Age, Infirmity and the Presidency

This isn't the first time questions regarding the competence of a president have been raised, but it hasn't happened very often.  In 1919, Woodrow Wilson suffered a stroke.  It was a serious one, and left him partially paralyzed, physically disabled in other respects as well, and it seems impacted his personality if not his intelligence.  His condition was kept secret, or as much so as it could be.  All communication with him passed through his wife and his doctor.  He died five years later at age 67.

I'm older now than he was when he died, so I'd rather not attribute his incapacity to his age.  In fact, it seems it was not, and may be more accurately thought of as the result of his general health, the pressure of the presidency and war, the failure of his hopes at Versailles and on his return to Washington, the disapproval of the treaty and the League of Nations.

The current president is older than Wilson was and older than I am.  I'm inclined to think he has suffered impairment due to age, though the extent of the impairment is unknown to me.  Unfortunately, it seems his impairment was kept hidden as well.  I didn't see the notorious debate, but from what I'm told his performance was shocking.  It's shocking as well that he was permitted to participate if those who know him well were aware of the problem.  If there is in fact such a problem, it would be irresponsible to ignore it.

It must be obvious that a president should be competent, if not proficient.  Neither of the present candidates appear to be, however.  Chances are better that the incumbent would be surrounded with competent people; competent people who served the former president during his administration fled from it after a time, and it isn't likely any will flock to a new one if he's elected.  He prefers willing, unquestioning followers in any case. 

The difficulty we face, though, is that while it is irresponsible to ignore significant cognitive decline, it may be even more irresponsible to improve the chances of someone who is irresponsibility incarnate; someone without scruples or principles.  If, then, a replacement is appropriate, that replacement should be one capable of winning the election.  The Democratic Party isn't teeming with stars.  Nor is the Republican Party, of course, but it doesn't want stars, having opted to submit to one person only.

Even so, under the circumstances I think that someone younger and aggressive would be preferable.  It pains me to say it, but old white men have had their day.  Age effects people differently, of course, but the presidency is taxing and our physical and mental fitness when it comes to the abilities required to lead a country by conduct rather than by the example of wisdom and virtue decline.

In our times, however, we must wonder whether the media, professional and social, has created this crisis of leadership.  The significance of the debate was hyped incessantly, nearly every moment leading up to the event.  Having treated it with such importance, the media has no choice but to tout its result, and make that of the greatest importance as well.  A good argument can be made that we are where we are due to the machinations of the media.

Happy Birthday, H.L. Mencken. Wish You Were Here.

 

Today H.L. Mencken would be 138 years old, if only he was still alive.  How I wish he was.

The Sage of Baltimore was not a religious man and did not believe in an afterlife.  If there is one, though, his rightful place in it would not be in heaven, of course, nor even in purgatory, but instead in the First Circle of Hell according to Dante along with other great pagans.   If it's possible to return from the afterlife and, if nothing else, haunt this sorry world, I think he would be with us now, if only to enjoy the increasingly perverse course of our Great Republic and congratulate himself for having anticipated so well the decadence of our democracy.

I think Mencken had his faults, and have described them previously in this blog.  But I know of nobody in the history of American journalism or opinion who wrote so well, and so savagely, of American politics and politicians, and American culture (I can almost hear him say "such as it is") with the exception of Gore Vidal.  I regret that he can't write of the current occupant of the White House and the rogue's gallery of our national leaders.  How well he would excoriate them, revile them!

We have people enough in journalism and elsewhere who do or would do the same, of course, but either the times or the people have changed.  Criticism as we now know it is crude and often vulgar, if omnipresent thanks to the Internet and social media.  Now people of all kinds, regardless of levels of intelligence, wit, literacy or sophistication, can express their opinions regarding current events and figures of significance and popularity, and do so with some relish.  Unfortunately, they for the most part are incapable of doing that well.  Just read what passes for commentary these days, or worse yet the comments readers can now make regarding the commentary.

And yet I think that those who are today professional commentators and pundits, who express their opinions weekly or daily on television, newspapers and journals are, in an odd way, actually more restrained than Mencken was in his heyday.  Read what Mencken wrote of such worthies as Woodrow Wilson and William Jennings Bryan, for example.  There's nothing like it being written now.

Perhaps "limited" is a better word than "restrained" though.  Limited, that is, in ability, knowledge and intelligence.  Someone with great powers of expression, like Mencken, can mock and revile far more effectively than someone who is merely consumed with hatred and self-righteousness as so many are today.  Today's political figures, and especially our current president, are barely capable of expressing themselves, verbally or in writing.  Against Mencken they would appear embarrassingly overmatched. 

And I think it would do our nation a great deal of good if they were overmatched, overtasked and overwhelmed by a great writer and critic.  They would be shown to be the mediocrities which, at best, they are, and the strikingly small and pitiable people they are and which, perhaps, we've become. 

If you can return, Mencken, please do.  And hurry.

Reflections on Independence Day, 2016

This post addresses the Fabulous Fourth, not the movie sequel, which it seems based on reviews is unworthy of reflection.

