Monday, January 8, 2018

The Woman in the Arena


I read Oprah Winfrey’s Golden Globes acceptance speech, and there is little doubt Ms. Winfrey has a close and masterful relationship with the English language. No surprise there. For decades, millions of Americans have looked to Oprah as an inspiration; when you know her back story, it is almost impossible to deny that she has earned every accolade and award cast her way. 

And while I admit it took me some time to understand her appeal—because I tend to gravitate toward quiet, reserved, low-key types—I do get her, and I believe she is a worthy aspirational beacon for countless young girls and women, as well as an important figure for men to study.
So, when Oprah closed her speech with this,

In my career, what I've always tried my best to do, whether on television or through film, is to say something about how men and women really behave. To say how we experience shame, how we love and how we rage, how we fail, how we retreat, persevere, and how we overcome. I've interviewed and portrayed people who've withstood some of the ugliest things life can throw at you, but the one quality all of them seem to share is an ability to maintain hope for a brighter morning, even during our darkest nights. So I want all the girls watching here, now, to know that a new day is on the horizon! And when that new day finally dawns, it will be because of a lot of magnificent women, many of whom are right here in this room tonight, and some pretty phenomenal men, fighting hard to make sure that they become the leaders who take us to the time when nobody ever has to say 'Me too' again.

I could well understand how many people would take her words as a trumpet call for her own candidacy for the presidency (already CNN is hyping the 2020 run). I hope that is not the case, but not because she couldn’t do the job; only because there needs to be a woman in the Oval Office who has been striving for that position all her life, and whose vision for America has been informed by years on the political battlefield.

Just as Oprah committed herself to a life of excellence as an actor, writer, and champion for the underdogs around the world, so, too, is there a woman in the political arena today—local, state or national—who, as a girl and as a young adult, saw public service as her way of making a difference and championing change.

Perhaps she joined the military and saw combat; perhaps she stood for unpopular principles when she first ran for office, but she stuck to her guns and won.

Perhaps she is a single mother who understands the education inequalities and financial hardships so many single moms face.

Perhaps she had to work much harder than men in her profession, just to get a smaller paycheck.

Perhaps she was strapped with student debt on her way to a post-secondary or graduate education, and understands the enormous burden such a debt places on millions of Americans.

Perhaps she took care of aging or dying parents while trying to balance her own health needs and those of her family, experiencing the injustice of inflated prescriptions and medical costs, not to mention basic health insurance costs.
Perhaps one of her children struggles with a disability that requires special care and attention.

Perhaps she started out as a small-business owner, coming to grips with the challenges of entrepreneurship.

Perhaps sometime in her life she had to deal with an abusive relationship, or, at least, boorish and unthinking men who made her life’s progress a real emotional slog.

Perhaps she loves the arts, and worries that funding for arts and music education is slowly disappearing from the American education canon;

Perhaps she has watched too many people around her fail to gain traction in the American community—immigrants seeking better lives, Black Americans still fighting the old hatreds, impoverished Americans unable to see any light ahead—and she knows she can make a difference and that’s what motivates her to get up every day and put herself in the political arena on their behalf.

In April, 1923, Teddy Roosevelt—a man who knew adversity first-hand— spoke to an audience at the Sorbonne in Paris. The topic of the speech was “Citizenship in a Republic.” Within that speech is what is called “The Man in the Arena.” If I had license to do so, I would, for this example, replace the word “man” with “woman” in order to make the point that, in the 21 century, men and women have the right to compete in the arena,

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.


I do believe it is time for a woman whose life experiences are common to us all to be elevated to the nation’s highest office. Oprah Winfrey may be—should be—that woman’s beacon. In such a role, Oprah will serve a much higher cause by lending the power of her voice to champion that rising woman in the arena. 

Sunday, January 7, 2018

A New Definition Of Genius According To Trump

For your consideration: One Donald Trump who believes with every fiber of his being that he knows more than any other human on the planet (or any human who ever lived, including Einstein, Enrico Fermi, J. Robert Oppenheimer, and all the men and women whose lives were and continue to be devoted to physics and nuclear energy). As if to dismiss the massive brain power of generations of scientists who are still plumbing the depths of the atom and its nuclear forces, Mr. Trump said this about uranium: “You know what uranium is, right? This thing called nuclear weapons like lots of things are done with uranium including some bad things.”

