Pastor Doug Pagitt has expressed a simplistic, myopic view of our current political conflict and the implications for evangelical voters in his October 21, 2018 USA Today opinion piece "Evangelicals are paying high moral price for anti-abortion gains. What would Jesus do?" Instead of capitulating to the spirit of the age, as Pagitt does, evangelicals need to be wiser than serpents and harmless as doves as we assess the political climate and our options for doing good to all mankind through the political process. First, we must face the harsh reality that politics is a "pick your poison" kind of sport. No one party or person perfectly embodies all that is good. Choosing to vote Republican or Democrat is a trade-off that involves weighing the relative benefits of voting for a particular candidate or party platform vs potential harms. Pastor Pagitt believes that the conservative fight against abortion is a miscalculation that fails to recognize and give proper weight to the human dignity issues raised by, let's be blunt, the Democratic platform. He is woefully incorrect, both on the seriousness of the human rights issue championed by the pro-live movement as well as the supposed lack of concern of evangelicals regarding other affronts to human dignity. First, many evangelicals, including Franklin Graham who is one of President Trump's biggest evangelical supporters, spoke out against the family separation policy at the border. As a result of the opposition he received from Graham and other evangelicals, the President changed the policy, though his executive order arguably violated a court order. Second, if some people cheered about the stripping away of Obamacare, it was not for the love of depriving the poor, but rather for the hope that a better alternative exists that would benefit all Americans without placing a disproportionate financial burden on some. Also, does the author not realize that people of faith were being forced to directly subsidize abortifacients by Obamacare? Isn't that a problem for Christians and all people of faith? Finally, it is absolutely ludicrous to say that the accusations against Kavanaugh were "credible." That assertion is itself not credible. I defer to Senator Susan Collins' well-thought-out speech on the Senate floor explaining her support for the principle of Due Process and Judge Kavanaugh's candidacy. Regarding the oppressed groups mentioned (women, people of color, immigrants, refugees, the poor and the sick), the author has not explained what Trump has done to hurt them. African Americans, in particular, are enjoying higher employment than ever before, under Trump. Immigrants and refugees are simply expected to respect our laws by appearing at a point of entry rather than crossing the border illegally. Finally, with respect to his comments on abortion, the author has displayed a woeful ignorance of the issue. It is most definitely not a religious matter, but a civil rights matter. Nor is it a question of "self-preservation" as none of us are in the womb. To say evangelicals are trading "anti-abortion laws and court decisions in exchange for basic human dignity" is an unfathomable statement. What part of being ripped apart limb from limb in the womb, without anesthesia, does he not get? How about being burned alive by saline injection? And having one's body parts sold to the highest bidder? How is this not the worst deprivation of human dignity imaginable? To say I am appalled by Pastor Pagitt's shallow and morally vapid thinking is an understatement. Evangelicals need to heed the call of the true prophet to "speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves" (Proverbs 31:8) and not be tempted to curry favor with the world and sacrifice the unborn on the altar of acceptance by the secular system.
Monday, October 29, 2018
Wednesday, October 3, 2018
Kavanaugh-Ford: Rapists, Lynch Mobs, and the Critical Need to Uphold Due Process
Philosopher George Santayana famously said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to
repeat it." If last week's events in Washington are any indication, it appears we haven't learned much.
We have all been here before, several times in fact, in the course of Western Civilization. The tempta-
tion to revert to mob rule and reject the principles of modern civic society are ever-present. Those prin-
ciples merit some review, especially that of Due Process. The concept of Due Process first entered West-
ern legal thought via the Magna Carta in 1215 which stated, "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned,
or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other
way, nor will be proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment
of his equals or by the law of the land." This provision was intended to curb the power of the king to use
the legal process to further his own personal or political ends. Due Process is what distinguishes abso-
lutism from a constitutional republic, a lynch mob from a lawful jury, a Reign of Terror from a princi-
pled revolution. The Magna Carta ushered in the important legal tradition known as the Rule of Law
which asserts that no man or woman, including a nation's leaders, are above the law. To hold otherwise
is to incite tyranny on the part of those held to be above the law. That could be the king, the president,
the Congress and, yes, you and I.