For two hundred and forty years, our Great Republic has existed and more or less thrived.  Particularly in the last one hundred years, it has been a dominant if not the dominant nation of this Earth.  The United States has been compared to ancient Rome for quite some time.  That comparison has become commonplace.  Those who make the comparison generally mean to condemn Rome if not us, or at least warn us to take care that the fate of our nation not be that of Rome.  Let's indulge in the comparison for a brief time.

The First Punic War commenced in 264 B.C.E.  Augustus established the principate in 27 B.C.E.  During that period of time, Rome grew from a city which held sway over a good chunk of the Italian peninsula to the master of the Mediterranean world and most of Europe, successively defeating and destroying Carthage and the successors states formed from the dissolution of Alexander's empire.  The United States has in a similar period done much the same, relatively speaking.  This seems appropriate as Rome, or at least the Roman Republic, served as a model of sorts to the Founding Fathers as they created the U.S.

It's doubtful, though, that the Founders thought they were founding an empire like that of Rome.  We have for the most part denied imperial ambitions at least though the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, though Wilson submitted meekly enough to the imperial ambitions of England and France, thus participating in the drafting of the Treaty of Versailles, reluctantly signed by many in 1919.  Even before then, though, America had acquired by conquest the American West and a good part of the American East, Puerto Rico and the Philippines and other territories from Mexico, Spain and the indigenous people of North America.  The U.S. managed to buy a great deal of land as well, through the good offices of Napoleon.  So, if imperialism consists of the conquest of territory and its rule by the conquerors, it would seem that America has been de facto an imperial power.

So simplistically far, so simplistically good.  So we carry on.

It's generally thought by many that the fall of Rome began when the Empire replaced the Republic.  If that's so, however, then it was a long, slow fall.  What's usually considered the end of the Empire in the West took place about five hundred years later, and the Empire in the East vanished about a thousand years after that (though it slowly became a very small empire).  Moralists of all kinds seem to be unaware of or ignore the longevity of the decadent Roman Empire.  If it fell due to the sexual and moral corruption they're fond of citing (usually by reference to Nero), we shall be lucky if we last as long no matter how we conduct ourselves or what God we choose to worship (and then ignore when it's convenient to do so, that being our usual practice).

It happens, though, that at its end the Roman Republic was dominated by several gifted and ambitious men, e.g. Caesar, Pompey, Crassus, Marcus Antonius, Cicero, Cato, Octavian the Augustus to be.  Most of them weren't particularly moral in our sense, though Cato certainly was ostentatiously virtuous and Cicero at least contemplated what was and was not moral.  Cicero, though, faulted Cato for his stubborn, uncompromising virtue, famously remarking that Cato thought he lived in Plato's Republic, not Romulus' shithole.

While America is full of ambitious men and women at this time, none seem particularly gifted, or moral for that matter.  Given the civil wars which resulted from the conflicting desires of the great of the Roman Republic, perhaps we should be thankful for this lack of ability.

Unfortunately, though, it's ability that might make the difference in the type of empire America will become if it follows the path of Rome.  Augustus, who created the Roman Empire, was a remarkably able politician.  Our politicians are craven and venal and have been for some time, and it may be that the political success of a capering, stridently ignorant man indicates that in the future they'll be craven, venal and boisterously stupid as well.

It's amusing to indulge in comparisons of this kind.  Overall and in the context of history I think the United States has done well in becoming what it is, but just what the future holds can't be predicted through the study of ancient Rome or any other Empire or nation.

There is one sense in which America now resembles old Rome, however, which may give us a hint as to our political future.  Money was of great importance at the end of the Roman Republic; votes were bought, directly or indirectly.  Roman politicians came from a restricted class, but required the support of the people at election time and treated them very generously in return for their support.  Money dominates our politics now, as well.

The difference is that money isn't used as it was in ancient Rome, to pacify and reward common people for their support.  It's used instead by the rich and powerful to pacify and reward politicians who require it to be elected.  Perhaps this accounts for the quality of our politicians.  It's demeaning to be, for all practical purposes, a lackey, a mere chattel in effect, of special interests, corporations, the very rich.  It's demeaning to be a panderer, and an American politician must pander.  What self-respecting, intelligent, able person could stand such a life?

Now, the votes of electors aren't bought; legislators and their votes are bought instead.  It's hard to say which practice will promote a greater degree of corruption in a nation.

Anachronism, Stupidity and Futility

Certain of the more self-righteous and, I think, tiresome students (and professors?) at some institutions of higher education in our Glorious Republic, who evidently are not preoccupied by their studies, have taken to demanding that the names and statues of significant historical figures be removed from sight.  At Princeton, for example, the name and likenesses of Woodrow Wilson offend them; at The College of William and Mary and apparently elsewhere, that of Thomas Jefferson should be purged, or so it's urged.  They were racists, you see.

It must be wondered whether The College of William and Mary should be required to change its name as well, as it's quite certain that both William and Mary were racists under the current definition. The George Washington University, of course, is particularly problematic. 

