john's thoughts

One of the best known quotes in the world(at least in the academic world, anyway) is “Those who cannot remember history are condemned to repeat it.” This from the philosopher George Santayana and his 1905 work, “The Life of Reason.” Others have said/written similar things, some better documented than others. In a 1948 speech to the House of Commons Winston Churchill said “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it,” a remarkably similar sentiment.

After that is gets a bit less clear. Mark Twain said something similar(maybe), but in a different way. “History never repeats itself but it does often rhyme.” I like this one best, since clearly one specific event occurs only once and when two similar events are compared, say 25 years or more apart, there are obvious differences But the “rhymes” such as the roads to conflict re: WWI and WWII are often striking. Unfortunately no one seems to be able to verify Twain said or wrote this, but it’s a wise saying, wherever it comes from.

Edmund Burke is supposed to have said much the same thing, but there is debate as to just when and how he phrased it. As in the case with Mark Twain, is sounds like him but is difficult to verify.

Anyway, as you have likely guessed by now, I am planning to give you some examples of this–three relatively short and I hope informative instances in which recent history has at least rhymed. As I begin to write this on Jan 5, you may be experiencing one of them if you are following news on Radio, TV or the Net.

My first subject is the “Spanish Flu” which struck the world including the US in 1918 and recurred on and off for about a half a decade, though fading fairly rapidly by the end of 1921.

The name “Spanish” is a misnomer. The only reason it happened was that Spain was neutral in World War I and while the belligerent powers were blaming the enemy and/or lying about the situation, the Spanish media more or less told the truth and did it from the earlier days of the outbreak. The flu may have begun, in fact, in the US. It first appeared at a US Army camp in Kansas in March, 1918,and spread rapidly, striking over a thousand men and killing 46 of them in a month.

It did not play favorites hitting both urban and rural areas, though there is evidence that crowded places were hit worse. It is worth noting, I think, that while big cities had poor public health institutions by our standards, many rural areas had about none. There was a lot of confusion and there were many mistakes. There were also lies. And before long, thanks in part to troop movements, the flu was in Europe too. It would eventually work its way around the world. No one knows with any certainty how many people died as a result, The estimates are now that about 1/3 of the people in the world contracted the flu in some way and around 50 million deaths resulted, but it might have been more. It is common to repeat the assertion that more WWI US servicemen died of flu than of enemy action. About 21 million people(more civilians than military personnel)is the most recent estimate of deaths directly resulting from the war. So it is likely the flu killed far more people than the conflict.

In September, 1918 it spread from Boston to Philadelphia when 300 sailors, some of them already infected, arrived. The government’s action was to play down the threat to prevent panic(and, likely demands on themselves). They denied any serious danger to the public and, as casualties mounted claimed it was nothing but “old-fashioned influenza or grippe.” It was also predicted the illness would soon decrease.

American was drunk on “patriotic” fever now and thousands of Philadephians attended a rally. About a week and a half later over 1000 citizens of the city had died of the flu. Finally the state government acted and began closing many public places. But within a year more than 15,000 Philadelphia citizens had died as a result.

Some places reacted better than this, particularly after they saw what had happened in the east. but the broader pattern “was dismissal, dissemblance and outright deception.” Mayors and governors did not want to take on powerful and wealthy business interests, nearly all of which were opposed to close-downs.

The first wave of Spanish flu peaked and then dropped off in the spring-summer of 1918. But a second, more serious wave swept much of Europe in the late summer and early fall. This coincided with the climax of the war, though I have rarely run across more than a brief(paragraph or two)reference in books about the war. There was yet a 3rd wave in early 1919. It was milder than the second wave and largely spared Paris and the Peace Conference that eventually led to the Treaty of Versailles.

A brief survey of the internet on other countries involved in the war shows a depressing pattern. In nearly all combatant countries the news of the flu pandemic was at least played down if not totally suppressed. It was not mentioned in the House of Commons until October, 1918, the month before the war ended. It was also suppressed in the countries of the Central Powers(Germany, Austria, Turkey). The fact appears to be that no governments wanted to have to deal with this and that about all of them thought doing so would impede the war effort. In the Central Powers just about everything was collapsing anyway, but this seems to have made no difference. The Germans seem to have been particularly inclined to deny the flu, thought they were by no means alone. But they denied the influence of the flu on German troops in 1918 as the final Allied attacks began and the German world crumbled about them.

The flu did not go away entirely, however. It appeared from time to time for another 2 or 3 years and apparently has never entirely disappeared. One rarely hears of it now since so many people have had it that almost everyone is immune.

(This was not the first time in history such things had happened–check “bubonic plague denial” on the internet for information about how ancient and medieval rulers panicked and lied about this sort of thing too)

The covid virus and its parallels are so recent and well known as to be almost embarrassing to recount. The current covid has been know for more than 50 years and apparently at first simply caused the common cold. The recent outbreak with its world wide effects of screwing up nearly everything and affecting a Presidential election was not noticed by scientists until November, 2019. Within 2 months it would be spreading widely around the world.

We all know pretty much what happened. To take the US reaction as symbolic(thought noticeably worse and less truthful than most countries)the reaction was at first to question the facts, then deny their seriousness and to offer false hopes for a quick end to it . The President publicly said(on TV)that it would disappear with warm weather and be gone by late spring. It wasn’t. He also offered some bizarre ideas and some strange pieces of advice.

The weirdest of these was his April, 2020 suggestion that injecting bleach into oneself might be a good idea. Many of his scientific people were appalled and they managed to stop this idea from spreading before it went as far as it might have. Likely more dangerous overall, was his suggestion of the use of chloroquine. This at least was a real drug that people took for real issues. Though it has many uses, it is primarily known for being an anti-malaria medication. The scientific community largely agreed that there were a few unusual cases when chloroquine might be useful in fighting covid. But the FDA was careful to release a statement that people should not make this decision for themselves and it should be used only as directed by a physician.

