Not With a Bang, But a Whimper

It's difficult to characterize the strange departure of that strange man, on January 20, 2021, from that position he's more or less occupied for the past four strange, chaotic, and shoddy-seeming years in the political/social life of our Republic.  It seemed rather shoddy itself, in the sense that it appeared poorly made--rather like what I suppose must be called his "farewell speech."  "Pathetic" or "sad" come to mind, given the small size of the crowd at hand and the expectations of some.  "Modest" might be a kinder description, but the man and his administration, and his followers, can only be described as immodest.  As he rambled and the curious selection of songs played--songs which apparently were standard at his political rallies--the spectacle created was far less than spectacular.  It was a muted, uninspiring send-off.  That much can be said.  

It seems clear that the riot at the Capitol in an effort to prevent ratification of the vote of the Electoral College was responsible for the subdued nature of the departure.  Was there a miscalculation, or a misunderstanding, of its impact or effects, or were those who provoked it content with its outcome?  Regardless, it changed everything in the political scene, for a time at least.

The title of this post is, of course, from T.S. Elliot's poem The Hollow Men.  Given the bombast, the Sturm und Drang of his tenure, it was reasonable enough to anticipate it would end with a bang.  If what is written about the beliefs of some of his fans is true, they certainly expected a bang, and perhaps even literally a bang or succession of bangs accompanying the seizure of power by him and his adherents, preventing the inauguration of a new president and providing for...what, exactly?  A regime of some sort.  It's astonishing what people can believe; what they can be convinced to believe, in this 21st century.  Having been lied to for so long by so many regarding the late election, though, their belief and resulting disbelief at its disappointment may be expected.  

So we witnessed, instead, a whimper.  Not the whimper Elliot wrote of, of course.  It seems appropriate that at the end of a poem filled with allusions to various and sundry great classical and literary works, already written, meandering to conclusion of weary resignation to a world in which moral and philosophical inspiration are absent, the world would end in a whimper.  

But the hollow men of Elliot's poem have only the fact that they're stuffed with straw in common with those denizens of the world created by Trumpery, or Trumpism.  Hollow they certainly are in being thoughtless, made of straw, like the scarecrow of Oz, without a brain. In that sense the impression given by the ceremony of a departure of scarecrows, of a diminishment of their significance when all was said and done and efforts at sabotage of an election failed, was satisfying and appropriate.

But these hollow men don't lack inspiration.  They're inspired but not by moral or philosophical concepts.  Instead they're inspired by fears of all kinds involving people unlike them, who they believe seek to end their way of life, their world, with a bang. They hoped for a bang of their own the day of the inauguration.  They didn't get it.  Their hopes ended with a whimper.

But if people are so easily led and fooled, the world may yet end in a bang. 

Souls for Hire

Elvis Costello composed, and sang, a rather caustic song about the profession I've devoted the majority (I won't say the "best part") of my life to--that of the law.  It bears the same title as this post.  I've thought it a bit too nasty, but wonder now if it isn't quite nasty enough.

The practice of law can be addictive, in a sense.  It requires a kind of critical intelligence, and the application of the intellect has its attractions.  When that application is successful it satisfies something like a craving.  The practice of law can even be admirable, when the stakes and the principles involved are high.  

I don't intend to pontificate regarding the fact that the law and the results of its application can be unjust.  I've long believed the law and morality are distinct and different, and that equating them results only in confusion and the imposition of some values over another, for no better reason than that those values are those held by those making, or applying, the law.

But using the practice of law as a vehicle to avoid or corrupt the law's clear meaning and intent is tantamount to a betrayal of the profession and of the law itself.  The rule of law must be honored if there is to be any law, properly speaking.  There are few more despicable than those who are traitors, and traitors are those who betray that by which they benefit; that which makes them what they are.  

