-
The Ghosts of Movies Past–The Uninvited
I originally thought of this title for a series about old films some time ago and I guess the title came to me by way of memories of “A Christmas Carol.” But I waited long enough to begin, that it now fits the season of Halloween. By “ghosts” here, I mean mostly the former, the lingering effect of films, both in the minds of individuals and in the rather ephemeral but I think important national subconscious-at least the subconscious of movie fans. So I begin with two kinds of ghosts to talk about, the effect of a movie and the subject of the movie itself.
“The Uninvited(1944), is, technically, an American film but it sure seems like a British one. Set in Cornwall in the spring-summer of 1937, it concerns a brother and sister(Ray Milland and Ruth Hussey)who, while on vacation, discover a large, long deserted house and become determined to buy it. He is a London music critic and composer and she is, apparently, independently well to do. They pool their resources and succeed in getting the house, purchasing it from the owner, a crusty old carryover from Victorianism(Donald Crisp), and also come into contact with his overprotected and somewhat intimidated granddaughter, Stella(Gail Russell).
The film, like most at the time, and fortunately, I think, in this case, is in black and white. It begins with a wide-vision shot of the sea and the audience gets to see white caps as the waters come ashore on the rocks. They also get to hear the sound of this. Meanwhile, they hear Milland doing a voice-over regarding the coasts of lands that border this part of the sea and their propensity for providing a background for ghostly events. This all sets the scene nicely and puts the viewer in an agreeable tingly mood.
I will not go into the film in great detail here, but you need to know a little of what happens. The granddaughter, much against her Grandfather’s wishes, makes friends, barely, with the two Londoners. She and Milland seem to have a quick, closeness between them, and the stage seems set for romance, particularly when Milland writes her a song. But instead there is uncertainty and fear(“Stella By Starlight” became a jazz/Great American Songbook hit–you still might hear Miles Davis’s and other versions of it on Sirius “Real Jazz”)
On the first night brother and sister are together in their new home, Milland hears the sound of a woman sobbing. His sister explains that during the weeks he was cleaning up details in London and she was civilizing the house, she heard this several times, and no, it’s not Lizzie, the housekeeper, whose cat behaved oddly and refused to go upstairs. “It comes from everywhere and nowhere,” she says. Yes, indeed.
Without going into revealing details, I will merely say that this is the beginning of a tense and compelling ghost story that does not terrify you with nut cases running around with chainsaws, but may make your hair re-arrange itself a couple of times and send through you a couple of chills, so you feel as if you had just come inside on a cold winter day. Questions are asked and not, immediately, anyway, answered. The history of the house is studied and eventually, after quite a bit of tension and suspense, there are a number of ghostly manifestations(along with some explanations, too).
If you check this out on-line you will find many people praising it. But some regard it as weak stuff, nothing like today’s “shock” films with noise, blood and violence. This is, in my opinion, a good thing. This movie is not about physical violence. It is about subtle, spiritual and psychological haunting and the different but still chilling fear it can bring. It is way more sophisticated than the gross chop ’em to bits type. It is by far my favorite supernatural film–“The Haunting” from the 1960’s would be second, but for all its qualities it is not equal to this.
Part of the reason for this film’s excellence is found in the efforts of the director, Lewis Miller. Every scene seems to fit, to be an integral part of the story. The appearance and atmosphere of the house are allowed to play a significant role, but one you see or sense in the background, just part of the scenery of chills. When the manifestations do appear, they are not clear–they are foggy and indistinct, like something from a dream or a surrealist artist, as if telling us that this is not just a matter of other people, it’s other people from outside our reality, but real and perhaps threatening all the same.
Given the movie’s age you might expect to creak a little bit–and it does, but only slightly. Some of the romance is a bit contrived and the attempts at humor are clearly several decades behind the curve. But these count little, they are a small part of the overall story, maybe 5% or less of the movie. And there is the brief presence of the elegant and unusual Cornelia Otis Skinner who in a very busy life acted a little bit and maybe should have more. Her teacher/counsellor is a combination of authoritarianism and doubtful sanity that you won’t forget.
This is not a movie for people who want to be “shocked” by violence and mayhem and screaming. It is about the mystery and spookiness of encountering the supernatural and trying to figure it out, and being both afraid on one hand and anxious to learn on the other. It’s a film for people who like mystery in the most serious and meaningful sense of the term, the kind that sneaks up on you after midnight, and spooks your mind and soul rather than threatening your body. In an era where so many movies have the grossest violence with almost no subtlety at all, it is a reminder of civilized behavior and presumes it can exist among both those of flesh and blood and the wandering spirits. Try it, you might really like it.
(Other than the common title, this film has nothing to do with the one made in the late 2000’s, maybe 2009 or thereabouts. I watched about 20 or 25 minutes of it once which was enough to determine that 1) The stories are not connected and 2) I was wasting my time)
-
Closing In On–Well, What?
I haven’t written much about politics lately. I guess my writing urges have been worn down by too much political use. But I need to speak–briefly, anyway–about what is going on now. It appears that Trump has slightly closed the gap between himself and Harris and it now appears, at least for the moment, one of the closest Presidential elections in history, at least looking at the potential popular vote.
It also appears to be getting stranger and weirder as the days roll along, mostly due to increasingly odd statements and even behavior from Trump and Vance, but also, to some extent, from media coverage and maybe some lackings in the Harris campaign.
I guess I want to boil this down to three main points–
1) Trump’s statements, often strange in the past, have gotten more so. It is difficult to tell(for me, anyway)if this is the result of careful calculation of what he thinks works with his base and/or potential supporters, of if he really believes all of it. As I believe I have suggested before it’s sort of hard to tell which would be worse. I’m inclined to go with the latter as worse. The former would merely mean Trump fell into the category of dishonest politicians, a category we’ve been familiar with for too long. He would be one of the leaders, of course, but still it’s a recognizable type(and understandable if you take a sort of super-cynical view of human nature and particularly of the US)
The latter choice, that he really believes all or at least some of this stuff is, I think worse. His thing about “The Enemy Within” gets to me(I wonder if he knows RFK, Sr once wrote a book with that as its title?). He seems to mean domestic traitors, particularly ones that mess with elections(anybody want to say “projection?”) and maybe some others. It’s sometimes hard to tell exactly who he means, because he is, possibly on purpose, not always too specific). He also is way over the top with many of his charges.
We all know the border is a mess and as a matter fact has been for decades. But what is this about how Harris has organized people from all over the world to come from prisons, mental institutions, etc and screw up the US as badly as possible? Unless he really is nuts, i.e. psychotic(which I doubt), he knows this is a lie. I have never heard or seen one piece of evidence which would prove this ridiculous charge or even suggest there might be some truth to it. Of course, as with so many other, uh, untruths, he seems, so far, to be getting away with it.
Then there’s his musical interlude Monday night at a rally. I guess we could just be glad he was listening to music instead of stating his usual stuff, but what kind of a candidate behaves this way? Again, is it a calculation or does he really think it appropriate?(The music wasn’t half-bad but I’ll bet it wasn’t his choice)
2) Somewhat pursuant to the above, I don’t think the Harris campaign or the media are handling Trump’s bizarness and lack of truth very well. One thing that has gotten under my skin lately is this–J D Vance and Trump and a lot of their supporters like to act as if Kamala Harris is responsible for everything that’s happened since Trump left office. Up until Joe Biden dropped out they were trashing the Biden Administration and usually using that name. After Biden pulled out of the race and Kamala rose to the top it suddenly became “the Biden–Harris Administration” in the words of many Republican speakers and interviewees. Well, this is a change of emphasis for obviously political reasons, but I will concede it can be argued that it is not an inaccurate description.
Then, from some speakers, I believe, the nation began to hear of something called the “Harris-Biden Administration.” I don’t think anyone has gone so far as to call it the “Harris Administration” yet, but wait a minute–maybe someone will. What really gets to me, of course, is that there’s a deep lie in all of this. Frequently Trump and his supporters make references to “when she was in power” or words to that effect. Well, she never was “in power” in this Administration. The President has power, the Vice-President, influence. That influence may be very important, maybe the deciding factor in some cases, but it’s still influence, not power. So a reasonable answer to the implied if not stated “why didn’t you do something.” could be, “Hey, I wasn’t President.. Have you read the US Constitution recently?”
I don’t expect that to happen. But it does seem to me that this particular bit of hypocrisy and distortion on the Trumpies’ part ought to be called out in writing or on TV or both. I would suggest the VP herself do it. Or maybe Gov Walz. But it would be OK for a TV reporter/interviewer to spend at least a minute or two on it. No, it’s not the biggest deal in the campaign, but it is indicative of a mindset among Trump and his people that I think is worth noting.
Then, of course, there’s the possibly most threatening thing about the Trump campaign, his repeated and repeated threat to use the government to restrict or entirely wipe out the freedom of his political opponents. He speaks of the national guard and the military and I think he may mean it. Of course his more immediate threat, to use them on election day or just after it is patently ridiculous. Even if he wins, according to the Constitution he would still have over a two month wait to actually assume the office. The sitting President would remain the sitting President until that time and I think Joe will behave with decency and common sense up to the end of his term
What he means by the rest is a little bit undefined, but he clearly means he would use his position as President to curb opposition and criticism and maybe even regular political activity(like seeking office). Whether he means this or is just bluffing I don’t know, but if it’s the latter it’s not only in poor taste, it actually may weaken the Republic and its traditional freedoms. If it’s not a bluff he would be risking serious conflict in the courts, the federal government and possibly the streets.
3) Despite a certain amount of exaggeration by the media and perhaps other commentators(to say nothing of the Trumpies), it is likely true that the Harris campaign needs to do some things differently. This process of change may be beginning now and if so, it needs to continue. Harris is so clearly Trump’s superior in intelligence, understanding, empathy, truth telling, ordinary human decency and common sense that it is ridiculous that this is a close race. But that’s what nearly all the polls show and I won’t deny it. Some of this is due to certain peculiarities of the social-economic state of the US and the opinions of some of its citizens and may have little to do with the candidates themselves. But then there’s this …
Harris has had trouble making herself known to the American people. I don’t exactly understand why, but they still feel, many of them, that they don’t know her as they do Trump, Biden or other contemporary political figures. She needs to continue “introducing” herself in public appearance, TV, in person, whatever. She also is having trouble explaining satisfactorily what she would do as President. I personally feel I already know enough about her to make a reasonable estimate of what her foreign and domestic policies would be. But many do not feel this way.
So she needs to tell everyone straightforwardly, “I would deal with the economy in the following ways…” ” I would take the following attitude with the Russian-Ukrainian war …”. Or with the Gaza disaster or whatever. Of course, she should not paint herself into a corner with too many specific promises, but she does need to give a better impression of what she is likely to do. There is, as noted above, some indication this is already a work in progress and if so, it needs to continue and even improve a little bit.
