, that they'll vote for change in November.

About the flowers: The digitalis (or Foxglove) is part of an apartment building's garden on 9th Street in the East Village. The climbing roses anchor the wrought-iron fence that surrounds the Jefferson Market Garden on Greenwich Avenue in the West Village. It's huge and is much larger than this photo suggests. Also note that in some spots there's a purple clematis vine growing through the rose, offering a nice contrast to the very subtle pink of this climber.

Bush Science

An editorial in yesterday's New York Times highlights another example of the Bush administration's negligent anti-intellectualism and short-sightedness, this time in its subversion of science for political ends. In this case, the White House has censored government agencies and scientists who might sound the alarm about the impact of global warming. As the Times points out, "the Bush administration has worked overtime to manipulate or conceal scientific evidence — and muzzled at least one prominent scientist — to justify its failure to address climate change. Its motives were transparent: the less people understood about the causes and consequences of global warming, the less they were likely to demand action from their leaders."

The reality that politics and science behave like conjoined twins is hardly a new development in history. Politics and warfare have likely done more to push science forward than any other force. In the U.S., for example, Thomas Jefferson surely possessed a genuine interest in the specimens and data delivered by the Lewis and Clark expedition. Indeed, he was likely the most scientifically inclined president in our history. Nevertheless, he also understood the political ramifications of sending American explorers into territory that fell beyond the boundaries of the recently acquired Louisiana Purchase.

Additionally, few of us would deny the obvious connection between politics and the "space race" of the 1960s and 70s. John F. Kennedy's idealism and enthusiasm notwithstanding, competition with the Soviet Union drove the United States and NASA to the moon. But if fear of Soviet control of space helped lift Saturn V rockets from the launch platforms of Florida, the effort ultimately spurred an era of positive innovation that lasted long after the last Apollo astronauts returned from the moon.

In the case of the Bush administration, however, politics has had a negative impact, hindering scientific inquiry and education. As a result, the U.S. now lags behind much of the world in addressing the global warming crisis. Rather than tapping into our legacy as a nation committed to innovation, the country now seems content in its inertia, thanks to the perfidy of the White House. As the Times concludes: "This administration long ago secured a special place in history for bending science to its political ends. One costly result is that this nation has lost seven years in a struggle in which time is not on anyone’s side."

The Real Mortgage Crisis

For the second time in four months, President Bush has visited Saudi Arabia and asked for relief from climbing oil prices. And once again Bush was rebuffed by the Saudis. As Thomas Friedman points out in the New York Times this week, these events herald a significant shift in power, a shift that threatens to alter significantly the United States' standing in world affairs. Most Americans, however, are unaware of the ramifications of such change. Instead, they raise a hue and cry over rising prices at the gas pump, while talking heads pontificate over how badly this will affect the summer travel and vacation forecasts. Even John McCain and Hillary Clinton have jumped into the fray by advocating a temporary summer reprieve on gasoline taxes, as if that will magically prompt people to load up their minivans and drive around the country in mimicry of the "Great American Vacation" of decades past.

What none of our leaders, real or presumptive, want to address, from Bush to the presidential candidates, is the root problem: America's dependence on imported oil. We already know that the Bush administration's "energy policy" - largely crafted by Cheney and enunciated in a report never made public - has favored big oil and big coal, while giving only tacit attention - and meager budget support - for development of alternative fuel technologies. And it's probably a safe bet to assume that whoever wins the presidential election in November, Democrat or Republican, will prove incapable of facilitating a shift away from fossil fuels in the foreseeable future. The next occupant of the Oval Office, Friedman concludes, will inherit a "straightjacket" left by Bush and his policies. Realize too, that the twin economic monoliths of oil companies and domestic auto manufacturers have effectively dawdled in their efforts to address these issues. And let's face it, these corporations wield a great deal of clout throughout the entire political structure, irrespective of party affiliation.

When not focusing on tabloid subjects and reality television outcomes, the news media over the last several months has focused on the mortgage crisis and its effect on the very fabric of the "American Dream." Few will argue that this isn't a serious stumbling block to continued economic vitality in the U.S. Indeed, we're already seeing how foreclosures and declining new housing starts can negatively affect peripheral areas of the economy. Nevertheless, the approaching energy crisis seems a much more insidious threat. Because while middle class homeowners have mortgaged themselves into untenable positions with skyrocketing monthly payments and impending foreclosures, the United States has mortgaged its future to a handful of nations that control the lion's share of the world's oil supply. Eventually the bill will come due and the U.S. will have to pay the full price for its dependence on these nations, trading security and standing for oil.