It is protested that Brett Kavanaugh is not on trial, nor does he have a right to a seat on the Supreme
Court. These things are technically true, but their assertion misses several crucial points. First, the
idea of Due Process, I submit, is derived from a broader common sense principle that people should
be treated fairly in all circumstances, not just when involved in an actual trial. Brett Kavanaugh's per-
sonal and professional reputation on the national and international scale have been deeply damaged
by the accusations of Ford; his future career potentially has been placed in jeopardy. He has much to
lose based on the outcome of the investigation and the Senate vote. Second, while normal judicial
confirmation hearings are a sort of job interview, the minute Ford leveled her sexual assault allega-
tion, which is a criminal offense after all, against Brett Kavanaugh, like it or not the hearing turned into
a quasi-judicial proceeding. Questions arose as to when and how to give Dr. Ford the opportunity to
present her statement, what the circumstances of her questioning would be, who would be the first to
speak -- Ford or Kavanaugh, etc. All of these concerns are germane to a legal proceeding and belie
the assertion that the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing was strictly a job interview bearing no
relation or similarity to a legal inquiry into criminal accusations. The latter assertion is a thinly-veiled
attempt to throw out any rule of fairness and use the confirmation process to engage in unhinged
character assassination.
Since common sense fairness requires we employ Due Process in order to judge Dr. Ford's allegations
against Kavanaugh, certain Senators' decision to believe the sometimes-contradictory, thus-
far-uncorroborated accusations of Dr. Ford against Brett Kavanaugh is unjustifiable. Brett Kavanaugh,
who stands accused of a criminal act, should enjoy the presumption of innocence. When a man's repu-
tation and possibly his career are at stake, common decency mandates that some level of proof should
be met before an accusation can be taken seriously. Unless new evidence is uncovered by the
F.B.I. investigation, Ford's allegation, denied by all those she she named as witnesses, simply do not
reach even the lowest standard of proof -- preponderance of the evidence. This was the conclusion of
Rachel Mitchell, the career prosecutor who questioned Ford and Kavanaugh at last Thursday's Senate
Judiciary Committee hearing, and any reasonable-minded person who is following the story should
agree.
But what of victims of sexual assault and their justified anger? Don't women, men, and children who
have been deeply harmed in this way deserve justice? If Brett Kavanaugh goes on to be confirmed
by the Senate, what message does that send to them? Doesn't supporting Kavanaugh amount to calling
Ford a liar? There is no inconsistency between supporting victims of sexual assault and upholding Due
Process. Those who say otherwise are either partisan or refuse to submit their thoughts, emotions, and
actions to the principles of civil society. The press, in whipping up the mob, bears a lot of the blame.
Take a recent Vox article which attempts to rebut the idea that women who have been sexually abused
are unjustifiably taking their rage out on Kavanaugh as a scapegoat. Tellingly, though the article relies
on a Vox/Morning Consult poll which found that "only" 9 percent of women thought it was okay for
men to be falsely accused, and "just" 17 percent thought it was acceptable for a man to lose his job
over sexual assault allegations lacking evidence (those percentages should be "zero!"), no where
does the article note the utter lack of corroboration for Ford's allegations and the weaknesses in her
story and memory of even recent events. It is the weakness of the case against Kavanaugh, wholly
unmentioned by the author, that leads to the rational conclusion that women, blinded by anger, are
simply scapegoating Kavanaugh. If they wold focus on those facts, as Rachel Mitchell did and as
many other women have done, including sexual assault survivors, they should come to the same
conclusion as Rachel Mitchell and other women have. We aren't saying Ford is a liar if we refuse
to rely on her accusation. It is a hard reality to accept, but nonetheless true, that some perpetrators
will evade man's justice because of Due Process concerns which protect the innocent from false
accusations. A "high-tech lynching" is an unacceptable and awful alternative.
