Roseanne and Samantha

Having briefly indulged in baseball’s comforting warmth, it’s time to return to reality. Although the Roseanne Barr / Samantha Bee ruckus is in the process of fading into our daily haze, and there are obviously many large issues clamoring for comment, the uproar around these women has caused me to again focus on our general need to improve our continually coarsening public dialog.

First, Ms. Barr. I don’t think I ever saw a full episode of her show’s first run and caught but a few scenes of the recent reprise. Living in my own bubble, I wasn’t aware that she had exhibited a decades-long pattern of racial behaviors until hearing of her tweet about Valerie Jarrett and seeing the ensuing reporting. This is the straightforward one: she had multiple chances. She should have been fired, and was.

The approach to Ms. Bee’s comments about Ivanka Trump is for me more complex. Ms. Trump, as a formal member of the Trump Administration, is a government official and has to abide a certain level of scrutiny. A number of her activities while in office warrant severe criticism (the Chinese trademarks she received in recent days being a ready objective example). That said, Ms. Bee went too far. I confess that if Ms. Bee had called our daughter what she called Ms. Trump, I wouldn’t want her to get a second chance; I’d want her fired. I can’t fault the President for feeling and stating the same.

I find it no excuse for Ms. Bee that — as her defenders have been quick to point out — the President himself revels in escalating the level of crass exchange now present in our public discourse. I don’t care. I would assert that if Ms. Bee intends to contribute to the public commentary, she has (and had) a responsibility – like all from the President of the United States to a lonely blogger — to do so civilly. At the same time, unless she has shown a pattern of untoward behavior (if so, I haven’t seen a report of it), termination seems too harsh.

So how might TBS proceed? Although it looks like the network intends to let Ms. Bee get away with simply a more robust apology to Ms. Trump, I would offer this: if the terms of her contract give TBS the right to cancel her show without further payment to her if it so wished, TBS might consider (1) making it clear to Ms. Bee that another like incident will result in her immediate termination and (2) requiring Ms. Bee to forfeit a month’s salary (which, given internet accounts placing her TBS salary at around $1million, amounts to about $80,000), to be paid to a charity designated by Ms. Trump [a real charity – not a Trump charity ;)]. Such an approach would not end her career, but would send a message that untoward conduct comes with consequences beyond the tired rite of insincere apologies.

Codes of behavior matter. As our longstanding norms come under ever greater stress, we need to maintain our respect for them in small matters if we hope to have them withstand the assaults in large areas that are likely ahead of us.

It’s a Long Season …

We Milwaukee Brewer fans are understandably pleased with the team’s fast start; beginning action today, Milwaukee is in first place in the National League Central Division (three and a half games ahead of the formidable Cubs), and has the best record in the National League.

Even so, only a third of the season has passed. While many teams over the years have come back from mediocre starts to win championships, and a terrible start lasting into June almost invariably dooms a team’s season, a strong start is generally indicative of … not much. The Brewers have had great starts in the past. The 1987 team began 13-0 on its way to a 20-3 start — and didn’t make the playoffs. Even the great Robin Yount – Paul Molitor World Series team of 1982 had better than a six game lead in late August – and still needed two Yount home runs on the last day of the season to squeeze into the postseason.

So while we Brewer fans are enjoying the ride thus far, the time to start thinking about playoff possibilities is after Labor Day weekend, not after Memorial Day weekend. The elation and the anguish of baseball share the same journey: It’s a long season.

ZTE … Annotated

It generally serves little purpose to regurgitate information available via a brief internet search, but since many people are living their lives without delving into the gory details of every policy disagreement in Washington, it’s worth calling out the current dispute between the White House and just about everybody else in Washington (Democrats, Republicans, and our U.S. security apparatus) over whether to continue sanctions imposed on Chinese telecommunications manufacturer ZTE by – ironically — the Trump Administration.

