-
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)
-
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.
-
New and Exciting(for mystery fans)
It is always a pleasure to introduce your friends to a new writer or musician, etc with whom you are taken. Well, I have one for you, although many of you may already know him. But he’s new to me. This is Richard Osman, who I have learned is a well-known and much liked TV personality in the UK. “The Thursday Murder Club” is his first novel. It was published in 2020 and he has written and published 3 more, all successors in what promises to be a long and much loved series.(Move over Miss Marple and Hercule Poirot and Gideon Fell and–well, fill in the blanks, if your are a fan of that noble art form, British mysteries.)
TMC, as I’ll refer to it now, takes place in an apparently fairly expensive retirement center in Kent, not too far from London. There is a group there who call themselves “The Thursday Murder Club.” Their more-or less leader is Elizabeth, a retired sleuth of some kind, never really specified very well–was she a cop, MI5 or what? Anyhow, she has the skills and the nerve to do the job of leading. Then there is Joyce, her more subdued companion.. A retired nurse and a close observer of human behavior, Joyce keeps a diary which provides the first person account of what’s happening and offers many important pieces of information as well as opinions. The two men are Ibrihim, a retired Psychiatrist and Ron, a former leftist politician/union guy who has nonetheless chosen to spend his declining years among the rich.
Elizabeth is currently married, the others all widowed. Elizabeth’s husband Stephen is a source of puzzlement I never figured out. He seems to have some kind of mental disorder which prevents his keeping company with other people or indeed leaving their room at all. But he takes care of himself well enough when Elizabeth is busy and plays a tough game of chess.(Does this mean that all those people who have beaten me at chess have had something wrong with their minds? I doubt it, my wife is one of them). Elizabeth loves him dearly but has her life to lead outside of their room too, and does so.
There are some other residents of importance but I won’t burden you or me with discussing all of them. Very important in the plot are two cops, a young lady, 20ish Donna DeFreitas and a not so young gentleman, 40ish Chris Hudson who is overweight and constantly hassled by Donna to watch his diet. They introduce a bit of legality and officialdom into the story.
But the story is definitely about amateur sleuthings, much more than legal pursuit. The TMC meets weekly and they review an old, unsolved murder case to see if they can crack it(Elizabeth seems to have access to all kinds of old information about such cases). They are a combination of irritated and amused when Donna goes to Coopers Chase to give a presentation on retirement village living and security. They treat her with tolerance, slight cynicism and warmth.
When a murder occurs involving two of the entrepreneurs of the Close it is natural(given their nearby office)and about a sure thing if you know your mystery novels, that these two are going to get involved. They do, and there follows an increasingly complicated but always fascinating story of the club trying to sort things out, sometimes getting help from the police and sometimes deceiving them. Contradictions pile up and parts of the puzzle seem to fade while others come to the fore. We learn of some of the past of Coopers and some of the nuns who lived there when it was a convent and what happened to at least one of them. We meet Penney, the one time leader of the club, now apparently comatose and cared for tenderly by her husband. And slowly and fascinatingly, and with the usual number of twists the story eventually is unraveled.
I will not be a Spoiler by saying more about the plot but I have a lot more to say about the book. First of all, I loved it. I could tell from the first page that I was in the hands of a master who knew what he was doing. It took a little longer, but it soon occurred to me that he is not only a mystery master, he is an out and out superb writer, capable of fitting words and phrases together in a way that thoroughly engages the reader and keeps them interested in the characters. And he also, speaking of them, is a master creator of characters, people that are good(many)and evil(a few), some of whom have done terrible things and come to regrets and who have lived lives of silence about many things.
And here is where I differ slightly(but not in my overall love of the book)with many of the people whose opinions I have read on line. There are both critics and amateur individual readers among them. I would say the approval rate was somewhere in the area of 98% with practically no one giving TMC a negative review. But I differ on their attitudes to the author and the tone of the book. Most of them seem to treat it as a “cozy” or a comic-mystery. I would reject both terms, but neither of them is entirely wrong.
It is cozy in that it takes place in a sheltered and mostly(obviously not completely)secure community. It is cozy in that the great majority of the characters are “nice” in a way that gets the job done without disgusting the more cynical. It is “cozy” in the sense that to some extent all will come out right. But it is not cozy in overdoing the comforts. Not everyone gets just treatment. Some of the violence, present and past, is terrible. Some of the characters carry awful guilt with them, sometimes for decades. Some of the characters’ thoughts are very bleak though not usually spoken.
