Election Analysis 2024

  

                  

Since former President Donald Trump defeated Vice President Kamela Harris in the 2024 Presidential election, I have read a number of analyses of the election results and all, whether Republican or Democrat, blame the Democrats for the defeat. Harris is blamed for not being a good candidate. President Joe Biden is blamed for not stepping down sooner. The Democratic party is blamed for being overly “woke” and out of touch with ordinary Americans.  Even the millions of people who voted for Trump are blamed for being racist, bigoted, and misogynistic.

However, I have not seen one analysis where Trump is given any credit for his remarkable victory. Even the conservative editorial writers and columnists at the Wall Street Journal cannot give an ounce of credit to Trump or his team. Indeed, throughout the long-drawn-out campaign, these commentators found it difficult to say even one good word about Trump. It is as if they feared alienating friends or colleagues in the industry. The editors of the WSJ consistently believed that Nikki Haley or anyone else were better candidates than Trump, and despite their losses in the primaries, would have been easy winners for the Republican party. 

In any contest, it is usually the superior player who wins.  Can it be that Trump was the superior player in 2024? Since Trump first entered the political arena in 2015, I have never seen such enthusiasm for a candidate. It grew as he demolished leading Republicans in the 2016 campaign, and then upset Hillary Clinton in the Presidential election. His controversial defeat in the 2020 election obviously did not diminish the enthusiasm of his millions of supporters and ultimately it carried him to victory this year. Without that enthusiastic base no Republican could have won. Was this enthusiasm based on nothing? Was it totally unreasonable?

I have talked with a number of Trump supporters over the years, and I can point to a few reasons for his popularity. In the first place, from the moment he entered politics, it was clear that Trump was not a politician. Perhaps this is the reason why so many in the governing class despise and hate him. He was rich but he was not one of them. No one has ever accused him of being a politician. To put it in a positive way, he appears to his base as genuine, and not as a phony. He is incredibly rich and flaunts it, but still seems like a regular guy. 

I believe that his supporters also admire his courage. He showed a lot of courage in taking on the Republican establishment in 2015. As President I recall his seemingly innumerable press conferences where he took on the entire attacking press corps without benefit of teleprompter or staged questions. Compare his bravado to Biden and Harris who hardly ever held a press conference. 

Who can forget that moment in Butler, Pennsylvania when an assassin’s bullet came within an inch of taking his life. He could have stayed on the ground covered by Secret Service agents, but something in this 78-year-old man made him rise and shake a defiant fist in the air. 

Maybe, courage has something to do with the fact that Trump might be the hardest political campaigner in history. I know he gave practically the same speech at every rally, but he was still out there night after night right till the last day of the campaign.

Trump should also be given some credit for his actual campaign. He obviously picked a team of very talented and capable people. Only after the election did we find out that the leader of the campaign was Susie Wiles. She led a campaign that won every battleground state, as well as the popular vote. The media totally overlooked her. They still don’t know how she did it.

 

###

Endorsement

 

 

The Weekly Bystander endorses Donald Trump for President.

A year ago I was looking forward to this year’s Presidential election with great anticipation. President Biden was running virtually unopposed in the Democratic primaries and was a lock to get the nomination. Although former President Donald Trump faced stronger opposition in Republican primaries, he seemed unstoppable. The 2024 election was shaping up to be a rare event, a contest between two Presidents. It would be a contest between the current administration, and the previous one. It would be easy to compare the two administrations on the basis of what they actually achieved, and not on some promised reforms or future policies.

However, it was not to be. Biden’s inept performance in the early debate led to a Democratic insider party coup that forced him out of the race. As a result it seemed as if Kamela Harris, Biden’s anointed successor was a reform candidate running against Trump who now appeared as the incumbent from whom we had to turn the page.. She has consistently declined to run on her record, but just talks about her plans for the future. Even though practically everyone in the country has already made up their mind, it still seems to me that there is no way the Biden-Harris administration can stand comparison with that of the Trump administration. *

There is no need to go over the whole list of failures of the Biden-Harris administration except to note that the greatest failure is still hidden. How long have Democratic insiders like Vice-President Harris known of President Biden’s incapacity? How long have we been governed by a secret cabal? It is claimed that President Biden removed himself from the race only after being threatened by the 25th Amendment. That amendment, however, cannot be used as a threat. If the Vice-President suspected the President was mentally or physically unable to continue, she had the responsibility to call a cabinet meeting and call for a vote. Perhaps this explains why the cabinet has met only once in the past six months, and that only for a photo op.

Whether elected or defeated, Harris and the Biden Administration will have a lot to explain in the years to come.


###

* See earlier post on the resumes of the two contenders.

Yankee Tragedy

  

Ever since the ancient Greeks dramas have been classified as either tragedy or comedy. To put it simply in a tragedy things start out well for the hero but then end badly. From Oedipus to Hamlet that has always been the case. On the other hand, in a comedy things start out badly but end up well. It is not a question of laughs. There are very few laughs in Dante’s Divine Comedy, but the hero eventually goes from the depths to the heights.  

I thought of this the other night while watching the NY Yankees blow a five-run lead in the fifth inning of the fifth game of the World Series against the Los Angeles Dodgers. It was not the loss of the game and the Series that was tragic, but the individual tragedies involved. Just as in dramas of old it seemed as if the gods or fate were involved in bringing down not just one but three Yankee heroes. 