To illustrate the seriousness of the issue, let's highlight the times in our history when Due Process was
set aside amidst a national crisis or fever over some issue, real or imagined. There were the Salem witch
trials in which the standards of evidence for conviction of witchcraft were lowered to include simply
"spectral evidence (or testimony about dreams and visions)" with the ensuing execution of many
innocent people. There were the lynchings of men (mostly black) in the South in which thousands
were unlawfully hanged for a variety of offenses, including rape. There was the internment of Japanese
during World War II. None of these are bright spots in our history, to say the least; all are causes for
national shame. The fact that the concerns underlying these Due Process violations were mostly or
entirely baseless does not exonerate those who wish to set aside the presumption of innocence in
Kavanaugh's case. In fact, the reality of women's suffering makes it necessary that we strictly abide by
the proper rules, lest the righteous desire for justice cause us to act unjustly ourselves. Two wrongs
simply do not make a right.
So we, the American people, have a choice. We can be the jury in the famous novel To Kill a
Mockingbird that shamefully convicted a black man on the testimony of a racist father and his daughter,
despite all the evidence to the contrary. Or we can be Atticus Finch, the principled Southern lawyer,
who believed in and upheld Constitutional Due Process, endangering his own life and the lives of his
family and facing down a lynch mob in the process. Let not these horrid historical events portend the
outcome of our nation's renewed concern for victims of sexual assault, a very real, valid, and crucial
concern. Let's do this right. Let's do it lawfully. Let's uphold Due Process.
repeat it." If last week's events in Washington are any indication, it appears we haven't learned much.
We have all been here before, several times in fact, in the course of Western Civilization. The tempta-
tion to revert to mob rule and reject the principles of modern civic society are ever-present. Those prin-
ciples merit some review, especially that of Due Process. The concept of Due Process first entered West-
ern legal thought via the Magna Carta in 1215 which stated, "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned,
or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other
way, nor will be proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment
of his equals or by the law of the land." This provision was intended to curb the power of the king to use
the legal process to further his own personal or political ends. Due Process is what distinguishes abso-
lutism from a constitutional republic, a lynch mob from a lawful jury, a Reign of Terror from a princi-
pled revolution. The Magna Carta ushered in the important legal tradition known as the Rule of Law
which asserts that no man or woman, including a nation's leaders, are above the law. To hold otherwise
is to incite tyranny on the part of those held to be above the law. That could be the king, the president,
the Congress and, yes, you and I.
It is protested that Brett Kavanaugh is not on trial, nor does he have a right to a seat on the Supreme
Court. These things are technically true, but their assertion misses several crucial points. First, the
idea of Due Process, I submit, is derived from a broader common sense principle that people should
be treated fairly in all circumstances, not just when involved in an actual trial. Brett Kavanaugh's per-
sonal and professional reputation on the national and international scale have been deeply damaged
by the accusations of Ford; his future career potentially has been placed in jeopardy. He has much to
lose based on the outcome of the investigation and the Senate vote. Second, while normal judicial
confirmation hearings are a sort of job interview, the minute Ford leveled her sexual assault allega-
tion, which is a criminal offense after all, against Brett Kavanaugh, like it or not the hearing turned into
a quasi-judicial proceeding. Questions arose as to when and how to give Dr. Ford the opportunity to
present her statement, what the circumstances of her questioning would be, who would be the first to
speak -- Ford or Kavanaugh, etc. All of these concerns are germane to a legal proceeding and belie
the assertion that the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing was strictly a job interview bearing no
relation or similarity to a legal inquiry into criminal accusations. The latter assertion is a thinly-veiled
attempt to throw out any rule of fairness and use the confirmation process to engage in unhinged
character assassination.