ZTE has been involved in our telecom industry for years. It both supplies equipment to some of our small (mostly rural) telecom companies and buys parts (including fiber) from American companies to make its equipment. These companies are obviously adversely impacted by governmental limitation on their ability to transact with ZTE. Additionally, ZTE issues have a potential impact on (1) our agriculture industry and (2) Chinese approval of an acquisition by U.S. company Qualcomm deemed critical to Qualcomm’s growth.

ZTE is also reportedly one of China’s key players in the battle for future strategic telecommunications dominance being waged between the U.S. and China. I understand that 5G is the new horizon; ZTE is one of the companies striving for a foothold in the technology.

Our government has considered ZTE to be a security threat for some time, and banned purchase of its equipment by NASA, the Justice and Commerce Departments in 2013. In February, our security agencies warned consumers about buying Chinese-manufactured phones. In early May, the Pentagon banned the purchase of ZTE and Huawei (another Chinese telecom manufacturer) phones near military bases. The overall concern is that China could utilize the equipment to conduct electronic spying on Americans. ZTE denies that the equipment could be so utilized, and both China and ZTE deny that the government places any pressure on ZTE. (Given what even we lay people know about telecommunications technology, it’s hard to believe that ZTE equipment couldn’t be so utilized, or that China, even if it places no pressure on ZTE today, couldn’t start doing so tomorrow.)

If the e-surveillance issue wasn’t enough, ZTE is a bad actor; the Trump Commerce Department placed its ban on American companies’ sales of parts to ZTE because it determined (and is apparently undisputed) that ZTE skirted sanctions in selling equipment to North Korea and Iran.

Our ban has apparently crippled ZTE, a matter of sufficient import to China that President Xi personally raised the ban with President Trump, prompting this tweet by the President:

“President Xi of China, and I, are working together to give massive Chinese phone company, ZTE, a way to get back into business, fast. Too many jobs in China lost. Commerce Department has been instructed to get it done! [My emphasis]”

Despite almost unanimous bipartisan concern, the Administration is now seeking to lift its sanctions on ZTE – allowing it to remain in business – provided that it pay a fine in excess of $1 billion, submit to U.S. inspectors, and make changes to its management team. China would agree to remove billions of dollars of tariffs on our agricultural products as part of the deal.

Aside from the obvious – that neither the President’s supporters nor detractors in this country care about protecting Chinese jobs – I would submit that the President’s actions in trying to resuscitate ZTE are troubling from two perspectives:

Defective strategic thinking. Acknowledging that the impact to certain of our companies could be severe if we hold fast on the ZTE sanctions, the President (as noted most articulately by Sen. Marco Rubio) is mixing trade with national security. The two don’t mix. I fear that the President is exhibiting the attitude sometimes evident among people with business backgrounds: believing dollars justify means. Even putting aside potential security issues and what should be our goal of limiting China’s strategic technological advancement, letting ZTE off the sanctions sends the message that no matter how bad an actor performs, we can be bought off. I would rather see us temporarily assist the telecoms and farmers adversely impacted by the sanctions than let ZTE off the hook. (Qualcomm might just be out of luck.)

The appearance of self-enrichment. I assume that even the President’s most fervent supporters will concede that his sudden reversal on his own administration’s sanctions on ZTE – with a tweet expressing concern for Chinese jobs – was bizarre. Coming at about the same time as the Chinese government approved a number of trademarks for Ivanka Trump and the Chinese government granted a $500 million loan to a Chinese construction company for work on an Indonesian theme park (the loan is reportedly the majority of the entire park project’s funding) featuring Trump properties (called park “flagships” by National Review), there is the obvious suspicion that the President’s reversal on ZTE is a quid pro quo for China’s assistance to his family business.

Right now, there are a number of bipartisan moves in Congress to bar the Administration from lifting its bans on ZTE. Although I generally believe that a President needs to have a fairly free hand in conducting foreign policy – nothing can be achieved when s/he has to deal with 535 Congressional kibitzers – since his discussion with President Xi, he has been – at the very least — sufficiently tone deaf to the ramifications and appearances of his approach that that Congressional interjection is not only warranted – it’s vital.