The Yankees had lost the first two games in Los Angeles and when they lost the third game at home in Yankee Stadium, it seemed like all hope was gone, especially since Aaron Judge, their best player and league MVP, was not hitting. Nevertheless, they won the fourth game 11-4 sparked by a grand slam home run and base running antics by Anthony Volpe, their young shortstop. Moreover they would have their ace pitcher Gerrit Cole on the mound for game five.

As in all tragedies game 5 started on a high note. Judge broke out of his slump with a two-run homer in the first inning. A couple of innings later he made a spectacular catch against the wall to add to his hero status.  By the fifth inning the Yanks had built up a 5-0 lead. Cole was cruising along, and all seemed well but fate intervened to bring down the mighty.

In the top of the fifth with a runner on first Judge dropped an easy fly ball that any little leaguer could have caught. To say this error was inexplicable would be an understatement. Now there are runners at first and second with nobody out. Still, Cole induces the next batter to hit a grounder to Volpe at shortstop. He attempts a force out at third but throws the ball in the dirt for another error. Now the bases are loaded with no one out. 

Let’s stop for a moment to consider the tragic fate of Anthony Volpe. Since the days of the legendary DiMaggio, Rizzuto, and Berra the large Italian American community in New York’s metropolitan area has always loved the Yankees. Volpe came from an Italian American family and he and his family had always loved the Yankees. His play in the series had brought him to the top of the world but one errant throw brought him down. 

Years ago while listening to a Yankee game being broadcast on the radio by Tom Seaver, one of baseball’s greatest pitchers, and Phil Rizzuto, the legendary Yankee shortstop. A player had just made an error and Rizzuto asked Seaver how he would react as a pitcher. Seaver said that rather than being angry at his teammate, he felt that it was his responsibility to bear down and get out of the inning without any further damage.  In other words, it was his job to protect his teammate from blame.

Incredibly, Gerrit Cole did just that. With the bases loaded and no one out, he struck out the next two batters, including Shohei Ohtani, the Dodger MVP. Then Cole induced Mookie  Betts to hit an easy grounder to first base but then commits his own error by failing to cover the base for the throw. Who knows what could have been going on in this great pitcher’s mind after this misplay? Two hits later and the score was tied. 

In front of 50000 fans and millions of TV watchers, three fine players had fallen from the heights. Even Shakespeare would have been hard pressed to write such a tragedy.

###

Alfred Hitchcock Presents

 

 

If you want a break from hurricanes and the election, try any of these films by Alfred Hitchcock.

Famed British film director Alfred Hitchcock’s long career spanned almost 50 years. Known as the Master of Suspense, he came to America in 1940 and his first film, Rebecca, won the Academy Award for Best Picture. Today, he is best known for Technicolor classics like Rear Window, Vertigo, and North by Northwest. Older readers might remember his long running TV series, Alfred Hitchcock Presents, that featured short suspenseful dramas all introduced by Hitchcock himself. Who could ever forget the episode where a woman after killing her husband by hitting him over the head with a frozen leg of lamb, cooked the lamb and then served the evidence to the policemen investigating the homicide?

Nevertheless, I prefer some of his earlier black and white films that demonstrate that he was not only a master storyteller, but also a master of film noir and its techniques. Below find short descriptions of some of my favorites. It never ceases to surprise me that even senior citizens have never heard of or seen these classics. 

Rebecca. As mentioned above, Rebecca was Hitchcock’s first American film. Joan Fontaine, Lawrence Olivier, and Judith Anderson starred in this 1940 suspense drama based on a novel by Daphne du Maurier. Olivier plays a British aristocrat, a widower after the mysterious death of his beautiful and accomplished wife, who brings his new wife home to his estate that seems under the spell of the deceased Rebecca.   This film won the Academy Awards that year for Best Picture and Best Cinematography, and Fontaine, Olivier, and Anderson received Academy Award nominations for their performances. Hitchcock was at his best in Rebecca. 130 minutes. 

Shadow of a Doubt. Joseph Cotton and Teresa Wright starred in this 1943 thriller.  A long-lost relative returns to a sleepy small town for a stay with relatives who welcome him with open arms. He charms the whole town, but his niece begins to have doubts about Uncle Charley. Filmed on location in Santa Rosa, California, Shadow of a Doubt was Alfred Hitchcock’s personal favorite. 108 minutes.

Spellbound. Gregory Peck and Ingrid Bergman starred in this 1945 film about murder and repressed memory. Psychotherapy and psychoanalysis were starting to make their way into Hollywood and Hitchcock went all out in this film full of dreams and analysis. Surrealist painter Salvador Dali was even brought in to help with the dream sequences although most of his work never made it to the final cut. The film received nominations for Best Picture and Best Director, and famed musical director Miklos Rozsa won for Best Score. 111 minutes.

Stage Fright. Marlene Dietrich, Jane Wyman, and Richard Todd starred in this little known 1950 film shot in England. Dietrich plays a theatrical entertainer whose husband has been murdered. Police suspect her lover who claims his innocence and hides out with Wyman’s family.  The plot thickens until the typical Hitchcockian ending. Dietrich gets a chance to sing in her own inimitable fashion. The film also features famed British actors, Alastair Sim, Sybil Thorndike, and Joyce Grenfell. 110 minutes. 

Strangers on a Train. Farley Granger and Robert Walker starred in this 1951 Hitchcock thriller where a chance meeting on a train results in murder. This is my favorite Hitchcock film, from the opening sequence as we follow the footsteps of two men boarding a train, to the climactic finale which takes place on a carousel in an amusement park, a finale that is one of the most memorable in film history.  Robert Walker, who normally played boy next door roles, gave his greatest performance as a charming psychopath planning the perfect murder. Ruth Roman, and Patricia Hitchcock, the director’s daughter, are featured.101 minutes. 