She is usually a very good interview and I trust this will continue. She does occasionally miss one as she did the other day on the issue of what she would do differently from Biden. I think a good answer would have been something like,”Well, the overall pattern would be about the same as he and I both want basically the same things for our country and for the world. There might be a few changes in specifics and I may discover some of these along the way.” Of course, it would be good to have one or two differences in mind to mention at the time of the question so as to avoid sounding just like another politician.
We should know more in a few hours. She is about to take on Fox News which is gutsy and I hope productive. Anyway, it shows a wish for honesty and it shows political courage. What would a Trump interview with Rachel Maddow be like? Don’t waste a lot of time on it just consider it. Happy speculation!
-
Fall and Mysteries– a Good Match
G M Malliet, “The Haunted Season,” St Martin’s Press 2015
Richard Osman, “The Bullet That Missed”–Viking –2022
To a real mystery fan anytime is a good time to start reading one, but fall, my favorite season, and the one most given to Mystery is, it seems to me the best. I’ve got two I want to tell you about.
G M Malliet is an American author, British -educated(Oxford and Cambridge, no less) who still lives in the US but obviously knows the UK intimately. She often travels there and her books are(I think)all set there. She had two other series and may have plans for more of those two, but lately has been confining herself to her third series, that of Father Max Tudor.
She began this series about the middle of the past decade has about a half dozen, so far. “The Haunted Season” is the third or fourth one I’ve read and by far the best of them. All of them are good, but this one sparkles, a jewel in the crown of “cozy” mystery writing–but perhaps not quite all cozy at that.
First of all, understand that Max is a priest of the Anglican Church(Church of England), not a Roman Catholic. This will explain the wife and child and the absence of references to Rome. He is a still youngish man, but not without worldly experience. He was once a spy for MI-5, British rough equivalent of our FBI. He eventually became disillusioned with that kind of work and decided there was a better way. Following that thought to its conclusion he became a priest and it now at about 40, still somewhat new to the surroundings, but a quick learner and a man who feels (mostly) comfortable with what he is doing.
For several years he has been the clergy of a church in Nether Monkslip in southwestern England. (By the way, that is a fictional name, but not an unreasonable one for a small English village. The spell-check on this computer didn’t accept it as correct, but rural England is full of villages with similar unusual–to the American ear, anyway–names) In the earlier books(and years)in this series he began getting involved in mysteries of one kind or another and is now regarded as something of a detective as well as a clergyman. He has also met and married the lovely Awena Owen, proprietress of the town’s New Age shop and a practitioner of New Age as distinct from traditional Christian faith. The Church has accepted her as clergy wife-worthy, though not without some doubts. They have a baby, only a few months old at the beginning of the book.
As usual there is a large cast of supporting characters, some more familiar than others. As Max goes about his work, he finds himself being pulled into the small village/rural area social scene and then comes up against a crime.(Not unusual for him, naturally)
The socially prominent family in the area, and owners of Totleigh Hall, are Lord and Lady Baaden-Boomethistle. They are not a necessarily sympathetic pair, but then who would be with that name? Lord Boomethistle is well into middle age and was widowed a few years earlier. The new lady B is a beautiful, ambitious young woman of charm and well, maybe other things too.
Lord B’s two kids are a son, Peregrine and a daughter, Rosamund. Peregrine seems to be a discontented, irresponsible layabout with no interest in learning, growing up or anything else worthwhile and appears to be wasting his time at Oxford. Rosamund is the family intellectual and I love the author’s description of her, “a proud egghead among a family of fox-chasing morons.” A bit of a lack of charity there, but not an inaccurate description of the young lady’s thoughts.
For good measure we have the Dowager mother of Lord B who is an 80ish novelist of the Barbara Cartland romance type, rich, arrogant and willing to look down upon just about anyone. And then there’s Bill Travis, the estate manager and horse trainer who seems to have attracted young Lady B’s attention, and is possibly returning it. Gee, now what could go wrong here?
Actually quite a bit, and there are characters and complicated relationships I won’t go into here. Let me say, though, that despite the large cast(there’s a “cast of characters” list at the start) it’s a well told story with a certain amount of insight into humans and their foibles and also with Malliet’s usually gentle but sometimes cynical humor.
I will not describe the crime which occurs, but suffice it to say it is remindful of a famous early american tale in some ways and involves a great deal of imagination on the part of the perpetrator and, well, the reader. It is indeed puzzling, playing as it does on horses, riding, the social society of rural England jealousies, resentments and other delightfully nasty emotions.
I suppose I won’t be giving away a lot if I say that Father Max figures it out, but not without a lot of trouble and effort and learning about his town and its people. I thought the ending which unfolds rather slowly but suspensfully for a British cozy was very good, a long way from the traditional get ’em together in the drawing room and explain. (Not that that didn’t work scores of times for Agatha Christie and a lot of others.)
I was surprised that after finishing this book, I looked it and readers’ comments up on line and found quite a few negative comments from previous fans of the series. The statistics they show are not bad,(the number of likes, dislikes, etc) but they posted mostly negative views and I think it’s only fair to mention this. The only criticism I saw there that I thought had some merit was that a new character, a young female priest is introduced early in the book and then largely ignored until the end. True, but I’d say not really a big deal.
I thought the human relationships and the delightful British small town rural charm, plus the sense of menace in the back ground worked very well. If you like this kind of mystery I suggest you give it a try. By the way, despite the title and a deliciously creepily autumnal picture on the cover the book has little to do with Halloween. But that’s my only real criticism.
Richard Osman is a whole other story and his “The Bullet That Missed” an entirely different type book, thought also a British mystery and in many ways well into the tradition. I did a blog on his first book. “The Thursday Murder Club” not long ago and also have read “The Man Who Died Twice,” though I didn’t write about it. “Bullet” is the third in the series which he seems to be turning out once annually.
For the uninitiated, the title of the first book is actually the name of a club at an expensive British Retirement Home. It is made up of Elizabeth, their leader and a retired MI-6 officer (similar to CIA in US), plus Joyce, her friend and a retired nurse and also a compulsive and revelatory diarist. The two male members are Ron, a former labor organizer and Ibrahim, a retired psychiatrist. They meet for the purpose of trying to solve old, cold cases which have never been resolved. You will not be surprised to learn that they do this about once per novel. If you know mystery novels of this sort you’ll be even less surprised to learn that they always(so far, anyway)wind up in the midst of a mystery going on in Real Time.
The gang start out of the issue of a journalist, one Bethany Waites, who was apparently murdered nearly a decade ago. But no on was ever brought to trial for the crime and it eventually faded from public and police interest. Bethany had breen investigating a huge VAT racket(that is tax avoidance scheme) and there is a suspicion that was what led someone to get rid of her.
So they begin with the TV station and question Mike, the geniual host and old friend, and they question the detective who handled the case, and they meet Pauline, a TV makeup artist who falls for Ron. Their love story is soft pedaled to a large degree but is still and source of humor and sometimes real emotion.
But the group has now gotten started and as they should know by now once you start this sort of thing there may be no stopping it. Donna DeFrites and Chris Hudson, their two cop-friends from earlier cases show up and get involved. So does and mysterious and huge Scandanavian whose name remains unknown but whom Elizabeth calls “The Viking.” For not enitrely clear reasons he admits to involvement in the scheme. then orders Elizabeth to kill her friend, Joyce. He will kill Elizabeth, he says, if she refuses.
So now Elizabeth is twice- or really thrice-pressured. She is leading the effort to find out more about Bethany, she is (as always)dealing with Stephen, her demintia-stricken husband, and now has The Viking on her back demanding she kill a friend and threatening her life if she doesn’t.
Confused yet? Well, so is Elizabeth and so is nearly everyone in the story, It ranges from learning about ways of money laundering (some of the old ways don’t work anymore because of newer technology), about international “trade” of the most discreditable and deceiving kind, and the uses and limits of the British police photographs (CCTV) in solving crimes (This was a very big deal in the second book).
Elizabeth brings her determination and spy-training to bear on the issue and with the help of the others they begin, slowly, to figure it out. I will leave you to learn the details by reading this yourself. It would be a poor mystery critic who would put “spoilers” in a review, and anyway I wouldn’t want to try to explain the whole thing in any event. But to Osman, the explanation is in the end not that hard(for the reader–it’s tough on the characters) and even seems to make sense. Of course, you have to be patient with it and allow him to pull his usual last-minute tricks with surprises popping up like crab grass in the last few pages.
But the real reason for reading Richard Osman is not really the “mystery” part, although that’s good enough right there. But the biggest pleasure is in the characters he creates and in every book(so far)expands on bit by bit. We grow to love them and sympathize with them. We learn their feeling about age and its disadvantages and its few satisfactions. We learn how smart, determined people beat off the disadvantages, sometimes for years. And we also learn that as the Thursday people know nothing will last forever, not even their lives.
Osman can be uproariously funny at times, as I pointed out in my review of the first book. But I also said and repeat here, that I would not call this a “comedy-mystery.” It has elements of that kind of book in it and good ones too, but it has a lot from the darker side not only the things I just mentioned, but an often offhand, not fanatical explanation of how the world works and how much corruption, violence and greed play a part in it.
For all that I think I would recommend this as a morale booster if you’re feeling depressed. Osman is the most compulsively- readable author I know of writing just now and he is not to be overlooked.
-
Nothing Before to Match This
It is less than two months now until election day. Of course, many votes will be cast before that, so the process has, to some small extent, already begun. I am always excited and awed by national US elections, especially Presidential ones. For one who follows public affairs it nearly always seems to be the most important election in memory. This year is just may be that that is so.
I have followed American politics closely, not to say compulsively, for decades now and I remember nothing to match this mess. There was intra party strife(1964), occasional calls for revolution (’60’s, early ’70’s), and serious political readjustments and changes of assumptions(’80’s & ’90’s). There have been scandals before and seriously inappropriate things said by candidates and/or their supporters. But I think it has been nothing like this.
Consider–The Democrats, the more “normal” of the two parties for the moment, at least, nearly went to the public with a man in his ’80’s who appeared to be succumbing to the frailties of age. If you have followed me at all recently, you know that I think Joe has been a good President and might continue. It’s the “might” part that is frightening.
After the disastrous June debate the President dug in his heels, but the overwhelming feeling within the party that he might end up not able to govern and even more likely would lose the election and not get the chance took its toll. So for the first time in US History a leading party set aside the candidate that was in all-but-name the official nominee. He himself picked his VP as his successor and the party with considerable(but not, I think inappropriate)haste moved to ratify his choice. She, in turn, quickly named a not very well known but highly respected midwestern Governor as her running mate.
At the same time, Donald Trump, the most bizarre President in history and the most unusual candidate too, is back as the GOP choice. He is running with a mostly inexperienced OH Senator who wrote one good book(I liked it), then, after some wandering in the Appalachian wilderness of his experience and his culture, decided he belonged with the Trump side of the Republicans and accepted Trump’s offer to be his running mate(I wonder if one or both of them is now regretful about this.)
