Category Archives: elections

Book Club IV

Posted on by
Reply

In The Soul of America, Jon Meacham’s chapter on “The Confidence of the Whole People” begins with a quote from our own Harry S Truman: “The people have often made mistakes, but given time and the facts, they will make the corrections.”

He notes that “Truman was no saint on matters of race…But as president of the United States, he saw his duty whole.” After a returning black soldier was badly beaten by police in South Carolina, he told leaders of his party, “Whatever my inclinations as a native of Missouri might have been, as President I know this is bad. I shall fight to end evils like this.”

And he did with his Special Message to the Congress on Civil Rights. We offer excerpts from that February 2, 1948 message:

…This Nation was founded by men and women who sought these shores that they might enjoy greater freedom and greater opportunity than they had known before…These ideals inspired the peoples of other lands, and their practical fulfillment made the United States the hope of the oppressed everywhere. Throughout our history men and women of all colors and creeds, of all races and religions, have come to this country to escape tyranny and discrimination. Millions strong, they have helped build this democratic Nation and have constantly reinforced our devotion to the great ideals of liberty and equality. With those who preceded them, they have helped to fashion and strengthen our American faith—a faith that can be simply stated:

We believe that all men are created equal and that they have the right to equal justice under law.

We believe that all men have the right to freedom of thought and of expression and the right to worship as they please.

We believe that all men are entitled to equal opportunities for jobs, for homes, for good health and for education.

We believe that all men should have a voice in their government and that government should protect, not usurp, the rights of the people.

These are the basic civil rights which are the source and the support of our democracy…

We shall not, however, finally achieve the ideals for which this Nation was founded so long as any American suffers discrimination as a result of his race, or religion, or color, or the land of origin of his forefathers.

Unfortunately, there still are examples—flagrant examples—of discrimination which are utterly contrary to our ideals. Not all groups of our population are free from the fear of violence. Not all groups are free to live and work where they please or to improve their conditions of life by their own efforts. Not all groups enjoy the full privileges of citizenship and participation in the government under which they live.

We cannot be satisfied until all our people have equal opportunities for jobs, for homes, for education, for health, and for political expression, and until all our people have equal protection under the law.

…If we wish to inspire the peoples of the world whose freedom is in jeopardy, if we wish to restore hope to those who have already lost their civil liberties, if we wish to fulfill the promise that is ours, we must correct the remaining imperfections in our practice of democracy.

We know the way. We need only the will.

That was then.

Just doing his duty

Posted on by
Reply

A warning:  When we composed this examination of current events, we did not realize it would generate a second chapter.  Today, chapter one.

A lot of people are getting all hot and sweaty about President Trump’s push to get his Supreme Court nominee confirmed by the Senate before the election so she can rule on any lawsuits about the legitimacy of the election that reaches it. He is convinced the only way he can lose is if there is massive voter fraud and he has lawyered-up to file a lot of lawsuits. Addressing that demagoguery is not our purpose here today.

Let’s talk about the process a little bit because it’s been a while for most of us since our political science classes in high school or college and with all of the shouting and finger-pointing going on, a bit of a refresher course might be in order.

First, the president said last week, “I have a constitutional obligation to put in nine judges—justices.”

Well, yes and no. Article two, section two of the United States Constitution says the president “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint….judges of the Supreme Court.” Note that it does not say how soon after a vacancy occurs the President must act.  It also does not say an incumbent President must act.

Article three, section one says, “The Judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme court and inferior courts shall hold their offices during good behavior and shall at all times receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.”

Now, there’s something we don’t hear discussed often.  These judges shall hold their offices “during good behavior.”  We went to Congress.gov to see what that means because most of us, your faithful observer included, who had not observed that qualification before and wonder what that means.

For those of you who think the only thing we have to do is read the Constitution to solve all of our problems, this is an example of the flaw in that argument.  One of many.

Congress.gov says, “This standard, borrowed from English law, ensures that federal judges hold their seats for life, rather than set terms or at the will of a superior. The applicability of the Good Behavior Clause to the removal of federal judges has been the subject of debate; in particular, whether the phrase elucidates a distinct standard for removal apart from the high crimes and misdemeanors standard applicable to the impeachment of other federal officers. While this question has not been definitively resolved, historical practice indicates an understanding that the Good Behavior Clause protects federal judges from removal for congressional disagreement with legal or political opinions.”