And so it went. Reactions of countries and other political subdivisions around the world varied widely. But there was a large degree of false information generated and truth withheld. The problem is of course still part of our world today, slightly better than it was due to the various inoculations for it and the slow building up of a questionable but sometimes apparently real immunity. It will likely be around and still causing illness years from now, though we hope diminishing rapidly in its influence.

No satisfactory cure was ever found for the Spanish Flu. As previously mentioned, so many people have had it by now and passed down to subsequent generations their presumed immunity, that it is seldom heard of today. But it’s not gone. It’s still out there and so is the Bubonic Plague. The Plague, by the way, is a bacterial infection and therefore treatable with anti-biotics.

Case no 2–The split in the 1920’s Republican Party and the 1923 fight over who would get to be Speaker of the House. The comparison is to (you guessed it)Keven McCarthy’s twisted and manic road to his current position.

First of all let me recount some tiresome but necessary electoral history. I’ll be quick about it. For a long time, students have noted that earlier in our history, US Presidents were elected in November and took office the following March. While there were good reasons for this in 1789, those were mostly gone long before 1933 when the much overlooked and understudied 20th Amendment to the US Constitution was enacted. It moved the Inauguration to January and is widely known and regarded by most interested parties as a reasonable and necessary action.

What is not so widely known is that it also formalized and made a requirement that the new Congress elected in November would take office Jan 3. Previously, and for not very obvious reasons, this date had varied. This is too complicated to go into in detail here, but check it out on the internet if you have the patience. At late as 1922’s midterm elections the new members did not take the oath of office for about a year. So the drama took place in December, 1923.

It was anticipated that Frederick Gillette, a Boston Brahmin and long standing House Speaker would be elected. While they had lost seats in the midterms of 1922, the Republicans still held a House majority and this should have been routine. But the party had become very divided in recent years. Roughly speaking it consisted of two groups –the conservatives/traditionalists were the majority. But the progressive wing of the party, mostly from the midwest and led by “Fighting Bob” LaFollette of WI, was not without influence and often made a good impression on the public. Many of these progressives, who somewhat resembled the more liberal Democrats in their policies, challenged Speaker Gillette.

This turned into a real capital(or capitol)mess. They took 3 days and 9 ballots as the party tried to work out a conflict between its intended leader and his allies, and an influential different group which challenged him. Finally, after much discussing and bargaining and after one significant concession to the progressives on procedural matters in the House, enough of the progressive side voted “Present” on the 9th ballot and Gillette squeaked through. Since the number present and casting a vote for a person was now low enough that his new total of 215 was sufficient, he was re-elected–barely.

It is hardly necessary to repeat what you’ve seen on TV and internet fairly recently, but for the record–Rep Kevin McCarthy of California was the leader of the House Republicans and therefore should have been a shoo-in as Speaker–even with a small majority this should have been an easy one. But a small but persistent group of right-wingers, including, but by no means limited to the “Freedom Caucus,” stood in the way and that was enough that McCarthy failed on vote after vote. It took 4 days and 15 ballots, but he finally made it. A few members who had voted for other candidates switched to McCarthy after he made very substantial concessions to the right. Others simply voted “Present” and as in 1923 the number of votes needed dropped thanks to the “present and voting for a person” rule.

Like Gillette in 1923 McCarthy slipped through in 2023 by one vote. Which of them made more significant and self-limiting concessions will no doubt be debated, but it looks to me as if McCarthy made concessions he is likely to regret. His agreeing to a rule that any ONE member of the Republican caucus will be able to call for a vote to oust him from the Speaker’s chair looks like the worst. It may be interesting, but remember that Chinese curse about interesting times

Case no 3–The early WWII conflict between Germany and the UK and the Russian-Ukrainian conflict today.

It is no longer common knowledge how World War II began and proceeded from 1939-1941, its first two years, so I will start with a brief backgrounder. For details check Wikipedia or any good text book on Europe before and during the war.

During the 1930’s the dictators, Hitler and Mussolini, had made Germany and Italy feared by bullying and cajoling the West(mainly the UK and France)into allowing them to get away with aggression. At Munich in 1938 they managed to get concessions regarding Czechoslovakia in return for a pledge not to invade what would be left of that small, new nation after the Munich Pact went into effect. I think few were surprised 5 months later when Hitler moved in and took almost all that was left of the unhappy country.

Hitler invaded Poland in September, 1939, defying British and French demands that he leave it alone,. Their patience finally exhausted, the UK and France both declared war on Germany. The next few months were the “phony war” but it turned more real during Spring, 1940 when Hitler struck at Scandinavia, the Low Countries and France and by June had bagged all of his targets.

This left the UK and Winston Churchill the only real block to Hitler’s victory and in September of 1940 the Germans began more than a year of almost constant bombing that is usually known as “The Blitz.” Almost from the start the Germans realized this was going to be tougher than previous conquests as the RAF took a large toll on the Luftwaffe. The numbers of German planes destroyed was considerably higher than the British losses, so in that sense the UK had the upper hand. But then there was the numbers game. The Germans had a seemingly inexhaustible supply of planes and the number would eventually begin to tell. British factories worked frantically to turn out more planes and ships, for the German Navy was now aggressively pursuing both British shipping and their Navy. If the Brits lost in the air and at sea it would all be over.