As to it’s being a comic-mystery–this is closer to the truth than calling it “cozy.” Actually much of it is funny, some just about to the point of hilarity. The conversations of the Club are often amusing and entertaining, a sort of British, 21st century version of the old NY Round Table. Their use of words, phrasing and other such opportunities of our language often are taken advantage of to the full. Likewise, the witty combination of people in their 70’s and 80’s actually is not only bracing for those of us of a certain age, it is also part of the fun. Donna and Chris are not stupid, but they never seem quite up to the TMC folks,
Now–a number of the other reviewers did note that the book has its serious side. None of them developed this fully in my opinion, but several noted it. This is true and this is why I wouldn’t advertise(in any sense of the term)it as a comedy-mystery. Along with the fun of being around a group of witty, inquisitive interesting people, you cannot miss that you are still among older people These are people who have lived most of their lives in the chronological sense for sure and likely in the experience sense also-at least most of them. They are mostly still full people, capable of full human emotions and actions, but there is an awareness among them–an awareness that life will not go in indefinitely, that everyone’s life has limits, and that they are as vulnerable as many others of their age. This is sometimes commented upon more or less obliquely. There is no “Oh, everything was so much better then” stuff– to my great delight. There is no “Time turn back in they ever “–uh, whatever the rest of the quote is.
There is, however, a serious recognition of time and its limits. There is a serious understanding of how significant these can be. And there is a sadness in this that comes through quite clearly though it is never elucidated in so many words or really in many words at all. One reviewer did comment that they were deeply moved by the ending of the book and so was I. I can’t really see how you could miss. And hats of to Mr Osman for doing this so well and for moving us to tears and laughter, if not at the same time, at least sometimes in the same chapter or close to it.
I hope my words have made you want to read this book. I found it both moving and funny and, oh , yes, a ripping good mystery which if you go back and check(as I sort of did)at the end, I believe you’ll find ties up loose ends, at least the important ones. It is the best mystery I have read in a long time and it stands with with Lawrence Block’s “When the Sacred Gin Mill Closes” as one of the best books I’ve ever read that is also a mystery. So look on line or check your library or whatever,–don’t miss this one. I’ll bet it will whet your appetite, as it has mine, for Osman’s three successor books. I can hardly wait to see what the TMC get into next!
-
Repeat Watching
Frasier, Brideshead Revisited, Random Harvest, Brief Encounter, Beckett
-
Republicans and Isolationism–Twists and Turns
Nearly everyone speaking or writing about the current US Presidential campaign has at some point noted foreign policy or at least our relations with other nations as a part of it. It usually does not receive the same attention as border security and immigration(though they’re related), inflation and the overall apparent dissatisfaction of much of the middle classes, particularly those between the Appalachians and the Rockies.
But foreign policy keeps sticking its nose in and for good reason. We have Ukraine and we have Israel, including Gaza. Sitting in the background(but not far in it) we have Putin, Russia’s ruler and a lot of other people we’d rather not think about. There are also possible outcomes we’d like to ignore, but can’t. I shall mention most if not all of these, or more, in this blog, but I intend mainly to look at American conservatism and its shifting and sometimes contradictory attitudes. This means mostly the Republicans, but not exclusively.
Not wanting a thousand word article, I will not go into the subject of historical isolationism back to the American Revolution in great detail. Suffice it to say that mostly, from the founding of the nation into the 20th century, the US preferred a minimum amount of foreign connections. There were exceptions, mostly economically inspired, but this was the main thrust. It changed somewhat late in the 19th century when the US, led by Admiral Mahan and Theodore Roosevelt jumped on the European bandwagon of colonialism and tried, sometimes with some success, to compete with the older European powers and their colonialist policies.
This ran into trouble about the time of the Wilson Administration because of the outbreak of WWI in Europe and a great American desire to stay out of it. As it turned out we couldn’t. At least WW thought not, and he, basically a man of peace, was likely right, even though this is not a simple issue. What we can say without much hesitation is that after WWI the US became largely an isolationist nation. This happened for a number of reasons, mostly related to the idea that we had been tricked into WWI and/or had not gotten our due out of helping bring about the Allied victory. As a result, during the 1920’s the US took a low profile in most international moments. There were exceptions such as the useless Kellogg-Briand pact, but this was the tendency. After all, it was the “Roaring Twenties,” the era of bathtub gin and F Scott Fitzgerald and Speak-easies. It seemed everyone just wanted to have a good time and ignore the bigger world.
This ended abruptly with the 1929 Market Crash and the subsequent depression, but this didn’t change foreign policy ideas. If anything the US was more isolationist in the ’30’s because of dealing with out own troubles. Foreign policy, like Prohibition, was hardly debated in the 1932 Presidential election. It would return, however, in 1936 and to a much greater degree another four years later after another European war threatened–and now as a largely partisan issue.