We did not expect this to be relaxing or very edifying and It wasn’t. But most of us did not expect the extremes it has already gotten to. Unbelievably, two attempts on Trump’s life have already been made. There are nuts out there on both(or all or whatever you choose)sides and they have weapons of lethal power available to them. The idea of real political violence is frightening both in its immediate incidence and in what it might say about our country’s state of mind. But it is most disturbing in what it might portend for the US future, a subject I do not wish to pursue very much now.
But look at the rhetoric on each side. The Democrats’ is fairly normal and not too much inspired. I agree mostly with what they say. Sometimes it could be said more imaginatively. Kamala Harris is a compelling presence on stage and/or before a mic. It’s conceivable she could win in large part on that. But the Dems had better be careful.
Despite his occasional butchering of the language, and his frequent violence to logic, Donald Trump is a moving speaker to many. I am not among those moved by him, but clearly many are. And he does have a sort of swamp fox vigor in some of his speaking. And he has the trick of saying things that are absolutely absurd and getting away with it, at least to a very considerable degree.
The most recent and the most obvious of this Trump-fantasia world is the now too well known statement about Springfield, a small-medium sized city in the Western part of my home state. We all expect Trump to try hard to profit from the border mess and to make ridiculous statements about it(“they’re all criminals” etc), but we were astonished at the immigrant/ animal cannibalism statement. Now where did he get that? Well, actually I think he got it from an obscure(once)posting on the internet, but never mind. You would think that such absurdities would lose him enough votes to guarantee he will be defeated. Maybe they will, but don’t bet more on that than you can afford to lose.
Oh, yes, and now you may look forward to a lot of debate about having a debate. I think another one would be a good thing, but I won’t lean on anyone too heavily for that. It is obvious that Trump’s political instinct–functioning here–is telling him not to do it. That instinct may just be right. But if his campaign seems to be imploding he may regret not having the chancer to pull himself back from the brink of defeat.
In the meantime, the overall debate, which happens daily on the campaign trail, goes on. But where? Indications now are that it could take a turn toward foreign policy. Most of Trump’s people are uninterested in foreign affairs and, to tell the truth, the same may be true of the Dems. But with serious wars in both The Russian-Ukrainian mess and in the Mideast it just could become an issue, Particularly Israel may force the issue upon the US politicians by it’s recent apparent advances which have give them a way of turning smart phones into weapons.
So fasten those belts and pay attention. This could be a rough ride and end in a rougher landing for the American political system. In any events, it’s different.
-
Debate Reflections
We’ve all had a day or two to reflect upon The Debate and to form opinions about it. The ones I’ve read or heard on TV tend to be fairly, though not absolutely, predictable. For the most part people on each side think(or say that they do)that their candidate won. Though I am admittedly not without my own prejudices and opinions in this matter, I offer my conclusions as follows–
—Going by any more or less normal and rational standards Harris “won”–Trump started out badly and got a good deal worse as he went along, eventually falling into pushing the idiocy of alleged Springfield OH animal consumption. This is beyond belief and, I think, just about beyond sanity. But he said it anyway on national/world TV. It is difficult to imagine his recovering from such a gross and recklessly silly(to say nothing of disgusting) statement. But he’s Trump-you never know. Still…
He had nothing, really, to say that was new or interesting(hardly expected that)or that was really relevant to the campaign and the nation’s issues. He touched on both domestic and foreign issues, but without depth or understanding on either one and with nonsense, often, on both. He appears to be still riding that horse about Democrats causing wars and offering comparisons to his administration.(Somewhat like the Republican isolationists FDR had to deal with in the 1930’s) Someone (media or Dems)needs to challenge him on this and point out that Vladimir Putin started the war in Europe, and didn’t ask permission first. Likewise Hamas in Gaza. And US Intelligence was all over this and predicted almost exactly what would happen and when.(Ukraine–Gaza was a shock to us all)
He turned up in the spin room areas himself after the debate, apparently not wanting(perhaps not without good reason)his “spinners” to get stuck on TV trying to explains the twists and turns of his mind and discourse. Trump did not look at all fully in command. In fact, he looked disorganized in his thinking and composure at first and declined as time went on.
Harris on the other hand was clearly in command from the start and this is how she won the debate by any reasonable measures. She smiled and looked confident and she presented herself with strength and optimism. She seemed to know exactly what she wanted to say and she said it–very well. This is pretty much exactly what the President failed to do enough of in his June debate failure. Trump hardly ever does it unless you count loud-mouthed blustering as a show of strength. Harris also obviously knew how to irritate Trump without being too obvious, and how to do in such a way that he would be unable to keep his temper.
Harris and Trump both, technically speaking, addressed real issues. But Trump did it only with his usual combination of shallowness and lying. Harris at least showed she grasped what the issues were and was seriously trying to consider ways to handle them. The main complaint heard about her is that she has not talked enough to journalists(print or TV) and has not offered enough specifics. As a matter of simple fact, this is true, but it is a fact that needs to be explained and analyzed.
Going far back in the American memory, presidential campaigns started well before the summer of the election. In the memory of the majority of voters now, they start even earlier–sometime the year before the election year. This gives the candidates time to get ready and to work on their presentations.
While Harris obviously would have considered this, particularly when you take into account Biden’s age and the increasing concerns about it, it did not appear this was going to keep him out. Opinions of observers were divided and this one did an article–during July, as I recall-in which I said I thought Joe should go but wouldn’t, in all likelihood, do so.
So, while the idea had no doubt been germinating in Kamala’s mind for some time, it was not until late July that she suddenly found herself as the Presidential candidate of the Democratic Party. This means she has had only about a month and a half of a full candidacy. Others have had much more and, in many cases, used it much less.
Having said all that, it is nonetheless true that she does need to communicate more on specifics. She has done a little bit of this(note the ideas she has on tax policies and her differences with both Biden and Trump) but more is needed, particularly on economic policy. She and other Dems need to point out, with out exaggerating or distorting anything, that the RATE of inflation is dropping. They need to note that they realize inflation is still there and that this means pain at the pump and the supermarket check out line.
They also need to say that they will keep and eye on this and take whatever steps they deem necessary if the decline is not enough that people will be able to feel it quickly. It would be nice if the decline in inflation would be enough that it could be felt before the election. I have noticed that in Northeast OH gasoline prices have been falling lately. Here is an example of one kind of inflation in at least one areas of the US, which is actually disappearing. It would be nice if there were more.
There is much speculation now about the possibility of another debate, possibly even two of them. I would not suggest more that two because you don’t want to bore the public with too much of anything. But one or better two, would be a good idea. Trump’s people are likely having serious debates of their own weighing the need for him to explain himself better against the possibility. of more bizarre statements if they let him loose on the debate stage again. I wish them luck in deciding. To Harris and her people, I reiterate the above advice to deal a bit more in specifics. Other than that, perhaps the best choice is just to follow that hokey old adage about being yourself. Your self is so much better than Trump’s that you should win that part easily.
I also would add(and with thanks to a friend whose comments earlier today reminded me of this)one more suggestion. Trump and other Republicans are saying over and over “Why didn’t you …” or “Why didn’t she—“do this or that in 3 1/2 years of power. Well, as a matter of fact(constitutional fact)the President has the power, or about 90% of it. The VP’s only real power, per the Constitution is presiding over the Senate(which as Mike Pence knows sometimes is real power at that!) But that’s it.
Maybe she was the “last person out of the room.” Maybe this meant she was Biden’s primary advisor. But she wasn’t President, he was, and he made the decision. Calling Biden’s Administration the “Biden-Harris” Administration is silly and transparently(in the not good sense) phony. Referring to its decisions, as if they were her decisions, or even implying this is hypocritical. I hope KH calls them on it or has Walz do it. He seems to me suitably humorously sarcastic and ought to be able to handle the situation. I’ll bet he could handle it well. But I wouldn’t bet that it would work!
-
Israel and Hamas-a Very Difficult American Issue-But Also Very Important
By now nearly everyone who is the slightest bit interested knows all the basic facts. Hamas is a terrorist organization which has brutally run Gaza for more than a decade and has never shown mercy or understanding, or any “give” except the opportunistic kind, in their dealings with others. They are as brutal with the people they rule as they are with others and the average Gaza resident likely hates them and Israel more or less equally. On Oct 1 last year they committed one of the worst atrocities in the sorry history of anti-Semitism and its echoes are now heard not only in the Mideast but in Ukraine, Russia, and around the world. It could be a serious issue in the US Presidential campaign.
Meanwhile, in Israel there is not only continuing outrage at Hamas (which is understandable)but now a possible constitutional crisis which began over a different issue but has now become seriously involved with Hamas and the issue of Israeli hostages taken on that day last fall.
At the center of Hamas attitudes there appears to be a kind of Muslim fanaticism rarely seen elsewhere, one that makes next to no concessions and shows no quarter to anyone. At the center of Israeli attitudes, or at least policy, there is the ego of Benjamin Netanyahu which seems to include a lust for power and retaining power which equals–well, any in the US at present and most we have seen in the contemporary world(or in modern history for that matter).
This is a terrible problem for our country and would be whoever was president of the US or Secretary of State. The US is Israel’s no 1 ally and always has been as I have pointed out in earlier writings. I have said it before and I reaffirm it now. We are Israel’s ally and we are committed to her welfare and her survival and we are willing, in JFK-like language, to bear any burden and pay any price in so doing. I have always felt this way and I still do
But there is another aspect to the issue, as I just noted above. Much as I respect Israel and say that the US must defend her, i am frequently appalled by the actions and opinions of Netanyahu. And my determination that the US must defend Israel absolutely does NOT mean that we must agree with(or say that we do)every decision ever made or every action ever taken by the Israeli government, including Netanyahu’s–especially Netanyahu’s. We made no such commitment and we should not be expected to behave as if we did.
It was once the fact that Israel had wide if somewhat vague support among the US public, and, of course, particularly Jewish Americans. This usually extended into the America academic community where liberals abounded(at least in the arts and the social sciences). But time passes and things change, rightly or wrongly.
Although I have no statistics at hand I believe it would now be correct to say that the liberal support of Israel has considerably diminished as wokeness and other far-left opinions and attitudes have spread onto college campuses. Some of the most extreme of the academic far left have even indulged in language that a generation or two ago would have been condemned as anti-Semitic. (And, correctly, I think, sometimes is spoken of as such today). Meanwhile, support of Israel among American Jews remains high, but perhaps not as enthusiastic as once. This is, of course, an outsider’s opinion, but that is how it appears to one aging WASP observer.
So we have a declining support of Israel in the US and the rise of a part of the Democratic Party(its far left)which is at least doubtful of our support of the Israeli state. Some of the more radical ones are openly hostile to it. The Republicans, seldom known for support of minority rights in the past, now have an opportunity to present themselves as the opponents of anti-Semitism. And the US Government, whoever is in charge of it, is faced with some terrible choices.
