Learn from History, Save the Democratic Party ... and the Country

History is a story told by the winners.

That is an old saw. It is understood by victims of racial/ethnic discrimination and women, who have found themselves written out of history books since time immemorial.  When they ask, “What about us?”  they are faced with hard-headed and hard-hearted men of the more powerful tribes, who scoff at the notion that their petty little complaints – and their trivial heroes – should possibly capture equal time.

Liberal people all understand and accept this now.  At least when it comes to ethnic and gender issues.  But where liberals have a blind spot is when it comes to battles over the souls of political parties.  If, perchance, these liberals are center-left Democrats, the ones whose preferred candidates almost invariably win the nomination and frequently the general elections, they have no compassion whatsoever for the complaints of the folks to their party’s political left.  Those complaints are known simply as whining, divisiveness, and the stuff by which Republican victories are made.  Strong sentiments.  But that’s what happen when compassion is gone.

Look at the data.  From 1992 until 2000, the Dems were led by Bill Clinton, who campaigned as a “Southern Democrat” from the political center.   He was succeeded by his handpicked successor, Tennessee’s Al Gore – Gore’s nomination was frankly inevitable, but it is safe to say that he wasn’t yet Mr. “Inconvenient Truth,” he was the heir apparent from the party’s center-left wing.  In 2004, John Kerry beat back more progressive challengers to take the nomination -- remember “the Scream,” not the painting, but the yell that doomed Howard Dean?    In 2008, the progressives had their moment – they pushed Barack Obama, who ran a truly inspired campaign, to the finish line, only to discover that he would allow centrists Tim Geithner, Larry Summers and Joe Biden to serve as his chief lieutenants, not to mention his former foe named Clinton.    

And that led us to 2016.  The Democrats faced a surprisingly tough challenger named Bernie Sanders, who had a singular focus against economic inequity that resonated with much of the party’s base.  But when Sanders threatened Hillary Clinton’s seemingly hereditary claim to the throne, she had the party’s leadership in her back pocket and was able to summon hundreds upon hundreds of Superdelegates.  The party’s largest media outlets treated those Superdelegates as fully legit, and Sanders had no chance.  Clinton prevailed. 

Then came 2020.  At that point, the progressives in the party who had given Bernie more than 40% of the primary vote in 2016 – especially the younger voters, who voted primarily for him – were feeling like those “losers” who were left out of the history books.  What they experienced was that Joe Biden, the guy the media and the party elites originally thought was “due” (i.e., the successor to B. Clinton in 1996, Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004, Obama in 2012, and H. Clinton in 2016), was failing miserably in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada.  And immediately after Nevada, Bernie appeared poised to lead the race.  This, they thought, was their time – finally a real progressive seemed to be on top.  Then what happened?   The media and the party elites came down on him like a Mack Truck.  I'm not referring to the other candidates, but rather the talking heads and op-ed writers.  So negative.  So gratuitous.  Digging up stories about who he supported 40 years in the past.  Just one hit after another.  It was as if all the talking heads decided at the same time, "we better not nominate him or Trump will be President forever."  And sure enough, he went down the tubes, Biden’s centrist competitors quickly cleared the road, and Biden drove right in to victory.  All he needed was to do well in a single primary in a small state that never votes Democrat in the fall, and the race was effectively over.

 To Biden’s base, aka the center-left of the party and especially the older voters, there was nothing odd about any of this.  It was just the majority candidate winning a nomination and then doing what his supporters thought he was best suited to do – beating the maniacal Donald Trump in the general election.  But to the party’s progressives, the folks who occupy the leftist third, or the younger third (or both), this was just another example of history being a story told by the victors.  Just another example of how they don’t really belong to this political party, any more than many African-Americans living in the Jim Crow south felt that they belonged to this country.

I went through all of this to explain just how difficult it has become for a politician to unify the Democratic Party. There is not simply mutual disrespect between Dems and Republicans, there is a hell of a division within the Party – along ideological and largely age-based lines.  This is why precisely one percent – that’s right, ONE percent of Democratic voters under 30 “strongly” approve of the job Joe Biden is doing.  That number is as low as it is because of the above history and the resentment it creates.  And Biden’s supporters are being tone deaf to this dynamic in a way that they would never allow themselves to be tone deaf to the cries of women or people of color. 

It's a problem, one that takes truly inspired leadership to solve.  I would love to find such a leader.  Maybe my own Congressperson, Jamie Raskin, has the combo of smarts and integrity to make this happen.  Does he have the temperament?  The courage?  I don’t know.  But I’d love it if he tried.  My one practical suggestion as to how to unify the party I have voiced before:  a combination of ranked voting, to satisfy the centrists, and a commitment on the part of the centrist media/political leaders not to panic and turn on the progressive candidate should s/he appear poised to actually win a Democratic nomination, to satisfy the progressives.  The Dems, in short, should run positive campaigns within the ranks – making their own case for themselves, rather than denigrating their opponents as commies or the alike – but it is also time for ranked voting, thereby actually making the party MORE democratic, which should be something all Democrats believe in. 

And remember, all of this would be happening as part of the most righteous of causes – removing from power a party that has been taken over by Donald Trump and those who have, at one time or another, kissed his ring.  Let the words of Trump’s former press secretary, Stephanie Grisham (printed in today’s NY Times), remind you of just who the Democrats are fighting: “I don’t think I can rebrand; I think this will follow me forever…. I believe that I was part of something unusually evil.”  The only way to fight something unusually evil is with a force that is unified and potent.  There is no time to waste.   

Peace and Polarization

 I know I have not been regularly blogging, but I have been regularly writing.  On my website, www.danielspiro.com, you can find a new page devoted to two of my obsessions -- Peace and Polarization.  I recommend for your perusal two documents in particular on that page -- a statement on American Political Polarization and the diary I have been keeping recounting reflections on the recent fighting between the Israelis and the Palestinians.  

Enjoy!

Dan 

Spinoza on Liberty, Equality and Fraternity

Spinoza's political theory is a highly underrated aspect of his overall philosophy. Back in the 1930s, when Professor Harry Wolfson came up with what was then considered the most comprehensive tome on Spinoza's thought (a 795 page work called "The Philosophy of Spinoza"), only ten pages were devoted to politics.  Similarly, when Oxford University recently came up with a 666 page compendium of essays by leading contemporary Spinoza scholars, only a single essay (26 pages) dealt with his politics.  Yet of the seven treatises he wrote, two included the words "Political Treatise" in the title -- indeed, politics was at the heart of what Spinoza was working on at the time of his death at the age of 44.  Not surprisingly, Spinoza's politics have been highly influential to a diverse set of thinkers, including John Locke, Moses Mendelssohn, and  Henry Kissinger. The political theories of the Enlightenment clearly owe a substantial debt to Spinoza's views.  

