Our Willy

Vain, verbose, muddle-headed, ignorant, boorish, morose, opinionated, excitable, scatter-brained, loud-mouthed, meddlesome...all adjectives used at one time or another to describe Kaiser Wilhelm II, the "Kaiser Bill" of fame of the Great War, or World War I as we came to call it after an even greater war (in terms of its extent and destructiveness) came along.

I was asked recently what Roman Emperor the current president of our Glorious Republic most resembled.  I found this required a certain amount of thought.  None of the great monsters who ruled Rome seemed appropriate; Caligula, Nero for example.  One of the most ridiculous of emperors came to mind--Elagablus, I mean--almost immediately, but his oddities were different than those of the present occupant of the White House.  The Empire had many bad emperors, bad for various reasons, but I was hard pressed to think of one who is a match.

The fact is, we have a more recent figure in history who matches this president quite well.  Wilhelm, or "Willy" as his many relatives in similar positions of power throughout Europe would call him, was most of all a nuisance.  But as a ruler of a nation, an autocrat, his influence was vast.  He was a nuisance in internal affairs, a nuisance in foreign affairs.  His ministers did his best to limit his influence, to control his sudden and sometimes inexplicable intrusions into careful plans and negotiations, but to no avail.  He somehow managed to insert himself in a matter and send it spinning into chaos.  He insulted, he repulsed, he badgered.  A colossal and offensive know-it-all, he offended fellow heads of state with words of advice.

His state visits to other nations were stressful to those involved.  Nobody knew quite what he would do or say.  He was made an honorary admiral of the British Royal Navy and apparently took this kindness so seriously he thought it appropriate to express his opinion regarding its operations to those who were actual members of that branch of the British military.  He hounded the poor Tsar unmercifully, always telling him what to do.  He exasperated his grandmother, Queen Victoria.  His cousin Edward, who became King of England, thought him malicious.

It seems that as war approached he wanted peace. He managed, though, to assure war came by his fecklessness and his remarkable ability to take inconsistent positions and stances, generally motivated by whoever it was he happened to speak with last.  Once at war, as might be expected, he was eager for victory, and so became the bane of his generals' existence.  A paranoid, he felt that he and Germany were constantly under appreciated and threatened by all other nations, with the possible exception of Austria, which he merely looked down on.

It appears he actually had some good traits.  He may have lived well enough as an eccentric country gentlemen in other circumstances, as it seems he did after he abdicated at the war's end.  But he was a loose cannon as leader of a powerful nation in a war far too full of cannon of other kinds.

Which brings us, however unwillingly, to the present.  The similarities between these two peculiar men seem evident to me.  But the times are certainly different.  And while Willy's advisers did what they could to control and discourage him from capering too wildly about the world stage, our president's advisers, such as they are, seem incapable of controlling him nor do they seem to want to discourage him.  Neither do most members of the Republican Party who seem content to be complicit with him in many matters.  Except, of course, where the money with which they retain their positions is concerned, and it may be that his antics with tariffs and economic policy may finally bring the various shills who make up the Congress to do what's required to stifle him.

It's a very odd thing, that such a man should be where he is, and it makes one concerned regarding the fate of God's favorite country.  One prefers one's villains to be intelligent, cultivated, knowledgeable if immoral and unworthy.  The devil is a gentleman, so it's said.  A small, mean, petty, ignorant and venal man makes a most annoying bad guy.  Even an embarrassing one.

Our Ship of Fools

Plato, in the course of describing and justifying his frightening ideal state in his Republic, used as an allegory what's been called ever since the Ship of Fools.  The Ship of Fools was intended to reflect a democracy, where all thought they could captain the ship or where they would select as captain whoever best thought as they did or would advance their selfish interests.

Plato seemed to have been fond of the ship allegory, as he used it again contra democracy, noting that those who would charter a ship would want an expert captain at the helm.  No doubt that's true, but those who would do so would also, I think, instruct the captain on what the destination would be, rather than leaving it to the captain to determine where it is best for them to go.

I'm not as adverse to democracy as Plato was, and am quite adverse to the totalitarian state he thought best.  But the Ship of Fools is useful as a reference to a nation, or company, or group that is being significantly mismanaged or directed by fools.