Taking a Knee …

I’ve recently read The Assault on Intelligence by former NSA and CIA Director Michael Hayden. There are a sufficient number of foreign policy and security insights in his account to warrant making some further Noise about his book in the future. However, the NFL’s announcement this week of its new policy requiring all players on the field to stand during the national anthem made me recall one particular passage of Mr. Hayden’s book (he was raised in Pittsburgh, and appears to be as much the Steeler fan as some of us are Packer fans), in which he reminds that the controversy began with a speech President Trump delivered in late September, 2017, during which the President said the following:

“Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. Out. He’s fired. He’s fired!’ …. When people like yourselves turn on television and you see those people taking the knee when they are playing our great national anthem. The only thing you could do better is if you see it, even if it’s one player, leave the stadium. I guarantee things will stop. Things will stop. Just pick up and leave. Pick up and leave. [Emphasis mine, not Mr. Hayden’s].”

My comment to follow, but what prompted this post is something Mr. Hayden added:

“The week before [the President’s speech], six NFL players protested social injustice and police brutality by sitting or taking a knee during the pregame anthem. Six. This was not a national issue. [Emphasis Mr. Hayden’s].”

I have not independently verified Mr. Hayden’s claim that only six NFL players sat or knelt during the pregame anthems the week before the President’s speech. If his account is accurate, it would seem that the President – a masterful showman with a unique genius for manipulating the media and his supporters – here, as in many other instances, adroitly spun what became and remains a mountain out of a molehill to inflame his supporters for his own political purposes.

This is an area that I enter cautiously, since at least two people for whom I have the highest regard have indicated to me that they are troubled by the NFL players that haven’t stood during the national anthem. I would offer this:

Reading the President’s words as Mr. Hayden quoted them was chilling for me in the first instance for reasons having nothing to do with the substantive issue. His references to “people like yourselves” and “those people” did, at the very least, again set up the “us against them” tribalism mentality that divides us rather than unites us, and at worst, exacerbated racial tensions (since virtually all, if not all, of the players not standing were black men).

My Catholic upbringing has from the outset left me a bit puzzled about one aspect of this controversy; I relate “taking a knee” to genuflection – certainly not a lesser level of respect for that being esteemed than standing.

Again, perhaps influenced by a lifetime of genuflecting: I suggest that one could consider the players’ actions as respectful, nonviolent demonstrations — akin to the sit-ins and the freedom rides of the 1960s — through which they called attention to injustices they perceive to exist in our nation. Calling out a perceived injustice in this country is not disrespecting the country.

No one of any political stripe should disagree with the proposition that in this country, one is free to express his/her views on controversial issues in a nonviolent manner.

I have a different perspective on Mr. Hayden’s point about this not being a national issue. While we must carefully address the merits of the issues the players have raised, it escapes me why we as a nation should have our hair on fire because some number of men choose to lawfully express their views about perceived social injustice. In this country, people demonstrate about some issue or other every day. Only the NFL’s glitz makes it noteworthy. Many thousands marched for enhanced gun regulation a few weeks back; judging by the lack of Congressional action in this realm, our nation has (regrettably, in my view) pretty readily taken that much larger demonstration in stride.

Agree or disagree with me on the substance of the players’ demonstration (and as noted above, a couple of people whose opinion I hold in the highest regard do indeed disagree with me); but no matter where one stands on the substance, it appears fair to pose that the lion’s share of the emotion generated around this issue has been entirely … Trumped up.