For the most part the German bombing was directed at the factories that produced the war supplies, but there was some bombing of civilian areas also. The Germans changed strategies several times during the blitz, partly due to political quarrels, partly to heavier than expected losses, and, possibly, partly due to Hitler’s fury at direct bombing of German cities by the RAF. In addition, they sometimes were working with faulty intelligence. Although this is multifaceted and involves many issues, including poor intelligence for the Luftwaffe, Hitler’s personal feelings may have played some part. The changes tended to make the attacks on UK industry more scattered and less consistent, but the concentration on London’s East End and other mainly civilian districts., greatly increased the toll in lives, pain and frustration for the population.

There was some complaining in the largely poor East End that they were bearing the brunt of the bombing while the rich had safer, more sturdy homes elsewhere. The Royal Family, however, rose to the occasion by visiting the bombed areas and showing themselves to the people as leaders who were staying home and sharing the burden. Churchill also moved among the people and once promised the drop multiple bombs on Germany for every one they dropped on the UK.

The Blitz ended in the fall of 1940 after Germany and the USSR had gone to war but bombing went on sporadically throughout the war, and the fearsome V-1 and V-2 rockets made London a city fearing what might come from the skies again in 1944-’45. But the main blitz in the long run failed. The UK was still(perhaps barely)functioning when it ended and soon the US would be attacked at Pearl Harbor which changed the whole complexion of the war. After that the US would be at hand and the advantage, once strongly in Hitler’s favor would shift, though it took sometime to do so.

In late 2021 it became apparent that Russia was considering an out and out attack on its neighbor, Ukraine. They began troop movements which suggested this was imminent. They also made public claims that Ukraine was theirs, by right and by history, and that they would be justified in taking it back. Vladimir Putin was not looking to win by a surprise attack. He was closer to trying to win by intimidation, a sometime Hitler tactic that was not usually extremely successful.(I have heard that when Hitler tried this on neutral Switzerland, the response was something like, “Just try it and see what we’ll do,” and he didn’t. Switzerland maintained its neutrality.)

Putin had began, several years earlier, with trying to increase Russia’s influence and the geographical area it controlled in Eastern Europe. Most obviously, it had re-taken Crimea which had been ruled by many countries over the centuries and for years was part of the USSR. After the collapse of the Soviet Union Crimea was considered by practically everyone part of the ancient but newly independent state of Ukraine. This remained the case until 2014 when a severe internal crisis in Ukrainian politics seriously divided and weakened the nation and its leadership. Putin took advantage of this to send Russian forces into Crimea which he quickly declared to be now part of the Russian Federation.

There also developed about the same time a serious division in Ukraine between the largely Russian-speaking extreme Eastern part, which favored joining Russia, and the rest of the country, largely Ukrainian speaking, which did not. For several years there was what amounted to a sort of underground, largely unmentioned civil war between these two parts of Ukraine with Russian forces unofficially and without wearing clearly Russian uniforms or markings, helping the pro-Russian side. This was the background to what happened in 2021 and 2022.

Putin clearly had expected a quick victory. He found a unified and militarily powerful country. Discounting Russia, which is largely Asiatic in land, though European dominated, culturally and politically, Ukraine is the largest nation in Europe, geographically speaking(Turkey is more than 90% Asiatic, so I do not consider it a European country). At nearly 290,000 in number, the Ukrainian armed forces put up a stiff resistance, and soon the Russians were fought to a standstill. Later some of the Russian Army retreated, a process they are now trying to reverse with apparently mixed results.

But what was clear was that the Russians, having failed to conquer the Ukrainians on the ground would try to do so by going through the air. But unlike the Luftwaffe which went after Churchill’s Britain, the Russians would mainly used non-manned instruments, drones and missiles. They also would use them against non-military targets in many instances, using them as weapons of terror but not weapons which consistently did severe military damage. They destroyed homes, killed people of all ages, and made many others homeless.. They also inspired a hatred of Russian armed forces by most Ukrainians, which if Russian ever did win the war, would almost certainly make the place ungovernable.

As usual, my conclusions are tentative and could turn out to be wrong, but here they are. It is about a tie between issues no 1 and no 2 for which show the most parallels, but I think it’s no 1. The reaction of so many governments around 1918 and again more than a century later are so similar as to be impossible to ignore. Again, I agree that it’s not a real repeat but a “rhyme,” but the rhyme is loud and clear.

No 2 is pretty close too. There are a few differences. In 1923 the putative Speaker-elect already had long experience at the job. He was, apparently respected by most GOP House members, a situation which may not exist today. And the split, as might be anticipated in a basically conservative party, was between the mainstream Republicans and their left-leaning, progressive colleagues. In 2023 it was between more or less regular Republicans and a right-wing fringe group, some of them clearly holding borderline-psychotic ideas and/or telling the biggest lies in the history of the House. In 1923 things seem to have quieted down after the Speaker election was settled. One hears little about intra-party GOP conflict over the next 2 years. It is impossible to predict what will happen now, but in today’s House, it appears the Speaker may be in for a rough ride.

No 3 has some startling parallels, particularly in international relations But, on the whole, I think while a case can be made for it, it’s not as good a one as for the others. Regarding the international situation, there were at least 5 leading heads of state or government involved. In the Russian-Ukrainian situation there are 3. Putin is a reasonable facsimile of Hitler–Zelenskyy. with his feisty leadership of a beleaguered nation is obviously Winston Chruchill all over again–Biden, the US President who observes and encourages is clearly FDR. But there are no real equivalents to Stalin and Mussolini. The comparison also breaks down a bit when it comes to the military action. The Blitz did incredible damage and caused immense pain and loss to the people. But there seem to have been arguments over it back home almost from the start. There were several things involved in this such as intelligence services product, political quarrels, egos and Hitler’s fury at British bombing of Germany. In Ukraine Putin has gone from old fashioned infantry invasion to missiles to drones. Many of his attacks seem totally motivated by trying to terrorize rather than to achieve military goals. He apparently has some weapons which are just fired toward Ukraine in the hopes they will accomplish something. This is not exactly a parallel.