If you think the noise we are hearing about the president’s appointment is loud, imagine what would happen if Congress had the power to remove Supreme Court Justices with whom the majority of Congress disagreed? Why would it have to be the whole Congress, even?  The Senate is the chamber that confirms nominees to these offices.   The Senate giveth; the Senate taketh away.

Nothing is written that prohibits Congress from doing that. What is written is the power of the House to impeach federal public officials (Article one, section two, clause 5).  As we know, after the House files charges (impeachment), the trial is held by the Senate (Article one, section 3, clause seven). Not all federal officials can be impeached (Article two, section four, which also defines the misconduct that can lead to impeachment).

But impeachment is not expressly mentioned in Article three, the judicial article. Instead of listing specific causes for impeachment of Supreme Court Justices, the Constitution speaks of “good behavior,” and that, says Congress.gov, “is widely understood to provide the unique nature of judicial tenure.”

One interpreter of that standard said in 1983, “The nation’s founders so insulated the job against political pressures because they believed the mission of the federal courts requires a high degree of independence in the third branch. The security of life tenure, the Constitution’s framers thought, would encourage resistance by the federal branch to popular moods of the moment not properly expressed in laws, and would promote the fidelity of federal judges to the enduring values embodied in our fundamental instrument of government.”  The observation was given in the John R. Coen Lecture Series at the University of Colorado School of Law by United States Circuit Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Your observer has diverted himself from the theme of our discussion but the diversion, we hope, has helped understand the special nature of the third arm of our government.

Back to the president’s statement that he has a Constitutional responsibility to “put” nine judges on the U. S. Supreme Court.

Not really.  The word “immediate” is not in the Constitution. The words “without delay” also are not in it.

He can only do it if the Senate agrees to let him do it.  That’s where the Advice and Consent language kicks in.  He also is not required to make sure the court has nine justices. The number nine is not mentioned in the Constitution and the president’s fellow Republicans a few years ago had no qualms about leaving the court with eight judges for fourteen months so that the next president could make the appointment.  Did that hamstring our judicial system?

No, it did not. In fact we have found eight cases dating to 1973 in which the court tied, sometimes because of a vacancy but most often because one of the Justices did not take part in the decision for one reason or another.  Eight cases in 47 years hardly hamstrung the judicial system.  So there is no Constitutional requirement that the president appoint a ninth Justice.  He is not prohibited from doing so a few weeks before an election, either.  Nor is he prohibited from leaving a vacancy indefinitely.   But when he does suggest someone, the Senate is mandated to provide its blessing before that person can put on the robe.

In fact, there is nothing in the constitution requiring nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court, as you could see by reading the provisions at the top of this offering. We will get to that next week.  We will mention that the number of members of the U. S. Supreme Court is set by Congress, which is why we’re hearing Democrats say they’ll try to expand the court to keep it from swinging unacceptably (to them) to the right.

“Packing” the court, as it’s called, has its perils.  What happens if Congress decides a 9-3 court is too radical?  Would it raise the number of 19?  Lower it back to 9, kicking some judges off the bench in the process?

It is obvious that the contemporary situation is a dangerous one—not in terms of whether the potential new court member swings the court far to the right but whether the handling of the nomination by the president and his party will lead the Democrats to do something that spreads the chaos of the Legislative and Executive branches to the judicial branch, where calmness in determining the validity of our laws should prevail.

—at least, in a more perfect world.

We conclude by submitting that the arguments made in the Merritt Garland case are specious and do not apply in the current case. The public’s decision in 2016 to have a president and both houses of the Congress represented by one party does not give that party a license to act with impunity in the current instance, especially since that party has seen a reduction in its overall congressional numbers in the intervening election although gaining two seats in the Senate in 2018. The argument is a red herring.

The issue, created in the Garland case, is whether one party can act one way prior to an election and then four years later, act another way even closer to an election. Any discussion beyond that is political gymnastics. The people’s will seems to be changing, as seen in the change of party power in the House and concerns by Republicans that their control of the Senate after November is in jeopardy. The surveys indicating the public mood continues to change this year further weakens the argument that what was sauce for the goose in 2016 should not be sauce for the gander because of 2018.