Firstly, as noted, we must support Israel’s independence and right to exsist. And this means we must be opposed to the brutal and manically anti-Semiitc Hamas and its murderous leaders who have never expressed regret for the slaughter of Oct 1. At the same time we have to deal with Israel’s government run by the egoist Netanyahu who is now openly accused by his own people, of using the war to promote his own political career(and maybe keep out of jail as he has been accused of criminal activity)
Much of this has been the case for sometime and is not new. But it was pushed more to the fore in recent days by the discovery of the bodies of six young Israeli citizens who had been taken captive Oct 1 and held as hostages. They and their families had hopes of getting them back as a kind of prisoner exchange when they were all apparently murdered by their Hamas captors as Israeli troops closed in on them.
The sorrow and outrage of this, coming just at a time of hopefulness but also at a time when Netanyahu has chosen to express his stubbornness and self- serving pride again, sent thousands of his fellow citizens into the streets shouting for his resignation.
This is not the first time this has happened. It did earlier when he presented his plan(later withdrawn)to reduce the power of the Israeli Supreme Court which he perceived as a nuisance or a threat (or both). But the crowds appear(to me on cable TV news, anyway)to be larger this time. And I think the faces are angrier. And the war weariness of a battered people who have endured this misery for the better part of a year is obvious.
So what would you do if you were President? There’s no easy answer. The one big issue right now seems to be the Gaza-Egypt border where Hamas insists that no Israeli troops should be. Netanyahu insists that they be there to monitor the possible movement of weapons into the hands of Hamas. Each side pretty much says its position is non-negotiable.
You.ve likely seen maps showing this on TV news. This is the one that shows you Gaza or at least southern Gaza and where it touches Egypt. The border is also known, for reasons not entirely clear to me, “the Philadelphi” corridor(not “Philadelphia” as I and I’ll bet thousands of others originally thought). The name seems to have been chosen in recent years by the israelis but has a long history in Egypt.
Anyway, this issue was supposedly settle about 20 years ago when Israel and Egypt agreed Israel would stay out and Egypt would guarantee that no weapons were allowed across the border into Gaza. But at that time(mid 2000’s)the old Fatah party still controlled Gaza. Two or three years later Hamas took over and, of course, things changed.
The Israelis seized the border early in the current war and as a matter of wartime strategy it’s hard to blame them. But it has become a matter of serious contention now and is blocking the way to peace. It is possibly one of the reasons for the devastating and disgusting murders of the six young Israelis a few days ago. However, important the corridor may be(and it obviously could be important)to Israeli security, Netanyahu’s determination to hold onto it regardless of the cost to his own people and the Israeli hostages has led to the almost un-precedented crowds in the streets Israel has has for days now, demanding Netanyahu make concession on the corridor and/or resign. The Israeli people, many of them, now want to make concessions They are beyond hope and beyond outrage at what has happened to their young people and they are making Israel a less stable democracy(though I think democracy there is still safe–for the moment).
So, what do we do? One of the most brutal and frankly hateful enemies we’ve ever faced is Hamas, morally equivalent to the Nazis or Pol Pot(They issued “new orders” the other day which apparently are to shoot more hostages if there is any Israeli attempt to free them). There appears to be no compromising and no reasoning with them. They want Jews killed and Israel subdued if not totally eliminated. That’s one side.
On the other we have our staunch ally now run by a man whose drive for power and self-protective instincts outweigh anything else in his mind and thoughts. His morality seems to be that of the new breed of “strongmen” emerging, unfortunately, all over the world, from North Korea to Turkey to Bylorussia and Brazil–and the USA? And he too says there will be no compromise on the strip(which years ago, incidentally was “the Gaza Strip”). Is the US powerless in this?
Well, almost, but I think there might be some hope. If the President and Sec Blinken were both steadfast and understanding with Netanyahu they might get some kind of minimal concession from him on the strip. No, I don’t know what it would be and I’m sure Netanyahu and a lot of other Israelis would hate it. But look how many Israeli citizens now want some concession rather than further risk to the hostages. And consider the possible consequences if Netanyahu’s “steadfastness” leads to a list toward one man rule.
So I think it is worth an effort on the part of the Biden Administration. The Vice-President obviously should be involved for :political” reasons, both national and international. Getting Trump on board would be desirable but is likely impossible. But the effort should be made. And if Netanyahu can be brought to make even the slightest concession, then there might be hope. And the onus for not cooperating and for keeping the violence going might shift just a little more to Hamas leader Sinwar.
And if nothing can be done, then let Sinwar and Netanyahu wear the blame together, two men who hate each other but apparently without any care for the pain their hatred brings to others. This has happened before–for example Hitler and Stalin. I am not comparing Netanyahu to them(exactly)in his overall morality or leadership. But the parallels are difficult for an historian of recent centuries to overlook.
Let me close with the comment that as I have more than once mentioned, my favorite source of printed news is “The Economist,” a British publication which has been holding up the “liberal”(but not necessarily “leftist”)side in political and economic matters since 1843. It is, I think, a publication of great good judgement and run by people of good hearts and heads who know how to make the two work together.
The recent Economist has a lot in it about Sudan, another unhappy nation, but one that gets little attention in Western news. I suggest you read their 2 articles about Sudan with an eye to the fact that what happens there could well affect what I’ve been writing about—“The Mideast.” Actually, I may be back with a few comments on their wise and well considered opinions myself.
-
Time to Make a Choice
I have already communicated the fact that I watched the debate last week with increasing depression and disappointment as it went on. The President, far from being at his best, was closer to his worst. He looked haggard and worn, he spoke slowly and somewhat indistinctly at times and worst of all, he sometimes made no sense. The train of thought left the station before he did, or so it seemed.
My immediate response was that he simply needed to step aside, to announce that he had changed his mind and would not seek a second term. This announcement, coming before the convention, would presumably be accompanied by a release of his delegates and a convention free to make its own choice,
Of course, there are difficulties with this. It would be admitting that the President is not up to the job and that Democrats nearly nominated him a second time. It would remove the most stabilizing person(still, I think)in the Democratic Party and leave it leaderless and rudderless with the more traditional center-left Dems and the more radical ones free to slug it out, publicly or privately or both. It would present anyone who wanted to pursue the nomination with little time to organize and raise money. So much could go wrong.
But then there was Donald Trump’s debate performance. One survey showed the watchers of the debate agree 2-1 that Trump won. Well, to tell the truth I would have to say Trump won too, won in that he looked stronger, physically and mentally, and more likely to be able to take over(now there’s an idea for you-hold onto it). I even had to agree with him on one occasion when after Biden’s most rambling and confused moment of the evening he commented that Biden likely didn’t know what he was saying. True or not, it had that appearance.
But he was the same Trump. He told lie after lie, some of them egregiously stupid in that they could be easily checked(it was Nancy Pelosi’s fault that the troops did not arrive Jan 6 in time to quell the violence)and some just nutty. He also has taken lately, in recent days particularly, to threatening his political opponents. This is not something new to Trump, but it seems to be increasingly paranoid. “We’re coming for you” he says, meaning, we presume, his Justice Department after he’s President again. And he has named both Biden and Harris as possible targets to be imprisoned. He does this with a sincerity and dedication that make you wonder which would be worse–that he was just demagoging it or that he actually meant it. The latter would indicate the possibility of serious mental issues of his own.
The Professional Democrats(and I mean nothing snarky by using that term)are sticking by Joe. That is the members of Congress and Governors, to a very great extent stand by him, and so do most of the former non-elected power people(Carville, Stephanopoulos, Axelrod). But the latter group is less united and less convinced as you know if you’ve seen those three gentlemen interviewed. And the man who made him President, Rep. Jim Clyburn of SC, was tolerant, but nervous. He chose to stick by the President but added that this was a little bit like baseball–three strikes and you’re out. He sounded as if felt the President had had one strike so far.
As for me, I was in a quandary. Who knows what will happen if he serves another term? But what other choice do we really have? And I went round and round with myself with this and I decided it came down to two questions. 1)What would the US and the world be like if Biden won? 2)What would the US and the world be like if he lost? Which would be worse?
If Biden wins, the country and the world will likely be less stable. I actually think he has done a good job so far and may still be able to do one, particularly in foreign affairs where he has both experience and good instincts on the one hand and a terrific Secretary of State on the other. He’s also done well on most domestic policy matters, although I am aware of peoples’ feelings regarding inflation and the southern border.
It’s possible he would continue to be able to work at this level. But it also is possible he won’t. He is tired and the Presidency in no place to get your strength back. It’s a place which drains you of it. And regardless of that, how much cognitive decline could there be.? Maybe none, I know, but maybe a lot. And I don’t like to think about a cognitively diminished President dealing with a more aggressive Putin somewhere, possibly Ukraine. Or trying to solve the conundrum of how to be fair to both Moslems and Jews in the Gaza disaster. Or to handle Kim Jong Un if he suddenly threatens to use his atomic weapons directly against us. His foreign policy advantages of the past might not be up to it. And the future of civilization, certainly Western Civilization and individual freedom, would be at stake,
But then, what if he lost, and the nation got a second Trump Presidency? What would that likely portend? Well, nothing good, I have to say. What Trump’s mental state is I hesitate to even guess at. He is clearly more cognitively agile than Biden, uses words better and is occasionally capable of irony. But he is also capable of wild flights of fancy that take us to very odd places., I have mentioned some of this already, with his threats to jail political opponents. And he has odd ideas about loyalty and service in which it always seems that service ends up meaning personal service to him and his ego, not, or only secondarily, to the country.
What would he do in one of the scenarios I suggested above? Could he handle a determined and skilled Putin? A nutcase gone wild Kim? A possible confrontation with China in the Taiwan area or elsewhere? How would he do that? How would he convince them that he was solid enough to deal with and composed enough to hope for success?
I have mentioned to my wife and maybe a couple of others lately, that I can’t help remembering something I wrote about Alf Landon and FDR. I said something to the effect of how the US has faced situations in which it had two good choices but one had to lose–and also when it had two less desirable choices and unfortunately one had to win. I am afraid our country is heading into one of the latter.
So, what do I believe?–1) Although I am perhaps not aware of all the pitfalls involved here, I think Joe Biden, an excellent man and a very good President, now needs to step aside. I’m sorry, Mr President. We all love and honor you for your service, your courage in the face of all you have endured, and the way you have gone on to serve this country. But now I think it’s time to go, and may you live long and prosper, in all ways, in retirement. Of course you will continue to do your job with your usual determination and dedication until it is time for someone, perhaps VP Harris, perhaps someone else to pick up where you left off.