The clearly meritless efforts of those who have sought to overturn the results of the recent presidential election through the courts can only be described as what Elvis Costello referred to in his song as "whoring in the practice of the law."  Those efforts are otherwise inexplicable.  Even lawyers of the most limited comprehension and ability would recognize that the theories which have been propounded in support of those efforts are no more than the legal equivalent of passing gas.  They smell; they reek of stupidity.  They're so obviously insufficient in court that it cannot be maintained that they're brought it good faith, because if that were the case the lawyers propounding them could only be gibbering, drooling idiots or perhaps lunatics.  I'll assume that they're neither one or the other, in which case they're merely malicious and will be as outrageous as anyone would like provided they're well paid for their efforts to satisfy their customers.

I won't defend the virtue of the practice of law, though I'm a lawyer myself and have been one for many years.  Virtue isn't a characteristic of the law or its practice.  Only a person can be virtuous.  But it's nonetheless quite possible for a lawyer to be virtuous, even when practicing law.  It requires only a sense of honor and of the sanctity, so to speak, of the rule of law.  It means that a lawyer won't knowingly seek to undermine that which is clearly legal through the legal system itself.

Because the law recognizes the right of all to a defense in criminal matters, and that this right can only be preserved through competent representation, defendants are represented even when it appears likely they committed a crime.  That's part of the rule of law in this country.  But it's another thing entirely to represent someone or thing in an effort to subvert the law itself.  For a lawyer to represent a client in that case, for a fee, is to sell his/her legal soul.

 

Yes, We Have a Banana (Republic)

The great Louis Prima, best remembered I think for Jump, Jive and Wail, also did a song called Yes, We Have no Bananas.  The latter song may be better known, but is more offensive, as it describes a Greek-American grocer who doesn't like to say "no" telling someone his store doesn't have any bananas.  Louis was himself of Sicilian heritage, and I think should have known better.  Regardless, that song provides the basis for the title to this post.

Certain nations were once--and perhaps still are--referred to as "Banana Republics"; states largely dependent for revenue on one or sometimes a few crops, and in any case limited resources, managed by a plutocracy and sometimes foreign powers (including the U.S.) which regularly experienced changes in government, all to better suit the plutocrats.  They lacked stable politics and stable political institutions, and nobody paid much attention to actual elections, which generally were fixed.  A chain of clothing stores are also called "Banana Republics" because, I believe, the name is thought to invoke tropical, outdoorsy, travel wear.  Those stores are not being referred to, this time, which may or may not disappoint the reader.

I don't think we're a bona fide, if that's an appropriate phrase, banana republic just yet.   We're arguably a plutocracy, true.  But at least in the past, we haven't given the world the impression that our politics and political institutions, and our elections, are all for show, mere facades, and may be denied and ignored.  Things have changed, however.

The outcome of a presidential election was challenged not all that long ago, but that involved a different set of facts entirely.  As far as anyone knows, and based on what evidence there is and has been made available even by those challenging it, there is no basis on which to doubt the 2020 election and its result.  Because there's no legitimate reason to deny the result, but it is being denied nonetheless to the detriment of the nation, we appear to be a banana republic.

Although he's the obvious culprit, we can't blame this mess entirely on the sad, strange, damaged man who lost the election, much as he claims so pathetically to have won it.  His equally sad and strange minions, including those Republicans who have tolerated and facilitated his antics, share in responsibility for this diminishing of America on the world stage.  We can only hope that our Republic will survive him intact.  Unfortunately, if he does indeed suffer from what the DSM used to call Narcissistic Personality Disorder, then it seems likely he will do all he can to create problems for those who have rejected him, which in this case includes the better part of the citizens of our nation.  Being unable to seek retribution against us individually, it makes sense to think he'll seek to do so to the electoral system he believes failed him and to thwart those actually elected by the same system.  

What fascinates and concerns me most in this situation are the craven, venal and self-regarding individuals in power who support him and his efforts to subvert our politics and cast doubt on the electoral process, for no discernable legitimate reason.  I don't think we can assume that these people are all as gullible and deluded as others who seem react to him as members of a cult do to the cult leader.  There must be some other reason which motivates them to encourage him.  It's impossible to believe that they think what he's doing is for the good of the nation.  That would be to consider them to be utterly unintelligent.  So, the reasonable inference is that they act in pursuit of what they think to be their own best interests.