This past year, I have embarked on a lengthy effort to explore the foundational principles of Spinoza's politics.  I was especially struck by the importance Spinoza placed on fraternity, a societal characteristic that is sorely lacking today in contemporary America.  This research on Spinoza has inspired me to re-double my thinking about a topic I addressed in my first novel, "The Creed Room" --  namely, how to best build fraternity in a society that is not only polarized, but in which political leaders seem to be increasingly indifferent to retaining their credibility or honoring basic human values.  Building fraternity is surely a wonderful aspiration.  But these days, how to do it appropriately is easier said than done. 

The result of my research into Spinoza's politics is an essay that I delivered this past week at a meeting of the Washington Spinoza Society. Here is the essay.  I hope you enjoy it.  

Just Say No to "One-Sentencing"

One of the services I enjoy performing for my society is spreading allergies -- to certain kinds of writing. I enjoy helping people become allergic to, for example: (a) the strawman fallacy, (b) the fallacy of the excluded middle, (c) what-aboutism, (d) the technique of pretending that one invariably has found the "golden mean" when all one has found is a position, and (e) the attitude that a person can be writing about political-economic matters with the perpetual certitude of a mathematician ("isn't it funny that I'm always right and my political opponents are always wrong?").

So today, I would like to coin a term for a phenomenon to which I hope you will become allergic: to "one-sentence." Let me give two examples of this unfortunate type of pseudo-persuasive writing. Example 1: "I'd like to begin by saying that I found President Clinton's conduct with Ms. Lewinsky to be deplorable and in no way, shape or form do I condone it. [But allow me now to spend the next 10 minutes attacking President Clinton's political enemies and by implication supporting him.]" Example 2: "I have spent countless time working for a two-state solution between the Israelis and the Palestinians and have seen it as the ideal way of resolving this conflict. [But allow me now to give you that ten or fifteen reasons why I think the one-state solution is a terrific solution, is the only viable solution, and is the only solution at this point that is consistent with the basic principles of morality. And allow me in fact to bury the two-state solution 5,000 feet underground and then spit on its coffin.]"

Honestly, whenever you see someone starting an argument with a single sentence that is supposed to show that they are NOT a one-sided, unsubtle thinker but are rather sympathetic to the other side ... they are either insulting your intelligence or they really are a one-sided, unsubtle thinker. Because if someone, to return to the Clinton example, really did find his conduct to be deplorable, they wouldn't have taken precisely 1% of their speech criticizing it.

So there you have "one-sentencing." Next time someone tries to "one-sentence" you, protect yourself. Don't be "had" by that kind of rhetoric.

1Steve Curless

My Response to Peter Beinart

I am happy that the N.Y. Times published Peter Beinart's opinion piece calling for the end of the Jewish State. Beinart does a relatively nice job of making the argument for what is in essence a "United States of the Middle East" (my words, not his) in which pre-‘48 Palestine would be populated by Jews and Palestinians alike, living in complete equality and moving about freely, much as we in the USA move about from Florida to Maine, Alaska to Arizona.  Beinart says that the Jewish State would be replaced by a "Jewish home that is also, equally, a Palestinian home" and that this home would provide "refuge and rejuvenation for Jews across the world."

Now lest this sound like a utopian piece, Beinart does admit at one point that the "process of achieving equality would be long and difficult," adding that it "would most likely meet resistance from both Palestinians and Jewish hard liners." But, he argues, if the Irish and South Africans can largely reconcile, so can the people of Israel/Palestine.

When I was at a yeshiva, I was told once by an Orthodox rabbi that each Jew should wake up every morning questioning the existence of God. Well I would add in a similar spirit that every Zionist should wake up every morning questioning the virtues of Zionism. Particularly for those of us Americans who love our nation's purported commitment to pluralism and equality, if it's right for us, why wouldn't it be right for the people of Tel Aviv, Haifa, Hebron, Nablus and Jerusalem? The thing is, though, when I ask that question about God, I still come up with "yes" and when I ask that question about the "United States of the Middle East," I still come up with "no."

You see, when I have visited England, Japan or Italy, I see a country devoted to the language, history, and culture of a particular people. I see nations with a special relationship to the ancestral faiths and holidays of that people. And I see that culture shine and develop in a way that goes far beyond mere "refuge and rejuvenation" -- I see it grow organically. The world is filled with countries like that. My Arab cousins have enjoyed a number of them. It is no coincidence that my beloved Spinoza, for example, has taken root far better in Israel, as a Jewish State, than in the pluralistic salad bar known as the United States -- countries with a dominant ethnic flavor polish the gems that their group has given us, and whether you love him or hate him, it was the Jewish world that gave us Spinoza so it is the Jewish world that tends to be most interested in what he has to offer.

It is no coincidence that the Jewish-Islamic Dialogue Society of Washington was founded by two Americans who fell in love with their ancestral faiths in Israel and Saudi Arabia, respectively. America can be a "Jewish home" -- but there are homes, and then there are HOMES -- and if you are a Mexican American, an African American or yes, a Jewish American, you know the difference.

In yesterday's New York Times, the deputy national director of the Anti-Defamation League asked a rhetorical question, responding to Beinart's piece: "Where else on earth would the idea of an independent sovereign state disappearing from the map be acceptable except in the case of Israel?" Nowhere, of course -- or everywhere, because we live in a time of deep polarization, tribalization, and alienation from the "other," in which for example more and more Americans are wishing that Lincoln had allowed the South to leave the Union so that we can have our politicians and they can have theirs.

Fortunately, though, Lincoln did preserve the Union and slavery was abolished. And there are plenty of things in Israel that should be abolished, including the notion that the Jewish People can arrive in large numbers around the end of the 19th century and boot the Arabs in the region into what Beinart correctly calls "an archipelago of Palestinian towns, scattered across as little as 70 percent of the West Bank, under Israeli control." No, just like the United States during the first century of its existence, Israel has a lot of growing up to do, and leaders like Bibi Netanyahu are part of the problem, not the solution. So, too, are those American Jews who claim to oppose Bibi but invariably oppose any efforts to put pressure on his expansionist dreams. But Zionism does not entail expansionism. The two-state solution makes room for a robust Palestinian state next to a robust Jewish state -- not robust by expansionist standards, but rather based on the goal that both sides deserve a "peace of earth" in which to grow their own gardens in peace. 

As the child of leftist parents, I understand better than most the dreams of absolute equality.  I understand the corruptibility of private property in all its forms.  And I appreciate that to a degree, choosing a “Jewish State” and a “Palestinian State” over a “United States of the Middle East” is choosing to privatize land more than it needs to be privatized.  But as an individual, I have also come to appreciate the extent to which human autonomy and self-expression – in other words, freedom in the positive sense of that term – are fostered by some degree of privatization.  And we all must recognize that in our world, the vast majority of useful land is divided into nation-states in which certain ethnic groups tend to hold a permanent majority and use that majority to express themselves as a people – linguistically, historically, religiously, philosophically, aesthetically …. The list is endless.

