The First Felon

 

For the first time in its history, our Great Republic will shortly have a convicted felon as its President.  Somewhat surprisingly given that some of its members have shown themselves to be susceptible to influence and contemptuous of generally recognized maxims of judicial conduct, the Supreme Court rejected his effort to postpone his sentencing.  There was no legal basis for doing so, but it has become uncertain that the Supreme Court finds a legal basis for its decisions necessary in these dark times.

But he's a duly elected convicted felon, and if we're to allow, if not encourage, felons to hold even the highest of public offices, then that is the way of our nation, now.  It may be the case that we'll balk at electing certain felons, I suppose.  Perhaps electing a convicted murderer is something the public will decline to do, for example.  But the field is open, now; the race is on.  Who will be the next convicted felon to grace the office of the Presidency?

It's difficult to be the first, in this case.  Perhaps that's why there was a struggle to avoid having that distinction when he became President.  Now, though, he may be a portent of things to come; a pioneer.  The first felon of many.

Ultimately, of course, electing anyone to any office in our Glorious Union is more than anything a matter of money.  Influencing those elected is a matter of money as well.  Witness the wealthy of our nation rushing to "donate" millions to finance the inauguration.  What is planned?  One wonders.  As there seems to be no limit to the vulgarity of our politics, it's hard not to imagine a kind of combination Vegas show, circus, and displays of military might given the rhetoric which flourishes at this time.  When, though, has a "negotiation" to acquire lands included the threat or use of armed force unless the  lands are transferred?

Interested though I am in the history of ancient Rome, I'm not fond of comparisons between it and the United States.  But I can't help but think of what Plutarch is said to have written regarding the influence of money on the Roman state.  It began to determine what votes were made, who was elected, what they did; then it took over the law courts; then the legions; and then came the rule of Emperors.

I'm not certain about the military, but it seems our elections and elected leaders have succumbed to the wealthy and certain plutocrats in particular, and the law courts, including the highest court in the land, are more and more beholden.  Emperors we may not have, yet.  But we don't seem to have many qualms about those who rule us.  So, who knows?

Elective Despotism

There can be no doubt regarding the outcome of this election; nor can there be any excuses for it.  All knew what had been said, and promised, by the victor.  All knew what he had done.  It can't be claimed we didn't know what would happen.  It simply didn't matter to the majority of us let alone in the strange world of the electoral college.

The pundits speculate regarding the reasons for the outcome.  It's what they and the media in general do--speculate, endlessly.  Also, now, they assess blame for the outcome.  

The simple fact is that the electorate has elevated to the presidency someone who said he will govern or attempt to govern as a despot, and those who support him are intent on using the power of government to make people behave as they deem appropriate, contrary to the principles of traditional conservatism.  This is the will of the majority.

An elective despotism, in other words.  Thomas Jefferson, quoted above, thought that this is not the form of government the Founding Fathers fought for, and I think he knew what he was saying.  Regardless, it seems to be the form of government the majority of us want.

Perhaps Mencken was right when he wrote that the people don't want liberty, but instead want security.  So, they want a president who is the kind of "Big Daddy" the Abrahamic religions worship as God--someone strong who will put down those who are different, and take care of us if we obey.  Judging from the political ads which were issued by the president elect and his supporters, it was believed that a win by the Democratic candidate would mean that gays and transexuals would multiply, and indeed be created through surgery.  Burly transgenders would dominate girls and women sports.  Fentanyl distributing immigrants would lurk in the streets, living on money diverted to them by the government, eating pets when not killing Americans.

People don't want to be told what to do.  Most of all it seems to me that they don't want to be told that ways of living they dislike are appropriate and that their dislike is a sign of ignorance and bigotry. This seems to be what I've called in this blog the Missionary Media is eager to communicate, though, and I can't help but wonder if that insistence on the part of media and entertainment writers of making traditional morals seem antiquated and immoral played a part in the outcome of the election and the intent to use government to repress non-traditional lifestyles.

Unfortunately, if I'm right and many of those who voted for the president-elect are people who don't want to be told what to do, those people now want to tell other people what they should not do.  And they want a president who will make sure they don't do what they shouldn't do.

The creation of the American Republic was a kind of experiment.  This will be an experiment of another sort.                                            

"Let's to it pell-mell..."

 

According to dictionaries I've seen, to do something pell-mell is to do it in a confused, disorderly manner.  Pictured above is a copy of a painting by William Trego called The Pell-Mell Charge.  I'm uncertain whether it's intended to portray the charge depicted as being confused and disorderly, or to indicate that the result of the charge is a confused, disorderly fight.  One would think an effort would be made to avoid a confused, disorderly charge.