But, let’s face it.  Senate Republicans don’t give a tinker’s dam what one old man on a quiet street in Middle America thinks.

Next week we’ll be back with some more history and a look at the court’s future, which could become worse for liberals and might not get back to 5-4 for a decade or more.

Book Club—III

Posted on by
Reply

Our book club looks at Jon Meacham’s discussion of presidential leadership, or lack of it, and a single phrase that is used often.

Franklin D. Roosevelt’s statement, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself,” has been mentioned by our president as a justification for telling us we had nothing to fear from the coronavirus while knowing for some time that it is a fearsome thing.

Meacham’s The Soul of America spends a chapter on Roosevelt and the competing interests seeking power during The Great Depression.

As often happens on both side of the aisle, a noble phrase is cherry-picked from its context and used to justify an action (or inaction).  But when the quotation is seen in context, the meaning of it becomes entirely different.  Such is the case with “nothing to fear.” It hardly is an excuse to do nothing in the face of great danger.

The phrase was spoken at the beginning of FDR’s first inaugural address on March 4, 1933:

I am certain that my fellow Americans expect that on my induction into the Presidency I will address them with a candor and a decision which the present situation of our Nation impels. This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly. Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our country today. This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself–nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life a leadership of frankness and vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves which is essential to victory. I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.

The leadership message is completely different—is it not?—when the line is put back in its proper place. Knowing history, not just knowing a sentence from it, could have changed an arc of our history in 2020.

After RGB 

Posted on by
Reply

Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn’t make it to the end of the Trump administration as she had hoped.  Her dying wish reportedly dictated to her granddaughter was that she not be replaced before the election.  It appears that’s not going to be realized either.  Our president has belittled her last opinion, in fact, claiming without evidence that it was something composed by Adam Schiff or Nancy Pelosi, or Chuck Schumer, three of his favorite Democratic punching bags.

Your observer of the three branches of government for most of his life fears a 6-3 U. S. Supreme Court, regardless of any perceived partisan tilt, and thinks a 5-4 court is best regardless of any such tilt.  The law is a matter of constant fine-tuning, often on small points of difference. Progress under the law is best accomplished with a surgical instrument rather than with a hammer.  The length of time members of the court are allowed to serve is a crucial factor in whether equality under the law is balanced for the long-term welfare of the country. Rulings from a 5-4 court seem more likely to represent arguments based on law rather than decisions based on ideology.  And when ideology shapes the legal standards under which we all much live, the opportunity for Inequality seems more likely to grow.

It is clear that Senate leader Mitch McConnell’s desire for an immediate vote on an immediate appointment is more focused on ideology than on the law, more focused on power than on principle.  Our nation is best served when the differences between conservative and liberal are narrow, forcing participants to focus on principle rather than power, more on law than on ideology.  It is as true in our appellate court system as it should be true in our legislative halls.

Super-majorities breed arrogance, distract from the principle of service, and place value on power.  And unchallenged power is inimicable to a republic.

Senator McConnell, who argued in February, 2016 that President Obama’s choice for the U.S. Supreme Court, Merritt Garland, should not get a hearing, let alone a vote, because court vacancies should not be filled during an election year, now has constructed some gymnastics to justify contradicting his argument against Garland.

Whether the process can be rushed to completion before the election is held is unclear. The process usually takes longer than the time between now and voting day. But it appears Senator McConnell will push that process.

The filling of this vacancy has instantly changed the presidential campaign and can instantly change campaigns for the U. S. Senate, including McConnell’s.  When the confirmation vote nears, we’ll see if some senators facing close contests might want to wait until after the election rather than rush to a vote before.

As if we voters don’t have enough to think about.

“May you live in interesting times” is a supposedly ancient Chinese curse—although scholars have found no such expression in Chinese.  There is, however, a Chinese phrase from a 1627 collection of short stories: “Better to be a dog in times of tranquility than a human in times of chaos.”