Friday Humor

Ok, I realize this is a bit "off color" for the humor department. One could also level the charge that this is disrespectful to the president. However, the man who has shown virtually no respect for the U.S. Constitution, basic human rights, the Geneva Convention (deemed "quaint" by that other administration criminal, former head of the Justice Department Alberto Gonzalez), or international law, deserves only contempt from the citizens of this country. Let's not forget the words of Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure." Unfortunately, the blood of over 4,000 American patriots has been cast upon the deserts of Iraq, yielding little. Angry Americans, their liberty and safety threatened by the Bush administration, should call for the blood of this administration's tyrants.

4000

I found this great mosaic showing Bush and McCain, constructed using photos of most of the U.S. military personnel killed in Iraq. Because photos of all 4,000 were not available, there are some duplicates. Click here to see the very large original version. With no end to the conflict in sight and the potential for a McCain victory in November increasing, expect this total to increase significantly. I find Bush's smug demeanor especially offensive given the severity of his crimes.

Bush's War

Last night PBS stations aired the first two hours of a two-part Frontline documentary, "Bush's War," laying out in excruciating detail the steps the Bush administration took to hijack the government and this country, attack Iraq on false pretenses, and embroil the U.S. in an illegal and shameful conflict. If you didn't catch part one, definitely watch the second installment, which will examine the conduct of the war over the last five years. Let's just say that last night's episode was painful and infuriating.

These photos were taken outside famous Marble Collegiate Church. (Some of you may know this as Norman Vincent Peale's church.) Each of these yellow ribbons, posted along the church's 5th Ave. and 29th St. sides, represents a member of the U.S. military who has died in Iraq or Afghanistan. Examining the names and ages on each ribbon, one notices that so many of the dead were in their 20s. What a horrific waste of human life, with no end of the carnage in sight. What a waste of youthful optimism and opportunities. How can the families of these people believe the rhetoric and lies that spew from Washington? The blood of each of these soldiers is on the hands of Bush and Cheney, who are no less guilty of war crimes than the Nazis tried at Nuremburg. One would be hard pressed to find a more shameful event in U.S. history.

"Mission Still Not Accomplished"

An editorial in the New York Times marking the fifth anniversary of the start of the disastrous war in Iraq reminds us how little has been accomplished in a time span surpassing U.S. involvement in World War II. Indeed, the primary, albeit dubious, achievements include further destabilization of the region, displacement of more than 20 percent of the population, the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and the deaths of nearly 4,000 Americans. Our failure in this illegal conflict, punctuated by human rights abuses, has so eroded U.S. credibility abroad that the nation may never recover its prewar status. Vice President Dick Cheney, visiting Iraq this week, declared that the mission in Iraq was "well worth the effort." His behavior, juxtaposed with Bush's remarks yesterday, underscore the dangers associated with formulating policy based on ignorance, stupidity, and unadulterated arrogance.

There can be little doubt that history will regard the Bush administration as a dismal failure. Whether or not it marks a watershed event in U.S. history, heralding that moment of national decline, remains to be seen. Regardless of who wins the presidential race in November, our next Chief Executive can expect to inherit a morass that will define the character and agenda of his or her administration for years.

Bush's Beef

The recent recall of ground beef, the largest in U.S. history, once again underscores the perfidious nature of the Bush administration's domestic policies, particularly in regard to its failure to protect ordinary Americans from the dangers precipitated by corporate rapacity. Indeed, under Bush's leadership, organizations like the Department of Agriculture, the FDA, the EPA, OSHA, and MSHA, have found their staffs cut, regulations rolled back, and leadership positions filled with corporate insiders. So it's no surprise that the incestuous relationship between the corporate interests/lobbying groups that have bankrolled Bush and the federal regulatory agencies seems analogous to putting the wolf in charge of guarding the hen house.