Another difference, is that while the Russian approach has been largely unsuccessful so far from a military point of view, he has 2 advantages Hitler did not. He is not fighting anyone other than than Ukraine(directly on the battlefield)and, pursuant to that he does not have the possibility of being attacked from the rear. How this will turn out, of course, is impossible to predict and gives us another difficulty in trying to determine the extent of the parallels. We lack hindsight regarding this, a situation which may well last for some time.

So I guess my conclusion that there are indeed rhymes in history sometimes rather strong ones. But there are also differences and with regard to situation no 3 it will take some time for all these to be noticeable or indeed, possibly, for all of them to occur. I’ll stick with no 1 as the loudest rhyme.

I know this is_____ a bit late. I really feel one ought to watch Christmas movies before Christmas, as watching them after the day seems to take some of the fun out of it. But perhaps not everyone feels that way, and anyway we’ve got a couple of days to go here, so here goes.

First of all, I have not seen all the”great Christmas movies” if there is such a category. I have seen quite a few including “White Christmas,” “Holiday Inn,” “The Apartment,” “Alias John Doe”, and “It’s a Wonderful Life.” I considered only films I have seen for obvious reasons in making my choices. Of these I just mentioned, I think it’s about a tie between “The Apartment” and “It’s a Wonderful Life” for the best choice. But I chose none of them, nor any usually listed with best Christmas movie opinion colums. My two choices for my favorite Christmas movie are “The Man Who Came to Dinner” and “The Holly and the Ivy.” OK, now wait a moment and let me explain myself.

“The Man Who Came to Dinner”(From now on “Man Who”) is in some ways not at all a Christmas movie. It is secular in its orientation and joyfully irreverent in its attitudes. The people in it seem not the slightest bit spiritual and/or religious and are driven mostly by ambition, love, sex, vanity and self-imagery. In other words they are human and without the saving grace of an understanding of spirituality. But whether we can write them off them as meaningless because of that is another matter, and so is the fact that this shrewdly hilarious film is one of the best cures for melancholoy I can think of.

“Man Who” is the product of the fairly long time(though not as long as often assumed)collaboration between George S Kauffman and Moss Hart, two of the great comedy writers of the early to middle Twentieth centiury American Theatre. Through the Depression they wrote of well to do sophisticated poeple and made them likeable and aceptable. Of course, most of the theatre going people who could afford tickets were not poor, but still, they manged to strike a pose that appealed to many others and I suspect gave them hope(“Hey, maybe someday we’ll be like that”)and amusement(“Look. they make asses of themselves sometimes, too”).

I do not know how many will agree with me, but I think it is almost a duty during hard times for your society to be happy and have a good time. This way some of the laugher and cheerfulness may rub off on someone else and relieve their depression,. And once this starts, how far may it go? Oh, well, it’s just an idea of mine, But I think it applies to why I like this play and film so much(at least I tell myself that)

I first became familiar with “Man Who” in high school. There was once(and for only one season, I believe) and TV show entitled “The Best of Broadway,” in which they took famous plays and boiled them down to one hour TV Dramas on CBS. “Man Who” was the second one, and it set me up for a slowly developing love affair with the American Theatre which has never ended.

I later bought a copy of the whole play through a book club at school and read it time after time. I was somewhat shocked by the cussing and irreverence of most of the characters, but I loved the laughs and the wit and the basically joyful and aggresive attitude to life that they took. I also learned from the play. It was the first time I had heard the titles of Thomas Hardy novels, the first time I had heard of “The Hound of the Baskervilles.” I was being introducecd to a level of culture my family and my formal school education had completely ignored and there was something exciting about the whole thing.

The original play opened on Broadway in October of 1939 when World War II had been on for about a month and a half. The movie version is descibed as a 1942 movie but I have read that it was ready for release the weekend of Pearl Harbor and was delayed in its release(but perhaps not quite everywhere)by the beginning of the US involvement in the war. So its history is one of trying, in tragic times, to bring some joy and maybe some self confidence to the audience which would be full of apprehensive people uncertain of the future. At the very least it could afford them a night out to forget their worries.

The story concerns Sheridan Whiteside who was copied off the authors’ friend Alexander Wolcott, a literary critic perhaps best know for his being the unofficial leader of the legendary Algonquin Round Table group who met Fridays at the Algonquin Hotel on W 45th about 1919-1929. He is brilliant, sarcastic, often short-tempered and irascibile. He is also witty and charming. People are drawn to him and often used by him. But many of them are strong enough that they seem to be chums rather than victims.

Whiteside(Monty Wolley)arrives in the fictional OH town of Mesalia, apparently more or less between Cleveland and Toledo, by train accompanied by his very efficient secretary, Maggie(Bette Davis). He is obligated to give a speech to a cultural group and to go to dinner at the home of Mr and Mrs Stanely. Mrs. Stanley is a big Whiteside fan. Mr Stanley is not.

As he climbs the steps to the front door Whiteside slips and injures his hip. The local doctor quickly determines that he will need a week or more of rest and must not leave the Stanley home. The troubles are imagnineable–up to a point But Whiteside, a more or less world wide celebrity, conducts business by phone and telegram and receieves messages and gifts from his friends and admirers who pretty much run the gamut from Ghandi to the very obscure.

Whiteside insists on taking over the lower floor of the house and since he is planning on suing the Stanleys for his injury there is little they can do about it except be obseqious(Mrs) or fume(Mr). There is a great deal of talk about the Christmas season and more about Whiteside and his activites. People and gifts come and go and Mr Stanley is irritated.,

Whiteside actually is not having a bad time, though he is anxious to get on with his activites, when he gets a shock. Maggie has fallen in love with Bert Jefferson, a young local newspaper owner and writer and she plans to quit her job and marry him. Whiteside is appalled by the idea of her leaving her very exciting job for such a mundane existence. He is even more appalled at losing her efficincy and having to train her succssor.