The phrase comes to mind almost unbidden when we consider the state of our Great Republic.  Regrettably, it's a kind description under the circumstances.  I've always believed that the mistakes of government are more likely the result of incompetence than criminal conduct, but whether that is true in this case is unclear.

It's possible that the curiously senseless statements of the Chief Executive regarding the investigations taking place are merely the result of his incompetence.  No sensible person in his position would so blithely undercut the explanations offered by those he so memorably described as his surrogates, particularly when they're clearly offered to explain his own conduct as something which doesn't implicate him in wrongdoing.  Alternatively, they may be expressive of a remarkable ignorance of his position as president, which though one of power is also one of responsibility and for which he may be held accountable.   This I would guess is something he's not used to, never having in his privately owned businesses been accountable to shareholders or a board of directors.

But if incompetence and ignorance explain what appears to have taken place, it seems that the result is little different from what would be the case if it was intended.  Perhaps reports of what's been said and done are inaccurate.  But the president has little or no credibility on any subject, for which he has only himself to blame (though he would no doubt blame his unfortunate advisers), nor does his administration.

U.S. Grant was president of a notably corrupt administration.  Grant seems to have been a highly intelligent man, judging at least from his very well written memoirs.  It's not certain that he himself was corrupt, but he was certainly far too fond of his friends and neglectful in overseeing them.  He might be said to have been naïve.  This president, though, appears to be lacking in intelligence to the extent that implies the ability to reason closely and thoroughly.  His dislike for reading indicates he lacks patience and is inclined to do and say things off the cuff.  Indeed, it indicates he doesn't like to make the effort to think deeply and is entirely reactive.

So it seems entirely possible that the chaos we see is the result of a scatter-brained, impulsive, thoughtless man used to getting his way taking on much more than  he can handle.  But, if he demanded personal loyalty of an FBI Director, asked him to drop an investigation, accepted as a close advisor a man working as an agent of a foreign government, there's something more involved.  Now we learn that man is relying on the Fifth Amendment to avoid a Congressional subpoena.  None of this bodes well for the Republic.

How Not to Do Things with Words: "Black Lives Matter"

The title to this post is a little play on the title of a work of the philosopher J.L. Austin called How to Do Things with Words.  What prompts me to write it are the antics of the unfortunate Mr. Trump, the maudlin Mr. Beck, and the increasingly squirrelly Mr. Giuliani and others regarding the name of and the movement known as "Black Lives Matter."  It's their commentary on the name or the words which make it up which I find particularly interesting.  Their commentary seems to me to be a kind of rhetoric we hear all too often in these grim times from politicians and pundits of all breeds (the comparison with animals we breed is intended, I'm afraid; this particular kind is fed on our money, but sadly we don't benefit from them as we do from other livestock).

What we hear is that the name "Black Lives Matter" is inherently racist.  The use of the word "inherently" in this case is odd, words and names not normally being "inherently" anything but words and names.  Something is inherent in someone or thing when it is essential to it, a primary quality of it, one of its elements.  Words and names, if they're racist, are more probably considered racist because they're used by particular people in particular ways except in extraordinary circumstances.  That of course is to say that they're not "inherently racist" in almost all cases.  The words in question in this case are not separately or taken together inherently racist in any respect.

I'd like to credit those making this claim with sufficient intelligence to know this is the case, though I do wonder, sometimes.  I doubt they actually mean "inherently," in other words.  They may not know what it means, however, to say that the name "Black Lives Matter" is inherently racist.  It is impossible to overestimate the ignorance of our politicians and pundits in certain matters.

They seem to take the position that when one says "black lives matter" one necessarily claims that lives which are not black lives don't matter.  There is no other way to explain their contention in response that "all lives matter" or their apparent outrage at the name/phrase.  But it's very clear that it doesn't follow that by saying that black lives matter one is saying that those are the only lives that matter.  It's simply to say that black lives matter.

It doesn't require much in the way of thought to recognize that the name, and the "movement" as it's called, have their basis in the belief that law enforcement doesn't think that black lives matter; the belief that certain police have such disregard of black people or hatred of them that they either don't care if those lives are taken and by them, or want to take those lives when they can.   In other words, the name is in response to what seems to those who use it a belief among law enforcement officers and others that, in fact, black lives don't matter, or don't matter as much as the lives of other people.  Contrary to that belief it's claimed that black lives do matter.