I Confess. Montgomery Clift starred in this 1953 film as a priest who hears a killer’s confession but then is accused of the murder himself.  Unable to speak out because of the seal of the confessional, police and public opinion turn against him especially when it turns out there was a woman (Anne Baxter) in his past. The film was beautifully photographed on location in Quebec. 95 minutes.

I prefer to watch these films on DVD as opposed to streaming. Most of the DVDs for the films listed above come with special features that discuss the actual making of the films. In addition, there are no ads, and most include close captioning for the hearing impaired. 

### 

Vance Walz Debate

 Since I fell and fractured the humerus in my left arm five weeks ago, it has been difficult to use the keyboard on my computer for anything more than a sentence or two. But I would like to make a brief comment on last night's debate.

Before the debate, I thought that Republican Senator Vance would have to show that he was Presidential. He did not have to win but just show that he could be up to the job. Trump is nearly 80 and even his most ardent supporters must be concerned about the succession issue. So, it was not a question of win or lose the debate but would Vance show that he belonged in the arena.

I believe he passed with flying colors. He was intelligent, articulate, knowlegible, poised and young. His youth was a breath of fresh air. 

In fairness, I have to say that Governor Walz did better than I thought he would, and showed much more knowledge and experience than his running mate. This debate was the most substantive I have ever seen in all my years of following politics.

### 

Review, God and Man at Yale

 

                                           

William F. Buckley, Jr.

 Below find a brief review of William F. Buckley's God and Man at Yale, a book which some believe launched the conservative movement in America. The main issue raised by Buckley is still with us today, and explains the major difference between our two parties that should be evident in tonight's debate between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. 

*********

 William F. Buckley Jr., the famed Conservative commentator, first came to the nation’s attention with the publication of God and Man at Yale back in 1951. The book, a review of Buckley's years at Yale was subtitled, “The Superstitions of ‘Academic Freedom’”. 

Buckley must have had an outstanding college career before graduating in 1950. For example, one year he held the prestigious position of editor of the Yale Daily News.  He  loved his Alma Mater but found some disturbing trends. 

Here I would just like to concentrate on his lengthy chapter devoted to the teaching of economics at Yale, a chapter primarily analyzing the textbooks chosen for the basic introductory course that was taken by a large number of students. All four of the textbooks believed that the biggest problem facing America in 1950 was “income inequality”. That’s right! Income Inequality or, as he titled it, THE UNFAIR DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME. Why was income inequality such a big issue back in 1950?

I believe the answer can be found in the background of the economists who had written the textbooks. If Buckley was about 25 in 1950, then I would guess the authors of the textbooks were born before the First World War and grew up in the era marked by the subsequent Communist Revolution in Russia and the worldwide Great Depression of the 1930s. Paul Samuelson, for example, was born in 1915 and his textbook, Economics, an Introductory Analysis, was first published in 1948 and soon became one of the best-selling textbooks of all time. Samuelson’s book was one of the four reviewed by Buckley.

Samuelson and the others all believed that the experiment begun in Russia in 1917 was the wave of the future, and that the Great Depression in American had shown the inadequacies of the traditional system of free or private enterprise in dealing with modern economic issues. In the chapter on economics Buckley cited a comparison between the Soviet and American systems from one of these textbooks. The italics are Buckley’s.

compare “ the situation in our economy with that in a socialist economy, such as the Russian or Czechoslovakian. In the Russian economy the decision to produce, let us say 20 million tons of pig iron, is made by the Central Planning board, which presumably takes into account the needs and resources of the Russian economy before it comes to a decision. The same board determines how many automobiles to produce, how many pairs of socks to manufacture, and how many acres to put into wheat. In our economy, no such institution exists. No one group or person determines how much steel to produce, how many tractors to make, or how much land to plant in cotton…. In a socialist economy, important questions of output, price, employment, and so on are planned collectively. In a capitalistic economy, these decisions are made separately by individual firms…. How does the business firm determine how much it will produce? The answer to this question is to be found in the fact that the business firm in this country is privately owned…. The determination of how much to produce, or of the price to be charged for the product, is made with one interest in mind—that of the owner. The owner’s interest is to secure as large a profit as possible. [Pp. 65-66]

Just as today, it was believed that the profit motive that was the root of all evil. In the words of one text, “the state, being free from the profit motive and having the power of compulsion, is able to make its revenue fit its expenditures (within limits) rather than the reverse.” [p. 67] Of course, profit motive brings up the image of the greedy businessman as often portrayed in popular movies of the 1930s or in the figure of Mr. Monopoly from the very popular board game.

Samuelson’s text disclaimed the image but still used it.

In this connection, it is important to understand just what a monopolist is. He is not indeed,“…a fat, greedy man with a big moustache and cigar who goes around violating the law. If he were, we could put him in jail. He is anyone important enough to affect the prices of the things that he sells and buys. To some degree that means almost every businessman”… [75]

In 1950 all four textbook authors were convinced that the experiment going on in Russia was the wave of the future and that the private enterprises system was a thing of the past that had been forever discredited by the Great Depression. The textbooks, and the professors who chose them, were all advocates of central planning, a large central government, extremely high progressive income tax rates, and confiscatory inheritance tax rates. 