If you speak to Jewish anti-Zionists, you will note that the one thing that they can least abide is when someone mentions the Holocaust (or other pogroms) in connection with the raison d’etre for Israel.    As soon as that happens, they will reflexively start calling the Zionist dream one that is grounded in PTSD, and refer to Zionists as “emotionally-based” people who fail to see that the “United States of the Middle East” (or some similarly “egalitarian” approach) is the only fair, rational solution to the fact that two peoples occupy the same land.  The truth is, though, that events like the Holocaust and the Expulsion of Spanish Jews in 1492 are significant in part because they tell us what life can be like in societies that truly appeared to be welcoming environments for thriving Jewish communities.  We in America have offered another such environment – and yet we have also seen Jewish people banned from hotels, placed on a quota system in colleges, and sent back to die in Europe when they arrived in ships off of American shores seeking refuge.  Beinart ignores all of this history when he glibly assumes that a society in the Middle East that starts out as 50% Jewish (that is how he described what a one-state solution would look like on his CNN appearance today) would remain a “Jewish society.”

The truth is that most Jews are attached to Israel because it is more than just a place of temporary hospitality to Jews.  It is a place where Jews live as a permanent majority.  It is a place where the Jewish culture flourishes to the max.  It is a place where Jewish history isn’t marginalized, and the Hebrew language isn’t marginalized, and where – if there is to be a movement to rejuvenate the language of Yiddish on a large scale, it will almost certainly happen there.  Most Jews are attached to Israel just as we are attached to our spouses, our children, and our oldest friends.  You are darned right that these are deep emotional attachments, and we’re not likely to choose the kind of pot-luck that Beinart has to offer if we can instead hold what we currently have.  After all, if the Germans, the Dutch, the English, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Koreans … and the Arabs can have their countries, why can’t we?

But we are at a crossroads, we Zionists.  We see a leader of Israel who seems to have washed his hands of the fate of our Abrahamic cousins from Palestine.  And we see this leader getting re-elected over and over again by an electorate who is moving further and further to the right politically.  Particularly here in America, Jews and allies who have fought for Zionism must make a choice.  Either we call for a United States of the Middle East, as Beinart has.  Or we start calling for the United States to put real pressure on Israel to treat the Arabs in pre-‘48 Palestine like full-fledged members of the moral community who have the same natural rights as any other people, including the right of self-determination.  If that means putting a stop to the extent of the United States’ financial and military support for Israel, so be it.  We need to mean business that it is time for both sides to work hard for the two-state solution that we have been advocating for so long.  Yes, the Palestinians have hardly demonstrated a deep desire for that solution.  But frankly, the leadership of Israel hasn’t demonstrated one either, at least not lately. It’s time for us to take a stand that two states isn’t a request, it’s a demand.   

Either that, or go with Beinart.  Because as wrong as he is (from my perspective), there are worse solutions than advocating for another United States.

Dr. Strangetimes: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Coronavirus

When growing up, I often focused on two era-defining phenomena from the previous generation: The New Deal and the Holocaust. How could the members of my society, one shaped by a faith in Adam Smith's invisible hand and a love for the gadgets that result from Smithian economic competition, have so thoroughly embraced a program in which the federal government took such a prominent role over the means of production? And how could the members of another great society, one associated with some of the finest composers, philosophers and writers who ever lived, have so thoroughly close their eyes, ears and hearts, while their soldiers dehumanized, terrorized, and pulverized nearly an entire ethnic group, which happened to be my own?  

The answers, I decided, include the following: Circumstances define character. Needs take precedence over wants.  Human beings, like other animals, are inherently self-interested, and our interests begin with self-preservation.  Accordingly, we are averse to risks, we don’t fix what isn't broken, and we don't rock the boat without a damned good reason … yet we are willing to take steps to protect ourselves -- and our fellows -- when we all feel a common threat is coming.  Like a storm … a worsening of a major economic depression … or a deadly, global pandemic.  

Bernie Sanders and some of his supporters fooled themselves into thinking that America was ready for another New Deal when he declared his candidacy in recent years. At one point, after the Nevada Caucuses, I even fooled myself into believing that he could get nominated, elected, and empowered to enact a program based on an expanded notion of "human rights." Unfortunately for Bernie, he ran and lost in the B.C. era -- Before Coronavirus. Back then (i.e., a full month ago), the majority of Democrats and left-leaning Independents thought that the only national "virus" was in the White House, and that once we are rid of the pestilence of Trumpism, we could get back to the glory days where Bill Clinton and Barack Obama presided over a society marked by prosperity, complacency, and a love for the gadgets that result from economic competition. Bernie had no chance in such a climate -- particularly not when the media was reminding us that he was trying to rock the boat at a time when the waters were rough (when Trump is President) and would continue to try to rock the boat even if the waters were to become calm (after the Trump Presidency is over, and prosperity, complacency, etc., returned to the kingdom).

Now, of course, we live in the A.C. era. And we can contemplate a period of 1-2 years where a virus comes and goes and comes again, destroying lives and jobs, and hearts and lungs.  In the A.C. era, we no longer dream of an America where we as individuals can either satiate ourselves with wonderful gadgets and trips to exotic places, or at least contemplate a time when our family will have lifted themselves up to be able to enjoy such prosperity and complacency. (For yes -- complacency is itself a luxury good in this dream). Now, we realize that we live interdependently. Our health and welfare, and that of our precious loved ones, is completely tied up with the virtue and wisdom of everyone else. And now we take seriously the sanctity of human life and human health because finally, we have an agent that poses an imminent threat to the rich as well as the poor. We're not simply talking about a scourge of bullets in the inner-cities, or of treatable cancers that devastate poor, underinsured communities in the countryside. We're all in this together and -- like the soldiers in the great wars of yesteryear -- we'll be "in the shit" together for quite a while.  

Now, it is possible to understand what the progressives like FDR or Sanders were talking about. Now it is possible to understand that we, for selfish reasons, might want a strong government devoted fundamentally to the protection of universal human rights. Roosevelt spoke about the four freedoms: freedom of speech/expression, of worship, from fear and from want. Now in the A.C. era, it is finally reasonable to consider that the critical mass of American voters might soon realize that their own enjoyment of these latter two freedoms cannot be preserved in a society molded with the spirit of Adam Smith and Ronald Reagan. Oh, we're not there yet, I get that. But after a round or two, or three, of the Coronavirus, I suspect that we just might be.