Since common sense fairness requires we employ Due Process in order to judge Dr. Ford's allegations
against Kavanaugh, certain Senators' decision to believe the sometimes-contradictory, thus-
far-uncorroborated accusations of Dr. Ford against Brett Kavanaugh is unjustifiable. Brett Kavanaugh,
who stands accused of a criminal act, should enjoy the presumption of innocence. When a man's repu-
tation and possibly his career are at stake, common decency mandates that some level of proof should
be met before an accusation can be taken seriously. Unless new evidence is uncovered by the
F.B.I. investigation, Ford's allegation, denied by all those she she named as witnesses, simply do not
reach even the lowest standard of proof -- preponderance of the evidence. This was the conclusion of
Rachel Mitchell, the career prosecutor who questioned Ford and Kavanaugh at last Thursday's Senate
Judiciary Committee hearing, and any reasonable-minded person who is following the story should
agree.
But what of victims of sexual assault and their justified anger? Don't women, men, and children who
have been deeply harmed in this way deserve justice? If Brett Kavanaugh goes on to be confirmed
by the Senate, what message does that send to them? Doesn't supporting Kavanaugh amount to calling
Ford a liar? There is no inconsistency between supporting victims of sexual assault and upholding Due
Process. Those who say otherwise are either partisan or refuse to submit their thoughts, emotions, and
actions to the principles of civil society. The press, in whipping up the mob, bears a lot of the blame.
Take a recent Vox article which attempts to rebut the idea that women who have been sexually abused
are unjustifiably taking their rage out on Kavanaugh as a scapegoat. Tellingly, though the article relies
on a Vox/Morning Consult poll which found that "only" 9 percent of women thought it was okay for
men to be falsely accused, and "just" 17 percent thought it was acceptable for a man to lose his job
over sexual assault allegations lacking evidence (those percentages should be "zero!"), no where
does the article note the utter lack of corroboration for Ford's allegations and the weaknesses in her
story and memory of even recent events. It is the weakness of the case against Kavanaugh, wholly
unmentioned by the author, that leads to the rational conclusion that women, blinded by anger, are
simply scapegoating Kavanaugh. If they wold focus on those facts, as Rachel Mitchell did and as
many other women have done, including sexual assault survivors, they should come to the same
conclusion as Rachel Mitchell and other women have. We aren't saying Ford is a liar if we refuse
to rely on her accusation. It is a hard reality to accept, but nonetheless true, that some perpetrators
will evade man's justice because of Due Process concerns which protect the innocent from false
accusations. A "high-tech lynching" is an unacceptable and awful alternative.
To illustrate the seriousness of the issue, let's highlight the times in our history when Due Process was
set aside amidst a national crisis or fever over some issue, real or imagined. There were the Salem witch
trials in which the standards of evidence for conviction of witchcraft were lowered to include simply
"spectral evidence (or testimony about dreams and visions)" with the ensuing execution of many
innocent people. There were the lynchings of men (mostly black) in the South in which thousands
were unlawfully hanged for a variety of offenses, including rape. There was the internment of Japanese
during World War II. None of these are bright spots in our history, to say the least; all are causes for
national shame. The fact that the concerns underlying these Due Process violations were mostly or
entirely baseless does not exonerate those who wish to set aside the presumption of innocence in
Kavanaugh's case. In fact, the reality of women's suffering makes it necessary that we strictly abide by
the proper rules, lest the righteous desire for justice cause us to act unjustly ourselves. Two wrongs
simply do not make a right.
So we, the American people, have a choice. We can be the jury in the famous novel To Kill a
Mockingbird that shamefully convicted a black man on the testimony of a racist father and his daughter,
despite all the evidence to the contrary. Or we can be Atticus Finch, the principled Southern lawyer,
who believed in and upheld Constitutional Due Process, endangering his own life and the lives of his
family and facing down a lynch mob in the process. Let not these horrid historical events portend the
outcome of our nation's renewed concern for victims of sexual assault, a very real, valid, and crucial
concern. Let's do this right. Let's do it lawfully. Let's uphold Due Process.
Sunday, June 11, 2017
Will the Real Donald Trump Please Stand Up?
No one can accuse President Donald Trump of being a bore. Political and social intrigue follow him around like children in pursuit of the famed Pied Piper. It seems that everywhere he goes -- New York, Washington, the Middle East, Europe -- he is the center of attention and the proverbial talk of the town, whether that talk be critical or adulatory. The media can’t seem to get enough of him. This man is definitely good for business. He knows it, and I’m sure he enjoys it.