Writing in 1950 I don’t suppose that the young Buckley or the textbook authors could have foreseen the great economic boom that would take place in the USA in the next few decades, a boom that not only raised millions out of poverty, but also created the wealthiest country in the history of the world. Neither could they imagine that during the same period the Soviet economy would finally be exposed as a rotten failure. At the same time as we were beginning to learn about Stalin’s brutal oppression, we were learning of people lining up at Russian markets for hours to buy inferior or even non-existent necessities. 

The Soviet Union had eliminated income inequality by making everyone poor. Years later, we would learn that they had actually created a new aristocracy of Communist party members and their friends who lorded it over their subjects. As in most socialist countries members of the ruling party made up only about 10% of the population. So much for central planning and the elimination of the profit motive.

In one of history’s ironies Paul Samuelson made a fortune with his economics textbook, In true capitalist fashion he contrived to bring out a new edition every couple of years so that students could not buy older used texts. No central board or agency prevented him or his publisher from printing and selling as many copies as the market would bear. He lived a long life and received practically every award a scholar could get. In 1996, he was awarded the National Medal of Science by President Bill Clinton, another Yale graduate who now makes millions by giving speeches to fat cats all over the world while he, his wife, and "democratic socialists" or so-called progressives complain of income inequality.

### 

Two Resumes

  

                  

This week at the Democratic National Convention (DNC), the Democrats nominated Vice President Kamela Harris to be their standard bearer in the November election. She will face off against the Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump. Now would be a good time to compare the two candidates. 

Theoretically, we are their potential employer, and let’s imagine that we are looking at their resumes and considering their qualifications for the job. Of course, like any good employer, we should not consider their age, gender, race, creed, or color. Let’s concentrate on their recent work experience.

First, we find that Donald Trump has actually served four years as President of the USA. He has four years of on-the-job experience. We see that his administration had some major successes in foreign affairs. He met with many foreign leaders, both friend and foe, and the World was at relative peace, especially after ISIS was defeated in Iraq.  Toward the end of his term, his administration brokered the Abraham Accords, an historic first step in normalizing relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors. There was no war in Ukraine.

Domestically, his most important achievement was tax reform that made the tax system not only fairer and simpler, but also more growth oriented. It is important to understand that the Trump reform was not really a cut in taxes but a cut in tax rates both personal and corporate. In 2016, before tax reform, the Federal government collected $3.27 trillion in taxes. By 2019, before the pandemic hit, total tax revenues rose to $3.46 trillion. Moreover, during the Trump administration employment and real wages reached all-time highs.

But more than anything else, he was always up front, a leader in both foreign and domestic affairs. We remember his many press conferences where, unscripted and without a teleprompter, he took on all questions from largely hostile media.  Even during the Covid crisis, he was on stage practically every day during that national emergency. Whatever you think of vaccines, there is no doubt that he acted with firmness and alacrity in their development. 

In summary, his resume shows four years or relative peace and prosperity despite a pandemic, and despite incredible and unprecedented opposition from his political opponents.

 

Now, let’s look at the resume of Vice-President Harris. There is a lengthy goal statement, but one wonders why she has not achieved any of these goals in the past three and a half years of the Biden/Harris administration. She plans to do many things on Day 1 of her administration, but since she is in office right now, why hasn’t she done them already? 

I would ask any reader to help me list three significant things that she has achieved as Vice-President. I can offer a couple of hints. She obviously participated in the coup that put an end to President Biden’s re-election campaign. After years of lying about how sharp and capable he was, she helped to throw him under the bus. If she is truly running the show now, she added insult to injury by putting Biden on the DNC stage at 11:30 on Monday night.  

She also appointed Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota as her running mate. His only qualification seems to be that he will not outshine her. Otherwise, her resume is blank for the past three and a half years. What has she been doing during that time? She was supposed to be Border Czar, but her handlers have deleted that item.

Finally, her resume shows no evidence of any real leadership. Did she play an important role in the inner circles of the Biden administration? Or is her call for a new era of hope and joy, a critique of that administration? Who knows? She is being hidden from view in the same manner as Biden four years ago, she gives no interviews or press conferences. Her speeches are all ghost written and delivered via teleprompter. It is true that she does a good job of reading from a teleprompter.

I watched her acceptance speech to see if she added more information on her role in the Biden administration. She briefly mentioned three things. First, she warned President Zelensky of Ukraine that the Russians were about to invade.  Three years later, the war goes on. Second, after three years of an open border policy she worked this year to create a border bill but that was somehow derailed by former President Trump. Finally, she is currently working with President Biden to end the Gaza war, but so far with no success. That was all she could say about her record as Vice President. She spent much more time talking about her mother.

 

Who would you hire?

 

###

Hiroshima and Nagasaki Revisited

 

                                             

 On August 5, 1945 a U.S. Air Force bomber dropped the first atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Four days later a second atomic bomb was dropped on the port city of Nagasaki. Five days later  on August 15 Japanese Emperor Hirohito and the Japanese government agreed to accede to Allied demands and surrender unconditionally. 

Earlier that year, on May 8, 1945, the European Allies had accepted the surrender of Germany after Hitler’s suicide. VE Day marked the end of the war in Europe and the Allies could now turn their full attention to the defeat of Japan. Joseph Stalin, the brutal Communist dictator in Russia, had refused to open an Asian front against Japan until the defeat of Germany. 

After VE Day Stalin agreed to launch an attack on the Japanese puppet state in Mongolia within three months. On July 26, 1945 the Allied leaders met at Potsdam and issued a demand to Japan to surrender unconditionally or face utter destruction. While the Russians built up their forces in the East, the United States launched a series of devastating firebomb attacks on Japanese cities from recently taken islands in the Pacific.