Jew Versus Jew: How Incomplete Visions of the Faith are Dividing the People

Recently I wrote an essay for two groups:  Jews and Allies (i.e., anti-Semites or people who don’t care about Jews per se shouldn’t bother to read it).  The essay addresses the hatred/disrespect related to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict that threatens to undermine Jewish solidarity at a time when that solidarity is especially important.  I will analyze why a schism exists among Jews concerning the Conflict and why both sides have a legitimate point to make based on authentic Jewish values.  So I’m not trying to persuade anyone to “change teams,” so much as to foster mutual respect.  You could say that this is an invitation to intrafaith dialogue, which sometimes is every bit as vital as interfaith dialogue.  I hope you find the essay to be thought-provoking. Here it is. 

http://www.danielspiro.com/uploads/3/1/0/2/31022605/jew_versus_jew.pdf

Cable Schmooze

I have a brief request to make.  Would everyone please stop referring to the programming on Fox News, CNN and MSNBC as "Cable News"?  From now on, these programs should be referred to as "Cable Schmooze" and the guests on these shows should be thought of as Paid Schmoozers.

Think about it.  Where do you get your breaking news?  Newspapers?  Websites?  Friends who inspire you to check websites or newspapers?  How often do you get it from Cable News?  Almost never, I suspect.  Indeed, for every minute of truly breaking news on those shows, my guess is that there would be 100 or more minutes of schmooze.

Whenever I turn the channel away from a drama or a ballgame to watch the above-referenced channels, I'm invariably treated to schmoozing on the part of Washington insiders and the hosts (aka "journalists") who talk to them.   Sometimes they're all sitting around a table.  Other times the people-in-the-know will be waxing eloquent from their book-laden study, the street in front of the White House, or in front of a bust inside the U.S. Capitol Building.  Truth be told, if you and your friends read the newspapers or even news-oriented websites, you can have just as informative and insightful a discussion with your friends than what you'd hear on Cable TV.  In that sense, it's very different from, say, watching a ball game.  You can do that with your friends as well, but only at a MUCH lower level.  On Cable Schmooze, by contrast, we are frequently treated to talking heads who make far less sense than the typical informed person on the street.  Apparently, the powers-that-be decide that it drives ratings to hear provocative/absurd drivel.  Maybe it makes us in the audience feel smart.  Or maybe such drivel is crucial to building admiration for those few talking heads who consistently speak logically and at least try to be objective.

Mind you, I'm not requesting that you stop watching these programs. My request is only that you stop thinking of them as Cable News and call them what they are.  As for the hosts, you can think of them as journalists if you wish, but please don't confuse their programs with journalism.  Those shows are pure entertainment, and their hosts have far more in common with the more successful members of the Screen Actors Guild than they have with Walter Cronkite or Edward R. Murrow.   Who knew that Schmooze would ever be so lucrative?

How Many Democrats Were on the Stage Tuesday Night?

I grew up in the ‘60s and ‘70s, the only child of two relatively old parents.  My dad was born in 1912 and my mom in 1921. I’m not even 60 yet.  You do the math.  The thing is, though, even though they were older than my friends’ parents, my folks were always further to the left politically.  Constantly, I would hear them complain about economic inequality.  And when they weren’t complaining, they were schlepping me to marches -- like the May 12, 1968 “Resurrection City” rally in which tents were placed on the National Mall to fight poverty.  I had yet to have my religious awakening then.  In fact, inspired in part by my parents’ railing against religious hypocrisy, I didn’t trust what came out of the mouths of most clerics.  But this much I did recognize: if the Abrahamic faiths stood for anything valid, it was to fight poverty in particular and injustice generally.  All this “love” crap meant nothing if it wasn’t associated with working hard for the poor.  I also realized for myself back in elementary school that those who think that the private sector alone will take care of the poor were no better than Mary Antoinette, whose “let ‘em eat cake” line has always, for me, defined the spirit of unbridled capitalism.


Back in the ‘60s and ‘70s, my country had two political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans.  They still exist today, albeit with different spirits.  My parents always voted Democrat because the Dems were the party of progressive taxation and using governmental programs when needed to help the poor and the working class.  From 1965 – 1980, the top marginal tax rate varied from 70-77%, yet even those figures weren’t high enough for the loudest voices of the Democratic Party.  They didn’t see why the richest of the rich needed all the money they had when so many people were poor.  In my house, all I heard was that for the most affluent country in world history to have a high level of poverty and economic equality is a “shanda.”  Whether or not you know Yiddish, you get what that means.


Fast forward now to 2019.  The top marginal tax rate is no longer in the 70s.  Today, depending on how you calculate it, it’s roughly 40 percent.  Not coincidentally, economic equality has only gotten worse. Far worse.  This was chronicled most exquisitely in a book by Thomas Piketty called “Capital,” which was published in 2014.  Since then, the problem has only become more extreme, thanks to tepid leaders on the “left” and bold leaders on the right.  But what do you say we look at some of Piketty’s comparisons between the situation in 1980 and the situation 30 years hence.  From 1980 and 2010, the share of the top decile in national income rose from 33 to 48%, the share of the top 1% in total income rose from 10% to 20%, and the share of the top 0.1% in total income rose from 1% to nearly 8%.  As for wealth inequality, the differences aren’t so dramatic.  But the trend is the same – the top 1% and 10% had a significantly greater share of the nation’s wealth in 2010 than in 1980.  Moreover, whereas our wealth equality in the USA was less than that of Europe from 1810 to 1960, it has well exceeded that of Europe ever since.   


By today’s standards, the America of my youth thus had far more economic equality than it has today, yet it still had a far more progressive tax system.  To repeat, Democrats back then didn’t think that tax system was progressive enough.  But Republicans represented quite a range.  There were the folks my parents referred to as “conservatives,” who liked things pretty much as they were, though they would allow for a little tinkering here and there.  And then there were the folks my parents called “reactionaries,” who wanted to return things to a by-gone era – like perhaps the 1920s, when the top decile earned roughly 45 percent of national income, less than they make today, but far more than they made throughout my childhood.   When I was growing up, we had Republican Senators like New York’s Jacob Javits or Maryland’s Mac Mathias.  My parents thought of them as conservatives, others would have called them centrists or even liberals, but they demonstrated that the Republican Party created a home for folks who loved the status quo and wanted only to tinker around the edges.  And remember – the status quo back then was FAR more economically equal, and may I say “progressive,” than today.


So let’s return to 2019 and, specifically, last Tuesday night. We had 12 “Democratic” candidates – so many that a comic on the Daily Show requested that in the future, the Party leaders should ensure that their candidates are spayed and neutered.  The 12 candidates were all attempting to unseat Donald Trump, the Republican President who enjoys a 94% approval rating within his party.  Two candidates on Tuesday, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, were passionately arguing for the position that our tax system isn’t nearly progressive enough.  They both want to dramatically increase the taxes on the top 0.1% -- and perhaps even the top 1% or 10% -- in order to raise funds that are needed for the poor, the working class and even middle-class Americans.  