Yet our feelings about The Donald are complicated. Villain or hero? Friend or foe? While his political detractors fall squarely into the villain/foe camp, for his supporters, well. . . it’s messy. And how could it be otherwise? Viewed in his best light, he seems to speak for the forgotten common man, puts America first, genuinely cares about the good of the country, and is courageously and persistently defiant in the face of opposition at home and abroad. Yet his Tweets are outrageous, his behavior is unpresidential, his statements, to put it politely, don’t always align with reality, and he flouts convention to the point of sacrilege in the minds of some. And the worst part about it is that he doesn’t seem to give a rip what others think about him.
Somehow, this buffoon tycoon got elected, but how? As with many influential people, Donald Trump is a mixed bag of virtue and vice. Keeping this in mind, Americans need to take an honest look at him and not try to fit him squarely into the good guy or bad guy slot. He has been compared to Hitler, Putin, Reagan, and Nixon (ouch, that last one really hurt!). Yet, I believe The Donald cannot be so easily pigeon-holed. After much careful thought, I believe the character that he comes closest to resembling is not one from history, but rather one from fiction --- the infamous and beloved Tom Sawyer.
Think about it. They both love women and are passionately faithful to the objects of their desire -- that is, until the next one comes along. Tom courted Amy Lawrence, then Becky Thatcher, with all the fire a twelve-year-old boy could muster. We all know about The Donald’s multiple marriages, yet at least for now he seems to be devoted to his current wife and certainly to all of his children.
They both have a flair for the dramatic. Tom concocts a plan to crash his own funeral in a bizarre and hilarious return from the dead type of scene that wins him the status of hero in his small town. So too The Donald of Celebrity Apprentice fame crashes the political scene with similar fanfare and comes out the winner in one of the most extraordinary political upsets in history.
Both Tom and The Donald are confirmed opportunists. When faced with the prospect of spending a tedious Saturday occupied with whitewashing a very long and very high fence, Tom ingeniously convinces the boys in town to each take a turn completing his chore, and even gets them to pay him for the opportunity to perform the labor! But wait, The Donald did the same thing to the press! With his outrageous and inflammatory campaign statements he became the center of media attention and played them for stooges, obtaining free advertising in the form of news coverage, albeit mostly negative. He spent less on his campaign than most of his opponents in both the primary and in the general election, and clinched both the Republican nomination and the Presidency in the process. You may not like it, but it’s difficult not to give him some credit for his ingenuity and frugality.
Both Tom and our President have an uneasy relationship with the truth. After the whitewashing incident, Tom takes his earnings and trades them in for Sunday school tickets so that he can win a special Bible and the honor that comes along with it. Problem is that Tom’s Bible knowledge is actually sketchy at best, and the tickets are supposed to be rewards for verses previously learned. When the moment of honor arrives in front of the assembled Sunday School, Tom can’t answer the basic question asked of him by Judge Thatcher, the father of the girl of his pre-adolescent dreams. When queried as to who the first two disciples of Jesus were, Tom pathetically blurts out “David and Goliath!” So too our esteemed President at times plays fast and loose with the facts. Politico found that 70% of Trump’s campaign statements, or at least the ones they checked, were false (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/donald-trump-lies-liar-effect-brain-214658). He has adopted the phrase “truthful hyperbole” to describe his style. Let’s leave this one alone. . .
Tom and the President have unusual speaking styles. Tom’s foray into public speaking does not end well as he gives in to stage fright in his attempt to recite Patrick Henry’s famous “Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death” speech. He resumes his seat in humiliation. Here there are some noteworthy distinctions between the two. While President Trump’s speaking style is oddly flawed -- never actually answering questions asked of him, going off on random tangents, often not finishing a thought or only getting to the point after numerous asides -- there is I believe some method to his locutionary madness. I believe he is using questions posed to him as props to get out information he has predetermined that he wants to convey. Our President is an alpha male, and he simply is not going to let anyone else control him, whether at a debate, or at a news conference. Hence his roundabout and random-seeming style of speech serves the purpose of keeping others on their toes, and him in control.