When these attacks failed to bring the Japanese to their knees, the Allies made preparations for a full-scale attack on the Japanese mainland. Massive casualties were projected on both sides.  Finally, by the beginning of August scientists had successfully tested the Atom bomb. President Truman then made the decision to use the bomb.

I was six years old at the time and have only the slightest recollection of that world-shattering event. I don’t think anyone at the time could have imagined the awful destruction caused by those two bombs. A few years later, after the Soviet Union had managed to steal the technology and build their own bomb, I remember participating in air raid drills in school. Teachers told us to crouch under our desks or just put our heads on the desks with our hands over them. I guess that this exercise was to protect against shattered windows but even we children realized its futility.

As  I got older I became somewhat aware of the debate that had gone on within the Truman administration about the decision to drop the bomb, as well as the debate that still goes on among scholars and other commentators about the necessity and morality of the action. I’m sure that this question is one in which there are strong arguments on both sides. For myself, I still wonder why it was necessary to drop the second bomb on Nagasaki only four days after Hiroshima. 

Coincidentally, at the time Nagasaki was the most Christian city in Japan. The day the Japanese government agreed to surrender was August 15, for Catholics the feast day of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into Heaven. Although Catholics had celebrated the feast of the Assumption on August 15 for centuries, the doctrine had never been officially defined by the Church. 

Maybe it was the awful destruction of the Second World War, maybe it was the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and maybe it was the prospect of an atomic arms race, but only five years after the surrender of Japan on August 15, Pope Pius XII, in a rare exercise of Papal infallibility, declared that belief in the Assumption of Mary was a binding doctrine of the Catholic church.

So far, despite the Cold War and the continued development of nuclear weapons, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain unique.  Although warfare has continued, there has thankfully been no worldwide conflagration to match either WWI  or WWII. It might not seem so, but since August 15, 1945 we have witnessed an unprecedented era of peace between world powers.

 One of the reasons I voted for Donald Trump in 2016 was his stated concern about the danger of nuclear war. I cannot find the exact source but I recall that when he was asked about the greatest issue facing the country, he put the threat of nuclear war at the top of the list. Given the events of the past four years,  I believe that it should still be at the top of the list in the 2024 Presidential campaign,. It certainly far surpasses in importance any issues that "progressive Democrats" have raised since 2016.

###

NABJ and the Great White Whale

 

Early this month Donald Trump appeared at the National Association of Black Journalists (NJAB) conference for an interview. He was questioned by three Black women journalists for about a half hour. It was supposed to be an hour, but equipment problems caused a delay. After hearing about the interview and seeing some negative clips, I decided to watch the whole thing on YouTube.

 

I have to say that I think Trump did a pretty good job. For the most part he was calm, relaxed, and conversational. He was not aggressive or bombastic. More than his words it was his manner that made him appear genuine. Like him or not, you would have to admit that Trump is genuine. Although most commentators fail to understand, Trump appears real and not like an ordinary politician. Certainly, this was the way he appeared in this brief interview. 

 

In the first place he showed up to face the music. President Biden, and Vice-President Harris had also been invited but found reasons to excuse themselves from participating in an unscripted interview. Moreover, Trump accepted the challenge despite the fact that it might be a hostile audience, and that the interviewers might be out to nail him. Indeed, in the first question, the journalist indicated that many felt that Trump was not welcome at the conference and went on to give a lengthy rehash of Trump remarks that Blacks might find offensive. 

 

Trump calmly took offense at her statement and called it rude. Was this the kind of intro he deserved? Didn’t he rate even an hello or how are you, or thanks for coming even though the others had bowed out? What about the fact that he was there taking questions when only a month before, he had escaped death by less than an inch from an assassin’s bullet? Of course, there was no apology.

 

After that, I thought that Trump handled the questions pretty well. Readers can watch the video and make up their own minds. I would just like to comment on the type of questions these journalists asked. Journalists deal in words. They do not make things; they do not fix or repair things. They do not build things. They deal in words. And so, they concentrated on what Trump said, and not on what he actually had done in his four years as President. 

 

The first journalist asked if Trump thought Vice President Harris was a DEI candidate? Another asked if he thought a white policeman should have immunity if he shot a black person. One asked what he would do for the Black community if elected. Apparently, none of these journalists had ever bothered to investigate what Trump had actually done for blacks during his Administration, or else, they did not want to bring up the substantial increase in black wages and employment that his policies had created. 

 

The media is called the media because it is a medium through which a politician or other newsmaker can be revealed to the public. No matter what the color of their skin, journalists should not inject their own bias into an interview. They should give the subject a fair hearing so that people can make up their own minds. 

 

 

###

Turning 85 continued

 

Last week I republished a 2013 interview with a local reporter who was interested in my work at the Fairfield Senior center. Here is the second part of that interview. Eleven years have gone by and though I no longer teach courses at what is now known as the Bigelow Senior Center, I continue to present films in the Foreign Film Festival, and the Monday series of American film-noir classics from Hollywood's Golden Age. I also play chess there every Wednesday. 

Q. You are one of several highly respected teachers whose brief teaching stints, several times a year, for the Fairfield Senior Center‘s Lifelong Learners Program make you a valuable commodity. What is it about teaching Seniors that you enjoy?

A. I have always been interested in learning, and the best way to learn is to try to teach something. It is especially rewarding to teach in the Lifelong Learners program at the Fairfield Senior center. It is obvious just looking at the people in class that they are intelligent, educated, well traveled, and motivated. In my very first class on Renaissance art I asked if anyone had been to Florence, and practically everyone raised their hand.