2) I doubt, for a number of reasons, that this will happen. For better or worse, Joe is likely to be the Democratic candidate we have all been expecting. I will not now delineate the reasons I believe this is likely, but it does appear what’s going to happen. If this is the case, then I hope he will beat Trump. The idea that Trump and who-knows who(Steve Bannon maybe one of them?) will be in positions of power and influence hardly bears considering in the world that the US may be entering. Because I dislike the idea of another Trump Administration so much, I would be willing to vote and contribute to Joe’s efforts. And while you’re at it, old boy, pull in a Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress. If Trump should win, that would put a nice blue wall between him and where he wants to go. It might be one of your greatest contributions.
But please consider the other way out. Despite the confusion it would engender, it just might work–lots of good potential Presidents out there including your VP. In any event, peace to you and many thanks.
-
A Debate and an Election–Then(Maybe) Three Bix Messes–A Brief Lecture on British and American Politics
Predicting these next three things is dicey–the last two depend heavily on who wins the election and that depends, to some degree, on the debate. The other one, which I’ll go after first is also quite uncertain in some ways.
The Republican National Convention is set to meet in Milwaukee, Jul 15-18. This is the city that Trump recently insulted but I’ll bet that makes very little difference in how the MAGA folks feel and therefore will make very little difference to his reception. Certainly, this is not a convention in which there is serious doubt as to who will get the Presidential nomination. Actually there hasn’t been one of those since the 1960’s, or, perhaps stretching a bit, the 1980’s.
But you never know about conventions. Everything may go just about exactly as planned and still weird things happen. H L Mencken once pointed out that you can sit through hours of boredom at a convention, then something ridiculous and unusual , something absurd will happen that–well, I don’t think he said it makes it all worth it, but you get the idea, I’ll bet. And maybe this will happen in Milwaukee.
There have been many “moments” at conventions that stick in memories of those who experience them in person or on media, or later read about them or saw TV or movie news clips of them. Here are some of my favorites(No I did not see all of them)–The NY Democratic convention of 1924 in which the KKK dominated south and the Al Smith dominated north just about fought each other to a draw, before narrowly defeating an anti-Klan plank in the platform; The 1940 Republicans in Philadelphia nominating a former Democrat, Wendell Willkie to the roars of approval of his backers who had secured places in the balcony; The 1948 Democrats listening to Huber Humphrey tell them it was time to move “out from the shadow of state’s rights and into the sunshine of human rights;” the 1960 Dems in LA listening to Eugene McCarthy make a pleading nominating speech for 2-time loser Adlai Stevenson-“I tell you, do not reject this man …who made us all proud to be Democrats.” Then the same convention nominating the putative(and actual, it turned out)first Roman Catholic President as JFK finally got his majority from Wyoming, alphabetically the last state in the roll call.
There were others, later–NY Gov Rockefeller at San Francisco in 1964 telling the majority conservative convention what they didn’t want to hear about things like justice, and giving little nods to the delegates as they hissed and booed. The awful mess the Democrats had, partially of their own making, in 1968 Chicago with protesters, and finally police beating protesters in the streets. The 1976 Democrats taking a chance on a born again southern Governor, Jimmy Carter. Four years later the Republicans taking their own chances on a former movie actor(and Governor)Ronald Reagan. The 1992 Dems going for a handsome, charming and also brilliant southern governor who would bring glory and shame and was the best Democratic politician of the late 20th century(that’s Bill Clinton, by the way). Well, I won’t go on–I’m about to get into contemporary America here. But all these conventions and others have provided excitement. Conventions nearly always do, thoug some far more than others.
The Republicans will presumably meet with almost no suspense at all, unless Trump chooses to wait until the convention to announce his choice for running mate. But things could still be interesting. Perhaps Larry Hogan, former Governor and US Senatorial candidate for Maryland will make his presence know. He is just about the only Republican politician of note who is likely to say anything short of admiring about Trump–well, he and maybe Mitt Romney and Chris Christie.
But there will be a real convention at least, not a covid-dominated TV only one such as 2020 gave us. There will really be delegates in the seats and reporters in the aisles. And there will be much talk about the future and what a second Trump term would mean. This might be interesting, because if some of the more extreme MAGA-types have their way there will a lot of far right oratory which may impress the base and depress the others–including millions watching on TV who sort of want to vote for Trump but don’t like the extremism or vicious words of Marjorie Taylor Green.
One always wants to be careful about taking party platforms and other promises too seriously–sometimes they’re strictly for show. But the platform usually gives a clue as to where the leaders want to go. At least I assume there will be a platform to analyze. In 2020 the Republicans just announced Trump was their platform and let it go at that. Even they won’t want to try that again. Will they?Most likely the Republican convention will not be a mess in the, uh, conventional way. Quarrelling, disputes and people yelling “Mr. Chairman” in order to try to make fellow delegates listen–or to impress a TV audience. Certainly I don’t anticipate brawls in the streets although there could be some anti-Trump demonstrators who will make(or try to)their points.
About all TV followers can do is take note of who gets to speak and see what they say. Oh, yeah, we can guess most of it but one never knows how these folks will go. Also watch for anything like the slightest bit of diversion from the MAGA line. I can’t imagine there will be much, perhaps not any. But if there is it could denote possible divisions down the road. In any event, the debate may determine some of this. I don’t know what attitudes Trump is like to take tonight, but they could be indicators of what’s to come, particularly what he plans to promote and allow at the convention.
It is even more difficult to guess at what the British election will mean for political life there including their foreign policy. With the election nearing it is still difficult to say who is going to win by how much. British politics, which I can remember as breaking down to what was sometimes called a modified two party system has become much more complicated. Back then, a generation or so ago, the two main parties were the Conservatives(sometimes called, as a sort of nickname, The Tories, their original name),and the Laborites; and there were the Liberals. The Liberals had once been, for about a century or more, just about equal with the Conservatives for the position of No 1. The new Labor Party appeared in the very late 19th century and by shortly after WWI had replaced the Liberals as no 2, sometimes electing their own Prime Minister(but not many before WWII).
The Liberals, meanwhile, faded to third place, but hung on to a place in memory and to a small but I think fairly loyal following which kept them , just barely, in the game. Sometimes, when the House of Commons was a very close divide between the two others, the Liberals could hold the balance of power by choosing one way or another to give their support.
The Liberals survive only in a sense today. For a generation or more they have been combined with a “new” party, the Social Democrats and now the two of them are one as the Liberal Democrats. They actually made a coalition government with David Cameron’s Conservatives some years ago.
Two relative newcomers are the UKIP(United Kingdom Independent party) and the British Reform Party. These are both conservative groups, sometimes described as right-wing populists. They violently oppose most immigration and particularly Islamic influence.
They both were strongly for Brexit as they wish to keep the UK “indepedent” of Europe.
They are a confusing pair to compare or define as they tend to change leadership frequently and therefore some opinions may be in and then out again in short order. A former Conservative politician, Nigel Fararge(who has run for the Commons many times and lost) has played a leading role in both of them and at present seems to be once again aligned with the Reform Party. As to foreign policy he is mainly known for blaming the Ukrainian war on Putin but arguing the West antagonized him by building up NATO. He sounds like an uncertain supporter of Ukraine in the unlikely circumstance that he should achieve much power or influence.
The UKIP and The Reform party are largely alike, as stated. It is difficult to see them as having much real influence, but if they got it it is even harder to surmise what they would do with it in foreign policy(or much of anything else). I should think that to the extent they are taken seriously as possible British power figures by foreign governments, they are regarded as unpredictable and possible trouble makers.
Despite paying fairly close attention to British affairs, I am at something of a loss to guess what the election will mean to UK foreign policy. While it began with a dicey relationship with Israel(dicey because of their touchy colonial-subject relations previously)they became allies against anti-colonialist policies and anti-Western leaders in the Arab world a few years later. They have frequently taken the same side in disputes at the UN. It would be my guess that in the unlikely event of continuing Conservative leadership in Westminster, they would likely maintain their relationship. I would also expect the Conservatives to remain strong supporters of Ukraine.
But continuing Conservative rule appears very unlikely. While the polls are at considerable variance almost all of them predict a huge Conservative defeat. Some go so far as to say they Tories will slip below 100 Members of the Commons and become the 3rd largest party there, which would mean the Liberals would be the “official opposition” for the first time in about a century.
The Laborites would rule and Sir Keir Starmer would become Prime Minister. He seems a stable and possibly forceful leader to me and I would have some confidence in him. I saw David Lammy who would likely be Foreign secretary on TV the other night and was very impressed with him–an honest-seeming, humorous and generous sounding politician who took issues seriously, but did not do the same with himself, usually a good sign.
These two would at least be the beginnings of a good government, I think. And regarding their foreign policy–well, it is questionable to guess on people about whom one knows little, but I would expect the Labor foreign policy to differ little from that of Rishi Sunak, the current Conservative PM. I think strong support for Ukraine and a serious effort to bring a halt to the disaster in Gaza would be seriously pursued. That is my not-very-well-informed opinion. If tested, I hope it’s right.
So the issues are we have explored here are about to be off and running. As I type this in my home town library, we are about 4 hours short of the debate, about 2 hours short of the lead-in(in lead-in and following discussion time it’s like the Super Bowl). So watch and enjoy and reflect. It is assumed by many, and the certainly may be right, that the debate will be the biggest deciding factor in how Americans vote this year.
-
A Debate and an Election, Then(Maybe)Three Big Messes–a Brief Lecture on British and American Politics
The next British Parliamentary Election is set for July 4. No, I don’t think it was done as a joke or an exercise in irony. Nonetheless the date is striking. Our(ostensible)date of Independence may become Britain’s date of dependence on a new kind of politics. First Past the Post(FPTP) voting may yield, eventually, to something like proportional representation. All this is covered rather more than adequately in an article by John Burn-Murdoch which you may find easily onlone if you wish to pursue this further.
Before that happens, however, the US is set to kick off this possible mass of political nuttiness with the first of two Presidential Debates for the Upcoming Election. This is set for this coming Thu, Jun 27 and holds the possibility of seriously contributing to the election process and also the possibility of turning into a row; the moderator’s ability to shut off the participants’ mics when they are not speaking should help. Both Biden and Trump are working seriously on this as I write.
The three possible messes that could follow from these, debate and election, are the Republican convention, the vagaries of British political acumen and foreign policy, and the prospects for global peace, particularly relating to the Middle East and Ukraine. Let’s take them, briefly but seriously, one by one
The number one political topic on US TV news these past two mornings was the Debate and how both participants will do. Of course opinions on NBC, ABC and CNN were all over the place, but if there was one discernable, agreed upon fact, it was that both candidates could help themselves and both could screw it up.