For most of the 1930’s both parties were divided on whether to be isolationist and if so, how isolationist to be. The more super isolationists were usually Republicans, particularly Midwestern ones, and ironically they included a number of old GOP progressives–Hiram Johnson and Robert LaFollette, for example. But there were also eastern isolationists and Democratic Isolationists. Southern Democrats seem to have tended toward isolationism more than others, at least UNTIL 1940, But the member of the House who tried to amend the constitution to require a public referendum on going to war was Rep Louis Ludlow of Indiana. So it was not entirely a regional thing.
In the first FDR administration the President’s attention had to be on domestic affairs. With 1/4, maybe 1/3 of the work force unemployed and maybe nearly as many under employed, there was no other choice. But even then for those who closely watched foreign affairs, there were signs of trouble. Mussolini had risen to power in Italy in the 1920’s with the Fascist Party as his tool. It was not clear he was a US enemy but there was no doubt he was anti-democratic and anti-individual liberties so the presumption was that he could be trouble.
IN 1933 in Germany Hitler and his Nazis took power not long before FDR became President. It was evident from the beginning that he was a potential enemy of democracy and the ways of Western Individual rights and freedoms. At about the same time there was a plethora of books that “revealed” how the US should not have been involved in World War I and that the war was partly a plot by international bankers to get even richer. Much of this information was incorrect, but a lot of it was widely believed and public opinion to some degree accepted this. This position was also aided by the Nye Committee, led by Sen Gerald Nye a ND Republican which held investigations from 1934-’37 and basically approved and publicized some of these views
This combination of disappointment, suspicion and outrage was a strong driver of isolationist opinion and one of the driving powers, along with American suspicion of anyone not American)of the Neutrality Acts. But shortly after the First Neutrality Act the Spanish civil war began, which turned out to be an invitation for the dictatorial European powers to intervene and make trouble for their own benefit. This grabbed the attention of many previoisyly indifferent to what was going on elsewhere,
Beginning with 1935 there were, depending on how you count it, three or four Neutrality Acts–some of them were actually extentions of prior passed laws. Without going into detail about each one, suffice it to say that they mainly restricted or forbade American trading with belligerent powers(participants in a conflict)and first advised then commanded that Americans not travel on belligerent nations’ ships. All of this is obviously based on the idea that we got into WWI by mistake and one thing that caused it was getting too closely involved with the participants.
Basically, FDR did not like these acts which he saw as naive and foolish in their attempt to reject the rest of the world and worse than useless in preventing another European War. But he did have serious opposition from both parties. A large number–minority, but still a sizeable one–of Republicans were for the Acts. This was particularly the work of a group of Isolationist Republicans mostly from the Midwest and West, many of them powerful Senators who FDR feared might attempt to interfere with his New Deal policies. So he signed the Neutrality Acts although not without discussion and a few compromises. There were Democratic opponents too, mainly from the South, but the majority opposition was Republican and sort of a mixture of hidebound conservatives and old Progressives who still saw WWI as a boon to “warmongers” in big business..
As the decade wore on things got more complicated. The Spanish civil war brought disorder and chaos to Europe and served as an invitation to the totalitarian powers, Italy, Germany and the USSR to try to profit from it politically and to use it as a training/testing ground to check out and develop weapons for later fighting. Mussolini seized Ethiopia, Hitler re-occupied the Rhineland and then in 1938 caused the Munich Crisis. All of this pushed some–but not many–isolationists a bit towards FDR’s view that it was a big world and the US had to be part of it and would certainly have to deal with any widespread war.
In 1939 this became less theoretical and more of a daily issue when the war actually began. Hitler invaded Poland in September, 1939 and , pursuant to the Nazi-Soviet Pact Stalin attacked Poland from he East with the two supposedly hostile but now cooperating powers quickly dividing that unfortunate nation. In December, 1939 Stalin struck again , this time against neighboring Finland, and the following spring Hitler began his attacks on Western Europe. It appeared he would soon have the whole continent at his feet except, possibly the UK.
This triggered a huge and strong response from the isolationist community in the US. In September of 1940 the powerful but short lived America First Committee was formed at, of all places, Yale University. Its single purpose was the keep the US out of any foreign war and it asserted that a Nazi victory over Britain would not imperil the US. It included people of many different stripes. For good reasons a lot of people were just against another war. Historian Susan Dunn who has studied the movement extensively concluded it had “farmers, union leaders, wealthy industrialists, …Democrats, Republicans, Socialists, communists, anti-communists, radicals, pacifists and simple FDR haters.” So clearly it attracted people of many different views. Certainly those who had known the horror of the trenches in WWI and their families had reason to want to avoid another war.