Now it's to be presumed that none of the above individuals would say that black lives don't matter, so we have to think that isn't the cause of their problem with the name.  Perhaps those who claim the name is inherently racist wouldn't be inclined to do so if the name was "Black Lives Matter as Much as Other Lives" or "Black Lives Matter Too."  Anything is possible.  The added words seem unnecessary except perhaps to the hypersensitive or dull, but I at least would have no problem if they were added and I doubt others would.  

A cynic like me would think it possible that the claim being made about the name and the indignation and outrage associated with it are rhetorical tactics being used in an effort to discredit the movement.  More likely, perhaps, the problem lies in a failure to think thoroughly about words and their use.  Or perhaps a failure to think well generally.  We don't do much thinking these days, or at least have no desire to think critically.

Those that make it this far in reading this post will be aware that I've said nothing about the movement or its actions, or the incidents referred to which are said to have caused the movement to exist.  That, I think, would require much more knowledge and study on my part for me to comment on intelligently.

Send in the Clowns

Yes, I know, they're already here.

Although it's difficult to assess whether the politics of our Glorious Republic is comedy or tragedy, the efforts of the relentless categorizer Aristotle notwithstanding, there's something laughable about this presidential election.  I wonder if the plethora of clowns running for that sublime office is a kind of affirmation by fate that our elections have caused whatever gods may be to despair of us entirely.  Since we are beyond saving, why not turn our national politics and governance into a kind of farce, something entertaining if nothing else.

The cast is impressive in size, although the characters are stock.  The venal, disingenuous, unlikeable Clinton; the big-mouthed,  pompous ass Trump; the holy-roller Huckabee; the scatter-brained, disturbingly named Rand Paul; the oleaginous opportunist Cruz; the youthful, handsome and vacant Rubio; the excitable, apparently vindictive, Christie; the dully passive-aggressive Walker; the odd, emotional Graham; the unexciting leftover Jeb Bush; and the others, thus far unnoticeable, with the exception of Bernie Sanders, who seems to suffer from nothing more than being old in age and an old-time liberal.

And soon, perhaps, Vice President Biden may join the race.  That would be like Leslie Nielsen's Frank Drebin running for the office.

How can an intelligent, responsible individual make a choice among these undesirables?  It is not, if it has ever been, a process of choosing the best or most qualified person.  It has become an exercise in determining who is most likely to do the least amount of damage to the United States and its people, and even to the world given our propensity to rush into problems and places where angels fear to tread. 

There are of course intelligent, responsible individuals left even now here in God's favorite country, and it's likely some if not all of them vote.  But it's not at all clear that they will have any significant impact in deciding who becomes president.  We (and other, less favored, people) enjoy comparing our nation to ancient Rome, which in a way is appropriate as we borrowed so much of its form and architecture.  We have not quite made it to the point where the presidency can be bought in the way Didius Julianus bought his place as Roman Emperor, but we clearly have reached the point where money is of paramount importance, a direct if not the sole cause of success in our elective politics.  For this we must thank our Supreme Court, which decided that hurling any amount of money at our politicians in the hope if not the expectation of favors is perfectly fine in the law.  Only bribery of the most blatant kind is prohibited here in the home of the free and the brave.

We may still hope, however.  Didius Julianus reigned for only a matter of weeks, and was disposed of by the Praetorians he paid.  The auctioning of the Roman principate was shown in a Hollywood spectacular, called The Fall of the Roman Empire by someone who was its seems unaware of the fact that the empire continued in the West for another three centuries or so after that memorable event, and in the East for another thirteen hundred years, more or less.  I recall Christopher Plummer playing Commodus in that film as something of a cruel but cheerful lunatic.

But who can be said to be even the least likely to do harm to us among this rogues gallery?  We can expect such as Clinton and Jeb Bush to play the tired old game of Washington politics in a predictable if not effective manner, but the ascendancy of that caricature of a boorish rich man, the Trimalchio of our time, is it seems a sign that many have soured on business as usual, or have at least concluded that if we must suffer through it we may as well have someone who, being rich and only concerned with being rich, doesn't care about what he says or thinks.