Aty this point the doctor informs Whiteside that he is actually OK–the doctor had been looking at the wrong X-rays and there is nothing wrong with Whiteside’s hip. Good news but bad timing. He can’t leave now without leaving Maggie behind him. He buys the doctor’s silence with a promise to consider the doctor’s memoirs for publication.

It is at this point that the parade of Whiteside friends, copied like Whiteside himself from real people, begins. There is Lorraine(Anne Sheridan), reportedly a take off on Gertrude Lawrence. Whiteside gets her there to seduce Bert away from Maggie. Since he’s written a play, Lorraine, an actress, is interested. She is also spectacular, both in her glamorous appearance and her abundant personalithy. There is also Beverly Carlton(Reginald Garner)a clear take off on Noel Coward. Beverly is a playwright of such wit and humor that he is almost a match for Whiteside. There there is Banjo, a spin on Harpo Marx, He’s played to manic perfection by Jimmy Durante, but of course the fact that it’s Durante is always in your face(maybe a good thing)

These two guys, though loyal friends of Whiteside are also friends with Maggie and sympathize with her dilemma. Each offers a contribution to the effort to pry Lorraine away and give Maggie her man. I doubt if I will be giving much away if I add that Lorraine is successfully pried. The way it happens is not too believeable, but it is a piece of comic genius. So all ends well except for the Man himself who for reasons I won’t take time to explain ends up looking at another stay with the Stanleys.

I guess what has always attracted me about this play/movie is the exhuberance of most of its characters. They live in a world unknown to most of us, but one that may exist(or did then)out there somewhere. They are exciting and suave, chic and attractive and fascinating And despite the occasional setback and perhaps even more occasional twinge of conscience, they are having a good time. They are enjoying their lives in a time when much of the world is in pain, but they are not doing it callously but something else, perhaps desperately. They seem to me(and I like to think)that somewhere deep inside they know two things–they are very lucky to live like this and, secondly, particularly in a world such as ours, it could end, perhaps without warning.

So for them Christmas is a time of good cheer and a little bit of icing on the cake. And while none of them takes a truly spiritual interest in it, it appears that a little bit of the spirit does seep through in the acts of friendship and indulgence which we occiasionally see. And besides that, their fun is our fun for awhile, so let them have it. So to all those denizens of the world of Kauffman and Hart, the world of Whitreside/Wolcott and the folks of the round table at the Algonquin, here’s best wishes. Enjoy your Christmas my friends. Perhaps sometime you will find a somewhat deeper meaning, perhaps not But in any event, thanks for the laughs and the glow it brought and the fun of your company along the way.

In many ways “The Holly and the Ivy” is about as different of a Christmas movie, compared to “Man Who,” as you could imagine. Based on a very old, perhaps medievel English carol, the title really has nothing to do with the plot, except to set in mind the fact that it is Christmas time. It is a very beautiful piece of music, however, and its stage-setting aspect should not be ignored. Nor will you forget it quickly.

The movie takes place at Christmas time, apparently 1948, in Norfolk. Norfolk is northeast of London and borders on the sea. An area of small towns and farms, at least then and maybe still, it is the perfect backfrop for this film. It is Christmas time and the Rev Martin Gregory(Ralph Richardson–later “Sir Ralph”)is expecting his family to join him. A widower, he lives with his daughter, Jenny(Celia Johnson), who serves both as loyal daughter and house keeper, and is approaching the age where she might slip into that categoary of women who never marry and spend their best years caring for aging parents or others. She is in love with David, an engineer whose work is about to take him to South America. She wants to get married and go with him, but knows her father depends upon her emotionally and otherwise, and is afraid of hurting him.

Then there is her sister, Margaret(Margaret Leighton)who forsook Norfolk and her family’s ways for the good life or at least the high life in London where she works in publishing and socializes or more with the rich and sophisticated. Their brother, Michael(Denholm Elliott–also Uncle Elliott in the remake of “The Razor’s Edge”)is in the army but is expected to be discharged soon, His father expects him to follow in his footsteps to Camridge. Michael has other hopes and ideas.

Somewhat in the background, but still a leading character is David. The quiet engineer wants Jenny as much as she wants him, but he can’t afford not to go ahead on his planned move to South Amerca, an opportunity not likely to be repeated. He is not a dominant character in the film, but he is to some degree the fulcrum of the plot for it is the fact of his reationship with Jenny that pulls things off their steady normal ways and introduces conflict.

There are two particuar things I like about this film. The first is that is avoids the cliches of the un-understanding parent or the un-understanding clergyman. It’s not as if there are not real life people of that kind, but we’ve seen them so often portrayed in strictly one-dimensional style on the screen that I have tired of it completely. This 1952 film did not indulge itself in anything of that sort.

Martin is clearly a kindly and understanding clergyman, loyally serving his parish and compassionately dealing with the issues and troubles of his flock. He is not the censorious seeker of sin to correct, but the kindly friend who has some idea of how to connect troubled people to God. It is in fact, in a way his effectiveness as a pastor that gets him into trouble with his family.

The kids all have troubles. As noted, Jenny wants to get married but fears hurting her father. Michael feels that he has been pressured on the Cambridge thing and that he has not been listened to in a meaningful way. And he believes that he is not going to be listened to and that there’s no point in trying. This leads to an inability of the two men to connect in any calm and reasonable way.