Dunn stated that “Though most of its members were probably patriotic, well-meaning and honest…the AFC would never be able to purge itself of the taint of anti-Semitism.” This was because many of its founders and early leaders and speakers at least sounded anti-Semitic. The first well-known leader of the AFV was industrialist Henry Ford, the most notorious Anti-Semite in the US. So the committee was burdened with suspicion, some of it well founded, from the start. It remained powerful, however, until the Japanese attacked. Pearl Harbor. On Dec 11, 1941 it disbanded.
From Pearl Harbor on to VJ day isolationism was hardly a question at all. There was almost universal agreement that the Axis powers had to be defeated. But during the war there did arise among conservative Republicans, and perhaps a few others, a dread and loathing of the Soviet Union. Now I’m not going to say there was no reason to loath Stalin and his dictatorial Communist state. There certainly was. But along with this there came a near-hysterical fear of anything that smacked of socialism or communism and of anyone who had ever read about it or considered it, no matter how far in the past. I think this was in the air as the war ended.
It was not long before the dreams of allied unity after the war began to fade and within a few years it was clear a Cold War between the USSR and the West was developing. Part of this was the Iron Curtain which cut off Eastern Europe from the rest of the continent. With the USSR both intransigent and obviously pursuing atomic weapons, it was not unreasonable to form an alliance to caution the Soviets that it would mean trouble if they attempted to take Western Europe by military force. Their army was big enough that they might well have done it, so it was thought they needed to understand this would make them the enemy of the US and a number of allies.
This all led to the NATO(North Atlantic Treaty Organization)alliance. The original members were the US, Canada ad several European democracies including the UK, France and Italy, with a total of 12. The signers of the NATO Treaty agreed to cooperate for their mutual defense. Article 5 declared than an attack upon any one of the countries meant an attack upon all and would lead the USSR into war with all of them.
This treaty which pleased many people on both sides(Liberal and Conservative, Democrat and Republican) was approved by most of the public and, formally, by the US Senate, which voted for NATO by an overwhelming 82-13. But there were dissenters, most of them on the far right. Whoa! What sense does this make? The right wingers, a group who prided themselves on “patriotism” and willingness to fight evil opposed it? Well a lot of them didn’t but some did. This means that the strain of conservative thought that leads to isolationism runs very deep in American conservative thought and, like a drug-repressed case of acne, may erupt if not successfully diminished..
During the war a few far right wingers complained that we were getting too close to the USSR and Stalin. Now Stalin and the Soviet Union were , indeed, to be feared and despised. But when we were struggling together against the curse of Nazism was not the time for it. But this thought began to erupt among a few people in politics about the time the war ended and it led to a not judicious or even judgmental, but an hysterical fear/loathing of communism or anything that was or seemed even close to it. I have already noted this a few paragraphs above. And there was enough of it in 1946 to pressure Harry Truman into what was almost his only foreign policy mistake. Given the opportunity of making an ally of Ho Chi Min, the Communist leader of the anti-French Vietnamese rebels, he chose to make them enemies, which led to one of the great American Tragedies about 20 years later–the Viet Nam War.
More immediately, this strain of thought also got itself involved in the Chinese civil war which it would exploit against the Roosevelt tradition and Truman and to the idea that anyone who favored international cooperation of nearly any kind was a commie or at least “pink.” Incredibly, a few moderate to liberal Senators who supported the NATO alliance were denounced as “pink” for doing any thing so internationalist, never mind that it was an anti-Communist alliance. Irrationality, you see, is not an invention of the 1990’s, when it comes to conservative politics in the US.
During most of the 1950’s Dwight Eisenhower was President. Ike was what today would be considered a moderate Republican(Trump would likely say “RINO”)and because he was a Republican General it was difficult for the right to attack him much. The fact that he had a firm but not hysterical policy toward the Soviets helped too. Not that it kept all the extreme right bizarre people out of the limelight. There was, after all, the John Birch Society and a few others, but they were widely(and very correctly)regrading as nut cases by nearly everyone.
During this time there was fairly broad agreement between the two parties about foreign policy. We should oppose the spread of communism(George Kennan’s “containment”)but do it peaceably as far as possible and avoid a direct confrontation with the USSR. There were a few dissenters, right and left, but not very many who got real attention.