It appears we’re going to have a 6-3 court.  That doesn’t guarantee that the most conservative issues will be rubber-stamped, as we have seen from time to time when the court has surprised us with a ruling when a swing judge develops. Now, however, it’s going to take TWO swing judges when the court’s liberals prevail, a mountain too steep to climb most of the time. But the court’s own history indicates 6-3 is not always going to be a given.

Sometimes, however, being a dog, especially in times of chaos, is appealing, too.

Our application

Posted on by
1

We have not been posting comments on current affairs on any day but Wednesday for some time but Nancy, the insightful wife of your loyal correspondent, asked a question yesterday that prompts this rare Tuesday inquiry.

A few days ago we received in the mail—and maybe you did, too, if you live in Missouri—a “Missouri Vote-By-Mail Kit.”  It was not sent to us by our county clerk although it is to be sent to that person.  It was not sent to us by the Secretary of State, the state’s top election official, who is facing a lawsuit filed by a voting rights group accusing him and local election officials of violating the rights of voters by making them do extra things and risk their health to vote in November.  Whether that is an appropriate or accurate allegation is for the courts to decide.

The point is: This “kit” does not come from anybody who will be administering our November elections.

It comes from Uniting Missouri Political Action Committee, an organization that supports Governor Parson’s re-election.  It includes vote-by-mail applications for Nancy and her husband to finish filing out—a few check marks here and there, a telephone number, an email address and a signature line.  All we would have to do is fill in those blanks and send the application to the county clerk.

But Nancy noticed the address on the “kit.”  It was addressed to “The Priddy Household or Current Resident.”

“What if somebody else was living here?” she asked.

A Current Resident.

That makes us a little nervous.  What if the Priddy Household had re-located?  What if the people at this address filled out this form and signed our names to it?   What if the email address didn’t have our names in it—many don’t.  What if the signatures were close enough to the signatures on file with the clerk’s office that an employee there decided “close enough” was good enough?  If the signature by Current Resident doesn’t match and a clerk’s employee calls the phone number listed (which would not be our own) the Current Resident could apologize and say it’s the best they could do since breaking their wrist last week.

We wonder if this mailing won’t just make the Cole County Clerk’s job more difficult.

What if we were to later re-register and go to our regular polling place on November 3 and be told we already had voted?

We worry that this “kit” could lead to confusion at best and voter fraud at worst.

We wonder how this political action committee can encourage a voting process that its party’s presidential candidate constantly blasts as already rife with fraud.

Perhaps those presidential concerns are neutralized by a message on the outside of the kit: “Our Republican candidates up and down the ballot are counting on you to cast your vote this year.  Liberal Democrats hope you’ll let fear stop you from voting. Don’t let the Democrats win!”

It also reminds us to “Stay Safe. Vote by Mail.”

Us.   Or the Current Resident.

Of course, if the Current Resident (who might not be us) were to vote by mail, we couldn’t “stay safe” in OUR voting, could we?

Well, it’s kind of academic in our case because we are the Current Resident and we plan to risk our lives, if you will, by FEARLESSLY donning our masks, going to our voting place on November 3, and casting our ballots.  Who we vote for is none of your business. But fear won’t keep up us from voting.

Will this piece of mail lead us to bear any kind of a grudge against Governor Parson?  No. Our perceptions of candidates are not based on what we get from them in the mail but are based on what we learn and what we know about them. We suggest that is a course for all responsible voters.

In fact, as we have noted before in some of these entries, it’s a good thing that we don’t base our votes on the crap we get in the mail from their campaigns.

Current resident might.  But not The Priddy Household.

 

 

 

Journalist vs. citizen

Posted on by
Reply

The criticism of Bob Woodward for not making public sooner our president’s remarks indicating he had early knowledge of the dangers of the coronavirus but chose not to tell the public rekindles an old and probably unresolvable question.

Is a reporter a citizen first or a journalist first?  The question probably has been raised most often when a cameraman or a reporter shoots video of a bad event happening without personally intervening to limit or prohibit harm to one or the other of the participants.

The issue has a broader context in the time of cell phone videos that lately have become triggers for more events. At what point does a citizen have a responsibility to put away a cell phone and step in to keep harm from happening to a fellow citizen? It’s not just the reporter who must make a split-second decision. The potential now exists for all of us.