My father, as you imagine, has long since passed from this Earth, so I can’t ask him what he thinks of Warren or Sanders. My mom, while still alive at 98, isn’t in good enough shape cognitively to worry about the nuances of American politics.  But I suspect that if I took the time to explain what happened on Tuesday, she would have been proud of Warren and Sanders for their willingness to fight for those who our capitalist system is leaving behind.  In short, I saw two Democrats on that stage who would have been recognized as Democrats by any political observer of the ‘60s and ‘70s, let alone the Depression Era period that shaped my parents’ thinking.


But what about the other ten Democrats?  How were they responding to the phenomenon that Piketty chronicled so extensively in his book?  I was struck by the unwillingness of the other men and women on that debate stage to sound like Democrats even during a primary contest.  Sanders, who had a heart attack a couple of weeks earlier, was kindly left alone by the other candidates.  But Warren, who has risen to the lead in the betting markets, if not the polls, was relentlessly piled on by one Democratic candidate after another.  The first wave was Biden, and Buttigieg, and Klobuchar.  They were critical of the idea that Warren supported a single payor health care system and was afraid to admit that taxes might have to go up if we wanted to ensure that the poor get the same health care as the rich.  Well, OK.  I get why they would have wanted to press her to be more candid.  But later, when Warren started talking about adding a tax on wealth in excess of $50 million and Beto O’Rourke criticized her for being “punitive,” where was Biden?  Or Buttigieg?  Or Klobuchar?  Were they coming to Warren’s defense?  Were they saying that “We’re Democrats. We believed back in the ‘60s and ‘70s that the uber-rich weren’t paying enough taxes when they were taxed a hell of lot more than they are today. We’re not going to sit back and let you bash a candidate as ‘punitive’ simply because she wants the uber-rich to shoulder a lot more of the tax burden.”  They said nothing of the sort.  In fact, when called upon to show their passion for economic equity, they responded with radio silence.


The loudest of Warren’s interlocutors would like us to see them, first and foremost, as “pragmatists.”  This philosophy can best be summarized by a line from Amy Klobuchar, in direct response to Warren’s progressive plans: “The difference between a plan and a pipe dream is something that you can actually get done.”


And there you have it.  From the time Bill Clinton took back the White House for the Dems after 12 years of GOP Rule in 1992, the idea that we would make America’s economic profile resemble that of my youth has been viewed by the Democratic establishment as a “pipe dream.”  Clinton sought a “third way” – one that isn’t nearly as progressive as the approach of old Democrats, but is more compassionate than the Let ’Em Eat Cakers who served as the vanguard of the “Reagan Revolution.”  In 2016, when his wife ran for President against Bernie Sanders, only a single Democratic Senator supported Sanders.  Even Warren refused to commit; that was the extent of the stranglehold that the “Third Way” has had on Democratic politics.  


So now that Warren has regained her progressive voice, and Bernie has gotten out of his hospital bed to resume his jeremiads, I keep asking the same question: what would my parents think of Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar and the rest of them?  Are they more like the Democrats of my youth?  Or are they merely the second coming of Jacob Javits and Mac Mathias – centrist 60s-70s style Republicans?  


My parents, being professional economists, would probably point out that Biden, Buttigieg and company may even be further to the RIGHT than Javits and Mathias, for at least the latter are not on record as essentially tolerating our pitifully non-progressive tax system.  Truly, if things have moved so much further to the Republican side of the spectrum in the last 30-40 years, why do Warren and Sanders seem so damned alone on that stage?  Or was that evening just another reminder that Ronald Reagan has won the soul of America, and that the two-party system is really about nothing more than nibbling around the edges of the cake that he (and Marie Antoinette) have given us?


There were times during Tuesday’s debate when both Warren and Sanders frustrated me.  Most notably, neither explained very well why they supported Medicare for All.  My parents would have been disgusted with how little they tried to demonstrate the downside of the so-called “public option” approach to health care or why a focus on taxes instead of COSTS as the primary metric on which to evaluate a health care system is simply a Republican talking point.  Bernie and Elizabeth had a chance to speak out articulately for all progressive economists that night and their performance left something to be desired.


But at least they were recognizable as Democrats.  At least I felt they represented my party.  At least I felt they have absorbed the teachings of Thomas Piketty, Julius and Evelyn Spiro, and all other economists who clearly have given a damn about the poor and the working class.


You see, Senator Klobuchar, it’s not enough to join the Democratic Party, insert yourself across the aisle from Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell, and vote in favor of top marginal taxes that are 40% plus rather than 40% minus.  I’m not young anymore.  In fact, I’m only two months and two days younger than you are.  I remember when Democrats were Democrats.  And if you want to act like one, you’ve got to show me that you couldn’t even abide being satisfied with the America of our youth because of its economic inequalities, let alone that you can’t satisfy yourself with mere tinkering when America has become far LESS economically equal now than it was before.


I heard you say, Senator Klobuchar, that neither you, nor Mayor Pete, nor even the billionaire on that stage Tuesday night is “standing up for billionaires.”  But that’s not enough, is it?  I need to see that you are standing up for the guy I saw lying on the ground late Friday night two blocks from my daughter’s row house in a part of Washington DC that most of the barons of today’s Democratic Party wouldn’t set foot in.  I can see that Bernie and Elizabeth, for all their slip-ups, are standing up for that guy.  One of them will get my vote in the primary. 

Sabbatical

With some regret, I am announcing today that the Empathic Rationalist will be taking a sabbatical.  I've been keeping this blog going for 13 years without one, and that's frankly too long.

I will miss taking the opportunity to communicate with my loyal readers on a weekly basis.  Thank you so much for letting me know over the years that you enjoy reading this blog; that means more to me than you know.  However, due to certain events in my life, I feel the need to cut down on my so-called "extra-curricular activities," and at the moment, blogging didn't make the cut.  I fully expect that this self-imposed sabbatical will be merely temporary but what I can't say is how long it will last.

All the best to each of you.  Enjoy the upcoming political campaign season.  And may you and your family experience the very best of health.

Dan

A Request to My Fellow Democrats: Time for Spring Fever

We’re nearly two months away from the first Presidential Primary debate and yet already, liberal pundits are savaging those Democrats who’ve had the courage to enter the race.  I see the criticism frequently in such on-line forums as the Huffington Post.  And just yesterday, I heard an MSNBC talking head criticize Biden for daring to criticize President Trump’s “very fine people on both sides” remarks.  According to this pundit, Biden would be well advised not to talk about such issues given his own track record when it comes to the topic of race.

Really?   From what I can tell, Vice President Biden has been a devoted public servant for more decades than that progressive pundit has been alive, and yet the latter doesn’t think he has standing to highlight the single worst moment in the Presidency of the man Democrats are trying to defeat.  Folks, can we stop eating our own?  Please?