The title of this post is a portion of a sentence appearing in Shakespeare's Richard III.  It's from a speech given by the character Richard to his troops prior to the final battle of his kingship.  The full quote is: "Let's to it pell-mell; if not to heaven, then hand in hand in hell."  In this context I think going to battle "pell-mell" means rushing to it defiantly and recklessly, without care but with wild fury.

On a silly note before indulging in grim reflection, I note that "pell-mell" is not to be confused with Pall Malls cigarettes, renowned by ad writers in days past for their "natural mildness."  Pall Mall cigarette packs were emblazoned, inexplicably I think, with the motto In hoc signo vinces (in this sign, conquer) which is said to have appeared along with a cross in a vision granted to Constantine the Great before the battle of the Milvian Bridge.  It's a kind of curse to be saddled with a memory which recalls such trivia.

I find myself thinking that voting in the forthcoming election for president is something best done pell-mell.  If we don't find ourselves in heaven after it takes place, then at least we should be hand in hand in hell.  Voting in this case is a kind of expression of defiance; defiance of the misinformation, deceit, venality, malice, pomposity, dithering, group-thinking and ignorance which has typified the campaigning and media coverage of this freak show, 24/7 as we like to say.  It's clear to me that one of the candidates is despicable, a horror inflicted on the nation, but how to explain or even understand the fact that a significant number of people favor him without condemning them as dupes or evil actors, something which should be avoided in characterizing one's countrymen or countrywomen (or whatever they think themselves to be)?

But in these times, is it possible or prudent to believe what we hear, read or see regarding the election or, indeed, anything else transpiring as related in the media or in social media?  So much of what is communicated can be manipulated now.  Lying is ubiquitous, unsurprisingly as most of us are exceedingly gullible--why bother learning or speaking what is true in this climate, where so many are compelled to believe whatever they think satisfying, or whatever is repeated endlessly?  We must vote our conscience no matter how confused and disorderly our politics has become.

Ultimately, it may be that now all we can rely on in making a judgment is the character of the candidates as presented.  Not that character cannot be faked; it can.  But one of the candidates hasn't tried to hide his nature and his plans.  He may be incapable of doing so, being so perfect in his self-regard, so convinced of his own superiority and the homage of his followers, and the craven nature of those who are members of the political party he has corrupted.  And the character displayed is that of someone who shouldn't be trusted with power over others.

So, let's to it pell-mell.  We'll get the president we deserve; and let's hope we're not undeserving of a good one.

Reflections on the Glass Ceiling

It's been some time since I posted here.  Much has happened worthy of comment, but I've felt no real desire to do so.  Call it a kind of disgust at worst, resignation at best.  Despite the fact that the presidential contest has become more interesting, I remain baffled by the fact that the Republican candidate remains popular with many of the voters here in God's Favorite Country.  It's a testament to the fact that a liar--not just any liar but a kind of titan or demi-god of lying, though the argument can be made that he's simply vastly deluded--can capture the hearts and minds of people who are citizens of our Great Republic. It doesn't speak well for us.

But I feel inclined to comment on the metaphor of the "Glass Ceiling" normally used to refer to a sort of invisible barrier which, wrongly, prevents certain people from achieving a higher place in the hierarchy in question.  More specifically, it refers to that barrier which will, presumably, be demolished if a woman is elected president of our Glorious Union.

The fabled Glass Ceiling figured in an earlier presidential election, as we all recall.  If I remember correctly a representation of it was on display, ready to be broken, at the campaign headquarters of Hilary Clinton on election night in 2016.  But while it seems her victory was anticipated, it remained unbroken.  Too much was taken for granted.

We males have historically been confused in our understanding of women generally, but especially in particular where politics and positions or events of importance are concerned.  It's interesting to consider whether our conception of them is most unrealistic and inaccurate when we become consumed by the belief that they are either inferior or superior to men; either better or worse than men.

If a Glass Ceiling exists preventing them from obtaining positions of power or importance, one would think it does because they're considered inferior in certain respects; or at least lacking in certain respects or by nature unable to be adequately concerned with certain matters.  But a Glass Ceiling also may be a barrier even when they're considered superior to men.

They have been considered superior to or better than men throughout our history in specific ways.  Most obviously they've been so thought of with respect to raising children and minding a home.  For a very long time that was considered to be their place in life, an obvious inference some thought from the fact that women, not men, bear children.  That view in itself would be sufficient to create a Glass Ceiling.

They've also been considered superior throughout our history, again in specific ways.