So I get a chance to explore subjects that interest me with 40 or 50 people who really want to learn, and who also have a wealth of life experience that they can bring to class.

Cong. James Himes with Fairfield Seniors

Q. Do you enjoy traveling? What are your favorite places? Are they stuff for the New York Times travel section?

A. Linda and I have traveled frequently to Italy since 1997 when we visited our youngest daughter, an NYU student taking a summer program in Florence. Since then we have gone back practically every year. It was because of these trips that I began at series of talks at BACIO, an Italian-American organization founded by Leonard Paoletta, the former mayor of Bridgeport. *

In the talks I tried to discuss the history and the culture and the art of some of the places we had visited. Most of the world’s great art comes from Italy. These talks led me deeper and deeper into Art History until the subject became a passion even before I retired.

Incredibly, this interest led me to a great discovery. One of the most beautiful and mysterious paintings of the Italian Renaissance is the “Tempest” by Giorgione, one of the greatest of all Venetian artists who died at about the age of 33 in 1510, more than 500 years ago. Not as well known as Michelangelo and Raphael, Art historians place Giorgione along side them in the Renaissance pantheon. To this day scholars, while universally admiring the Tempest, his most famous painting, cannot agree on what it's all about.

Giorgione: The Tempest, Venice 1509

I believe that I have identified the subject of the painting. A short version of my interpretation was published in the Masterpiece section of the Wall St. Journal in 2006, and I have been developing the thesis ever since. I blog about the Venetian Renaissance at Giorgione et al...

Q. I see that you are a member of the Renaissance Society of America. What is that all about?

A. The Renaissance Society of America is an organization of scholars from all over the world who share an interest in the renaissance in learning and art that took place roughly from 1400-1650. They publish a quarterly journal of articles and reviews, and hold an annual meeting. In 2010 the meeting was held in Venice. At that meeting I presented my paper on the “Tempest.” 

Q. What do you particularly enjoy teaching at the Senior Center?

A. My course on the art of the Italian Renaissance, “A Tale of Four Cities,” is my favorite because of my interest in Renaissance Italy and its Art. This Spring I will repeat my “Italian Dreams” course which used four great Italian films to understand the reasons for the great migration of Italians to America. Next Fall, I will present a new course on four eighteenth century revolutions. The course is entitled “England and America in the Age of Revolution.”

Q. Do you feel that you have a following? That you have developed a rapport with your students?

A. All the classes have been very well attended. I believe that we have developed a following for the Foreign Film Festival, which I launched in 2009. The films are shown at 12:15 on the second Friday of the month. In our second season we showed  “Bakhtiari Alphabet,” a film about an Iranian tribal people and their adaptation to the modern world. The film’s producer and co-director, Dr. Cima Sedigh of Sacred Heart University, was on hand to discuss it with the attendees. We are also fortunate to have our China expert, Dr. Richard DeAngelis from Fairfield University, on hand to lead discussion of a number of films from China including the award winning “To Live.” In April we will feature Sophia Loren and Marcello Mastroianni in “Too Bad She’s Bad,” a wonderful early Italian comedy.

Sophia Loren and Marcello Mastroianni

Q. When we watched Pagliacci, Tuesday morning, you asked your students to watch the faces of the adults and children in the operatic foreground? Why was it important that they look at the faces do you think? Did you get any feedback on that specific request?

It is very difficult for us to imagine our own parents and grandparents as young vibrant people with real emotions. Looking at those young faces watching the clowns makes me think of my own grandparents back in Italy before they came to America. Also, a good film is a work of Art. From my Art history study I have come to realize that you must try to see everything in a painting, not just the main figures. Franco Zeffirelli, the director of “Pagliacci,” put those images on the screen for a reason.

Q. What question would you care to ask that hasn’t been asked?  Why don’t you answer it?

A. It seems that I have said enough for now, but you might have asked, “Why do you do it?” When I used to counsel my clients on retirement planning, I liked to stress that retirement was not the end but the beginning of a new career. It was sad when people told me that they had no interests beyond work. Linda and I both believe that it’s important to keep active and continue to grow and learn. 

### 

*We made our last trip to Italy in 2017. It was kind of a farewell tour, and we had a great time visiting Venice, Milan, Florence and Rome. But even before the pandemic we realized that we had reached the age where foreign travel, like many other things, was getting too difficult.

Turning 85

  

I've just turned 85 and thought it might be of interest to new as well as old readers to repeat a post from 2013 containing an interview I did back then for a local newspaper. I had been teaching at the Lifelong Learners program at the Fairfield Senior center. The original title of the post was "It's a Wonderful Life." It is in question and answer form and will be presented in two successive posts.

Q. Let’s start with some background. Where were you born? Where did you go to secondary school? What did you like about going to school? Was there a favorite teacher? Why did you decide to go to Fordham? What was special about your undergraduate work?

A. I was born in 1939 and raised in NYC in the borough of Queens. My parents were second generation Italian Americans and we lived right next door to my paternal grandparents who were both born in Italy.

In 1953 I went to Power Memorial Academy, one of the many Catholic High Schools in NYC. It was an all boys school located in a very tough West Side neighborhood that was subsequently razed to make way for Lincoln Center. The school was run and staffed by Irish Christian Brothers although there were a few laymen on the faculty. A favorite teacher was the Brother who taught the Senior Honors Literature course. I was always an avid reader but he imparted a sense of the importance and value of the study of great literature.

