Total Pageviews

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

The Loss of Trust Part 2

My loss of trust began with the assassination of JFK In Dallas. The theologian Marcus Borg would say that I was in a state of pre-critical naivete until then. I was raised as a patriot and believed that America was great and good (still do), and the people were too (still do). My significant adults has told me so and I believed it with my whole heart. Before JFK was elected, many voices were raised against him for a variety of reasons including that he was Catholic. But as President, he won me over on civil rights (however reluctantly he supported it), the Cuban Missile Crisis and his contagious optimism about my country, the USA. His murder shook my belief in this country to its foundation. How could anyone take it upon themselves to just shoot the President because they disagreed with him?

All the talk about this or that conspiracy just made it worse. The worst part was how some folks thought that was right. One kid told me that afternoon, "It's good that he was shot. He was an N... lover anyway." Another said, "He got what was coming to him." I never forgot those kids or their words. Some even called it a national loss of trust and innocence. The great historian Arthur Schlesinger asks how a nation built by running native peoples from their homes and enslaving others can be innocent. I don't know about a national loss of trust or innocence. What I experienced was intensely personal.


Next we endured Johnson administration and the RFK and MLK assassinations. I have to concede that it took a rascal like LBJ to pass Civil rights legislation and that is to his credit. His downfall was Viet Nam. When he came into office, there were something like 25,000 US troops in Viet Nam. At the end there were 500,000. When he decided not to run, I said "good", but I was soon to regret that sentiment.

Then came Richard Nixon. There was something about him that I didn't like from the start. As it turned out, he was about as twisted as any man who ever held the office of president. He came in at a time when confidence could have been restored, but he was not up to the task. Watergate was just the culmination of his secretive and paranoid leadership in the White House. It's bad enough that they broke the law, but they did it in an election that was not close at any time. Worst of all, they tried to cover it up and lie out of it. His resignation and all the revelations about his role in Watergate really took a toll on public trust in Presidency.

Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter were both good men and tried hard. President Ford came into a crisis and tried to heal the wounds of the nation, but they were just too deep. Many faulted him for pardoning Nixon, including myself, but I now believe it was the right thing to do. President Carter may be the finest human being ever to occupy the Oval Office. I thought we could get a good Christian man in there and everything would improve. Alas, he was in over his head, proving that being a good Christian does not necessarily make one a good president.

We got a good dose of confidence and trust with Ronald Reagan. He helped the nation believe in the greatness of the USA and he had the foresight to initiate events which eventually brought down the USSR. For that I give him credit. Iran Contra scandal hurt his reputation some, but he left office in good shape. Bush 41 tried to follow in Reagan's steps, but his "read my lips" broken promise did him in. He gets credit for properly executing the first Gulf War, although many blame him for not finishing the job and increasing the probability of having to return.

Bill Clinton squandered a great opportunity to forge a new path with his manifold personal problems. For that indiscretion, he was impeached. He gets credit for a good economy but could not overcome the loss of confidence brought on by his personal failures. He left office with high approval ratings and still enjoys them today, but he disappointed many, including me, who believe his selfishness kept him from a good, if not great, Presidency.

Bush 43 struggled after the disputed election in 2000. That election disabused us of the notion that our votes don't count. Right now, his administration looks incompetent to me, but well leave that to history to judge. Like Reagan, he might turn out to be right about some things we now think he was wrong about. He gets credit for his response immediately after 9/11. Let's just say he didn't increase my trust and confidence in the Presidency after that.

Now we have President Obama. It's too early to know how this one will work out, but there is no disputing that he does not have the trust and confidence of at least some of the citizens of this great country. What he does from now will either change that perception or not. As with all of them, there are some minds who are so fixed on the negative, that they will never accept him as President. But we must, because he is in office and will be there for four years. Furthermore, we need him to succeed because we need the country to succeed, more now that in my memory.
I just don't get this pulling for the elected President to fail. How does that help us or our standing in the world?

I freely admit that I have deep reservations about the deficits we've been running now for nine years and will for years to come. At some point those bills have to come due. I am not convinced that now is the right time for big health care reform, but I know and love people who can't get coverage from their employer, or afford it for themselves. Are those people less deserving of health care than rich and poor Americans? I don't think so. I'm not saying anyone should capitulate and keep silent about reservations and concerns they have. I am saying that we need leaders who will tone down the rhetoric and get to work solving these difficult and complex problems for the American people.

That brings me to my point. All of the above men were elected President by the people of the country according to the Constitution. They were all legitimately elected, although you can still get into an argument about 2000. When I grew up I was taught in school about the concept of loyal opposition. When your guy loses, you move on and get ready for the next election. You keep speaking your truth but you do not make personal attacks in public on Presidents, especially on foreign soil. I didn't like it when the Dixie Chicks did it, and I didn't like it when Sarah Palin did it recently in Japan. When that happens both he and the nation are undermined both here and abroad. That my friends makes a dangerous world even more dangerous. Does the first amendment protect that speech? Absolutely! It just is not helpful. Lord knows I love political debate and satire from both sides more than most people, but the heat and viciousness of some of the current rhetoric from both ends of the spectrum are profoundly disturbing.

Is the job of the President too big? Are the divisions within the country so great that they cannot be bridged with thoughtful compromise? Are international problems so complex that they cannot be solved? Can anyone restore confidence in the Presidency? I sure hope so, because as Lincoln once said, "a house divided against itself cannot stand."

Monday, September 14, 2009

A Long Time Coming

A movie that means something. Not too long ago, I told Carolyn that I wanted a movie that means something. I don't know whether we were leaving Inglourious Basterds, District 9, or Extract.