My hope is for all Democrats to spend the remainder of what I call the “pre-season” keeping our hearts and minds open about all these candidates.  Let them make mistakes.  Let them speak vapidly or duck difficult questions.  Let them take back an ill-advised comment or policy position.  And to the extent they feel compelled to speak sharply about a fellow Presidential candidate, encourage them to take on the candidate running as a Republican, not each other.

Why do I say that?  Because at the end of the June, and for the next 8-12 months thereafter, some amount of intra-party conflict is inevitable and even healthy.  Presumably, our candidates won’t be offering us childlike monikers such as “Lyin' Ted,” “Little Marco,” or “Low Energy Jeb,” but the ones who are hurting in the polls will owe it to their supporters to throw at least some barbs in the direction of the favorites. But for the good of the Party, can we at least enjoy an extended honeymoon period?  Can we spend the next two full months building up as much affection as possible for all these candidates?  Or do we have to wallow in the kind of mockery-narratives that are increasingly popping up with respect to each of Trump’s would-be challengers?

If you’re not immediately familiar with these narratives, just ask yourself which of the 20 Democratic candidates are best positioned to defeat Trump and lead the Democratic party.    

The elderly, grumpy, unelectable white male socialist who scares the crap out of moderate Democrats, let alone Republicans, Bernie Sanders?

The out-of-touch, kind-of-creepy, gaffe-prone politician whose record is the antithesis of progressive, Joe Biden?

The charisma-challenged, condescending professor who reminds everyone of Hillary except that she’s even less electable, Elizabeth Warren?

The “Senator Pothole” tinkerer who claims to be Minnesota-nice but has proven to her Congressional staffers to be anything but nice, Amy Klobuchar?

The frivolous dilettante, whose Presidential campaign is fueled primarily by narcissism and a desire to have a really cool personal adventure, Beto O’Rourke?

The finger-in-the-wind pol who refuses to answer substantive questions and yet has much to answer for herself in the way she has dealt with the criminal justice system, Kamala Harris?

The inexperienced millennial who also doesn’t think voters deserve to know what he stands for but thinks he can get elected by spewing pseudo-intellectual gibberish, Pete Buttigieg?

The guy from Jersey who is pretending to run on a Kumbaya platform at a time when nobody wants to hear anyone sing Kumbaya, especially if he’s from Jersey, Corey Booker?

Or one of those other pathetic, nameless candidates whose standing in the polls is so damned low that nobody is even bothering to insult them?

Folks, mocking a politician is as easy as shooting fish in a barrel.  These people self-promote at the same time that they self-reveal.  You show me a politician, any politician, and I’ll show you a hypocrite.  It comes with the territory.  But unless you want to see President Trump re-elected, I suggest you look at the above list and recognize that (a) you’ll be voting for one of those folks in the fall of ‘20, and (b) the person you’ll vote for in the general election probably won’t be the one you’d like to vote for today.  In fact, I’d go as far as to say that because elections among twenty contenders is kind of a crap shoot, you’re most likely going to have to go crazy in support of a general election candidate who you voted AGAINST in your state’s primary.   If that’s going to happen, you’d better figure out a way to stay as positive as possible about as many of these people as possible for as long as possible. 

So what do you say we allow all these candidates the next two months to impress us with their positive characteristics – their visions, their policy proposals, and their formulas for taking on President Trump.  What do you say we embrace what it means as voters to be able to wholeheartedly support ANY of the above?  Maybe if that happens, the intra-party criticism that will inevitably begin to flow in July and thereafter would be a bit more measured.  Then, when it does come time to nominate someone in the summer of 2020, we will have identified a person who’ll be beloved by the entire Democratic party and many of the Independents.  And that candidate will not only beat Donald Trump in the next election but also grab a mandate to change the direction of government in January of 2021.   

Let’s face it – the Russians weren’t the primary reason why we lost the election of 2016.  Mostly, we caused ourselves to lose – by taking for granted states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, and by teaching a veritable master class in how NOT to run a primary campaign.   Now, we have a chance for a do-over.  We have a chance to replace a crooked coronation (where a single, favored candidate was given debate questions in advance) with an honest, give-everyone-a-fair-chance celebration of democracy.   We have two months to set the table for that celebration.  I say, let’s call this the “Spring Fever” period.  Let’s fall in love with our candidates.  Let’s build them all up, so that ultimately, for the good of the country and the world, at least one of them will not fall down. 

Relections After Another Netanyahu Victory

Everyone who associates themselves with a religious faith surely takes pride in its “values.”  In fact, we tend to identify our faith above all else with the values preached and exemplified by our greatest role models.   At least that’s the case with Judaism.

My people have plenty of catch phrases to remind ourselves of what “Jewish values” mean.   We speak of Rabbi Akiva and how he taught that the Torah’s fundamental principle was “Love your neighbor as yourself.”   And we often cite Rabbi Hillel, who when asked to summarize the entire Torah while standing on one foot, replied “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. All the rest is commentary.  Now go study.”  In both cases, these rabbis place central importance on how human beings should treat one another.  More than our observance of religious ritual or even our devotion to God, that’s what defines our commitment to the Jewish faith. 

Whenever values are discussed, of course, there is room for ambiguity.  In the above examples, a debate could center on the word “neighbor.”  In theory, if a person lives in a Jewish community, their “neighbors” will tend to be fellow Jews.  So, taken literally, as long as we care for our fellow Jews, we can disregard or even disdain gentiles and not run afoul of the directives to be good to our neighbors.  But that’s not the way I’ve been taught.  From parents and Jewish-school teachers alike, I’ve heard that the Jew is obligated to take care of ALL people, and especially the most vulnerable, regardless of their ethnic or religious backgrounds.  Such universalism is indeed mainstream American-Jewish doctrine and has been for generations.    That’s why so many of our parents and grandparents were attracted to socialism and other left-leaning ideologies.

When I grew up in the 60s, America had the largest Jewish community in the world.  Our community was also known for its overarching political liberalism.   In 1928, only 28 percent of Jews voted for Hoover – and that was the election he won.  In 1932, Hoover’s total among Jews was 18%, and for the next four elections, the Republican candidate did even worse.  Even in 1972, when Nixon won 49 states, McGovern had a +30% margin among Jews.   Next year, in fact, will be the 100^th anniversary of the last time that a Republican Presidential candidate won 40% of the Jewish vote.  Over the past 100 years, our community has become far more affluent, but no less politically liberal.  Some might say that we’ve been willing to vote against our own pecuniary interest in order to be true to the “values” that defined our sense of identity. 