I went to Fordham on a full scholarship provided by the Bulova Watch Company, my father’s employer. This competitive scholarship would have paid tuition and room and board at any college of my choice. Initially, I was going to Syracuse for Engineering but probably decided on Fordham because I was uncertain about a career path, and it was closer to home. Since Fordham’s Bronx campus was only about an hour and a half away by bus and subway, I didn’t see any need, in my naiveté, to live on campus even though the scholarship would have paid for it. There was no one to advise me since I was the first in my family to attend college, and my mother had died when I was 11. Like many other things in my life, it worked out for the best since NYC itself, with its theaters, sports, nightclubs, museums, and libraries, became my campus.

Even though I had been a top student at Power, I was not prepared for the rigors of a Jesuit education at Fordham. In 1957 Fordham was probably the best Catholic institution of higher learning in the country, and the class of ’61 was probably its best ever. Even though I was only an average student I was in a great learning environment. I say average but looking back I realize that the curriculum was broad and comprehensive including four years of Theology and Philosophy, as well as two years of Latin and French as requirements.  I majored in History, a subject which I had loved since grade school. There was nothing special about my work at Fordham. Nevertheless, even though I had only average grades, I aced the graduate record exams and was accepted in the MA program at Columbia. Finally, in my last year at Fordham I met my future wife, Linda Gardella, a nursing student at Cornell University Medical center in Manhattan.

Q. You have a PhD. What was your Master’s in? Did you have to write a Master’s thesis and what was it? Were your orals tough? And your Doctorate? That was in History. What was your thesis? Did you enjoy writing it? Might it have been what led you to teach at the college level?

A. I went to Columbia on a NY State Teaching fellowship. I guess it was then that I really began to think that I wanted to become a college professor. But just as at Fordham I found myself way over my head at Columbia, a world-class institution with an internationally renowned faculty. 

I decided to specialize in 18^th century British politics primarily because I was always interested in the American Revolution, and also because I had taken a wonderful course in British politics in my Senior year at Fordham with a really great professor. My Master’s thesis was on the political career of a British general and politician who was very active in the opposition to the War with America. After completing my Masters at Columbia I went back to Fordham to continue my studies in British politics under the mentorship of my old professor, Dr. Ross Hoffman. 

It took almost 10 years to complete my PhD dissertation on the political career of General Henry Seymour Conway. I loved working on the dissertation but it was really hard work. During that time Linda and I married and began a partnership based on mutual love and respect that has continued to this day. 

I taught in a Catholic High School for a year and then she worked as a public health nurse while I took a year off to complete my course work at Fordham. After a brief stint of government work with the Federal Aviation Agency in NY, I got a call for an interview at the brand new Sacred Heart University in Fairfield. 

Q. You still enjoy teaching, why did you leave it?

I taught History for seven years at SHU from 1965 to 1972.  Linda and I bought a house in Fairfield and began a family. I was teaching as well as doing research on my dissertation and thoroughly enjoyed both.  But the Vietnam era was tumultuous for America. As the war came to an end, enrollment at the University began to decline and in 1972 the University began to retrench. I was one of the faculty up for tenure that year and none of us had our contracts renewed. In the same year that I got my PhD from Fordham, I found myself out of a job with a wife and five small children.

Nevertheless, it again turned out for the best. I got a job in the Financial Services industry and managed with Linda’s support to survive the very difficult early years. Over the years I was able to build up a very successful career as a Financial Advisor before retiring in 2008. 

to be continued...

Trump's Acceptance Speech

 

    

 

 

Our political arena seems to change as rapidly as a summer storm, and even though President Biden has now withdrawn from the race, I still would like to post on Trump's speech at the RNC.

My wife and I stayed up to watch the whole of Donald Trump’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. Frankly, it proved to be disappointing. I could only give him a C+: C because it was average, but + for its stirring and emotional beginning when he gave his account of the assassination attempt on the previous Saturday. 

 

Let’s take the high-point first. For the first time we heard him describe what it was like to be a victim of a shooting. It was a riveting account of the incident from his own perspective. It was especially moving when he described his attempt to show the stunned crowd that he was ok. It got even better when he praised the Secret Service agents who rushed to the stage to shield his body with their own. He wisely chose to avoid casting any blame. He was truly magnanimous. He topped it off mentioning the other victims of the attack one of whom lost his life by shielding his own family from the bullets. He pointed out that he had visited the families and that millions of dollars have been raised for them. 

 

In these first 30 minutes he was gracious, kind, and thankful. He showed true humanity. Who can fault someone who had come within an inch of his life for believing it was a miracle or that divine providence was at work. He could have ended the speech right there, and it would have been a rousing success.

 

Nevertheless, he went on and on for an hour more, and still missed a golden opportunity. He had indicated after the shooting that he planned to make major changes in his speech, changes that would reach out to more than his base and call for national unity. After thanking the assembled delegates for their support, he could have said something like the following.

 

“I want to thank you all for your support and enthusiasm, but I would like to pause our celebration for a few minutes to speak to those in our country who can’t stand me or what I stand for. Not only do they dislike me, but they also fear that I will be a dictator and bring an end to democracy in our country. Some have even called me Hitler. To those people I would just say that rather than imagining what a Trump administration would look like, just go back and consider what my first administration was like. 

 

Dictators routinely arrest, imprison, and execute their political opponents. Nothing like that ever occurred during my Administration. Do you remember how my supporters demanded that Hillary Clinton be locked up? During my term in office, she was never investigated, much less indicted. We had more important things to do. Today, I will go even further and promise that during a second Trump administration, there will be no prosecution of the current President or his family. Joe will be able to retire to his Delaware estate, drive his Corvette, and never worry about Federal agents invading his home in the middle of the night.