Is it possible that Trump's popularity may indicate that we all now recognize our politicians are pandering hypocrites, ready to do or say anything to be elected and remain elected, which is to say ready to do the bidding of their paymasters?  Or indicate that we are for other reasons sick of what has become a sham?   If so, it may perhaps be a desirable development in its own peculiar way.

A Kind of Gluttony

Perhaps it is the debate over whether to extend the "Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy" or the current urge to do something to benefit from the unseemly large profits of Big Oil, or perhaps it is the omnipresence of the walking, talking caricature of a nouveau riche boor that is Donald Trump, but I find myself given to speculate regarding what it is that compels some of us to want to be very, very rich and do all that is possible to achieve that status.

I think it is common to want to be comfortable, to be able to eat and drink well, have leisure time, have and enjoy certain material goods, give our children certain economic advantages.  However, we can achieve such things without being exceedingly wealthy.  Some of the more regrettable personalities intruding upon us these days have referred to those most would consider to be well-off as being "comfortably poor" but I doubt it is necessary to be "poor" even in this fashion to be comfortable.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to be comfortable, and I would go so far as to say it would be good, or at least nice, if all of us were.  But what is it that drives a person who is comfortable in this fashion to want to be very rich?  To want, in other words, more, more and yet more of that which allows him/her to be comfortable?

The very rich are sometimes justified by themselves and others (usually Republicans in this Great Republic) because they are said to benefit us in some vague manner.  They "make jobs" or do something by being wealthy which is good for the economy.  The wiser of their fans and advocates don't presume to claim that this is why they are wealthy, or that the wealthy eagerly dedicate themselves to making others richer.  In fact, those like Ayn Rand and her Randriods do not merely acknowledge, but rejoice in, the selfishness of the rich and powerful.  The benefit to others is apparently a function of their mere existence, their being, as it were; they radiate our benefit much as God is said to radiate Grace.

Thus there are those who resent it if they are being taxed more than others merely because they are wealthier than others.  Why should they be made to pay more to the State merely because they have more to pay?  Do they not already benefit us all by being wealthy, buying so much, consuming so much, thereby "making jobs" or whatever it is they are supposed to accomplish by doing so?

Frankly, I'm not adverse to the position that they should not be required to pay more than others.  I would be pleased if they paid as much as others did, proportionately.  If we must have an income tax, I confess to being fond of the idea of a flat tax--that all should pay the same percentage of their income as taxes to our benign government.  Get rid of all deductions and exemptions, pay the same percentage, and we would have a wonderfully simple means of taxation it seems to me, and one which is at least arguably fair.  But no doubt this is far too simple an idea to be effective.

Regardless, I don't think the very rich can "justify" themselves in this fashion, nor do I think they should.  They should, however, acknowledge what they are--gluttons of a sort, and pathetic as a result--and we would all likely be better off if they exercised self-control.  They need not devote themselves to the benefit of human kind.  They would do us all a great favor, though, if they weren't very, very rich, and declined to be so because being so is unnecessary to their welfare, and undermines their dignity and indirectly the dignity which should be accorded to others.

Gluttony is, of course, the practice of excessive eating and drinking, and greediness in doing so.  It is in a certain sense disgusting (I don't mean to refer to those with eating disorders, but rather to those who indulge in this kind of excess simply because they are greedy for the pleasure it brings them).  It is infantile self-indulgence in a particularly unpleasant form.  Those who strive to be or are much richer than they need to be to be comfortable indulge in a similar type of unnecessary excess and greediness.

Once one is comfortable, what else would account for the desire to have more and more money and things?  The need to be more and more comfortable, to be very comfortable?  What can compel this kind of acquisitiveness for money and things when there is no longer any reasonable need for them, but a kind of gluttony?

I don't advocate the forcible redistribution of wealth.  But self-control is to be advocated in a time of dwindling resources, and is admirable in any case.  Nobody needs to be exceedingly rich, and it is absurd to claim they do.  The incidental benefit that may result from the excesses of the gluttons for money and power don't compensate for them.