In 1906 Upton Sinclair published a little book on the meat-packing industry - The Jungle - which highlighted the unsanitary conditions in which beef was processed. The book shocked Americans, including reform-minded President Theodore Roosevelt. Although a Republican, Roosevelt was a torchbearer of the Progressive movement, a reform impulse with its roots in the 1880s and 1890s. Thanks to muckrakers like Ida Tarbell and Jacob Riis, state and local governments passed legislation to improve working conditions for many American laborers. Even the federal government responded to the greed and predatory practices of the "robber barons" of the Gilded Age and enacted measures like the Interstate Commerce Act and the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Thanks to the public outrage generated by Upton Sinclair's work, and the support of Teddy Roosevelt, Congress passed the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act which authorized Department of Agriculture inspections of packing plants and also paved the way for the creation of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Unfortunately, that Progressive spirit, and the belief that government has a role to play in insuring the safety of the products consumed by Americans, has been cast aside by Bush and his conservative allies under the guise of a "less government is better" sentiment. What really motivates them, however, is the close relationship they enjoy with the country's agri-business giants and corporate monoliths. Naturally corporations want as little regulation as possible, since regulation ostensibly diminishes profits. Mind you, this tug of war between corporate greed and the public interest is nothing new. As a nation we've witnessed the ill effects of this struggle for over a century. And as we so often see in history, the relationship between these two sides has been cyclical in nature. Obviously we're now in a period of corporate strength, with consumers suffering the consequences.

Surveying the wasteland of the Bush administration and its policies, Americans need to initiate a new reform impulse, calling on governments at every level to insure the safety of our citizens and allow our regulatory agencies to carry out their mandate free of the cancerous influence of corporate lobbyists and former executives. As something of a socialist, I naturally favor as much regulation as possible. Indeed, I would love to see a return of the spirit which guided FDR's "New Deal" and LBJ's "Great Society" programs. Although our next president will never advocate such radical reform - since both Democrats and Republicans owe fealty to a diverse field of corporations and special interest groups - the winner in November will have to address the mess left behind by Bush in nearly every agency, from the Justice Department to OSHA. Without this effort, the new president can neither maintain his credibility nor hope to restore Americans' faith in their government.

End of an Era in Cuba

The announcement of Fidel Castro's retirement as Cuba's primary leader represents the end of an era - to a point. In fact, the installation of his brother promises little substantive change. Moreover, as long as Fidel remains alive and conscious, he will continue to exert influence over Cuba's course, even if that leadership is only symbolic. Reacting to the news, President Bush has again displayed his political naivete by declaring that Cuba should now welcome reform and the "blessings of democracy." (Rather than pontificate on Cuba's future, Mr. Bush should first contemplate bestowing the "blessings" of a democratic system on some of the forgotten parts of the U.S.)

At the height of the Cold War one could argue that Cuba represented a strategic hub and potential flash point. The Cuban Missile Crisis certainly illustrated its significance as a potential striking point from which the Soviet Union might attack the United States. Given the anti-Soviet "containment policy" which shaped American foreign policy for more than 40 years after World War II, one can easily understand the U.S. embargo against Cuba. But in the years since the Soviet Union's collapse, that embargo has made less and less sense. Certainly Cuba no longer enjoys the strategic significance it maintained in the 1960s and 70s. In economic terms it is a poor player in Caribbean and Latin American affairs. Yet Castro - and by association, Cuba and its people - have remained a symbolic "bogeyman" in our back yard, periodically rebuked by both Democratic and Republican administrations. Acknowledging the changing political landscape of the last 20 years, policies designed to punish Castro and Cuba seem ideologically untenable, borne of monolithic anti-Communism.

Of course, many liberal Americans have been calling for a revision of our Cuba policy for years. But conservatives, backed by the powerful Cuban lobby in south Florida, have continued to wave the red flag of anti-Communism, calling for "democratic" reforms in Cuba as a condition for friendlier relations and aid. What few of these hardliners like to talk about is the utter oppressiveness of the U.S.-backed Batista regime that was overthrown by Cuban revolutionaries in 1959. Moreover, they don't like to acknowledge the successes wrought by Castro and his government over the last 50 years. For example, although the country remains desperately poor, its people enjoy access to an educational system and medical care that are the envy of Latin America.

In the last year of his presidency Bush seems desperate to rescue the historical legacy of his administration with foreign policy initiatives. His domestic policies have failed miserably, unless one counts tax cuts for corporate interests and the wealthy as benchmarks of success. If Mr. Bush really wants to make a difference abroad, he should announce the end of the U.S. embargo against Cuba and offer an aid package to the Cuban people - with no strings attached. At this point, he has nothing to lose politically. And since he's so anxious to divert attention from the quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, a revised Cuba policy presents itself as a decidedly humanitarian option. Sure, aiding Cuba won't wash the wasted blood of thousands from his hands, but it certainly represents a start for an administration that has perhaps irreparably soiled this country's reputation.