Woodward is being criticized for not revealing the president’s (we think) terrible decision to conceal the dangers of the virus while assuring the public for several weeks that everything was under control and would be fine.  While the president claimed he did not want to cause a panic, anyone with any knowledge of history knows this nation does not panic. It has reflected uncertainty but it relatively quickly has steadied itself and acted. It did not panic after 9-11. It got angry. It picked up pieces. It mourned. It exhibited empathy and sympathy and dedication.

When Pearl Harbor was bombed, the nation did not panic. It gathered itself, dedicated itself to necessary steps to fight back.

In those two instances, we went to war.

Name your historical catastrophe and you won’t find national panic. We have a tendency to absorb our tragedies, mourn our losses, and take necessary steps to come back. We might hazard the observation that a president who doesn’t understand that lacks a significant understanding of his country.

If the president wouldn’t shoot straight with the people, should Woodward have stepped forward? And when?

Let’s turn to the Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank if you will that studies issues within journalism—including ethics.  Al Tompkins is a senior faculty member and someone I highly respect.  He asked whether it was ethical for Woodward to withhold that information: https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/2020/was-it-unethical-bob-woodward-to-withhold-trumps-coronavirus-interviews-for-months/

The institute’s senior media writer, Tom Jones, had his take: https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2020/more-fallout-from-bob-woodwards-book-on-donald-trump/

We don’t expect you to read all the way through these pieces; we present them to show that journalists face issues such as this every day, just about, and we do not treat them cavalierly.  The stories are seldom as severe as the coronavirus. But the issue of when a reporter has enough to go to press or to put it on the air is something we face a lot.

Rushing a story into print or onto the air without waiting for the context of the story to develop might do no one any good.

We are not sure Woodward should have released that first tape with our president as the president was saying telling the public that everything was under control and the fifteen present cases soon will be down to zero.  The dilemma grows as circumstances change and additional interviews are recorded with additional actions and words—or the lack of them—that make the story more important.  When does the weight of the accumulated information reach a tipping point? And as events advance, what is the best way to handle a changing tipping point?  Reporters sometimes reach a point of asking whether releasing the information will stop the story’s evolution or whether the public is better served by letting the story keep unravelling.  Does the reporter have a responsibility to a public figure to keep that person from digging a deeper hole for himself or herself? Or is it an ethical violation to tell that person to quit shoveling?   This reporter never felt he had any business telling an office-holder he should not be doing troubling acts. But there were plenty of times when it became clear that public awareness of a situation was paramount.

At a certain point, some stories move beyond the ability of the reporter to stop observing and start writing. The evaluation of when that point is reached is purely subjective. When is the time to get off the horse although the horse keeps moving?  Why not wait to see where the horse goes?

Did Bob Woodward have to sit on those tapes as long as he did?  If not, when should he have written the story?  And would writing the story have made any difference in the president’s attitude and actions?  Would publishing the story earlier have saved any lives?  Or would the president have just dismissed the story as more fake news and continued his course?

There also are times when promises are made by a reporter to get a source to divulge information. We don’t know if there was such an arrangement in this case but the reporter-source relationship is essential to the eventual flow of information and promises of anonymity or promises of holding information that is only part of a story must be honored, uncomfortable though it might be for the reporter.

We don’t know about that relationship and speculation about the potential benefits of early release of information is not our long suit. But the issue is a complicated one and it is far easier to analyze the issue after the fact than when the reporter is caught up in the events developing around him or her.

These questions however ignore the central issue and the central issue is not what Bob Woodward learned and did not report.

President Trump knew what Bob Woodward knew before Woodward knew it.  Our president knew about this virus first. He could have reacted differently and many think he should have done so. Maybe Woodward should have reported the information sooner. But the person who could have acted differently than he did because he had the information first, did not.

Which of them bore the primary responsibility for alerting the public to the danger it was going to face?

Bottom line: Actions speak louder than words. If actions had been taken by the president then, words today from Bob Woodward might not have the impact they are having.

In fact, they might not even be a story, let alone a book.