Perhaps the most difficult for the Pastor to deal with is daughter Margaret. Although frquently mentioned, she is not seen until about half way through the movie. She has worked for a magazine in London and lived the high life for awhile, to the extent of having an out of wedlock child of whom her family has never heard. But the child died of meningits and her relatioships went bad. Some of her wants to return to Norfolk but she’s sure her father would not understand

So the Pastor apparently has given his love and his caring to his parishioners but not to his children But while this may be his fault-that they feel this way–it is not the truth. He has always been kindly and understanding with his people. He is willing to be the same with his children. But the adult children don’t get it and it seems never did.

For all I know this is often an issue with clergy families, the family feeling shorted by the clergyman’s attention to his flock. But just how and why they feel this way is never devloped fully and this is the one other flaw I find in “Holly.” We never get much more than a hint as to how things have gone in the past. When it deals with the presernt however, it is extremely honest and moving. However much the kids don’t think he will understand, he does. This is a shock to them, a welcome one, but still demanding a turn around in their thinking.

And the turn around does come. One by one, he reveals to them his frustration that his being a pastor has led people, particularly his own children, to believe he won’t understand. And since understanding human failings and pain is his buesiness, the irony is bitter to him. But he persuades the children that he does understand and he does forgive whatever there may be to forgive. And finally, he finds, they are capable of doing the same. And I guess this does help it qualify as a “Christmas movie” since it seems to be partly the holiday, though mostly the human attitufes involved which make this possible.

This all takes shape against the back ground of a small Norfolk village at Christmas and therefore provides not only an emotional but a cultural/psychological background for the characters’ troubles and their resolution.

The only thing wrong here is that possibly it turns out a little too well. Life is seldom so neat as to allow an aging parent to patch things up with three adult children in one visit and this may seem a bit pat. But compared to the frequent terndency to make a “Christmas movie” something that is composed of pretty scenes of snow and jingling bells and people smiling, it is a blessing to see one that is at least based in something beyond that. It is also nice to see an understanding movie clergyman who is both understanding and wise without being too pious. It is good to see this combination of restraint, decency and sanity mixed together and easy to believe it.

So take your pick between these two movies according to–well, whatever mood you’re in at the moment, I guess. They are both worthy of your time and might each leave you feeling more Christmas-like, albeit, perhaps, in somewhat different ways. Or, here’s a thought-if you have the opportunity(your local library’s film collection?)watch both. In any event, Merry Christmas.

It is now late afternoon in OH and the rest of the Eastern Time Zone. The polls here will be open for a few hours yet. There are reports of heavy turnouts some places, but such reports are anecdotal, maybe true, maybe not. Also, usually a large turnout favors the Democrats,, but few things are usual this year.

In an earlier blog, 2 or 3 months ago, I predicted the GOP would take the House by winning 20 or so more seats than they currently have. This would result in a majority of at least 15 in the House, maybe more. Right now the Dems lead, but the Republicans need only a 5 seat gain to take over. This being the case, I concede the House of Rep, at least for the moment, to the GOP. A big surprise is always possible, but in this case, the possibility is extremely remote. Almost certainly the House will be led by a new Speaker, Kevin McCarthy, He will likely have a majority of around 20 seats, maybe more.

So enough of that–I will concentrate upon the US Senate where there are still questions. There are 6 to 8 seats which are the key races here and I will briefly comment on 8 of them. There is overall agreement that many of these races are extremely close and also that the result may not be known this evening, possibly not for several days, maybe not for about a month if GA is close(see more on this later.)

Starting East and moving West like the pioneers, I begin with NH. Sen Maggie Hassan(D) is trying to hold off the aggressive campaign of the GOP’s Don Bolduc. The latter is a MAGA Republican of many extremely MAGAish views, particularly in his support of the obvious untruth that the 2020 Presidential Election was “stolen.” Gov Chris Sununu rightly dismissed him as a nutcase(no, not using that word)but refused to say he would oppose him over “one issue.” Hey, Gov, it looks like several issues to me.

Hassan has pointed to her loyalty to President Biden and her role in getting some of his most important legislation through the House. Nonetheless, the polls show a close race in this usually blue state. I suggest that Hassan will likely be re-elected, but not by a large majority.

PA is perhaps the biggest race in the country in most ways. It is one of two big states where the Dems might succeed in pulling off a “flip.” We have two flawed candidates, Dr Oz who has made some questionable statements such as the one that mentioned “local” authorities as playing a role in the pro-life/pro-choice fight. What he meant by local authorities and exactly how that would work is not clear. He has perhaps done himself some good(and also respected common sense)in endorsing the President’s de-criminalization of pot users and his refusal to get on the election denier train. Nonetheless, Donald Trump endorsed him.

John Fetterman, the Lt Gov of the State looked like a terrific candidate to some of us early on. To a large extent he still does, but his health remains a concern. He had a poor debate but has campaigned, I believe, fairly effectively since. Because of the peculiarities of PA election law and vote counting, as well as the closeness of the race, this one is not likely to be decided this evening and maybe not for several days(It took until Saturady in 2020 to make sure Biden had defeated Trump). In the end, I think it will be very, very close and I think Fetterman will squeak out a victory. But as Michael Smerconish likes to point out sometimes we predict more with our desires than our logic.

Just West of PA is OH where I sit now in a library about 50 miles or so west of the PA-OH state line. Here we have “Hillbilly Elegy” author J D Vance, R v US Rep Tim Ryan, D. The early advantage seemed to be Ryan’s in this now more or less red state, but as money and Trumpian influence flooded the OH Vance caught up.(Vance once derided Trump but changed his mind, whether sincerely or not I have no idea, but certainly to his advantage) It is now very close and like many other places it is likely to come down to turnout. My heart goes to Ryan(as did my early vote)but my gut says Vance–but very close and perhaps not to be decided for awhile.