There is an opportunity for each of them. If Biden does well, particularly if he looks mentally alert and reasonably forceful, he may be able to stop the decline in his popularity. Actually, some very recent polls show it may have stopped and very slightly reversed itself already. But the changes are very small and not much verified. They may be results of Trump’s conviction. Whatever the facts surrounding this, Biden needs to look competent and strong enough. If he does, the effect of that, combined with whatever drove the recent change I mentioned above, could turn things around. If he fails to give a good performance, however, he will be in a real mess, his election chances varying according to make up attempts, luck and serious flubs by the Trumpites.
Trump’s opportunity is to make himself taken more seriously by the large number of voters who consider a tiresome bore with no coherent message and no reasonable sense of much of anything. This appears to have moved some of his people to have lectured him over the weekend for he has suddenly calmed down a little bit. He stopped speaking of Biden’s mental lapses and he admitted he(the President)is a good debater. He appeared to take seriously the idea that debate may be more than another vehicle for his ego. He may be able to take advantage of these revelations, or his personality may prohibit his doing so.
One thing going on here may be an attempt to raise the bar on Biden in a peculiar but possibly effective way. The Trumpites may now be worried that they have shown such contempt for Biden as to lower expectations among the public to the extent that any halfway passable Presidential effort may look like a victory. Now by granting that he has shown debating and other skills in the past, they may be trying to raise that bar again. This is a convoluted and rather strange way to mess with the debate. It might work.
Biden’s chief trouble is the age issue and anything negative which may seem to flow from that. This is a matter of both cognitive abilities and just plain energy/strength which many seem to think he lacks(I agree that at least sometimes, he gives that impression). Now Joe is known for gaffes and has been for many years. What the source of this is(other than stuttering)I refuse to speculate upon, but it’s clearly there and part of him. He’s been made fun of for it since he was in his 40’s, so to put it down to his age is ludicrous. He also seems to get his facts right most of the time. He struggles to think of a name now and then–well, welcome to no longer being young, buddy. Nearly everyone does that. But most of us don’t have the misfortune to do it on TV while running for President.
Still, this is not an issue to take lightly. Obviously a real cognitive issue in a President would be a very serious matter, particularly with the world seeming, unfortunately, to be moving from a more peaceful stance back to one reminiscent of the cold war era. Given his tendency to do low level stuttering and to make a hash of his sentences at times, it is incumbent upon Biden to be careful in the debate. He has made a number of good speeches lately on Ukraine, the Middle East and other matters. He needs to keep it up.
He also needs to look more vigorous. This may be the tougher of the two. He is, well, an old man and nothing is going to make him look 45 again. But there are some things he can do. He must remain calm, within reason. (I think he was well within his rights when he told Trump to shut up in a 2020 debate.) Although not know as much as many politicians for his temper, he must clamp down on displays of it. But most of all, he needs to watch his voice. This is not something over which he will have absolute control, but he needs to do whatever he can. He has to, via his voice and manner, project the impression that he is in control and capable of making good decisions.
Of course he also needs to explain how his programs have been working and what he thinks they will continue to do as well as how they will bring about what people want.
Trump has to worry about showing himself off as a bad-tempered, quick on the trigger responder, full of bluster and hot air, and without the patience to discern when faced with difficult choices. It appears some of his more sensible people have gotten to him, as he was speaking of Biden’s debating talents the other night as if he expected a serious effort from his opponent. This is likely to be the most watched and analyzed Presidential Debate in history. It is likely to be the most, or at least one of the most influential in determining the election outcome. Please watch.
OK, that’s enough for now. I intend to be back soon(very soon, I would hope)with Part II.
-
And It’s Still The Case
More than half a year ago, on the day Hamas launched its murderous attack on Israelis, I did an article I entitled “The Biden-Blinken Nightmare–Two Foreign Crises, One Domestic One and No Apparent Solution.” Now we have a very similar situation. We still have the two foreign crises, the same ones in different stages. We also have a new one at home, insecurity and political showboating thanks to the Trump trial. So, I think it appropriate that I reflect on this a bit, particularly since I haven’t blogged in more than a month (I’ve been involved in a project which I may expand upon a bit later)
The above mentioned two foreign crises were Ukraine and Israel. They are still there though in somewhat different forms. Ukraine is perhaps the more dangerous one in the long run. Israel is maybe the more disturbing one now with its gross and inhuman contempt for human pain and its ability to bring out the worst in nearly everyone on both sides (or however many there are) in the Middle East, the USA (particularly college campuses, supposedly both judicious and humane), and elsewhere.
In October 2023 Ukraine was running low on ammunition and money and was in a position of looking at a time when it might be literally unable to defend itself against the Russians. The US Government was unable to act thanks to a recalcitrant Congress, mostly Republicans in the House (I have since commented on Republicans and Isolationism–you might want the check that one again).
The Biden Administration, accompanied by a number of saner Republicans (and including new Speaker Mike Johnson, to whom I extend great thanks) tried to turn this around. It took a longer time than it should have, but it finally worked, and the bill passed the House by a comfortable margin. So now Ukraine has the money to supply itself with the defensive weapons it needs. But it has to hurry. The Russian army is moving in on them, claiming victories in several cities in Eastern Ukraine and this time the Russians seem to be telling the truth (they do that when they’re winning).
The trouble is that the supplies may not be as quick as needed in arriving. Beyond that, although the amount provided is fairly generous, this weapons supply will not last indefinitely. And when and if (as most likely will happen) more is needed the same issue will re-appear. Will it be possible to get a sufficient number of members of the US Congress and enough of our European allies to get on board again? Maybe, but divided as the world (Europe included, unfortunately) is this is by no means assured. And if Ukraine goes down or is forced to settle for a peace leaving Russia in the dominant position …Well, maybe I’ll get back to that later, preferably in another blog
The situation in Israel is grabbing the headlines(those available, anyway) from Ukraine to some extent, actually a fairly large extent. This is because of the great pain that has been endured by so many on both sides and the seeming resistance of people on both sides to trying to reach a humane and decent settlement.(This will be difficult given the inhumanities visited on each side).
NOW-to be perfectly clear, I am, as I have stated before, a dedicated friend of Israel. We must protect their right to exist without qualification. And, if push came to shove, I’m sure the US would do that. In other words, we must, for reasons moral, strategic and long term honorable, defy any attempt to wipe them out and eliminate their state from the map. And make no mistake, there are people on the other side who want to do just that, though I doubt the idea gets much support from the more balanced Arab governments.
But now we have an additional complication. Yesterday, Ireland, Spain and Norway, three of our better friends, usually, “recognized” an independent Palestinian State. Now there is no such thing as a Palestinian State right now. There is the West Bank area of Israel, governed (more or less) by the Palestinian Authority. See my earlier article on this for more information. But it did occur to me that it’s hard to see how you “recognize”(the word they apparently used, perhaps on purpose given its diplomatic implications) something that is not yet in existence.
As a pro-Israeli person who dislikes Netanyahu and would like to see peaceful intentions on both sides, I would like to add the following– It is unfortunate that these three nations chose to act in this way and at this time. If they felt they needed to say something right away, I think it would have been more sensible to announce that you “favor “a West Bank Palestinian State as part of the “Two State Solution” we have heard about for some time now. That would appear to be exactly what they are asking for, and although words are not always that important, this may be one of the cases in which they are.
But if they had only said so, it would have been better. If they had just said they favored a 2-state solution and that they would recognize such a Palestinian State, that would have been much better. It would not have included the confusing anomaly of “recognizing” a current non-entity and, more importantly, it might have muted slightly the vigorous outrage with which Israel and the Biden Administration both responded. Well, the latter one, anyway, might have been affected. This would have been desirable in that it is always desirable to keep down the voices and the tempers in trying to defuse an apparently intractable diplomatic issue.
In the long run all this may make no difference. But it is an example of how this hideous problem for the West, the Middle East and the World is subject to many twists and turns of both politics and words, and that sometimes the latter may be the more confusing, the more inclined to inhibit progress.
Of course, I recognize there is an additional complication now in that the ICC(International Criminal Court), two days ago issued what amounts to an indictment of Netanyahu and the leaders of Hamas. As a longtime non-admirer of Netanyahu, I still must say that I have my doubts about this. The one thing the chief prosecutor, Kalid Khan, was presumably looking for (in addition to real justice) is a sense of “equivalence,” a feeling that the two sides are being treated equally. This may play well among some, both leaders and the masses, in certain Middle Eastern countries. But Israel and the US are claiming outrage and I more or less agree with them.
The great irony is that it really IS true that there has been serious viciousness on both sides and that it is conceivable that some on each side deserved to be charged with Crimes Against Humanity. Even so, given the atrocious behavior of Hamas in the attack last October, I fail to see that “equivalency” is there. Many Israelis did cruel and vicious things, yes. But I don’t see that they matched Hamas.
This makes it difficult to see how to proceed and it may make the whole issue more difficult to solve. My own hope is that everyone involved, the ICC, the Israelis and their enemies, Hamas or whoever, will for once follow the same policy. Don’t bluster, don’t threaten and don’t hold more press conferences on this, at least not now. This is a time for everyone involved to be quiet and maybe(maybe)feelings will calm just a tiny bit on each side.
Given the complicated rules surrounding how the ICC works and what authority it has, it is just about impossible to imagine them ever getting ahold of Netanyahu or his enemies, the Hamas leaders. So, in the long run it may be a non-issue. But it will take a while to get there. So, get ready to hear a lot about this and hope for cooler heads to prevail on each side and among the ICC which I hope will refrain from pushing this issue against seemingly impossible odds. Or, as I said at the end of a blog some months ago, it’s a time to remember that old hymn than urges “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.”
-
A Reflection Upon Tragedy and Inspiration
Elaine Pagels, “Why Religion? A Personal Story”
Harper Collins, 2018, 216 pp
I first read this book sometime ago and for, well, awhile, had thought to make it the subject of a blog. I knew it would not interest all and might offend some, but it was such a book, both excellent and important, that I felt I had to do it. I have likely made this article too long for many, but there was so much to cover. Don’t worry–I have my eye on a literary autobiography and a study of past and current international politics which I think I should be able to dispense with in a more reasonable length.
I decided to do it as a Christmas read in tandem with Anne Lamott’s “Hallelujah Anyway” and in fact I did read them both last fall and do a fairly long blog that contained reviews of both of them. It did not take me long to decide this was a mistake. As you know, if you’ve read Anne, she is no stranger to sorrow and trouble and not a pusher of a religion of easy answers. She takes on trouble without flinching and confronts it with reason, good sense, faith and, of course, her own, personal brand of humor. Maybe you read what I said about her, I hope so.
But Elaine Pagels is another author and “Why, Religion-A Personal Story” another book and the two just didn’t mesh with each other(they are not diametrically opposed but they are different), Furthermore “Why?” did not mesh with the ‘Christmas Spirit” or maybe we should call it something else, a point I won’t speculate on further now. But the overall feeling of merriment that surrounds Christmas, though possibly a bit wide of the point of the original holiday, is overwhelming and to have tossed Pagels’s short, poetic, gut wrenching, , searching and brutally honest memoir in with it would have been a disservice to her and to you and maybe to the season. Whatever the origins of the “Christmas Spirit,” it obviously has come to epitomise merriment and joy although there’s always enough pain around to make you question it. But most people who don’t have a recent or impending tragedy in their lives manage to get on with the merriment. And the world being as it is, I guess that’s about right.