 

We brought peace and prosperity to this country. There was no bloody war in Ukraine, ISIS terrorists were defeated in Iraq, and there was peace in the Middle East. We even brokered the Abraham Accords where for the first time, Arab states recognized the right of Israel to exist. No one was a greater supporter of Israel than myself, and antisemitism did not rear its ugly head in our country during my Administration. And yet, I’m called Hitler, and my supporters Nazis or Fascists.

 

You may disagree with my policies, but you must admit that we had prosperity as well as peace during my administration. Wages were at all time highs, and there was virtually no cruel inflation to wipe away these gains. We were energy independent, and gas and oil prices were half what they are now.

 

Please, you don’t have to imagine and fear what a Trump administration would look like. You just have to look back and see what we actually accomplished from 2016 to 2020. Despite incessant and unprecedented political opposition, and a pandemic, there was peace and prosperity at home and abroad. If elected, I will dedicate myself to peace at home and abroad, and not to senseless political revenge and retribution."

 

PS. We had company the first three nights of the Convention, and only tuned in on Thursday night for Trump’s speech. To me the highlight of the evening was the appearance of Melania Trump. She reminded me of the advice St. Francis gave to his disciples. “Preach always but use words only when necessary.” She did not say a word but was the epitome of beauty, dignity, and decorum.  

 

Trump Survival

 

No matter what our political persuasion, we should all be extremely grateful that former President Donald Trump narrowly escaped death last Saturday evening. Of course, we should all be happy for him and his family, but we should especially be grateful that only an inch separated our country from unimaginable political chaos. If President Biden and his advisers has been more alert, they would have declared Sunday a National Day of Thanksgiving.

 

I planned to write about other things today but the attempt on former President Trump’s life has made me reflect on his political career and why I have liked him almost from its beginning. I must confess that I am not one of those who have objected to Trump’s rhetoric and wished that he would “tone” it down. I was not originally a supporter but when he demolished a formidable field of Republican opponents back in 2016, I became a fan. Who will ever forget Jeb “low energy” Bush, or “Little” Marco Rubio?  Perhaps it was my New York City origins that made me admire a man who could take the blows and not back down and give as good as he got.

 

I remember a speech Trump gave in Connecticut during his first Presidential campaign. In remarks that seemed to come out of the blue, Trump mentioned that when Hillary Clinton was asked what she thought of him, she replied that she didn’t like his “tone.” He replied, “in the Middle East Islamic radicals are cutting off the heads of people, mainly Christians, drowning others in steel cages, and burying others alive in the desert sand. Yet, she doesn’t like my “tone”. Subsequently, the Trump administration destroyed the ISIS terrorists in Iraq, something that today has largely been forgotten.

 

However, I like Trump mainly because he delivered the goods as President despite unrelenting opposition from Democratic politicians, high ranking government officials, the mainstream media, and even members of his own party. Here are some accomplishments that have also largely been forgotten.

 

The World was largely at peace during his administration. There was no Russian invasion of Ukraine, and there was no war in Gaza. He capped it off with the Abraham Accords, a peace agreement where for the first time some of Israel’s Arab neighbors recognized the legitimacy of the state of Israel.

 

At home his Tax Reform was a model of common sense and simplicity. It bolstered the economy and made the tax code fairer especially for those with incomes below $100,000, the great majority of the population. The standard deduction was raised for all, and tax rates were reduced. A family with less than $28000 per year of income would not pay any Federal Income tax. 

 

Tax deductions like those for mortgage interest and state and local income taxes that mainly benefitted the well to do, were eliminated or capped. Renters, for example, did not benefit from deductions that only helped homeowners, or those who owned more than one home. Moreover, these deductions played a role in driving up the value of homes and pricing lower income people out of the market.

 

Even the lowering of tax rates on corporations was a matter of fairness. Why should American corporations be taxed at higher rates than corporations in other countries? Why were American corporations put at such a disadvantage that they had to build factories and transfer jobs overseas to compete? In addition, higher corporate rates forced these companies to keep their profits overseas to avoid excessive double taxation. 

 

During the Trump administration America was energy independent and was actually exporting energy all over the world. Remember how low gas prices were at the pump. Salaries and real wages for all people were at record highs, and there was virtually no inflation to cruelly wipe away these gains.

 

Even during the pandemic I admired the fact that Trump was always out in front day after day taking the heat despite vicious opposition. In his almost daily press conferences, he made celebrities of government officials like the lady with the scarves, and the now famous or infamous Dr. Fauci. He was ridiculed for suggesting that the virus originated in China, and that hydroxychloroquine was an effective treatment, but now we know that he was right. He quickly offered help to blue state governors who only responded with ingratitude. 

 

I admit that he was not a perfect President. He talked about “draining the swamp” but did not realize how tough it would be. He was the Captain of the Ship of State, but the crew was disobedient, and sometimes downright mutinous.

 

 He should have left office more gracefully. He should have realized that he had been outsmarted by the Democrats and accepted the results despite evidence of fraud. I listened to his whole speech on January 6, and there was no call for violence or insurrection. Long suppressed videos now show peaceful citizens being calmly escorted through the Capitol by police. There was no insurrection. The protestors were unarmed. There was only one fatality, a female veteran shot in the back by a D.C. policeman while trying to enter a window. 

 

The Republican National Convention begins tonight. Love him or hate him, we should all breathe a sigh of relief that Donald Trump will be there. 

 

###