Down south we have GA. This is perhaps the most visible Senate race in the US right now, Hershel Walker, R v incumbent Senator, Democrat Raphael Warnock. I originally thought that the simple facts about Walker’s past and character would be enough to defeat him but now I feel no certainly there. As voter after voter in GA has told journalists they care more about who runs the Senate than what runs Walker’s life and character, it appears he has a slight edge. I reluctantly predict he will likely win

But there is a joker in the deck in GA. State law requires a runoff if no one gets 50% of the vote. There is a Libertarian candidate, Chase Oliver, running also. He is not likely to get much more than 2% of the vote, but if it’s really close that might be enough to require a runoff. And if the Senate vote should produce a 50-49 breakdown, then control of that chamber will depend on what happens in the early Dec runoff. If this should happen and you happen to live in GA, tighten your seatbelts. People and money, particularly money, will be coming there in huge numbers/amounts.

To the Upper Midwest and WI–this is straightforward in some respects. GOP Sen Ron Johnson is one of the most loyal of Trump followers endorsing nearly all the former President’s ideas including the election steal untruth. Democrat Mandela Barnes, the state’s apparently sober and sincere Lt Gov is still behind, thought a large undecided vote is clouding the issue a bit.- Advantage, Johnson, though I dislike admitting it.

AZ at least looks straightforward, though not easy to predict. Sen Mark Kelly, a sober and knowledgeable Democrat is challenged by Blake Masters, a young and spectacularly quickly rising GOP star. Masters has shown little interest in keeping his distance from Trump and, though a very successful business man seems to have little else to offer. Polls are close. I think Kelly will hang onto the seat for the Dems. It may be a long time being proved–remember AZ 2020.

IN NV Sen Catherine Cortez Masto,D is challenged by Adam Laxalt, Att Gen and heir to a Republican tradition in the state. Cortes is the superior candidate in my opinion and while it will be close I think she’ll hold the seat.

Finally, Alaska, which has a newish system for statewide election in which the top four finishers in the all-party primary get to the final round.. This means incumbent Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski takes on fellow Republican(Trump endorsed)Kelly Tshibaka, and Dem Patricia Chesbro. Buzz Kelly, another Republican, dropped out and endorsed Tshibaka. Murkowski is a clever and flexible politician who once beat both the GOP and Dem candidates as a write in. She will lose most of the Republican vote to Tshibaka, but will likely get a lot of Dems and Independents in her column. A close and interesting contest. Could go to Tshibaka but I put my money on Murkowski, one of the more independent Republicans in the Senate. Of course, she would vote with the party on organizing the senate and other procedural matters. Hello(maybe) Majority Leader McConnell

So- I am showing 4 Dems and 4 Republicans winning This would suggest a continuation of the 50-50 division which has existed since the 2020 election. Of course there could be surprises in other elections which would to some degree change all of this. The only prediction I feel wiling to give now is this–The Senate may split 50-50 again and it will not split more than 52-48 regardless of which party predominates. Since the Dems “win” with a 50-50 division(as long at they stick together)they have just a smidgen of a better chance of running the Senate than the Republicans. But it’s a small difference.

I guess time will tell, but it may take quite a bit, Meanwhile. I may be back soon to try to make up for my mistakes. Enjoy election night, folks–it’s an American night, nothing quite like it anywhere else. I hope that distinction remains–well, a distinction.

It is my hope to do several short articles on Queen Elizabeth II and history, likely spreading them over perhaps a fair amont of time. This is, I hope, the first of, oh, maybe a half a dozen.

Elizabeth was likely the most influential Briton of the 20th century and succeeded in extending her position well into the 21st. Her only real competition for this position would have to be Sir Winston Churchill, the greatest British leader of the 20th century, perhaps any century. You do not have to agree with everything about Winston, do not need to approve of every one of his opinions or actions(I don’t)to consider him great. But great he was in my opinion despite a few mistakes, sometimes serious ones. John O’Hara once pointed out that since he was in positions of power his mistakes tended to be disastrous– true enough, but for the same reason, his victories were magnificent and the biggest one, over the Axis Powers, was his greatest contribution to his country and the world.

So we have here the most effective Queen since Elizabeth I and one of the prime movers of Western Civilization of the second half of the 20th century, and the greatest conqueror of evil during that century–well beyond it, in fact. My purpose here is to look at their relationship, see how they dealt with and influenced each other and ask if any significant conclusions may be drawn from all this.

Elizabeth was born in 1926 and the earliest known Churchill reference to her in writing is in a letter to his wife about two years later. He commented on her “air of authority & reflectiveness, astonishing in an infant.” Astonishing in a two year old it certainly would be, but apparently Winston was gifted with extraordinary depth of perception into the human personality. He does seem to have been with a number of people later on.

Churchill’s career is well known, particularly through victory in WWII. Most of the rest of it is fairly well know to anyone interested, but it may be well to mention a few facts. Resigning as PM after the Conservative defeat in the 1945 election, he became, as the party’s leader in the Commons, automatically the leader of the the Opposition, a position he would hold for about 6 years. During this time he is known particularly for actions and opinions on foreign affairs, mostly the decline of the Empire and the Soviet-Western relationship. This latter one included his involvement with the new issue of nuclear weaponry

Regarding the Empire he was opposed to most of the dismantling which was obviously coming, but powerless to prevent it. He was what today is defined as “on the wrong side of history” there. I think he may have grasped that this “wrongness ” was strong, if not in ultimate terms, at least in short run expediency and perhaps more. There was little he could do about it. Not much of the dismantling took place with him in power, but what had happened and was about to happen was clear.