It is now Lent, well plus a bit now, the season of regret, and it got here quickly. This year its quick arrival had a lot to do with the calendar and the fact of Easter being a “moveable feast.” But it always comes quickly after the holidays or seems to. As W H Auden memorably put it in “After Christmas,” “Ash Wednesday and Lent cannot now be too far behind.” Or words to that effect.
Elaine Pagels, whose thoughts and writing can be “searing” as one critic put it , came from an upper ,middle class family from Palo Alto. She had an intelligent but cold father who had apparently kept the emotional repressions of his early conservative Protestantism, but jettisoned the religion and the loving part for a scarily logical following of everything “scientific.” Her mother seems to have been stunningly “proper” in the 1950’s US Middle Class Woman fashion but suppressed. She occasionally took Elaine to Sunday School at a Methodist Church but never pushed it very hard. They sound a grim pair.
Not surprisingly Elaine had emotional pain. As a teenager she was taken by a friend to a Billy Graham service and was enraptured by the enthusiastic emotionalism. She became an Evangelical Christian for a few years. In college she naturally tended toward the more interestingly intellectual students on campus and was a friend of, among others, Jerry Garcia. She left the Evangelical approach behind but did not find anything new with which to replace it.- Except maybe study. Her study was , broadly speaking, the history of religion, so she was in the position of having abandoned most belief but retained the interest in where it all came from and what it meant.,
Eventually she worked her way into the doctoral program in religion at Harvard, One respected scholar, asked why she wanted to be there. She said “Because I want to find the essence of Christianity.” He said, “How do you know it has one?” She knew she was in the right place. That was exactly the kind of question she wished to pursue.
Harvard was not entirely accepting. Women in such doctoral programs were still at least unusual, and there was a fair amount of sexism, the worst of which came in several years of sexual harrassment by one professor who was an admired liberal to most people. She held up and endured. Today he would have been disciplined, likely fired.
But she found excitement and joy there too in studying the origins of Christianity and other religions and trying to make sense of man’s way of creating different religions, many of which ask similar questions,. She was still in her thirties when she published “The Gnostic Gospels,” which became a best seller and a disturber to some. A few years later she met and married Heinz Pagel, a young theoretical physicist. And at this point we need, temporarily, to discuss the two aspects of her life, personal and professional..
After getting her Ph.D at Harvard she moved on, eventually, to teaching at Princeton where she has, at least on and off, remained since. She also has published over the years many books, more than twenty, on religious history, mostly early Christianity and its divisions and disagreements. She is certainly one of the leading biblical-religious scholars of Christianity in the country, perhaps in the world.
But while her professional life blossomed, her personal life brought sorrow. She and Heinz had a baby, Mark, who was born with a heart defect. It proved impossible to cure and they were told Mark would have what appeared to be a fairly normal childhood for a few years, but never come close to growing up. This turned out to be tragically true. The young couple spent a year trying to put themselves back together again and to recover from losing Mark, when Heinz, an experienced hiker, was killed by falling off a mountain in the Rockies. Elaine, understandably, went into despair at the viciousness of these two great blows and tried to fight her way out. With the help of friends and therapists and at least one session of LSD she began to recover but it was a slow and painful progress and likely still is not and won’t be completed.
Mark’s death was fairly sudden. Expected, but not like that. One day he was in school, the next he was having heart surgery. Elaine held him, but “at a certain moment I sensed that his life had left his body, and the intimate connection we’d been sharing suddenly seemed to break …when his cardiologist arrived, I turned toward her and fell down, losing consciousness. Then I seemed to be in a brilliant place, vividly green, with golden light.”
Later, after coming back to ordinary consciousness she and Heinz sat together, held each other and waited. Eventually they were told Mark’s heart was beating again and they went to him, but it stopped beating soon. Elaine felt he had heard their voices and gone back into his body but found it couldn’t sustain life. “Strangely, I also sensed that he felt a burst of joy and relief to leave his exhausted body.” And Heinz and Elaine waited by their son’s body for hours until it became clear that he was gone, “his body deserted.”
The next months were months of trying to go on with ordinary life and trying to recover. Elaine’s work, studying religion, drove her further than some to ask the big questions, including “Why do we suffer and why do we die?” And she noted that Christianity and Judaism both seem to say, or at least hypothesize that pain comes as the result of sin. Similar thoughts are there in ancient Greek thought. And so the problem–why guilt and what is to be done? And there were not good answers, just stumbling cliches people thought of, such as that they would learn a “spiritual lesson” from this.
The Pagels were just beginning to recover about a year later when they returned to their beloved Rockies. Heinz, an experienced hiker soon died in a fall. And the roof fell in on Elaine, a double dose of tragedy in a relatively short time. And now she had two adopted children to deal with by herself..
Once again she went through the grief process, buffeted by it by now. Once again some people were understanding and some weren’t. She had along the way made friends with some in the Episcopal Church and some Roman Catholic Trappist monks. These helped some but nothing could fill the void. She tried to understand and to deal with pain and anger again. She seems never to have succeeded entirely but did find some hints and these hints she shares with us the rest of the book.
One of her first efforts when she began to search for the answers(or the lack of them)was, understandably, the Book of Job and the concept of Satan. Here we have the world’s best known story of pain and guilt or guiltlessness and of Evil personified and working against man. She reviews the story. I imagine you know it. Satan, or anyway an evil one(“a satan” in at least one translation)confronts God mockingly regarding the loyalty of those who worship him. God responds “Have you considered by servant, Job?” And Satan, having looked at Job carefully, brings down a series of disasters on him-loss of family, wealth, etc. Now, according to Elaine, an original version of the story has Job holding fast through this all, But in the one most of us know now, Job rebels and asks God why all this is happening. God replies, in an utterance that is unbeatable in its majesty and frankly theatrical beauty,, but still I think morally unsatisfying, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the world?” In other words, you don’t know the whole story, And Job repents in ashes and dust and then has nearly everything restored to him.
Elaine hypothesizes that Job was likely originally two stories or at least a story with two distinct parts. She thinks the writer pulled these two apart, inserted his own thoughts after part 1, then addended part 2. And this makes both literary and psychological sense to me, particularly if you accept her idea that the middle part, added by the later author, was the author speaking for himself and for all the others in the world who have suffered without noticeable sin and who would like to know why. And he–the writer–uses his anger and sarcasm in what amounts to a confrontation with God. Of course, for all this, he never gets a satisfactory answer((See p 148 for Elaine’s reasoning of which I have given you a short and perhaps inadequate interpretation.)
One of the big unanswered questions(the big one, in fact)is why do these people suffer without having sinned? And Elaine doubles down on this commenting that Western theologies, even the ancient Greeks, seemed to think that pain was a punishment for sin, while eastern faiths such as Buddhism see the natural order as almost without evil. Of course the first noble truth of Buddha is “Life is pain,” but the pain is seen as part of nature, not as an intrusion as Western faiths believe.
She still wondered how she could go on. A fellow writer told her she should put aside academics for awhile and write about grief .And this took her back to Satan and the questions about good, evil and pain. And so she began to study the Bible carefully with an eye to these questions–and reached a conclusion that should be obvious to anyone somewhat familiar with the Bible but which I think is not. Actually, it had never called my attention to itself. And it is simply this–
In the Hebrew Bible–The Old Testament–Satan does not appear “as an evil supernatural power. Christians who identify the snake in Paradise as Satan actually are projecting a far more recent invention into that ancient story…..(some)stories in the Hebrew Bible do speak of a supernatural character they call ‘the satan’–, but …he acts more like a storytelling device than a dangerous enemy.” Christians later made changes in this and the author thinks she knows the(well “a”)reason. After the Jewish rebellion against Roman rule was crushed in 66 AD(or CE if you prefer)the Roman vengeance was severe. Many Jews, including the followers of Jesus were in danger of their lives from the Romans. And therefore they went to great extremes to shift the blame to others. Frightened of the Romans, they settled on the Jewish priesthood and other leaders who had often not been friendly to Jesus. Now they were blamed for anything including being in league with Satan, the representative of all evil and assuming his role that to some degree survives today. Pagels has a book about this simply called “The Origins of Satan” which I suspect would be worth a read.;
For twenty pages or so after this Elaine struggles with good, evil and the New
Testament, particularly Mark(acknowledged by nearly all bible scholars to have been the first gospel written despite how the books are arranged). She shows the contrasts between earlier and later version and analyzes the conflicts involved. Her conclusion is, more or less, that Mark and the Resurrection stories make no sense without Satan as the enemy and victory over him as the “good news.” Now she does not take this as necessarily being the literal, historical truth(a proposition I feel she would reject), nor suggest that anyone else must do so. But she does reach the stage where she` begins to accept that something may be going on in the universe that we are not aware of(Elaine doesn’t mention it, but Teilhard de Chardin said “Something is afoot in the universe”). Tentatively and without certainty, she thinks perhaps pain has a meaning.And she then quotes the American poet Wallace Stevens–“After the final no, there comes a yes/And on that yes, the future world depends/No was the night. Yes is the present sun.”
But her enquiring and questioning mind was still not wholly satisfied and by the time she considered the Stevens poetry she was already delving into “secret gospels” and trying to extract more meaning about what is and isn’t true and what the past has to teach us about it. The “secret gospels” are the ones found at Nag Hammadi, Egypt in 1945. They have become eclipsed by the Dead Sea Scrolls, found about 2 years later, but their importance is immense.
There are many other books on these findings. I will not deal with any of them so as to keep our attention on Elaine Pagels’s book and to avoid distracting ourselves. Suffice it to say that like the Scrolls the Nag Hamadi findings have been reported upon and written about to a very large degree, though there may still be things there to learn. But I’m sure many have read them with profit and learned a great deal. Elaine is one of them.
In her time of depression and loneliness she pursued the bible reading which she had begun with Job further and it lead her to other places in the Bible and to places outside of it. Did it lead her to the Final Answer? No, but it led her to ways of dealing with the questions and her thought is very much worth following for its approach to pain, philosophy,. religious thought and we may or ought to believe. Not all will, of course get the same answers. But I like Elaine’s well enough to pass them along.
She recounts again the original Mark which ends with a forsaken Jesus on the cross and then with the women going to the tomb. They find it empty but are frightened and confused and this part ends on a note of despair. It is impossible to know exactly what happened but apparently someone wrote a different ending, a sort of addition to what was the original story and gave it a “happy ending.” Mark had not the intention, she thinks, of writing bad news. but the good news, that good wins over Satan in the end, This includes that there may be pain along the way.” God’s victory is coming soon.” she says, “but coming from beyond the frame of his narrative, perhaps even beyond the frame of human history.”
