When a Leader Doesn't Understand Civility

The country lost a great statesman this weekend. Senator John McCain exemplified what we think of as the American politician - he was principled, patriotic, compassionate, a war hero, well-spoken, a bit of a maverick, and not afraid to speak his mind. His response to 5 1/2 years of captivity and torture was to become a public servant, when he easily could have been defeated by what was a horrific experience that left him unable to lift his arms enough to comb his own hair. He was proud to serve his country both in the Navy and in politics. He was a decent human being, who was friends with his fellow politicians, regardless of party, and was able to move on twice from crushing defeats in presidential elections to be friends with the men who defeated him.

Anyone who knows me knows that I am a liberal progressive, and will understand when I say that I didn't like John McCain's politics, and he disappointed me plenty of times. But I can also say that I felt like I could trust him.

Anyone who knows me also knows that I think that I am appalled by President Trump. Apart from his administration's policies, I am simply appalled by his lack of leadership. It is never more evident than in his treatment of John McCain. 

One of the hallmarks of American politics has always been the notion of civility. That idea that the men and women elected to federal office maintain the civility of the nation by modeling civility, and that role is especially critical to the President. It is an example first set by President Washington, and is as much a part of the fabric of the country as the notion of individualism and freedom. President Trump either does not understand it, or rejects it. Either way, it is appalling.

President Trump is the man who mocked Senator McCain, saying he is no war hero because he shouldn't have been captured in the first place (and later said he did not regret saying it). Then, shades of Lady Catherine deBourgh, claimed that, if he had gone to Vietnam, he would have avoided capture. He is the man unbothered when a White House aide remarked that what John McCain had to say didn't matter because he'd be dead soon, anyway. And in his latest knuckle headed move, rejected plans for the White House to issue a statement praising John McCain at his death. The sitting president refuses to issue a statement praising one of the longest-serving, most faithful members of the party he is supposed to head. 

A hallmark of American life is that when someone is dying, or passes away, the notion of civility leads us to end the criticism, and reach for dignity. We shift our thoughts to their humanity, to the people who love them, and we allow our compassion to guide us. Our past presidents and other prominent politicians have issued eloquent statements focused on his many accomplishments. Sadly, our current president doesn't understand civility.

My Life and Times: Hunting for Treasure

My Life and Times: Hunting for Treasure: Years ago, a friend of mine convinced me to audit a poetry class at the University of Minnesota on the poetry of Tin Pan Alley songs. (That ...

Hunting for Treasure

Years ago, a friend of mine convinced me to audit a poetry class at the University of Minnesota on the poetry of Tin Pan Alley songs. (That course was the foundation for a book.) In between spirited debates about whether or not song lyrics can (or should) be separated from the music, we learned a lot of early 20th century pop culture and slang. The lyricists embedded clever puns and rhymes that often flew by unnoticed, all within the confines of a rigid 32-bar ABA structure.

Every so often, you can also hear a musical reference to great classical composers or fellow Tin Pan Alley songwriters, and I'm willing to bet that they aren't all accidental. Long before mashups were a thing, my brain used to mash up  "Can't Help Lovin' Dat Man" and "Stormy Weather." I have often wondered if Harold Arlen was inspired by Jerome Kern's melody, or if it was a result of a snatch of melody stuck in his unconscious.

I was listening to a "special" podcast of The West Week Weekly, an interview with The West Wing fans Lin Manuel Miranda and Tommy Kail, (creators of the hip-hop musical, "Hamilton"). They got to talking about TWW references in "Hamilton." Lin said there is only one deliberate reference, the drum roll, but that fans are constantly finding TWW references in it. (There enough that hashtags and Tumblr pages are devoted to them.) 

photo from MacArthur Foundation

 As often as I hear "Hamilton," there is always something new. Just this week, I heard variations on "Daydream Believer" and "Don't Rain on My Parade." Lin said that when he was writing "Hamilton," he purposely embedded it with as many musical and cultural "ins" as he could to help the audience accept it. Many of them he annotated in the published libretto, Hamilton The Revolution, but more are unconscious, like those TWW references the fans keep finding.

Like the great Tin Pan Alley writers, Lin's genius lies in the subtlety of the rhymes and references. He often references the middle of a lyric or musical phrase. "Hamilton" is a musical treasure hunt.

Stop demonizing Hillary Clinton

With all the outrage, especially from Bernie Sander supporters,  about how the DNC "rigged" the election for Hillary Clinton, let's remember something: This is how politics works.