As children who cleaved to our sense of Jewish values, my friends and I spoke about the nation of Israel in glowing and even heroic terms.  Back then, Israel symbolized both Jewish progressivism and an antidote to Jewish victimization.  This little country was started primarily by secular socialists and other leftists.  They gathered together in economic collectives known as Kibbutzim and for decades, their progressive party (Labor) dominated every election.  While most American Jews weren’t exactly historians, one fact we did know was that when Israel became a state, its citizens supported partitioning the land into two-states-for-two-peoples, but it was the Palestinians who fought against such an outcome.  Decades after the creation of Israel, there was still no “Occupation.”  And even after the Settlements began being built, we all assumed that Israel’s leaders would support the existence of a Palestinian state as soon as they had a legitimate partner for peace on the Palestinian side.  The problem, we assumed, was that enough Palestinians seemed hell bent on crushing Israel and taking back the land for themselves that Israeli had no choice but to watch their backs and build walls.  In one war after another, Arab States ganged up on precious little Israel, and it practically took miracles for Israel to survive, let alone to win these wars.  When the Israeli army seized such strategic land as the Golan Heights, no American Jew in their right mind would have begrudged Israel’s right to keep it.  But we remained passionately committed to Israel giving up the land necessary to create a viable two-state solution – one state for our own people and another for our Palestinian “neighbors” who were also victims in the arena of geopolitics and who for the most part are as innocent as the Israelis.  That two-state commitment became an integral manifestation of “Jewish values,” one that I and millions of other American Jewish Zionists continue to hold dear and always will.

American-Jewish values, you see, aren’t changing so dramatically.  But Israel is.  Now its leaders have enacted the “Jewish Nation State Law,” which stands for the principle that Israel is a nation state ONLY for the Jewish people, rather than being a nation state for both the Jewish people and for any gentiles (i.e., Palestinians) who happen to be citizens of the nation.  More significantly, its Prime Minister now stands for the principle that all the Jewish Settlements in the West Bank can legitimately be annexed by Israel – meaning that what would remain of “Palestine” would be a small chunk of swiss cheese, one that couldn’t possibly give rise to a “state” worthy of the term.  Honestly, though, what’s notable about Israel these days isn’t just that it is led by people who appear to have given up on the notion of Palestinian autonomy.  It’s that the citizens of Israel continue to vote for such leaders.  Frankly, just as the center-right movement in America seems incapable of getting a majority of Jewish support, the center-left movement in Israel seems equally incapable of winning elections.  Yes, they do just fine in and around Tel Aviv. But in the hinterland and in Jerusalem?  The majorities there would rather vote in for a fifth term a Prime Minister who has completely abandoned a two-state solution and who is close to being indicted for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust.  Better that guy than anyone who stands for the same principles that the vast majority of American Jews would select. Houston, we have a problem.

Speaking personally, I feel no modicum of alienation from the Israeli people right now.  I have never had problems knowing, respecting and loving right-wing Jews.  But what I’ve not had to wrap my arms around, until recently, is that the world’s largest Jewish population (Israel overtook the U.S. in that regard during my adult life) is becoming one of the most right-wing democracies in the world.  I cannot possibly relate to what plan the Netanyahu voters have in mind for the Palestinians.  Are they expecting the Palestinians simply to pack up and head for Jordan – sort of a Middle Eastern Trail of Tears?  Or are these “majority” voters reconciled to the Palestinians remaining in Israeli-controlled areas as a stateless, impoverished underclass?  Honestly, what is the vision and how do we get there? And how is this possibly consistent with Jewish values?

Actually, I can guess the answer to that last question.  I’ve read the Book of Joshua.  I’ve seen the single-mindedness of God’s alleged directive to the Hebrew people to seize the Promised Land by, among other things, killing its inhabitants. Compared to Joshua and his troops, Bibi Netanyahu is positively Gandhi-like in his treatment of the Palestinians.   What’s more, I have heard many Jews over the years argue that the disputed land is ours because we have the prior claim to it and thus the superior legal right to it.  After all, we gave the Palestinians the chance to divide it up and they chose instead to terrorize us and to fight wars over the land; they lost, we won, and to the victor goes the spoils.  Some of the Jews I know who adopt that attitude are otherwise progressive people who care deeply about the poor or infirm.  So I guess an argument can be made that this view is consistent with “universalist” values.  But that argument would not be made by more than a small minority of non-Jews throughout the world.  And it would not be made by the vast majority of American Jews either.  So why, then, are most Israelis going to polls and supporting political parties who trade in that sort of reasoning?  What has happened to Jewish values?

These are questions that young American Jews are surely going to ask in schools and summer camps throughout this nation.  They were asking them before this recent election cycle, and now that the Jewish Nation State Law has been passed, the Prime Minister has stated his willingness to annex all the Settlements, and his alleged corruption has been exposed, young Jewish Americans will be raising these questions at a fever pitch.  You’ll forgive these young people if they wonder if their progressive teachers have been feeding them a load of crap in suggesting that Jews are any more altruistic or compassionate than anyone else.  You’ll forgive them if they wonder if the term “Jewish values” has any meaning at all.   And you’ll forgive them if they wonder whether they have far more in common with American Episcopalians or Unitarian-Universalists – or, for that matter, the so-called “Nones” – than they have with Israeli Jews.

Such wondering is surely going to present an incredible challenge to those of us who wish to see Judaism continue to flourish in America.  It’s a challenge that my Jewish friends and I didn’t have to face back in the 60s, and yet many of our cohort still gave up our Jewish identities and assimilated.  I can only imagine what’s going to happen to my grandson’s generation.

Fortunately, though, I don’t have to worry about my grandson himself – his mother is a rabbi and his parents will raise him right.  They will explain that in truth, the values of a religion are the values that the religion inspires in the minds of all of its inhabitants.  So Jewish values are my values, they’re Netanyahu’s values, and they’re the values of everyone who identifies with the faith and is inspired by it.   

It is incumbent on each of us to continue to study the great works associated with our faith, to develop our values based on that study, and to exemplify those values in our conduct.  If in doing so we seem out of step with the majority of our people, so be it.   There is enough wisdom in Judaism – and, for that matter, in all the world’s great religions – to inspire free-thinking individuals to find a set of values by which they can live their lives.  If you’re truly religious, you should have the courage to stick to those values even when it appears you’re merely a voice in the wilderness.

So to those people in and around Tel Aviv who continue to lose one national election after another, please hold your heads high and keep on fighting.  Someday, you might find yourselves in the majority again. And who knows?  Maybe that’s when your country will dismantle some of these imperialist settlements and make the kind of peace that honors the Palestinians, your values, and mine. 