She thought more about her own loss and wondered–“could there be something mysterious going on in the universe that we don’t see yet?”
She was of course, already familiar with the largely unknown religiious writing(After all she did write
The Gnostic Gospels.”)previously mentioned. But most people weren’t and among those who were there were a lot of clergy and others of official Christendom who disapproved of these writings and of people reading them. You can find this information in about any book on the Nag Hammadi findings, and among them will be a writing knows as the “Gospel of Thomas,”This would play a large part in Elaine’s journey for she had had a sort of vision during her worse times, of “a huge net made of ropes, surrounding all of us, with open spaces into which we might be propelled into infinity, yet bound with knots that held us in this world.”(see p 176 for fuller quotation). “What drew me back to ;;; Thomas….was a particular cluster of sayings that seemed to speak of what that vision meant”–especially sayings that were previously unknown, strange and compelling.
She noted that unlike Mark which portrays Jesus’s comments about the Kingdom of God coming as a catastrophic event, the Gospel of Thomas suggests that this was a metaphor. Jesus is seen to be saying the Kingdom is not an event expected in human time. It is a state of being that humans may reach when they come to know who they are and to know God as the source of their being. “These sayings suggest what later becomes a primary theme of Jewish mystical tradition, that the ‘image of God’ divine light gives in creation is hidden deep within each one of us. …(we should)keep on seeking until we find it”
Elaine felt that this “helped dispel isolation and turn me from despair, suggesting that every one of us is woven into the mysterious fabric of the universe, and into connection with each other, with all being, and with God.:”Her pursuit of the Nag Hammaddi writings led her more and more to sayings and ideas that were powerful and hopeful. There is a long(too long to quote here)passage from “Thunder, Complete Mind,” a poem told from the point of view of a female and mysterious being(a god?)which deals in contradictions and is scornful of easy answers . .”I am the first and the last. I am the one who is honored and the one scorned” is the beginning. Some have identified the speaker as Eve, but the poet seems to Pagels to mention Eve, but as one of a number of forms through which this divine presence reveals itself. And, she points out, many female authors including Toni Morrison and Kara Walker have used this vision in their own creative works.
She concludes this chapter with the following-“many of us wondered why the monks who collected these text included writings …that aren’t even Christian. After coming to know these texts over time, I can only conclude that what mattered most …wasn’t dogma …For the most part the creeds by which later bishops defined who was Christian had not been invented. From the first to the mid-fourth century …many Christian monks were open to exploring other traditions along with their own …Many people raised, even nominally, as I was, within Christian culture find Christianity’s traditional exclusion of anything outside its boundaries too confining, . And while finding truth for ourselves is difficult, often elusive, some of us can’t avoid the challenge: Instead, we dive in!” To me this sentence is comforting and freeing. Not that I hadn’t thought of it before–I had, maybe hundreds of times–but to have it ratified by a person of such a mind and heart is a comfort and an encouragement to push own with my own journey.
And so we come to Pagels’s last chapter. Entitled “Listening to the Thunder,” it is about the Book of Revelation” and her re-searching and researching it after it began to be used as support for US attacks on Iraq and other presumed Arab enemies in the 2000’s. By the way, I am not personally going to dispute the US on all of these actions, but clearly the invasion of Iraq was a horrible mistake resulting in an unnecessary and terrible war.
Our author states that she had avoided the “Book of Revelation” since leaving her Evangelical church as a girl. Now she revisited it and concluded(as I’ll bet many have)that of all the books of the Bible it is “surely the strangest, consisting only of visions–dreams and nightmares, vivid with monsters” and she gives a long but startlingly arresting description of some of its images. She also found that it had been used often over the centuries including by both sides during the Reformation and the US Civil War.
She began to wonder about all this and about the book’s influence, so she visited the Library at the Princeton Theological Seminary where she was “startled to find thousands of books” on Revelation. She quickly determined that nearly all of them were written to interpret what this strange writing meant. She wondered,, “Who wrote this book and why did he write as he did?” She also wondered why so many people even today read it as if it were about their own time, not the author’s.
There is no knowing who wrote it, of course. But she says it likely was “wartime literature,” written around 70 after the Romans brutally put down the Jewish revolt. He wrote at least in part to equate Rome with the Babylon of the Old Testament, “a monster and a whore.” It is an effective piece of writing in that its images, however violent and grotesque, have somehow worked their way into the human subconscious and many who have not even read it have accepted its approach and its violent and bizarre language. Unfortunately this has frequently led to the choice of war as the only answer.
So she re-examined some of the Nag Hammadi findings and discovered that there was a large number of books about “revelation” at that time. She was also taken with the question–since there are so many revelations, which (if any) do you trust? She found contradictions, such as “The Secret Revelation of John,” in which Jesus says “I am the one who is with you always: I am the Father; I am the Mother: and I am the Son.”
She also noted and notes for us that when church authorities realized, about the 2nd-3rd century, that these writings, were gaining popularity they were very displeased. The writings, after all, were of about the right age to be from the same era in which the New Testament was mostly written but many had no direct instructions on what to believe.; Some didn’t appear to be definitively Jewish or Christian. About the middle of the 2nd century Bishop Iraneus began an serious attack on all literature that was non-canonical, that is that had not been sanctioned by the church and which in some cases seemed vaguely or more than vaguely to challenge orthodox beliefs.
Elaine’s primary comment on this is–“For some of us, though, finding no easy answers doesn’t mean that we can shut questions down.” That is the truth for so many and so many have been driven out of the church, that is removed themselves from it because they were not allowed to maintain those questions and still be made to feel they belonged. It also occurred to her to ask, “Why do so many Christians,
Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox, insist that Jesus ‘had to die’ before God could forgive human sin”(See pp 192-193 for her fuller comments on this)And she reflected that after listening to an old friend wax ecstatic over Mel Gibson’s performance in “The Passion of the Christ,” she had a serious question. How could a God who “is love” withhold forgiveness from his human creatures except through the torture of his son? She notes that she does not take the whole thing literally, but even so the question remains. And she refers to St Augustine’s idea of “original sin” And she remembered the teaching of her Evangelical past, that you must “accept Jesus as your savior or be damned.” And while some will think these questions inappropriate and unanswerable they are questions that have dogged me and many others for decades. And we see what she means and we are moved.
She goes on to note that really, Paul, not Jesus is responsible for this idea. And indeed, you will search uselessly to find it in any of Jesus’ sayings quoted in the New Testament. So whether you take that part of the Bible as literal or not, there is no basis for the teaching in his own words. This opens up the question of Paul, and this is an extremely difficult subject which I will make no attempt to broach or even to say too much about Elaine’s take on him.
But her main point is that in Corinthians Paul drops some hints that he found his earlier listeners “children” in their understanding of things spiritual and so he had to feed them what amounted to baby food in understanding. He goes on to say there is a mystery in the teaching that is only to be revealed to the wise and the more spiritually mature.
Now this is likely true of Paul’s writing. Neither Elaine nor anyone else can explain why he never wrote anything about this further truth that made it into the Bible. But it’s one of those thoughts that once it’s planted will not go away easily, if at all. And she came to believe that the answer may lie in “The Gospel of Truth,” one of the Nag Hammadi books. The unknown author of this gospel says of the “secret wisdom” that “The true gospel is joy” and that it doesn’t begin with human history but rather before the world was created.
It was not “In the Beginning” that counted, but before that in what Elaine calls “primordial time,” that is before the beginning.. And she believes that about the time of these writings it was common for Jews and non-Jews to speculate on what God was doing before creating the world. They reflected on known writings such as
Genesis and Proverbs and thought they gleaned some further truth from them,. This included the thoughts of another female entity, “wisdom” who claims that “when he marked out the foundations of the earth, I was there.” And many apparently contributed to this effort that gave a feminine voice a role in creation AND explained creation in a poetic but to many more acceptable way.This upset some Rabbis then as it would upset Iraneous and other bishops centuries later. But speculation could not be stopped and according to Ms Pagels, the author(s?) of the Gospel of Truth may have revealed the truth about Paul. They asked , what happened before the beginning of time?(I’ve often wondered and quit speculating quickly for fear of my mental stability), But in this version, all the different beings created by the One from whom they all came began to search for their progenitor. And ,unable to find him, they wandered in the dark. And, the author says, what separates us from God is not sin but our own limited capacity for understanding. According to this version of the story, God, seeing these people lost, sent Jesus, His Son, himself “the hidden mystery,” to lead them home, back to God. She doesn’t use these words, but it appears to me that in this version Jesus was saving people not from sin, but from loneliness and meaninglessness.
Ms Pagels is never overwhelming in her belief and never demanding that others agree with everything she says. She obviously had had enough of that approach in the past and was(correctly in my own opinion)finished with it quite permanently. But she does go on to give us not her strong belief, exactly, but her wondering and her inclinations here, near the end of her book. “Is this really Paul’s secret teaching?” she asks. “We can’t know for sure.” But she points out that some scholars agree this was likely written by Valentinus ,the “renowned Egyptian teacher.” Its style resembles that of what there is of writing attributed more directly to him. Did Valentinus receive it orally from Theudas who might have received it from Paul? Apparently we’ll never know, not on this earth anyway. But Ms Pagels loves the poetry of this gospel and its meaning– for its meaning, not for who wrote it. For it takes away the perverted(many of us instinctively feel) pain is “good for you” or sent for sin, but is, for whatever reason, part of the human condition. But out of it we–some, anyway-may learn of our connections to this, our role as part of humanity, and through that a kind of joy. So, and this is my observation, not a quotation from the book, in the long run, Jesus is a savior., who saves us from loneliness, from disconnectedness and from despair. And in the long run, who could ask for more than that?
This is not quite the end of the book but I hope I have captured the essence of it though, perhaps not as well as she wanted to capture the essence of Christianity when little more than a girl. There is no easy answer here and no really definitive one, except to say that she comes down on the side of compassion rather than anger and of exploration of ideas rather than accepting or rejecting them easily. She also sums it up with a description of her feelings on the occasion of her receiving an honorary degree from the Harvard graduate school. Overcome by the joy of this gift and the gift of her children and friends around her, she reflected upon it all. This is her final paragraph. “I don’t know how to answer those questions. What I do know is that for moments, during that joyful and noisy ceremony, the pomp and privilege of that scene receded, and the invisible bonds connecting everyone there, and connecting all of us with countless others and with our world and whatever is beyond it, felt stronger than ever, echoing the words of the ancient Jewish prayer: ‘Blessed art Thou, Lord God of the Universe, that you have brought us alive to see this day.’ However it happens, sometimes hearts do heal, through what I can only call grace.”
There is nothing I wish to add. I have already added more than enough, but I hope I have stimulated your minds to pursue the challenging but comforting work of this great lady.