As we're considering the politics of our Glorious Union, this means they're acting in a way they think best preserves or increases the money and power available to them.  One can see that the election of a Democratic president would adversely impact the money and power available to Republican politicians.  So it makes sense to think that they're playing along in the hope that even frivolous challenges to the outcome of the election will ultimately result in some good--for them.

It will be interesting to see how far they'll go in putting their interests before those of the stability and status of the nation.  The cynical view is that they'll go as far as they can without putting their own power, money and interests, and those of their friends, in danger.  Since none of the players appear to be principled and all of them appear to be supremely self-regarding judging from their conduct in the last four years, this is probably the most reasonable view to take.

We should fasten our seatbelts, as Bettie Davis famously said in All about Eve.  We may learn soon just how corrupt our politics and politicians have become.

 

Our Feast of Fools

Welcome, all! Or better, perhaps--Come one, Come all, to America's Feast of Fools!

Based somewhat loosely on the Medieval Feast (or Festival) of Fools--pardon me, Festum Fatuorum--this festival, which is of relatively recent origin, is formally held on the date of every presidential election, but the festivities are known to extend for several days after voting has taken place.  While the Medieval Feast celebrated the election of a mock Pope or Archbishop, we here in the United States celebrate the election of a mock President.

Most of us are familiar enough with the original Feast, having seen it animated in Disney's strangely disturbing Hunchback of Notre Dame.  The most ridiculous or grotesque person available was made Pope/Archbishop, and all joined in laughing at that figure while purportedly offering it reverence.  Liturgical and religious ceremony was parodied.  It shared certain characteristics with the Roman Saturnalia.  We in the U.S. similarly elect some absurd personage as president and ape the ceremonies of a democracy or republic.  Here, though, we don't laugh at the Feast.  Instead, or so I suspect, we're laughed at by the rest of the world.

What a spectacle we must make on the world stage.  I have a vague recollection of claims of American exceptionalism; the belief that we were favored in our form of government, our republic, our institutions, which allowed for the expression of the "will of the people" but protected the voice of the minority, and the peaceful transfer of power, the rule of law, etc., and our pride in our good fortune in being so enlightened.  Now we seem to be no more fortunate and no greater in this respect than most other nations.  No doubt there are those who enjoy how America, the (High and) Mighty, has fallen.  

Ostensibly at least, our politics, though driven in most cases by the pursuit and use of money uber alles, has managed to honor the election process.  There have been very few cases where the process has been subject to challenge, and claims of fraud were seldom made.  Those who lose have acknowledged losing more or less gracefully.  Things have changed, though.  Now we have those who are against votes and voting itself if their interests are are not met, and if they fail to retain their positions due to the election process.  Most of all depressing is the fact that a large portion of the electorate isn't disturbed by this and even joins in the rejection of votes and of the right to vote.  

Why has a change of this magnitude taken place?  I've pondered the use or misuse of the Internet before and have worried about its negative impact, and hate to sound like the proverbial broken record, but I think that it provides a means by which the ignorant, the misinformed, the authoritarian, the hateful, the bigoted--in short, those who are unwilling to accept anything they don't understand or perceive to be contrary to themselves and their interests, whether or not it is achieved legally or is not illegal--may communicate and coordinate, may plan, may indoctrinate, may foster discontent and act on it.  In a world in which any person may communicate anything without real effort and find those who share their feelings and support them, and where verification and careful, critical thought is discouraged, many dangerous people will thrive and their ranks will swell.  Manipulation of thought and feelings will be easy.  It's certain that manipulation is taking place.

Curiously, though communication of information and opinion is easy and widespread, ignorance and misunderstanding increases as a consequence.  Contrary information and opinion is available, but one won't become aware of it unless it's sought out.  It can be ignored.  One need not learn anything unless there is a desire to learn.  There is no desire to learn, however, where there is no reason to and prejudice and ignorance is encouraged by a host of others of like minds (if that word can be used) who reinforce accepted views.

Be careful out there.  Zombies of a kind actually do exist and thrive.  They don't eat brains, perhaps, but they don't think they need them, nor do they want to use them.