As I was about to hit the “Publish” button on this, it occurred to me that it’s appropriate to suggest that amidst holiday gatherings and home projects, we take a minute this weekend to remember the sacrifices made by Americans to enable us to freely express our views on controversial issues in a nonviolent manner. This last paragraph is a rare one that I am 100% confident is not haywire …

The Lamentable Legacy of Paul Ryan: Part I

After Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan announced his intent to retire from Congress this past April, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell issued a statement intended to praise Mr. Ryan, saying in part, “Paul’s speakership has yielded one signature accomplishment after another for his conference, his constituents in Wisconsin’s 1^st Congressional District, and the American people [my emphasis].”

While one can agree or dispute Sen. McConnell’s characterization of Mr. Ryan’s tenure as one of “accomplishment,” it seems to me that the order in which he placed Mr. Ryan’s constituencies was entirely accurate — and (unwittingly) more indictment than tribute.

By all accounts, Mr. Ryan is an upbeat, pleasant man of probity. His intelligence and grasp of policy detail are legendary. Even those that vigorously disagree with him on substantive issues like and praise him personally. Yet, it is hard, as Mr. Ryan’s tenure draws to a close, not to characterize his record as, at best, one of accommodation and enablement, and at worst, one of hypocrisy and timidity.

Any review of Mr. Ryan’s record demonstrates that the issue of greatest concern to him throughout his career has been the ever-growing federal debt. An internet search yields such a number of the Speaker’s declarations on the issue that if all were recorded here, WordPress would need another couple of servers to hold them. A brief sampling:

In March of 2010:

“This debt crisis coming to our country. The wall and tidal wave of debt that is befalling our nation. Medicare and Social Security go bankrupt within ten years, we have a debt that is looming so high that in the last year of President Obama’s budget just the interest payments on our debt is $916 billion dollars.”

And again, urging a need for fiscal restraint in March, 2013:

“Our debt is already bigger than our economy.”

These are understandable sentiments; a number of thoughtful commentators have suggested that our burgeoning debt may be not only our most important domestic policy issue but also our most dangerous foreign policy challenge. However, anyone looking at the dates of these and his like comments will note that they all were made while Barack Obama was in the White House.

In 2001, Mr. Ryan voted for President Bush’s tax cuts [to be fair, at the time of the vote, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was projecting a significant federal budget surplus into the future].
In the summer of 2003, he voted for President Bush’s second round of tax cuts. If truly a deficit hawk, he accommodated to his party’s political interests.
In the early winter of 2003, he voted for Medicare Part D. If truly a deficit hawk, he accommodated to his party’s political interests.
According to news accounts, he voted at least five times to raise the federal debt ceiling during the Bush presidency. Good policy, but I’ve seen no indication that he sounded any alarm in those years — as contrasted with the struggles on this issue during the Obama presidency.

If I understand the reporting correctly, the CBO concluded in 2012 that the Bush Tax Cuts and Medicare Part D were the cause of about 30% of the then-current national debt. No matter how one feels about the substance of these measures, it was apparent by the time that President Trump took office that the Bush laws had significantly added to the deficits that Mr. Ryan never tired of railing about. Mr. Ryan nevertheless ushered through the House both a tax cut and a budget deal – which USA Today reported that he called the “biggest accomplishments” of his Speakership — that the CBO estimated in April would add $1.6 trillion to the deficit during the next decade … and more if the individual tax cuts (set to expire in 2026) are extended. This estimate could not have come as a surprise; when Trump tax plan details surfaced in the spring of 2017, The Wall Street Journal reported that “not one respondent” in a University of Chicago poll of leading academic economists thought that the plan would pay for itself.

In the final analysis, the Speaker was more interested in obtaining perceived short term political gain for the members of his House Republican caucus than in America’s long term fiscal stability. The measures he championed placed the entitlements that millions of Americans need and will need on even shakier ground than they were before. He instead chose to accommodate his members. A fact is a fact.