The 1960’s saw a change. The US commitment in Vietnam changed from a pledge of support and supply and advice, to a military commitment to South Vietnam and finally to what amounted to an American War on the Asian continent with 5000 plus mile supply lines and questionable support at home. And here something happened that seems strange, but has a perverted logic–if not much common sense–to it. The far right conservatives, hitherto the only group that accepted isolationists among its members, suddenly became interventionist . Their extreme anti-communism suddenly had switched from leaving the rest of the world alone to supporting anti-communists everywhere, no matter how brutal and stupid they were or how doomed and hopeless their cause.
Conversely, some liberals slipped toward less anti-Communism, possibly a good thing in some cases, but easy to take too far. Some of them may have questioned the overall internationalism of the US. In any event there was a turnaround. Largely Republicans supported the US participation in Vietnam more than the Democrats; particularly the left wing of the party, opposed it. This led to a sort of showdown in the 1972 Presidential election when war-President Richard Nixon trounced peace advocate Democrat George McGovern. This, however, is a very complex issue which I am not inclined to pursue. Suffice it to say there was a sort of turnaround.
The turn around, however, was not extreme and once the Vietnam War ended there was again a fair amount of agreement between the right and the left on foreign policy. With some exceptions this agreement lasted for quite awhile. If you look at the personalities of prominent Secretaries of State from each side, say Henry Kissinger and Hillary Clinton, you will not see a lot of difference. And with the Soviet Union gone and its successor state, the Russian Republic replacing it, there was not quite so much too fight about–for awhile.
But the rise of Islamic violence and terrorism provided a new enemy. After 9/11 almost everybody in the US was(understandably) strong for punishing Al Qaeda and other such groups, mostly to protect our national security, but also to exact vengeance. There was not a great deal of difference between Dems and Reps on this at first, but as the George W Bush Administration became more and more warlike some of the old discord again appeared. Again, with some exceptions, Republicans were way more enthusiastic about using military actions to repress the terrorists than Democrats. Sometimes, for example in stopping ISIS, there was fairly broad agreement, but the old divisions remained. It was in some sense the cold war attitudes all over again.
This situation lasted until–well, just a few years ago. But with the rise of Donald J Trump, his MAGA Republicans and a whole new look to the Republican Party appeared. Or a very old one was reconstructed. While nearly everyone was shocked by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, the only opposition to our support of that beleaguered country came from the very far right. And there weren’t many for awhile. But as time moved along and Ukrainian victory drives stalled, patience ran thin and the Republican right, particularly in the House of Representatives, began to question the whole commitment.
I suggest you look at statements of isolationists from the 1930’s and some from contemporary isolationists. They are frequently remarkably similar. Both question the correctness of the US assuming serious connections to the rest of the world. Each believes that foreign villains should be left alone, Well, of course, they’re right to the extent that we can’t and shouldn’t go after every villainous leader in the world, but there are some so evil and dangerous to our allies and therefore ultimately to us that we must act on them.
This was what the FDR era isolationists never seemed to get, that Hitler and Mussolini were not just a threat to other continental European countries. They were a threat to Western Civilization and hence to us. So was the USSR in the long run, but the short run had to be handled first or there wouldn’t have been a long run to worry about. Today we hear very similar arguments. No one would argue against foreign trade, but the voices of some of the Republican, isolationist right today suggest that the US need not worry about tactical and strategic matters in Europe or elsewhere and that we can turn our back on the troubles of the rest of the world when it comes to people like Putin, But we can’t and most of us know that, by knowledge or by instinct or by both.
The tragic war in Gaza has made this worse by giving the right wingers a war of obvious horror and of some clearly questionable reactions by our ally Israel to use as an example of foreign involvement. So some of them are demagoging this and implying that this is the same thing we’re facing with Putin and Ukraine. But it’s not and it won’t be.
I have likely said enough on this matter to wear out my welcome, but I will add one thing. It almost looks as if there is some tendency in the minds(not the brains, I won’t make this biological)of those who have extreme right inclinations that pulls them to this kind of thought. It’s a tendency to want to make America “first” and to take America first. Of course it is natural to take you home, the place where you were born or have chosen to be, first in your heart. But this cannot be done by pretending that other people and countries don’t matter. The fact that the US has a 2 century plus history of being “protected” by two of the largest oceans in the world has added to this feeling and made it more profound a part of our belief structure here than, I think, anywhere else. Unfortunately the facts are that it just won’t work, for reasons stated previously in this blog. I hope the Republicans will figure this out and get back on the ship of state that sails toward friendship and cooperation with others, particularly those who honor freedom. If they get back into power without some of them changing their minds they will invite something no one wants to see.