To recap, Inglourious Basterds as about bashing Nazis, literally. Brad Pitt leads a group of Jewish soldiers in WW II that went around capturing and killing Nazis, sometimes by beating them with a Louisville Slugger. It could have had a deeper meaning but it didn't. District 9 was sci-fi and was about, I kid you not, shrimp. An alien spacecraft lands in South Africa and gets stranded. The aliens are put into a ghetto and ten years pass. They looked like shrimp and were called, "Prawns." Sci-fi is not my cup of tea, but this movie ruined me for seafood for a while. Extract was about, well, extract; you know,vanilla, almond, strawberry extract. In it, the character played by Justin Bateman, owns an extract factory and pays a pool boy to sleep with his wife so he can get with an employee without guilt. Again, about as stupid as you can get. Don't get me wrong, I love dumb, clever movies like Dumb and Dumber. These were just plain dumb.

This weekend my wish came true when we went to see Tyler Perry's I Can Be Bad All By Myself. First of all, it is hysterically funny. Madea is her usual self and her mutilation of the language and comical threats cause many LOL moments. This movie contains absolutely wonderful and transcendent musical moments. The story takes place in a church and a blues club in a downtown neighborhood. Performing in the movie are Gladys Knight, Mary J. Blige, and a gospel choir led by Clarence Wynans. You even get a brief sermon in the movie, and if you are not careful, you will leave the theater feeling a little Pentecostal. I'm just sayin'. The best aspect of the movie is the story itself. Of course, Tyler Perry plays Madea when three children break into her house and she catches them. Taraji P. Henson plays Aunt April, who is thrust into taking care of three children when the grandmother dies. Her life is a mess, but a good man and the Good Lord bring her around. I promise you that you'll have several good belly laughs, and that you will cry at some points in this terrific movie. I guess that's why it's classified as a comedy/drama. If you haven't yet, go see this one.

The Loss of Trust

When I was a kid I paid no attention to politics in general and presidents in particular. I was too busy digging in dirt and climbing trees. My family was very vocal about presidential politics, so I learned about FDR, Harry Truman, and Ike from my parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles.



In Pop Hayes' house a picture of FDR hung in the bedroom. He lived through the Great Depression and World War II with FDR and idolized him, not unlike many of your family members. He was a yellow dog Democrat in the truest sense of the term. The story is told that stayed up all night agonizing about voting for Kennedy because he was Catholic and was convinced, like most of the adults in my life, that JFK would run the country as directed by the Pope. On the other hand, voting Republican would mean disrespecting the legacy of FDR. That was the irrational fear of the time, but it was palpable in my world. I still don't know what he decided to do, but I suspect he swallowed hard and voted for Kennedy. Near the end of his life, while visiting him in the hospital, he told me, "Never vote Republican. Lincoln was he last good one and it's been downhill ever since." Opinions vary as to whether it was dementia or a moment of clarity. He'd be disappointed to know that I have ignored his advice on numerous occasions, but affirmed that I have regretted it at least some of the time.



They all loved Harry Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower. Truman was honest as the day is long, and he brought a swift and decisive conclusion to World War II. They knew then what we know now - without Truman's use of the A Bomb, countless more American lives would be lost invading Japan. They didn't like that he dismissed General McArthur when he got too big for his britches, and they disapproved of his cussing. At the end of the day, they trusted his judgement and his motives.



The same for Eisenhower. Being a war hero didn't hurt, and he brought a sense of stability to a nation weary of war. He was the perfect man for the Cold War at that time. He built roads and kept us out of war with Russia. Like many of his WWII counterparts, he simply came home, built a life, and built a nation. It's been said that Ike would have made a great Democrat and that Kennedy would have made a great Republican. I think our current loss of trust and confidence in the Presidency began to some degree after Eisenhower, came to full bloom with Nixon, and has evolved to the point that we don't trust anyone. More about that in the next blog.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

One More Thing..

to say about Senator Ted Kennedy. I've never been a big fan of Ted Kennedy. His brothers John and Robert, absolutely. Next to them, he always looked like a lightweight in every respect, but the real reason is that the incident at Chappaquiddick left a bad taste that never went away. I concede that part of that may be the way he has been demonized for decades by political opponents. It's been said that Ted Kennedy raised more money that any senate candidate in history, about half for himself and about half for Republicans.

Nevertheless, the coverage of his death last week reinforced something I already knew to an extent, but had minimized. Senator Kennedy was eulogized by political opponents who were his friends. Senators McCain and Hatch spoke glowingly of their late friend in very personal terms. In this age of daily harangues about this or that political figure on some issue, the late senator had made friends across the aisle with people with whom he differed on almost all issues. As far as I could tell, he did it in three ways. First, he befriended everyone in the Senate where he worked for all those years. Story after story was told of personal involvement by Senator Kennedy in the lives of other Senators when they needed him. Too few people in any profession make the effort to be friendly and supportive of those with whom they work. Here lately, it seems that almost no one in public life makes the effort. Second, he worked with many political opponents such as President Bush on NCLB, McCain, and Hatch on the Children's Health Program. In other words, he was willing to compromise to get legislation passed to benefit the country. I wish more leaders were willing to be like Ted Kennedy in that respect. Third, he did the work necessary to get his personal life straightened out, mainly by marrying a good woman to get him on track, not unlike many of the rest of us.

If we can have one legacy from Ted Kennedy, let it be that we can disagree with respect, then befriend and work with those with whom we differ.