It’s difficult not to conclude that the dichotomy between Rep. Ryan’s words and actions is more evidence of political careerism and opportunism than fervently-held policy beliefs. Even so, I am less troubled by his inconsistency on fiscal issues than by his failure of moral Constitutional leadership. However, recognizing that this is a blog rather than an endless Word document, it’s time to call a halt. More in Part II …

Jerusalem Embassy Afterthoughts

I got up this morning thinking about yesterday’s post regarding the Administration’s move of our Embassy to Jerusalem. Keeping in mind the first Principle of this site – that anything I enter may well be all haywire – I see nothing conceptually amiss with what I posted … but woke up realizing that it was too antiseptic, too clinical an analysis of the foreign policy factors in play. The piece failed to address the physical suffering and emotional anguish being visited every day on people in the Mideast – the overwhelming majority of whom simply want to live their lives and raise their families in peace and without want. It’s hard not to believe that many of those that actively engage in conflicts are guided by many of the same reactions Americans would have if placed in similar circumstances.

While it is likely, regardless of the opening of our Embassy in Jerusalem, that there would have been disturbances along the Gaza Strip on what the Palestinians call “Nakba Day” (the “Day of Catastrophe”), and that these disturbances would have resulted in some number of deaths and injuries, it seems almost certain that the Embassy move exacerbated the Palestinian anger and frustration already existing. Although – as noted in the earlier post — I don’t see what strategic foreign policy objectives we advanced by moving the Embassy, I most sincerely hope that I’ve grossly misunderstood the situation. While some reports indicate that a good number of the Palestinian casualties were members of Hamas, others were not. I want to hope that we are not responsible for additional innocent lives lost or forever marred because of a move made primarily for U.S. domestic political purposes.

Reactions to Moving our Embassy to Jerusalem

I was asked today for reactions to the Trump Administration’s opening of our Embassy in Jerusalem. Here we go …

One can find statements by Presidents Clinton, G. W. Bush, and Obama, obviously predating the Trump Administration, all expressing a preference for moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act in 1995, calling for the embassy to be moved to Jerusalem by 1999 (this hasn’t been done due to a series of authorized Presidential waivers based on security concerns). The Senate passed a resolution 90 – 0 last June, affirming the Act and calling upon the President to abide by its provisions. The Obama Administration’s ambassador to Israel said tonight on PBS that moving the embassy was “appropriate.” President Trump had pledged during his campaign to make the move. Sen. Chuck Schumer supports the move. The President can rightly point out that moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem has traditionally had bipartisan support.

Even so, I think it was a strategic mistake. Despite the Administration’s claim that moving the embassy will help the peace process, given the general reaction to the move throughout the international community, I’m having trouble seeing how it fulfills any strategic foreign policy objectives:

It’s added more gas to the raging fire that is the Middle East. To boot, having the opening on the anniversary of Israel’s establishment unnecessarily added insult to injury for many in the Muslim world.
It’s a chip we didn’t need to play. Israel is already absolutely ecstatic about the support it is receiving from the Trump Administration; it’s difficult to see how we can get any warmer support from Israel for our objectives than the Administration has already garnered.
A criticism that resonates with me is that we took the action without getting anything for it – such as Israeli acquiescence in a two-state solution with the Palestinians, or Israeli collaboration in providing humanitarian aid for the Palestinians under terrible duress in Gaza.
The Wall Street Journal has reported that the move has drawn “repeated condemnation” from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt – three allies that form a primary part of our ballast in maintaining Middle East stability against Iran. (The Obama Administration’s Israel Ambassador also indicated tonight that although these three nations will continue to cooperate with us and Israel because they have greater concern about Iranian aggression than they have care for the Palestinians, the optics of the last few days will make it difficult for these nations to cooperate openly with Israel.)
The U.K. and France also oppose the move – adding more tension to a relationship already coarsened by our withdrawal from the Iranian Nuclear Deal.
If that wasn’t sufficient, my own pet peeve is that the move has given President Erdogan of Turkey – a de facto dictator who has sufficiently cozied up to Russia and Iran lately that I consider Turkey an uncertain NATO ally at best — a chance to condemn Israel and side with U.K. and France against us.