I should note that I'm not very fond of either Wilson or Jefferson.  Wilson was a pompous ass in many respects, an egotist and a pretentious one to boot.  Lloyd George and Clemenceau made him look like a fool at Versailles nonetheless.  His messianic conceits so annoyed those in Congress that most of his plans came to naught. By all rights he should have resigned due to his incapacity after his return to the United States, but instead allowed his wife to act as President.

Jefferson was without question a man of genius, but he was also without question a hypocrite of the highest order, who did his best to rule as a tyrant once he obtained the presidency.  Although himself adept at defamation, he objected to criticism of any kind, and at one point even sought to change the law so that truth was no defense to libel.  His conduct in the matter of Aaron Burr was reprehensible for its disregard of the law.

It happens they were also racist.  But while I dislike Wilson and Jefferson (and racism) I dislike anachronism as well, except sometimes in works of science fiction.

What is interesting about this interest in erasure of references to figures of the past is that but a short time ago, relatively speaking, all or most people were racist.  Many still are.  If all who were racist are unworthy of honor, then it's arguably the case that nobody except some of those who have been alive in the past 50 years are worthy of honor, because only certain of those people would not be deemed racist by those who employ that term now.  Though it may be a surprise to those who seek to purge college campuses at this time, racism isn't exclusively European in origin.  All peoples have, at one time or another, thought strangers inferior and contemptible.

So those qualities of Wilson and Jefferson which cause students to fume at this time were likely shared by everyone in recorded history, except some of those of the current generation and possibly some of the last generation. The question arises:  Is it appropriate to condemn all those who have ever lived, or at least not to display them on university grounds, except those who lived recently, because they failed to believe as some of us do now? 

Curiously, it's probable that those who presume to judge those of the past by the standards of the present wouldn't dream of judging those living now by any standard.  They've been taught not to judge.  At least, they've been taught not to judge those living now because they believe or think differently.   Differently, that is, from those who are European or of European descent, whom the naive believe are the only racists ever to live on this planet.

There's apparently something about the dead that renders them subject to judgment due to their failure to recognize what has only been recently recognized by we the living.  And we came to recognize the evil of racism only after a long, hard and continuing struggle, usually by those who are dead as well.  We have no cause to be self-righteous; our enlightenment isn't our achievement, and it's fundamentally unfair to blame those who didn't have the benefit of our knowledge for failing to have our knowledge.

It is stupid to apply the standards of the present to the past because that is simply to fail to know and understand the past, thus dooming ourselves to repeat it, as Santayana put it.  It is futile to do so because it achieves nothing of significance now.

Wilson and Jefferson and the billions of others who have lived are not honored, or even thought of, for their racist views if they are thought of at all.  Those who do think of them for any extended period of time are most likely professors and students, who are of course exempt from criticism being the critics themselves and presumptively free of racism.  Taking names off buildings and pulling down statues won't make anybody less racist or more tolerant, as satisfying as those acts may be to those who deal in appearances and little else. 

More on Mencken: Thoughts on "An American Credo"

I was surprised to find next to nothing on the Web regarding this remarkable book, written by the magnificent H. L. Mencken and George Jean Nathan.  I don't know Nathan at all; I've never read him.  So, I can't say to what extent he contributed.  What I've read so far seems gloriously Menckenish, however.

An American Credo purports to be a study of the American, or the Americano as Mencken would say, circa 1920, and we were apparently a sorry lot back then.  Alas, I think Mencken would find us no less sorry now, and for much the same reasons.

I am somewhat surprised at the extent to which members of the primary Christian religious heirarchy of the United States are being lambasted.  Mencken was never fond of institutionalized religion, of course, but he seems to view the clergy as particular scoundrels.  Interestingly, the Protestant clergy are mocked far more than the Catholic as being vain, ignorant and venal.  Although the Catholic Church is criticized for coming to dominate the secular governments of the larger cities, it is given credit for being wordly and tolerant, and its heirarchy is seen as more intelligent, though as an elite leading its flock by the nose.  Of course, the absurdity of Prohibition, which loomed over that time, was a monstrosity of exclusively Protestant creation, and it is difficult to understand how any human being of moderate intelligence and sophistication could have supported such a law--not just a law but a constitutional amendment, forsooth. 

The other great event of the time, naturally, was the recently ended First World War, and I confess to delight at the manner in which Woodrow Wilson is lambasted as a Titan, a prodigy, of craven dishonesty.  He was, according to the authors, a "man of morals" rather than a "man of honour."  Assured of the morality of each of his often fantastically inconsistent actions, he plowed through and trampled on the solemn pledges he made at every opportunity, serene in his self-righteousness.  Those who opposed him, being sinners, deserved the harshest treatment.

Dr. Wilson was a very peculiar man; we can only hope we won't see his like again at the head of our government.  But I fear that in such times as these such a person is bound to "rise" to the top of our politics.  I think this is yet another age when the person of morals (to be more modern and correct) will win out over the person of honor.  I can't help but think of those looming on our political horizon, Republican and Democrat, as terrifying moralists, intent on our compliance with their thoughtless take on what is right.  More and more our politicians become preachers, and so it seems do our intellectuals.  We need a new Mencken, I think.