Our disputatious times

Posted on by
Reply

(Two weeks from tomorrow is the first presidential debate of the 2020 campaign. Whether these debates become a reasonable point-counterpoint discussion of the future of our country or become continuations of our daily contention and controversies is something we’ll have to wait to see. Dr. Frank Crane explores—–)

THE ETHICS OF CONTROVERSY

Everything is disputable. I am willing to entertain arguments in support of any proposition whatsoever.

If you want to defend theft, mayhem, adultery, or murder, state your case, bring on your reasons; for in endeavoring to prove an indefensible thing you discover for yourself how foolish is your thesis.

But it is essential to any controversy, if it is to be of any use, first, that the issue be clearly understood by both sides.

Most contentions amount merely to a difference of definition. Agree, therefore, exactly upon what it is you are discussing. If possible, set down your statements in writing.

Most argument is a wandering from the subject, a confusion of the question, an increasing divergence from the point. Stick to the matter in hand.

When your adversary brings in subjects not relevant, do not attempt to answer them. Ignore them, lest you both go astray and drift into empty vituperation.

For instance, President Wilson, in the “Lusitania” incident, called Germany’s attention to the fact that her submarines had destroyed a merchant ship upon the high seas, the whole point being that this had been done without challenge or search and without giving non-combatant citizens of a neutral country a chance for their lives. Germany’s reply discussed points that had no bearing upon this issue, such as various acts of England. Mr. Wilson, in his reply, wisely refused to discuss these irrelevant things, an example of intelligent controversy.

Keep cool. The worse your case, the louder your voice.

Be courteous. Avoid epithets. Do not use language calculated to anger or offend your opponent. Such terms weaken the strength of your position.

A controversy is a conflict of reasons, not of passions. The more heat the less sense.

Keep down your ego. Do not boast. Do not emphasize what you think, what you believe, and what you feel; but try to put forth such statements as will induce your opponent to think, believe, and feel rationally.

Wait. Give your adversary all the time he wants to vent his views. Let him talk himself out. Wait your turn, and begin only when he is through.

Agree with him as far as you can. Give due weight, and a little more, to his opinions. It was the art of Socrates, the greatest of controversialists, to let a man run the length of his rope, that is, to talk until he had himself seen the absurdity of his contention.

Most men argue simply to air their convictions. Give them room. Often when they have fully exhausted their notions they will come gently back to where you want them. They are best convinced when they convince themselves.

Avoid tricks, catches, and the like. Do not take advantage of your opponent’s slip of the tongue. Let him have the impression that you are treating him fairly.

Do not get into any discussion unless you can make it a sincere effort to discover the truth, and not to overcome, out-talk, or humiliate your opponent.

Do not discuss at all with one who has his mind made up beforehand. It is usually profitless to argue upon religion, because as a rule men’s opinions here are reached not by reason but by feeling or by custom. Nothing is more interesting and profitable, however, than to discuss religion with an open-minded person, yet such a one is a very rare bird.

If you meet a man full of egotism or prejudices, do not argue with him. Let him have his say, agree with him as you can, and for the rest—smile.

Controversy may be made a most friendly and helpful exercise, if it be undertaken by two well-tempered and courteous minds.

Vain contention, on the contrary, is of no use except to deepen enmity.

Controversy is a game for strong minds; contention is a game for the weak and undisciplined.

Book Club

Posted on by
Reply

Your correspondent has been reading a remarkable book, Jon Meacham’s The Soul of America; the Battle for our Better Angels.   For those who are dismayed by the present political condition of our nation, Meacham offers comforting words that we’ve seen these days before and we always have come out of them because this nation refuses to be consumed by fear and grows greater because it remains a nation of hope.

If you have not read it, get it.  If you are less than optimistic in these complicated times, Meacham will teach you that we live in a resilient nation.  I am reminded of the musical The Unsinkable Molly Brown in which Molly proclaims early in the story, “Nobody wants to see me down like I wants to see me up!”

Our book club’s membership rules are simple.  Get the book.  Read it.  We won’t hold meetings except in this space, which means there’s plenty of room for discussion and we don’t have to worry about staying six feet apart.