They both sure know how to liven up a dull affair. After the humiliating Sunday School event, Tom must sit through a painfully monotonous Sunday morning service. To allay his boredom, he takes from his pocket a box containing a pinchbug. He plays with the bug, but the bug bites him, and he flings it into the middle aisle. A poodle belonging to a parishioner then wanders down the aisle, encounters the bug and begins playing with it, to the amusement of the parishioners. When the bug bites the dog, the dog’s response wreaks havoc and laughter among the congregants, and disrupts the sermon. Who could fail to see that The Donald, if nothing else, livened up the dull affair of primary and presidential debates? According to PBS, the GOP primary debates set viewership records. By the news outlet’s estimation, that high mark is at least in part due to the presence of the celebrity personality of our current President Donald Trump http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/gop-debate-viewership-on-the-rise/). Even his news conferences are a gas to watch. For those who take very seriously the matter of presidential decorum, my perspective may seem blasphemous. But I for one am glad to not have to watch yet another political stuffed shirt reciting dull platitudes to a moribund audience. I would have included myself among the moribund in the past, but not any more. Pass the popcorn, please!
I could go on. Friend of the homeless outcast Huck Finn, vanquisher of the establishment as represented by the new well-dressed kid in town whom he licks real good at first sight, Tom represents a fictional caricature of our President who has similarly befriended the blue collar man and kicked the tar out of the East Coast political and media establishments. Not that he isn’t receiving some butt-kicking in return. . .
In the end, despite all his many character flaws, Tom Sawyer remains an American icon. He represents the American spirit -- the good, the bad, the ugly. For all his failings, Tom shows tremendous heroism and selflessness in standing by Huck Finn and testifying on behalf of Muff Potter to save him from the false accusation of murder he faced. He even took a beating from the schoolmaster for Becky. Last but not least, he heroically found a way out of the cave he and his beloved Becky Thatcher had been lost in for days, once again earning an esteemed place in the small community. Through all his exploits, by the novel’s end he achieves a measure of maturity he previously lacked. Tom Sawyer grows up.
So where does that leave us with our analogy? The story of Tom Sawyer is over and done with; we know how the novel ends. Not so with President Donald Trump. Will he rise to the occasion, and embrace the greatness we hope lies within? He has accomplished great exploits in business in the past, but those were for himself and for the purpose of building his own empire. It remains to be seen if he is capable of the kind of heroism and selflessness we desire to see in our leaders -- the kind of greatness we desperately need. The story is not yet written, but one thing I do believe. To paraphrase the great creator of Tom Sawyer himself, news of President Trump’s death by impeachment is greatly exaggerated. Once again, life is imitating art. Pass the popcorn, please.
They both have a flair for the dramatic. Tom concocts a plan to crash his own funeral in a bizarre and hilarious return from the dead type of scene that wins him the status of hero in his small town. So too The Donald of Celebrity Apprentice fame crashes the political scene with similar fanfare and comes out the winner in one of the most extraordinary political upsets in history.
Both Tom and The Donald are confirmed opportunists. When faced with the prospect of spending a tedious Saturday occupied with whitewashing a very long and very high fence, Tom ingeniously convinces the boys in town to each take a turn completing his chore, and even gets them to pay him for the opportunity to perform the labor! But wait, The Donald did the same thing to the press! With his outrageous and inflammatory campaign statements he became the center of media attention and played them for stooges, obtaining free advertising in the form of news coverage, albeit mostly negative. He spent less on his campaign than most of his opponents in both the primary and in the general election, and clinched both the Republican nomination and the Presidency in the process. You may not like it, but it’s difficult not to give him some credit for his ingenuity and frugality.