-
Two for the Oscar–Well, Just One, Actually
I have seen only a few(four, I think)of the nominated movies and I am unlikely to get around to all(or any?)of the others. We’ll see. So here is where I stand so far. My choice for the award, based upon what I’ve seen, is undoubtedly “American Fiction.” ”Killers of the Flower Moon” and “Oppenheimer” have both gotten a lot more attention. Understandably–they are “big movies” with many well know big stars(to the extent that anyone is still a big movie star) and high production values, and both reek of money spent.
Both of these two are, I wish to state, very, very good films and I am not denigrating them. But next to “Fiction” they both seem a bit bloated, a bit overdone. And “Fiction,” which must have cost a great deal less, is so unpretentious and so on the mark in its humor/pathos, that it is easily my choice. Based upon a novel of a decade and a half ago, “Erasure,” by Percival Everett, director-screenwriter Cord Jefferson(with Everett) may have created not only a moving, entertaining, intelligent movie, but a statement of dissent for this time in America, dissent at least from the talk of the leftist literati, black and white, of the last 20 years or so.
Jeffrey Wright plays Thelonious “Monk” Ellison, a gifted black writer who is a successful college literature teacher. He is also a gifted writer who has published several books and gotten critical praise, but little in sales or public attention. He is dissatisfied with his lot, but he disdains the facile exploitation of black people by “artists” whose portrait seems to say they all live in ghettos and talk in jive. His mood is not improved when a new book is rejected by a publisher with the suggestion he write what might be described as “more black,” and his university employer gives him a temporary leave with the suggestion he explore his own culture further, more or less that he get in touch with himself
After a confrontation with black female writer Sintara Golden and others at a writer’s conference. he decides to take on his critics by writing a book that is so bad in its pandering to black extremists and white radical phonies that it will call attention to his point of view and amuse its readers. On the contrary, he is surprised (to put it quite mildly)when no one seems to “get it.” It is taken seriously to the extent that a publisher offers him three quarters of a million dollars as an advance.
Stunned and slightly cynical now, he offers to have it published if he can change the title name to F+++(I’m waiting for Trump to say the word in public–if he does I might consent to writing it). He doesn’t really expect this idea to go far, but, again to his surprise, they agree and the book is so published. But instead of his real name he agrees(after pressure from his agent)to use the name Stagg R Leigh, who the publisher announces(for public consumption) is a wanted convict and therefore will not make public appearances. It sells well and the left-leaning critics black and white(mostly white) fawn over it. In fact, it wins a literary award, from a writers’ panel which includes a somewhat reluctant Thelonius, and his sometime nemesis, Sintara Surprisingly they get along well.
At the awards ceremony, Theo decides to attend and reveal all. What happens then I leave to you to learn by viewing.
Now, a couple of comments on things left out, by me or others.–the rest of the cast includes Leslie Uggams as Theo’s mother. I remember her as a little girl on an old, old musical game show on TV(“Name That Tune?”)many years ago. Otherwise, the rest of the cast is largely unknown to me. Issa Rae is very good as the author who writes the kind of trash our hero hates, yet still seems to have some character of her own. Sterling K Brown is effective as Cliff, Theo’s brilliant and accomplished but depressed and searching brother. Erika Alexander is Coraline, Theo’s love interest and does a more than credible job of portraying a sensitive woman who knows she’s got a good man on her hands, but one it’s hard to know how to handle. There is not a poor or routine performance among them.
The hero’s nickname, “Monk,” will be known to many of you, and for the benefit of all who don’t know, Thelonious Monk was a mid-20th century jazz musician, one of the giants of that time who shared the jazz limelight with Miles Davis, Dave Brubeck, Duke Ellington, and other jazz icons. He was quoted as having said “A’int no bad sounds that come out of a piano”–or words to that effect anyway,
More sneaky and obscure is Theo’s choice, with some help, of the pseudonym of Stagg R Leigh. As far as I recall no mention is made in the film of the source of this name. Actually, “Stagger Lee” is an old American black blues song dating back at least a century, maybe more. It is supposed to be based on a true incident in 1895 St Louis is which a gambler named Stagger Lee shot Billy Lyons who grabbed Stagger Lee’s hat. It has been recorded more than 60 times by a variety of singers ranging from James Brown to Nick Cave to Neil Diamond. In the 1950’s Lloyd Price had a hit record with it. Nonetheless, I would wager, that most white Americans and maybe most blacks too could not today tell you who Stagger Lee was. In any event, I hope you will see this remarkably good film and cross your fingers for it to win. It would be a victory for restraint, good art and real tolerance for it to finish at the top.