Spring Comes to the Nation's Capital

Last week’s blogpost contained a tribute to the stately live oak of the South Carolina Lowcountry.  Today, I’m thinking instead about my own city and its adopted favorite tree, the cherry.  Visitors to the Nation’s Capital understand early April to be the most glorious time for a visit, both because of the weather and because of the cherry blossoms.  Guidebooks funnel these tourists to the Tidal Basin of the National Mall, where cherry trees majestically line the perimeter.  But locals know there are better places to appreciate the blossoms without even needing to go to Japan.   I am speaking of the narrow, winding streets in the suburbs where cherry trees form a canopy of blossoms that engulf anyone who is blessed to walk or drive by.  I had the pleasure of taking such a stroll this morning.  I was with my bichon, Benny, who was just groomed yesterday.  His fur and those flowers were a perfect match – Blonde on Blonde, as Bob Dylan might say.  So fresh, so restful, so bright … so un-Washington. 

Forbes recently ranked Washington DC as the fourth most stressful city in the United States.  But the three above us (L.A., N.Y., and Chicago) are all many times larger.  So perhaps I can state the obvious – pound-for-pound, we’re number one.  People come here to enhance their career.  They find a job.  They go to work.  They stay at work – hour after hour after hour.  They spend another hour or more commuting home, either on a metro train where nobody smiles or among the nation’s most congested roads.  When they get home in the evening, they consume themselves with their addiction to that form of mud-wrestling otherwise known as American politics.  Eventually, they start fantasizing about moving away to someplace more bucolic – like just about anywhere. 

This past week was the beginning of baseball season, which is definitely a major event in Washington D.C.  Gradually, we’ve been becoming a baseball city – oh, not of the caliber of St. Louis, for example, but we’re not exactly Miami either.  This past Tuesday evening, we showed baseball fans all over the country that D.C. is a place to be reckoned with.  Philadelphia was in town, and that means that the Phillies’ Bryce Harper – who the Washington Nationals signed to a rookie contract and who for years was the Nationals’ biggest star – was making his first return to his former home town.  The Baseball Gods have ordained the etiquette that cities are supposed to follow in situations like these.  First, Harper should get a video tribute from his old team, during which his former fans should cheer him in appreciation for his years of loyal and glorious service to the city.  Next, in his first at bat for the visiting team, the home fans should give him one final standing ovation in recognition of his past service.  And then, in his second at-bat --and for as long thereafter as the mood feels right -- his former fans should boo the roof off the stadium as soon as he enters the batter’s box.   That’s the way it’s supposed to work.

Well, here in (arguably) America’s most stressful city, we made a little modification.  From the moment the Harper video tribute began, he was booed.  Relentlessly.  Tens of thousands of fans stood up and called him a traitor.  Then, whenever it was time for him to hit or catch a baseball, the boo-birds kept on chirping.  That stadium was loud, and the people were nasty.  It was one big F-U to a guy in his mid-20s whose sole offense was to manifest a desire to earn market wages, which the owner of his former team wasn’t willing to pay.  And here’s the funny thing about the whole episode: everyone in D.C. loved it!  It wasn’t that we begrudge Bryce Harper the right to earn $330 million in the next 13 years.  It was that we enjoyed witnessing so many Washingtonians care so much about our city that they would scream bloody murder against a man whose cardinal sin was to leave it. 

Does that sound strange to you?  Perhaps it should.  But I totally get while the local commentators are universally glowing about Tuesday’s Boo-Fest.  It showed civic pride – in an odd way I admit, but it was there nonetheless.  Washingtonians are sick of hearing what a gross place this is, sick of being on all the wrong lists (most stress, worst weather, most violence, etc.), and tired of watching their sports teams lose all the time.  They’re also done with seeing fans in other cities go crazy about their teams while their own stadiums are filled largely with visiting fans or local transplants who continue to root for the teams they grew up with.  Last year’s D.C. hockey team won the Stanley Cup, and we all watched as loyal fans finally were rewarded after decades of futility.  It reminded people that Washington is as real and legit a place to be from as anywhere else. Strangely enough, that was apparent from the energy behind those boos. 

Of course, it’s stressful here.  Everyone knows that.  Everyone knows also that our weather stinks in the summer and isn’t so great in the winter.  Everyone knows that this is a one-industry town that caters to hypocrites, sycophants, and phonies who take themselves incredibly seriously.  Everyone knows that what stinks about D.C. tends to be lasting and what’s great about D.C. tends to be ephemeral.  (No sooner do you make a good friend then you start having to listen to them talk about moving away.  Hell, even the cherry blossoms last only for two weeks a year or less.)   

But for one glorious night, none of that mattered. That’s because tens of thousands of Washingtonians – and hundreds of thousands more (like me) who were watching on TV – got to express our pride in our home town.  And yes, we did it in a characteristically crazy way: by booing relentlessly at the sight of a hardworking man who did nothing wrong except move away from our city.  It was one hell of a primal scream.  And it was truly a tribute, only it wasn’t Bryce Harper who was being celebrated, but rather having the loyalty to remain in your town, even if it’s as obviously flawed and as often disgusting as Washington D.C.

What?  Do you think I’m being hyperbolic?  Do you think D.C. is no more disgusting than any place else?  Notwithstanding my loyalty to the old home town, I’ve got to admit that this place can get downright ugly.  Only a couple of days after the Harper-booing incident, we Washingtonians were graced with a far more familiar kind of event.  It took place in the “People’s House” – the chamber of the House of Representatives.  There, Congresswoman Debbie Dingell addressed her colleagues on behalf of a bill that would enhance limits on guns for people who have been convicted of crimes involving domestic abuse.  Who wouldn’t support such a bill, right?  Who wants a man convicted of beating his wife or stalking his ex-wife to carry a gun?  Well, click on this link, watch this video, and you’ll hear a bunch of faceless Congresspeople boo Dingell as if she were Bryce Harper leaving the on-deck circle.  https://ijr.com/debbie-dingell-nra-speech/

I don’t know the names of the folks who did the booing.  But we can all guess.  They’re virtually all rich, white men whose titles begin with the term “The Honorable.”    And there is nothing whatsoever appealing about their performance in booing Debbie Dingell.

Yeah, we Washingtonians know what kind of city we live in.   We are even more aware of its problems than any anti-Government curmudgeon from Kansas, Kentucky or Kalamazoo.  But we love our Cherry Blossoms, we love our baseball team, and we love the fact that in this city, people care about politics and public policy.  That ultimately is what unites all of us boo-birds – Nationals fans, Democratic Congresspeople, Republican Congresspeople, you name it.   No matter who you are, if you live in this city, the stress will get to you and some of your neighbors will at times make you sick.   Yet there is also a bond here that stems from the fact that friend or foe, we’re all in this thing together.  No matter what side of the aisle we occupy, we all care about the local industry – enough, in fact, that we’re generally able to cope with the stresses and keep on fighting.  Every now and again, we even get to assemble and let out a primal scream – together – knowing that tomorrow we’ll be back in our respective corners fighting for our respective causes.

So let’s celebrate the baseball season of 2019.  But let’s not kid ourselves – the real sporting season of Washington D.C. begins in June.  For a local junkie like me, those debates can’t come soon enough.