Both Tom and our President have an uneasy relationship with the truth. After the whitewashing incident, Tom takes his earnings and trades them in for Sunday school tickets so that he can win a special Bible and the honor that comes along with it. Problem is that Tom’s Bible knowledge is actually sketchy at best, and the tickets are supposed to be rewards for verses previously learned. When the moment of honor arrives in front of the assembled Sunday School, Tom can’t answer the basic question asked of him by Judge Thatcher, the father of the girl of his pre-adolescent dreams. When queried as to who the first two disciples of Jesus were, Tom pathetically blurts out “David and Goliath!” So too our esteemed President at times plays fast and loose with the facts. Politico found that 70% of Trump’s campaign statements, or at least the ones they checked, were false (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/donald-trump-lies-liar-effect-brain-214658). He has adopted the phrase “truthful hyperbole” to describe his style. Let’s leave this one alone. . .
Tom and the President have unusual speaking styles. Tom’s foray into public speaking does not end well as he gives in to stage fright in his attempt to recite Patrick Henry’s famous “Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death” speech. He resumes his seat in humiliation. Here there are some noteworthy distinctions between the two. While President Trump’s speaking style is oddly flawed -- never actually answering questions asked of him, going off on random tangents, often not finishing a thought or only getting to the point after numerous asides -- there is I believe some method to his locutionary madness. I believe he is using questions posed to him as props to get out information he has predetermined that he wants to convey. Our President is an alpha male, and he simply is not going to let anyone else control him, whether at a debate, or at a news conference. Hence his roundabout and random-seeming style of speech serves the purpose of keeping others on their toes, and him in control.
They both sure know how to liven up a dull affair. After the humiliating Sunday School event, Tom must sit through a painfully monotonous Sunday morning service. To allay his boredom, he takes from his pocket a box containing a pinchbug. He plays with the bug, but the bug bites him, and he flings it into the middle aisle. A poodle belonging to a parishioner then wanders down the aisle, encounters the bug and begins playing with it, to the amusement of the parishioners. When the bug bites the dog, the dog’s response wreaks havoc and laughter among the congregants, and disrupts the sermon. Who could fail to see that The Donald, if nothing else, livened up the dull affair of primary and presidential debates? According to PBS, the GOP primary debates set viewership records. By the news outlet’s estimation, that high mark is at least in part due to the presence of the celebrity personality of our current President Donald Trump http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/gop-debate-viewership-on-the-rise/). Even his news conferences are a gas to watch. For those who take very seriously the matter of presidential decorum, my perspective may seem blasphemous. But I for one am glad to not have to watch yet another political stuffed shirt reciting dull platitudes to a moribund audience. I would have included myself among the moribund in the past, but not any more. Pass the popcorn, please!
I could go on. Friend of the homeless outcast Huck Finn, vanquisher of the establishment as represented by the new well-dressed kid in town whom he licks real good at first sight, Tom represents a fictional caricature of our President who has similarly befriended the blue collar man and kicked the tar out of the East Coast political and media establishments. Not that he isn’t receiving some butt-kicking in return. . .
In the end, despite all his many character flaws, Tom Sawyer remains an American icon. He represents the American spirit -- the good, the bad, the ugly. For all his failings, Tom shows tremendous heroism and selflessness in standing by Huck Finn and testifying on behalf of Muff Potter to save him from the false accusation of murder he faced. He even took a beating from the schoolmaster for Becky. Last but not least, he heroically found a way out of the cave he and his beloved Becky Thatcher had been lost in for days, once again earning an esteemed place in the small community. Through all his exploits, by the novel’s end he achieves a measure of maturity he previously lacked. Tom Sawyer grows up.
So where does that leave us with our analogy? The story of Tom Sawyer is over and done with; we know how the novel ends. Not so with President Donald Trump. Will he rise to the occasion, and embrace the greatness we hope lies within? He has accomplished great exploits in business in the past, but those were for himself and for the purpose of building his own empire. It remains to be seen if he is capable of the kind of heroism and selflessness we desire to see in our leaders -- the kind of greatness we desperately need. The story is not yet written, but one thing I do believe. To paraphrase the great creator of Tom Sawyer himself, news of President Trump’s death by impeachment is greatly exaggerated. Once again, life is imitating art. Pass the popcorn, please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)