Nothing similar could be said–not by me, at least–about “Poor Things.” If this Thing wins the Oscar it will be a travesty on taste and possibly on the direction of Western civilization. Now I realize I’m somewhat running against the wind here. This film has been widely and highly praised by critics and apparently has made a fair amount of money so far. It is nominated for a number of big awards by BAFTA and also by the by the Acaemy Awards people. It has already won big in some places–Golden Globes for Best Actress in a Musical or Comedy and Best Motion Picture Musical or Comedy. What? Musical or Comedy? Thinking of Rodgers and Hammerstein or Lerner and Lowe? Wrong thought, friends–no resemblance there. Nor with any other musical comedy team you can think of. Nor with any comedy writer I can think of. Go ask Mel Brooks–or the ghosts of Kauffman and Hart–or Aristophanes.
This is not a comedy in any sense I can discern. Music does play a role at one point, a scene I shall describe shortly–one of the few good things in the movie, or stick with me. But it’s by no stretch of the mind a musical. So I guess the award was for Comedy, but I laughed only at the negative side of the film. It was sort of funny that people thought it was funny. But I didn’t do that until after the film had ended.
It’s not as if the film has no merits at all. It’s well done in a technical sense. The photography and art direction are superb. This moving shots of various cities are impressive if sometimes bizrre And speaking of bizarre–
Well, a lot of critics have noted that the obvious influence and source here is “Frankenstein.” It’s actually based on a novel by Alasdair Gray which was published in 1992.. But “Frankenstein” is the guide. Bella Baxter(Emma Stone)is a young woman in what turns out to be Victorian London, although I wasn’t sure for awhile. It was 19th century, I thought, but where? Somewhere in Europe?(Yes)The other side of the moon?(No, but not an unreasonable guess). Anyway the “comedy” begins with her suicide by jumping off a bridge. She is brought back to life by the Franeknstein stand-in Dr Godwin Baxter(William Dafoe).
Dafoe’s character is not a normal human being. His appearance is that of a man who has been trampled by several herds of animals and then attacked by a knife-wielding maniac. This is put down in a very brief description of what would now be child-abuse writ large, but never mind.. In addition to this he is-uh, odd, perhaps entirely due to the abuse, perhaps not. But he’s also brilliant and ambitious to do new and great things. So he puts the brain of the young woman’s unborn fetus into the woman. She comes back to life and is now a grown woman with a child’s brain. She is also her own mother–or her own daughter? Well, never mind, it doesn’t matter
It is a sort of fascinating thing(about the only one in the whole film)watching Bella’s mind catch up with her body. There is no explanation for this, but it appears to happen rather swiftly–not right away, but months rather than years.
Soon, as she climbs toward full maturity, she accepts the blandishments of a creepy and degenerate lawyer(Mark Ruffalo) They go on a journey which takes them to several important European cities, rather like the centuries old “Grand tour” for young aristocratic men. But this tour seeks not knowledge of the past and of other countries, it seeks the bizaree and(unfortunately a lot of viewers will doubtless say)finds it. They dash from Athens to Paris with a number of other stops in between where they experience sex with so many people that I lost count, not that I cared much by then. The sex is, well, strenuous in many cases and more on this later.
Now at about this point I thought the movie just might redeem itself to some degree, anyway. It might be like “Afire,” (see my blog of Sep 6), which turned around from being a real drag and turned into a good film during about its last third. Bella is now at the point of just about full mental maturity and she has used it well. She starts to wonder about the world–what’s going on out there? What’s the meaning of it all? Why is there injustice? She even reads Ralph Waldo Emerson and apparently appreciates his writing(My guess would be that Ralph Waldo would not have appreciated being with her on this trip).
Anyway her attitudes and her conversation change. She become rational, perhaps even empathetic. There is the start of a metamorphosis here, one thinks. One is wrong–never happens. More specifically, there is one scene in Portugal which for a brief time I thought truly beautiful. The location of the scene was not clear to me. Maybe a concert hall, but the dancing couples seem to make that unlikely. Maybe a 19th century Lisbon version of a nightclub. Who knows? Nor does it matter. There are a lot of people together listening to what I thought some very beautiful music which I think could be roughly described as classical. Some of them are dancing, however, not something one usually does with Bach or Beethoven. The combination of the beautiful clothes and the gorgeous music is stunning, particularly when a woman accompaning herself on a stringed instrument of some sort begins to sing.