Suffice it to say, it’s not an action I would have taken. One would have to be pretty dewy-eyed not to believe that domestic political motivations played a large part in the decision, helping the President to both reinforce the allegiance of parts of his base committed to the move while perhaps softening the opposition of some of those confronting him; but those musings are best kept for Noise about his political prospects that we’ll undoubtedly be making in the coming months …

The Haspel Confirmation Dilemma

As I’ve previously indicated in these pages, when considering whether a Presidential nominee should be confirmed by the Senate, I follow a pretty simple two-factor analysis (which, admittedly, is ne’er followed in the current hyper-partisan environment): Is the nominee objectively qualified for the position? If so, is there any other objective factor that should nonetheless disqualify him/her from the position for which s/he has been nominated (e.g., prior criminal conviction, demonstrated drug abuse problem, etc.)? Since the Constitution provides our President the power to nominate whom s/he considers appropriate, I don’t believe that a nominee’s subjective leanings (e.g., whether s/he supports or opposes abortion rights, whether s/he is too soft or too hardline in foreign policy) should be part of the equation. Accordingly, I believe that Judge Garland should not only have received a hearing, but – absent unreported information coming to light – should also have been confirmed by the Senate, and that it was appropriate that Judge Gorsuch and Secretary of State Pompeo received confirmation.

That said, one of the many reasons that I’m glad that I’m not a sitting Senator is that if I was, I would have to consider whether to vote to confirm Gina Haspel as CIA Director.

Ms. Haspel easily passes the first hurdle; she’s been called the most qualified nominee to head the CIA in the Agency’s history, and has received what USA Today has referred to as “glowing accolades” from former Agency directors that have served in both parties’ administrations. However, Ms. Haspel’s nomination is the rare one that seems – at least for me – to require careful reflection as to whether the appointment should be rejected due to an “other objective factor” as I used the phrase above. It’s undisputed that Ms. Haspel ran a CIA “black site” that conducted waterboarding in the wake of 9/11; that she thereafter participated in the destruction of videotapes of questionable interrogations (although she was cleared of inappropriate behavior by a subsequent internal CIA inquiry); and that although she has testified that she supports the Congressional ban on and pledged not to conduct the kinds of activities that she and the CIA conducted after 9/11, she didn’t explicitly characterize those activities as immoral. Given her record, does Ms. Haspel possess the appropriate moral compass to serve in the position that – along with the presidency itself – is arguably the most consistently subject to the harshest morally conflicting pressures?

It has been widely reported that Sen. John McCain, notwithstanding his warm words for Ms. Haspel’s service to our country over the past three decades, considers Ms. Haspel’s unwillingness to call the CIA’s activities immoral “disqualifying” for the CIA directorship.

I have the deepest respect for Mr. McCain in the realm of foreign affairs. His sentiments, given his own experience as a POW, are understandable. At the same time, former CIA Director Michael Hayden, in his book, The Assault on Intelligence, called Ms. Haspel’s earlier selection for the Agency’s Deputy Director under Mr. Pompeo an “inspired choice” due to the high regard Ms. Haspel enjoys among CIA personnel. Mr. Hayden – who makes clear in his book that he is no admirer of President Trump – argues that those (which would include him) that played a part in the government’s “electronic surveillance, metadata collection, renditions, detentions, interrogations, and targeted killings” have a greater sensitivity to lines that should not be crossed than those that didn’t have to face the moral questions implicit in the conduct of such activities. It’s a point – although one readily subject to skepticism.

I am less concerned about Ms. Haspel’s unwillingness to condemn the CIA’s past activities, given her pledge not to carry on such activities during her directorship. I consider it a manner of establishing leadership. I agree with a premise advanced by others that one does not build esprit de corps in an organization that one intends to lead by trashing the group – particularly if one’s comments, given one’s record, are certain to be viewed by the organization as hypocritical means to advance one’s own career. Interestingly, Mr. Hayden also states that he viewed Ms. Haspel’s appointment as Deputy Director to be “pitch perfect” because it meant neither a repeat nor repudiation of the Agency’s past.