Bernie is a great progressive voice. He is also not a Democrat. This is important as we look at what happened. The DNC did not have to say yes to Bernie when he asked if he could run as a Democrat, but they did, recognizing that an independent run would pull away enough Democratic votes to have the same effect as Ralph Nader's run in 2000. Let's also remember that Ralph Nader ran, not to become president, but to disrupt the system. He gave us George W. Bush. Also remember that Bernie asked to run as a Democrat because he knew that he would be given a place on the national stage in a way that an independent run would not, and to return a more progressive tone to a party that had become too centrist, especially with a president since 2008 who was a centrist and gradually moved left, effectively minimizing the influence of liberals and progressives.

I suspect that the DNC said yes to Bernie reluctantly, because influential progressives put on some pressure. It was a smart move, and Bernie succeeded in moving the discussion back to left of center. The result was the most liberal platform ever presented by the DNC. This was great news for the country, good news for Hillary Clinton, who is a liberal, and for the party. A significant number of voters supported a more progressive conversation.

But the voters are not the DNC, and Bernie's second goal, of reforming the party, was not going to be as easily done. Institutional change is slow, and anyone who has tried to change corporate culture can understand that. And, like Hillary Clinton in 2008, the power in the party didn't want Bernie to be the nominee.

Yes, let's set that wayback machine to 2008, because I saw so many parallels between Hillary's campaign then, and Bernie's in 2016. Despite what many Bernie supporters think, Hillary Clinton hasn't exactly been the darling of the party. Oh, they loved her as a campaigner, and as a First Lady but there were a lot of people unhappy with her run for Senate, and with her decision to not divorce Bill because of his peccadillos. When the 2008 election came along, it seemed a great time for Hillary to run for president. She was still a popular former First Lady, and she had shown herself to be a hardworking, effective senator. However, the party power at the time, the Kennedys (especially Ted) did not want her to be president. Ted hand-picked Barack Obama to support, and worked to undermine the other most successful candidates, including Hillary and the other should-have-been-president, Joe Biden. It was apparent, and discussed at the time, but also framed as democracy and how party politics work.

In spite of that, Hillary came very close (closer than Bernie) to securing the nomination. When it came time for the convention, the Obama campaign and the DNC did not want to allow Hillary to speak except for a quick endorsement speech, in spite of the millions of voters who supported her in the campaign, and were not excited about Barack Obama. It was only after the news leaked out that they altered the plan, and Hillary was offered a chance to speak. She refused the stage, opting, instead, to speak from the floor of the convention, from among the New York delegation, to thank her supporters and throw her support behind Obama.

In 2016, Bernie was given a keynote timeslot to speak, and was invited to help form the party platform that Hillary would run on. I have no doubt that it was because Hillary still remember how she was treated in 2008.

But let's get back to the bargains and deals that were made that made it more difficult for Bernie to secure the nomination. First, there is no guarantee that if that had not taken place that he would have won the nomination. Second, there is no guarantee that, if he had won the nomination, that he would have won the general election. I can guarantee, though, that she would have campaigned hard for Bernie, and would have put all her effort behind getting him elected. If you think that the GOP was tough on Hillary, imagine how the 3rd party PACS would have attacked a Jew. The dog whistles abound. And, third, that is how party politics work!

If you want to set the wayback machine even farther, the party nominees were only selected by the party members, with no primaries, and there really were smoke-filled backrooms where deals were made.

The present-day Republican and Democratic parties have their roots in those smoke-filled back rooms. Institutional change is difficult, and slow. If Hillary Clinton is guilty of anything, it is of understanding the system, and finding a way to effectively navigate through it.

So, don't demonize Hillary Clinton. She isn't personally responsible for the the dysfunction in the party. Do you want to see the party reformed? Of course. But stop blaming Hillary for Bernie's inability to win the party nomination, and stop complaining about the party not being a progressive party. And don't focus on removing every Democrat who isn't Elizabeth Warren from office. Concentrate, instead, on changing your local and state parties. Volunteer, and show up at every meeting. That is where the institutionalism is the most mired - and I can promise you that the reason the same people are in charge is because the same people show up.

Because I can tell you what will happen - the Democrats will split, and the GOP will rally behind Trump, who will help them dismantle the New Deal and the Great Society, and guarantee that the U.S. is an oligarchy.