Although I’m not sure, I think she was doing a song from the Portuguese musical traditon known as “Fado.” Around for more than a century and a half now, Fado usually features a woman singing, accompanying herself. She sings a sad song about lost love, broken hearts, etc. Of course that’s the basis a lot of music world-wide, but Fado concentrates on this. As I said, I am not familiar enough with it to be sure, but I think that lady was perhaps singing Fado. Whatever, it was it was beautiful. I looked forward to hearing the whole song. It ran maybe 90 seconds. Oh, well. After that, it’s back to London and I don’t think I’ll go further than that(Hey, London’s almost always a good place to stay)
Now there are a few anomalies to explore. As you have no doubt discerned I dislike the film a great deal. There are two main reasons for it and they both have to do with excess and some other things. The two things that get to me are the ways in which it handles the physically visible aspects of a number of medical matters and the grossly inadequate job it does in portraying sex. These two would have been enough to ruin it for me even I hadn’t found the plot to be over-the-top ridiculous.
Dr Godwin is apparently a mentally perverted genius. He is not necessarily cruel in that thinks he’s doing good for mankind. But the film is loaded with close-ups of his work with the knife. Granted, they never let these scenes go on a very long time, but long enough you may become seriously disgusted or even sickened. I have no idea how many times you see a knife entering flesh and blood spurting as a result. It’s a lot and it’s way off putting, at the leas,t way more than needed to make the point that this is serious stuff. I was astounded to see that approximately 80%(the figure seems to change day to day)of Rotten Tomatoes fans liked the movie. I have to wonder why they liked it and why more of them weren’t turned off, Perhaps the gross violation of the individual body no longer bothers people much? Does this account for the behavior of so much of the world in solving conflicts, the sort of thing we experience daily on the media?
Then there’s the sex. This is one of the most sexually explicit films I have ever seen. And it manages to get it wrong, at least in attitude. We see Bela with a large number of people in sexual situations. Technically speaking I guess you could say most of them appear to be “normal” sex. But that is only so from a physical point of view. While it is impossible to imagine sex without physicality, it is a mistake to ignore other aspects of it–like emotional reactions. And here I think the movie misses by a wide mark. Now maybe it does exactly what the director wanted it to do, but it clearly does not portray sex accurately from any normal point of view. It is an excellent example of why, in court, witnesses are sworn to tell the “whole truth.” It is possible to lie just by leaving some things out.
To repeat, the film’s sex scenes are mainly normal in their physical portrayal. But totally lacking is a sense of the emotion which ought to be involved. Sex is both a physical and an emotional matter, and while you won’t get anywhere without the former you won’t get too far without the latter. The film has no sense of this. There is, I think, a sense in which good sex is an altered state of consciousness,. This being th4e case, one needs to be careful about portraying it as only physical relations. You need to show the emotional part too. This could include portraying the occasional smile and caress, by showing tenderness and gentleness along with the passion. This can be done more or less “realistically” or it can be suggested by imaginative use of the art of filming.
I remember a film from long ago, the “hippie” era, called “The Trip,” starring Peter Fonda, among others. It wasn’t much of a film and belongs in no hall of fame, but there was one part I liked. Sex was portrayed as part of the trip and therefore not too explicit on the screen. Oh, you could tell what was going on but you were also affected by the music and the poetically indefinite feeling created by the hazy, “unrealistic” and vague photography. The fact that this was sex while high is hardly important. It was easy to see that sex IS a high and in that way is more than just physical reality. Attempts to portray it as only physical are therefore bound to fail. I think that’s why the sex in this film is always “frank,” but never erotic. It’s largely a distasteful bore. If anyone uses this film as a sex manual they are likely to end up very disappointed–to say the very least.
Possibly the director, Yorgos Lanthimos,” knew perfectly well what he was doing and got exactly the effect he was going for. This is not unfeasible, it’s even highly believable in what seems to be both the public mind and the consciousness of critics today. today. But to a certain type of mentality–mine included-it’s offensive.
So these two things along with the unbelievability of the twists and turns of the plot are my main objections(Lanthimos tried an old-fashioned twist of plot ending which is surprising but not very interesting.) There were a couple of other peculiarities about this movie that put me off. The Dafoe character is both very odd and highly talented in his field as is obvious from the beginning. It is not, perhaps surprising, then, that his property should be filled with odd animals–a goose with four legs like a dog, some kind of bird(I think)which appears to be literally only half there, etc. I suppose this is not very important, but why not tell us about it?
Likewise there appeared to be some kind of air travel going on in the 19th century European cities they visited, or at least in some of them. Huh? Did I get that right? Perhaps they’re accepted as just mysteries. I find them mere additional bizarreness which is hardly what this film needs. By the way, I did read a lot of other peoples’ comments, both critics and public and you may want to do the same if anything about “Poor Things” sounds even vaguely interesting to you.
Well, there you have it for now. Go, “American Fiction” and get lost, “Poor Things.” Yes, that’s kind of oversimplified-but so very expressive.