At the same time, I am concerned with her acknowledged participation in the destruction of the interrogation videotapes. Can she be trusted? The only responses I’ve seen to these concerns are that she was following orders (so were Nazi enablers) and was found blameless for the inappropriate operation in the subsequent CIA inquiry (perhaps a whitewash for a loyal and diligent employee). I’m not sure that these would be sufficient responses for me under many circumstances, although I balance this unease against the ringing affirmations of both Leon Panetta and Mr. Hayden that Ms. Haspel will be willing to “speak truth to power” if required to do so in her interactions with the President.

After all of this “on the one hand, on the other hand” (sounding more than a bit like Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof): I reluctantly support Ms. Haspel’s nomination. My reasons are many, albeit all simple: the confidence of former Directors that she will speak truth to a President who, in my opinion, has insufficient respect for the rule of law; her undisputed qualifications and knowledge of the Agency; her willingness, based upon past experience, to disavow any return to the activities that she engaged in post-9/11; her steadfastness in being unwilling to cast aspersions upon the CIA’s post-9/11 activities to further her own career; the high regard that the professionals in a vital, but now beleaguered, part of our national defense have for her; the fact that almost anyone that the President nominates in her stead will probably be less qualified, have less respect for and from the Agency, and be more prone to Presidential pressure; and the fact that we, frankly, need someone tough to lead the CIA. We confront bad state and non-state actors across the globe. Although most of us live in an ivory tower, the fact remains [now, sounding like Jack Nicholson’s Col. Nathan Jessup in A Few Good Men 😉 ]: we need someone who is willing to fight to protect our ivory tower in places and ways that we don’t go to or know about. Although there is no one alive I respect more than Pope Francis, he wouldn’t be a good fit for the CIA Directorship. Ms. Haspel is.

I concede that there is more than an element of faith in the expectation that someone that admittedly participated in activities many call torture and in the destruction of videotapes of inappropriate interrogations will be the speaker of truth, guardian of appropriate interrogation practices, and the protector of the rule of law. Berate me if you wish. If dilemmas had perfect answers … they wouldn’t be dilemmas. Thus, although I would vote for Ms. Haspel, I’m glad I don’t have to …

George Will and the Positioning of Mike Pence

Having just brought the site to the attention of a lot of family and friends, I intended the next post to be on some weighty public affairs topic that retirees have time to ponder. However, a good friend called my attention to a piece that George Will just did in The Washington Post on Vice President Mike Pence:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-no-longer-the-worst-person-in-government/2018/05/09/10e59eba-52f1-11e8-a551-5b648abe29ef_story.html?utm_term=.d028269e0169

Mr. Will’s piece is, at bottom, a visceral lament at the disintegration of the traditional Republican Party, but he does it through a blistering denunciation of the Vice President’s slavish behavior toward and in support of the President. Although I love words, Mr. Will’s use of “oleaginous,” “toadyism,” “obsequiousness,” and “lickspittle” all in the introductory paragraph took some doing ;). (For those that remember William F. Buckley, Jr., I’m wondering whether even he ever used “oleaginous”).

As for the Republican Party, Mr. Will’s despair arises from what is apparent to all: for good or ill, the party’s traditionalists have abdicated to the President and the party’s populists. (In a future post, we’ll make Noise addressing whether the party’s traditionalists and populists actually even constitute one coherent organization any longer, and the ramifications of that).

As to Mr. Pence, I made Noise last January on the Vice President’s kowtowing toward the President, supposing that Mr. Pence understands that, as with any Vice President, his primary duty is to ready himself to be President, and speculating that given the hyper-partisan circumstances existing in our country today, he and his intimates had spent time calculating whether he will better be able to smoothly ascend to the presidency “if the time comes” by now adhering closely to the President or by putting some daylight between them. (He is the one member of the Administration that the President can’t fire for disloyalty.) I concluded that he had decided that if he needs to assume power, the transition will be smoother if he now clings to the President.