State of the Union

Tonight President Bush delivers his valedictory State of the Union address to the nation. He should use the airtime as a final opportunity to apologize to the American people for: defiling this country's reputation around the world; trampling on the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights and the explicit separation of powers; the waste of thousands of American lives in an illegal war; the loss of a budget surplus thanks to inflated defense spending and tax cuts that benefit only the wealthiest citizens; and pro-business measures that have crippled the ability of the EPA, OSHA, and other regulatory agencies. Of course, he won't admit any wrongdoing or criminal behavior, despite the bitter reality of his behavior. He should spend eight years in a federal prison to atone for his sins of the last eight years. Yet a mere eight years will not be nearly enough time to erase the damaging legacy of the Bush years.

Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009

One year from the past Sunday, a new President-elect will take the oath of office before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and millions of Americans watching on their televisions. If we are lucky, it will usher in a new era for this country, an era punctuated by a return to justice, respect for the Constitution, respect for basic human rights, and an understanding of the limits of presidential power. I believe George W. Bush will ultimately be judged as one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. Even accounting for the ineffectual presidencies of the Gilded Age and the stain of corruption attached to the two terms served by Ulysses S. Grant, the Bush administration must be regarded as an even worse failure, both in terms of domestic and foreign policies. Even the Nixon administration, which we remember primarily for its demise in the Watergate scandal, can be remembered for some positive accomplishments, most notably the warming of relations between the U.S. and China. Reagan, whom I've always regarded as one of the most intellectually limited of our Chief Executives, looks comparatively benign next to the idiocy of Bush. Indeed, when Reagan was in office I always thought, "Well, we can't do any worse." I was so wrong.

What can we expect for 2009 and beyond? Regardless of the new president's party affiliation, we should demand an end to this illegal war and expect a strenuous effort to restore the nation's reputation within the worldwide community. Americans should also expect the next president to uphold the oath of office, unlike President Bush, who regularly trampled on the system of "checks and balances" established by the Constitution.

Among the current Republican candidates, several are particularly troubling. Huckabee should have been disqualified after the first debate for declaring that he did not believe in evolution, preferring the Genesis creation mythology as the source for his belief. He also too closely reflects the dangerous vision of the Republican party's religious fascists who labor constantly to bring down the constitutional wall that separates church and state. (The "Religious Right's" misreading of our early history and the Constitution is one of the gravest threats to this nation.) Giuliani too closely resembles Bush in temperament. (Thankfully, Rudy's numbers are declining in the polls.) McCain has a record of occasional moderation, but one wonders if he'll compromise his often maverick stance on critical issues just to secure votes. Romney, his controversial Mormonism aside, just seems so lacking in charisma and intellectual "oomph." He's fast becoming the John Kerry of the 2008 campaign.

Unfortunately, even the current Democratic front-runners haven't attracted my support at this point. Although I like Hillary Clinton (and still like Bill), I don't think she's electable in a national contest. Fudge-brained conservatives in the South and Midwest will do everything in their power to combat her candidacy and bring out the Republican minions to vote. I like Obama's optimism and think he represents a welcome challenge to the status quo, but believe he would make a more viable candidate in 2012. I just don't think he has sufficient experience in government yet to navigate the murky political waters of Washington.

From the beginning, I had hoped Al Gore would run. He's clearly the most qualified to do the job, and he possesses a gravitas and intellectual curiosity that smug George Bush doesn't carry even on his best days. (And as I've said before, we'll all be better off when Bush sits isolated and out of touch on his Texas ranch, condemned to obscurity, the harsh judgment of scholars, and the dustbin of American history. One hopes that in the future he'll come to recognize the tragedy of his two terms in office. One suspects, however, that he doesn't possess the requisite humility, since he's been trumpeting his own infallibility since taking office.) Alas, Gore will not run, and I will have a hard time making up my mind in November. (Of course, I will NOT be voting Republican in November and could not, with a clear conscience, cast a vote for any Republican candidate.) Nevertheless, I'm sustained by the thought that in 363 days, Bush will no longer be President of the United States.