So there you have it. Uranium is just another bad thing, like North Korea, the FBI, all the intelligence services, personal cell phones in the White House, a book he’s never read but doesn’t like already, a broad swath of the media, Dreamers, refugees, and a few dozen other bogeymen all playing inside Trump’s incredible brain (a brain like you’ve never seen). Let’s call the unseen force that created all these bad things the “Deep State,” a netherworld of plotting and planning goblins and ghosts and long-legged beasts invented by Mr. Trump to explain away all the things he cannot understand, or which are simply too inconvenient for his brain to comprehend.

I’ve been doing some digging into the structure and scope of the Deep State, curious to map it out and see just who the Deep State’s controllers are, and how they are so darned impossible to pin down and identify. My search is informed by my own history of work here in Washington. One would think that after nearly 35 years of employment in the House of Representatives, the Senate, three cabinet departments, an investigative arm of the Pentagon, numerous news journals and magazines based here in Washington, and just generally kicking around town for all of my adult life, I might have at least run into someone from the Deep State. I even held a pretty high-level clearance in order to learn some things of importance to the country’s security.  Bottom line? I never ran into any Deep Stater. And why would that be?

Because Washington leaks like a sieve, and is damn proud of it! You couldn’t plot a takeover of a DC street vendor without the Washington Post getting wind of it or Michael Wolff writing about it or CNN breaking into its Breaking News! cycle with all the details of the now-exposed and ruined plan. Why, Chris Cuomo and Alisyn Camerota would feature the plan on New Day, then Poppy Montgomery would follow up…as would Dana Bash and Brook Baldwin. Then Wolf Blitzer would have at least one panel of former hot-dog vendors and food takeover analysts on his segment, all rounded out by a Jake Tapper commentary (and possibly a Sunday roundtable on ABC and CBS, and a Fareed Zakharia GPS global opinion on the strategic impact of failed hot dog vendor plots). On the other side of the dial, Fox News would suggest the vendor (a naturalized citizen of nonetheless questionable national leanings), deserved to be targeted, and that is exactly why THE WALL must be built.

My point, and I have one, is that all of Donald Trumps bizarre ideas about how government insiders are fomenting a gaslighting revolution--telling lies, informing the media, laying dastardly traps disguised as lengthy briefing books designed to frustrate him by being in English (with multisyllabic words), trying to get him to read the Constitution, and possibly poisoning his food (thus, he eats McDonalds as the other alternative to a White House meal…maybe he’d prefer White Castle)—come not from a Deep State, but from the House of Mirrors that is his brain.

No, there’s no Deep State. There is only Shallow Donald.  He's just a lout, an oaf, an illiterate, and a bully who has never been told "no" by anyone (are you listening Mitch and Paul and all of the Cabinet?) and who parlayed--freakishly--a minor fortune into a modest fortune (tax returns anyone?) by intimidation and payoffs to sycophants and construction bosses who were happy to take his money (oh, yes, and by bankruptcies…lot of those).

He has no shame or sense of morality. He has no empathic responses. He does not know, or wish to know, poor people, people of the working class who have no budget leeway, people of color who are the inheritors of all the sweat of the Civil Rights generation. He doesn’t give a damn about coal miners (sorry folks, but the truth must be illuminated here—and not with just a helmet lamp), and he has little use for anyone whose brain could be larger than his own nuclear button.

Because he doesn't read or want to, he has no sense of history, nor does he have the capacity to compare and contrast world events. Therefore, he is unprepared to make key decisions requiring measured decisions.
I have this dreadful nightmare that the instructions for the nuclear codes carried by Trump’s military aide (a sorrowful job) have all been rendered into primary-color cartoons, with SpongeBob SquarePants guiding Mr. Trump through his strike options.

No Deep State is necessary to bring this man to a final accounting for the damage he continues to wreak upon America’s global image and on our personal senses of dignity, ethics, and fair play. Mr. Trump is well equipped to do the damage to himself, aided as such people always seem to be by a coterie of enablers—some in, some out…some back in again…some out again—and a family of know-nothings and care-nothings who believe only in themselves.

I don’t know if Michael Wolff got it right in his book, but even if ten-percent is true, we should continue to be very, very worried.