Mr. Will’s venting of spleen was undoubtedly emotionally satisfying, and to a certain extent aligns with my own sentiments; however, neither of us has the responsibility of being one step away from the Presidency. Here’s hoping that Mr. Pence and his team have indeed carefully considered the factors involved if he has to assume the presidency, and have chosen the wisest course by having him so fawningly support the President. As time passes, I confess that I’m giving less credence to the approach he’s adopted. Americans like a President to be strong. Nobody of any political stripe will follow a bootlicker [perhaps the only word of the type that Mr. Will didn’t use ;)].

General Principles

This site was spawned in October, 2017, from my overriding interest in public affairs [as well as in the Catholic Church and the Green Bay Packers 😉 ]. Anyone viewing this knows how I relish reading and talking about the listed categories, and that I love to write (reducing thoughts to writing also helps illuminate the gaps in one’s thinking on a subject). My original notion was to record my thoughts on one long Word document; a number of our family and friends kindly indicated that they enjoy our conversations on these topics and encouraged me to maintain a blog instead. This site will be just words — no visuals, sound or the like — because I have neither the aptitude for nor the interest in adding them.

There are no highfalutin designs for this blog. A good friend of ours – who sometimes agrees with my pontifications — suggested (a bit tongue-in-cheek) “McCoy’s Noise” as the site name; we immediately loved it because it was catchy, unique, and – most importantly – it conveys what is intended to be the site’s predominant spirit: that we not take ourselves too seriously. It’s fairly doubtful than any earthshaking insights will emanate from here. This is to have fun while recognizing that any content will simply be part of the crescendo of commentary crossing our nation and world every minute.

Although I invite anyone to enter a comment (which, for the uninitiated, is done by clicking on the given post’s title and then scrolling to the comment box which appears at bottom of the post), there are two rules that I intend to cover all content of this site:

That anyone entering content (and this absolutely applies to me) needs to do so with the internal awareness that whatever s/he is asserting, no matter how fervently held, may be … ALL HAYWIRE.

That concepts be expressed in a civil tone. Respect needs to trump fervor. Disagreements need to be expressed agreeably. I do my best to maintain the measured (many would say, “boring”) tone of op-ed pieces in major newspapers. There are limits – for example, I see no way to charitably describe the sentiments of marchers wearing white sheets, carrying torches and chanting Nazi slogans – but I expect such instances to be pretty rare. A comment will never be deleted because the commenter takes issue with the substance of something I’ve posted (as like as not, s/he, not I, will be right); comments that are venomous or disrespectful in tone or language – even if they support what I’ve posted — will be removed.

Just as Seinfeld did a “Show About Nothing,” this is very likely the “Blog That Makes Nobody Happy.” I am more conservative than my ardently liberal friends, and more liberal than my staunchly conservative friends. We’re all aware of the studies showing that people gravitate to sources that reinforce their own views. I consider the toxic tribalism that has overtaken us to be the single greatest threat to our wellbeing as a nation. Although I abhor President Trump’s tone and disagree with the vast majority of his policies, as of this writing I believe his actions are a major cause of the movement we’ve recently seen on the Korean Peninsula. Likewise, although I have the utmost respect for President Obama as a person, I consider his second term foreign policy to have been largely a failure.

From time to time, there will be periods in which I make few posts. It won’t be because I’ve lost interest in the blog, or the subjects covered; it’ll be because I’m engaging in other activities (or getting chores done at the behest of TLOML). We need to manage technology, not let it manage us. I would suggest that it’s not in the best interest of any of us to spend too much personal time in front of a screen. There are a number of books that address this; we may make some Noise on this in the future :).