Regarding the East-West matter there was more he could do and he did. At first he believed that the US was in error in, if not “trusting” Stalin, at least giving in too much to his wishes. He wanted to seize Berlin at the end of the war before the USSR could and he was angry about the refusal of the US to cooperate. Most famously Churchill made the “Iron Curtain” speech in the US and provided a phrase which would be used for a generation or more, a phrase which denoted the division of Europe. He was seriously mistrustful of the USSR and as was natural given his experiences, inclined to see Stalin as another Hitler who had to be resisted, one way or the other.

There is some indication that sometime before the Soviets acquired the A-Bomb, he may have advocated to the Americans that they consider an atomic “first strike” which a powerful and threatening but non-nuclear USSR would be unable to resist. Or he may have been essentially saying that the US should threaten the USSR with such a strike if they didn’t hold to the US line in European affairs. I checked 3 or 4 sources on this and the evidence is not overwhelming, but does lean toward a very aggressive attitude—much more so than the US at that time–and a willingness to consider the use of the A-Bomb.

This changed dramatically after 1) The USSR become a nuclear power and 2) the Hydrogen Bomb came into consideration.(One could also add after the beginning of the Eisenhower Administration) Although I think he was a bit overly aggressive in the atomic threat/use issue, given his background and the miseries of war he had to lead the UK through, it was understandable. He changed quickly when he came more fully to understand what nuclear weapons might actually do to the world and what mankind would go through if they were used. By the early fifties he was, though still strong for defense, an opponent of nuclear carelessness and an upholder of caution in nuclear matters. I found one article which suggested that Churchill, an agnostic as far as one can tell from his public record, even drifted toward religion as his anxiety for humankind increased, mainly because of the continuing arms race, then just getting going, between the two nuclear superpowers.

During most of this time Elizabeth and Churchill had minimal contact. He was, after all, the leader of the party out of power and the royals had to deal with Atlee’s Laborites in day-to-day matters. During this time, Elizabeth grew up and more. After serving as a driver and mechanic during the war, she was an experienced if very young royal with some first-hand understanding of the world of power. She was also deeply in love with her second cousin, Philip of Greece, whom she married at the age of 21, and with whom she quickly bore two children, Charles and Anne. She expected it would be a long time before she would actually take on the symbols and to some extent the reality of power.

It was not to be. Early in 1952 she and Phillip began a tour of the Commonwealth. They were in Africa when she got the telepone message that George VI had died– unexpectedly , though it was widely know his health was poor. They immediately flew home. Her coronation would not be for about a year, May, 1953, but to the extent the monarch still held some reins of power(and to some extent he or she did)they were in her hands now.

Churchill was depressed at the idea at first, commenting on her youthfulness and lack of experience. Anthony Lascalles, private secretary to George VI and the new Queen suggested to Winston that he would find her beautiful, poised, intelligent and fully capable of understanding the problems of a PM. And Winston was PM again now–in a 1951 election weirdly similar to two 21st century US Presidential elections, the Laborites had gotten more of the popular votes, but the Conservatives had won a majority of Commons seats. Winston was PM again almost immediately.

The record shows that Winston was very unhappy. He had greatly admired(thought they did not always agree)George VI and had been friends and partners is guiding their country through the war. Churchill would seriously miss his old friend and comrade. He found, however, that Lascalles was right about the new Queen. She was everything he said and more. Both she and Churchill had a well developed sense of humor and they enjoyed each other’s company immensely. The staff reported “peals of laughter” often emerging from their weekly meetings. There is no indication that they ever disagreed seriously on an important issue, and Churchill proved a wise teacher and she an apt pupil in studying the ways of power.

But there were difficulties for the old/new PM. For different reasons, some personal and some political, he no longer was an unquestioned leader as he had(almost)been during the war. A new generation was rising in the nation and in the Conservative Party. He was 76 when he took the reigns of power for the 2nd time and his health was beginning to fail. He tried and largely succeeded for some time to keep this unknown to the public and even many politicians, but this could not go on indefinitely.

In the spring of 1953 he suffered a serious stroke. This was kept a carefully guarded secret and, incredibly he presided over a cabinet meeting the next day and no one noticed there was anything amiss. But it was several months before he was fully(or nearly so)recovered. He hated giving up power and leaving problems for people whom he thought(sometimes correctly)weren’t up to handling them, but there was another stroke later on and some thought his vigor and his attention span both showed signs of declining. After several delays, the moment finally came in April, 1954. Churchill resigned as PM, no doubt realizing that he would fade from the public mind somewhat now, but slowly and never completely.

The night before he left office, Elizabeth and Phillip dined with the Churchills at 10 Downing St. This was an unusual and a aignificant matter for the monarchy and indicated the regard in which they held Winston. Already a Knight of the Garter, he could have joined the House of Lords. Elizabeth offered to make him Duke of London, but he refused. This refusal was partly because of complications regarding his somewhat unstable son, Randolph, who would have been heir to the title. But it is likely true that Winston was being honest when he said he wished to remain in the House of Common. And remain he did until 1964, when a broken hip and other health issues made him no longer functional in a public role.

Winston died in January of 1965, aged 90. His death took place on Jan 30, the anniversary of his father’s death and the month and day he had predicted for himself years earlier. As on other occasions, he was inexplicably right.

His funeral was watched by thousands in the UK in person and millions on television around the world. Many of them may have understood, at least subliminally the symbolism and irony. He was born in the reign of Queen Victoria and now the Beatles were dominating British culture. The differences could hardly have been more stark.

But there was one more honor. It was traditional for the Queen to be the last person to enter at a funeral. But at Churchill’s, Elizabeth arrived early, not wanting to take away any of the honor and accolades due the Churchill family that day. Many others would have made a similar decision had it been possible for them to do so, and so far as I know, no one ever criticized the Queen for her breaking precedent.

She would have 14 more Prime Ministers. She would be close to some of them, but never as much again as with Churchill. I shall, I hope, reflect a bit more on their relationship in another blog.