Sometimes, this conception of superiority is expressed by implication, sometimes expressly.  Boethius, for example, portrayed Philosophy (capital "p") as a woman, come to chide him for his weakness when a captive of Theodoric the Great.  She recalled him to Philosophy, and the knowledge that success, fame, fortune, persecution and death were trivial things, like life on Earth in general.  She was the incarnation of Philosophy, the best of us, in his Consolation of Philosophy which he wrote while imprisoned.  It's to be hoped she provided him some consolation while he was bludgeoned to death by his captors.

Dante in his Divine Comedy was guided by the pagan Virgil through Hell and Purgatory, but of course a pagan could not enter the kingdom of heaven and so the woman, or spirit of a woman, named Beatrice was his guide in Paradise.  Beatrice may or may not have been based on the woman, also named Beatrice, Dante loved in a courtly fashion--which is to say not physically.  In any event she served to represent religious faith, grace, enlightenment and love as portrayed in this work, a higher being than Dante himself, and men in general.

Then there is Goethe, who ended his Faust with an idealized woman redeeming the protagonist, and the words "Eternal Woman (or the Eternal Feminine) draws us upward." (Das Ewig-Weibliche ziet uns hinan).  Woman is in a sense nobler, more attuned to God, wiser, more spiritual than man; a kind of goddess.  This is Goethe's Faust; Christopher Marlow in his Doctor Faustus ended his play by having him dragged down to Hell where he damn well belonged.

But this perception of women as better...sometimes much better...then men also serves to bar her from earthly affairs such as politics and business and the professions because she's JUST TOO GOOD.  A woman cannot bear with or make decisions regarding the matters and people which and who must be dealt with, let alone serve as a commander in war.  Hence women are precious, to be protected, put on the proverbial pedestal.

So the Glass Ceiling where women are concerned is the result of conceiving of them as both superior and inferior to men.  Kipling of course took a different approach.  He famously wrote that the female of the species is more deadly than the male.  This interesting view seems to be based on a portrayal of women as reckless and even fanatic in some respects and in some manner, related primarily to the protection of the family.  But again, this would disqualify women from reasonably making decisions that must be made in the world of affairs.

Perhaps we're just too enamored with categorizing in our thinking.  Perhaps this tendency is a kind of bequest to posterity by Aristotle, that Relentless Categorizer.  That hinders us in our acceptance of possibilities.  The Glass Ceiling may be broken if we can recognize each other as humans, far more alike than different.

Let's Kill all the Pundits

Shakespeare's line "Let's kill all the lawyers" has attained a certain popularity, due to the fact that lawyers are, surprisingly, unpopular.  So many things and people are these days, of course, so perhaps this is a suggestion applicable to others as well.  

In fact, Shakespeare was writing of a plan to establish an autocracy.  It was recommended that the lawyers be killed as a first step of the plan.  Perhaps lawyers were actually being praised, then, as protectors of the freedom and rights of the people.  If so, I doubt whether that conception is very widespread now, though the recommendation still is.

I propose that this sentiment is more properly applicable to political pundits.  They infest the media.  They're omnipresent, and I can't understand why.

If news consists of the reporting of events of importance, it no longer exists, if indeed it ever did.  It would be refreshing if that actually took place.  More significantly, it would be useful without being merely the expression of opinions and speculation.  Imagine if what was reported in the media were merely events and actions.  For example, it would be noted that so-and-so gave a speech somewhere, at some time.  The content of the speech wouldn't be described.  In most cases, the content may be inferred in any event, as political speeches are largely repetitive.  The speech itself wouldn't be broadcasted.  What joy!

We would no longer be subjected to the ponderings and speculations of those deemed experts.  Several of them are now produced whenever anything happens.  Questions are asked of them by whomever it is that's supposedly reporting the news, and they respond.  Sometimes those selected disagree, but in most cases they agree.  We're told they know what they're talking about.

For me, the inherent fault of this manner of reporting the news is that for the most part, the news itself isn't reported, or is at best merely noted as fodder for an extended discussion.  Instead, what some person or other thinks about the news and their interpretation of it and its consequences is reported, and in detail.

My difficulty is that I don't particularly care what that person thinks.  They're entitled to their opinions, of course, but if I wanted to know them, I'd seek them out in some fashion.  That they're foisted on me by media lackeys is something I resent.

Then one must recognize that these experts may be stupid, ignorant, in someone's pocket or prejudiced.  They may not in fact be experts. In simple words, their opinions and statements may be wrong.  Why, then, are they presented as news?  Why dignify them?  Why give them influence?  Why foster the belief that what they say is factual...is in fact news?

It may be too late now to stop the ascension of punditry.  It must have become a kind of trade or industry by now.  People no doubt hold themselves out as experts willing to squawk obligingly and winningly on the various "news" networks and make a good deal of money for doing so.  It's no longer the news that's important; it's what a select group of people think about the news.