Beginning today, we’re going to reach into this book that is filled with quotations from our presidents to provide you with a weekly quotation on the presidency at least through the election.  We begin with this observation from President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican who served 1953-1961:

I happen to know a little bit about leadership. I’ve had to work with a lot of nations, for that matter, at odds with each other. And I tell you this: you do not lead by hitting people over the head. Any damn fool can do that, but it’s usually called “assault”—not “leadership.”…I’ll tell you what leadership is. It’s persuasion—and conciliation—and education—and patience. It’s long, slow tough work. That’s the only kind of leadership I know—or believe in—or will practice.”

We’ll have another thought from another president next Friday.

Your correspondent has been reading a remarkable book, Jon Meacham’s The Soul of America; the Battle for our Better Angels.   For those who are dismayed by the present political condition of our nation, from whatever perspective you see it, Meacham offers comforting words that we’ve seen these days before and we always have come out of them because this nation refuses to be consumed by fear and grows greater because it remains a nation of hope.

If you have not read it, get it.  If you are less than optimistic in these complicated times, Meacham will teach you that we live in a resilient nation.  I am reminded of the musical The Unsinkable Molly Brown in which Molly proclaims early in the story, “Nobody wants to see me down like I wants to see me up!”

Our book club’s membership rules are simple.  Get the book.  Read it.  We won’t hold meetings except in this space, which means there’s plenty of room for discussion and we don’t have to worry about staying six feet apart.

Beginning today, we’re going to reach into this book that is filled with quotations from our presidents to provide you with a weekly quotation on the presidency.  We begin with this observation from President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican who served 1953-1961:

 I happen to know a little bit about leadership. I’ve had to work with a lot of nations, for that matter, at odds with each other. And I tell you this: you do not lead by hitting people over the head. Any damn fool can do that, but it’s usually called “assault”—not “leadership.”…I’ll tell you what leadership is. It’s persuasion—and conciliation—and education—and patience. It’s long, slow tough work. That’s the only kind of leadership I know—or believe in—or will practice.”

We’ll have another thought from another president next Friday.

Seeking honesty

Posted on by
Reply

Last week’s entry encouraged participants to look carefully at and listen skeptically to claims and accusations that will be blowing over us at hurricane velocity as election day nears. We’ve always felt it dangerous for citizens of a republic to restrict themselves to one news source and accept statements from candidates, surrogates, and social media without question.  The internet offers us opportunities to seek the truth but it also floods us with untruths. Responsible citizens will be unafraid to check sources of information and investigate truth or only truthiness, or outright falsehood.

The sources we list today will provide evaluations of the stuff we hear or see. Although all of us are busy, the search for truth always is time well-spent and these sources can provide important perspectives quickly.

The Berkeley Library at the University of California calls its site Real News/Fake News: Fact Checkers. It has a list of sites on its webpage and we’ve added a few more.

Pollitifact: Pulitzer Prize winning site run by editors and reporters from the Tampa Bay Times (Florida) newspaper. “PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others who speak up in American politics…. The PolitiFact state sites are run by news organizations that have partnered with the Times.”  Politifact offers a Pants on Fire Truth O Meter.

The organization rates statements as True, Mostly True, Half True, Mostly False, False, and Pants on Fire.  It has made 140 checks on Biden statements and finds 39 percent true or mostly true, 25% half true. 19 percent mostly false, 15% false and 3% Pants on Fire. It has made 840 checks on Trump and found 13 percent true or mostly true and an equal percentage half true. Twenty percent were mostly false, 35% false, and 16 percent Pants on Fire.

FactCheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania….a nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases.”  FactCheck.org recently was asked if a video shown on social media purportedly showing Joe Biden asleep during a television interview was genuine.  The answer: No, it was manipulated and fairly recently was circulated n Twitter by White House Chief of Staff Dan Scavino.

Flack Check: “Headquartered at the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, FlackCheck.org is the political literacy companion site to the award-winning FactCheck.org. The site provides resources designed to help viewers recognize flaws in arguments in general and political ads in particular.”  The site reports on politics, science, and health. On the “politics” page you will find a helpful video about how to spot fake news.

OpenSecrets.org: “Nonpartisan, independent and nonprofit, the Center for Responsive Politics is the nation’s premier research group tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy.” Among the topics on the web page is one about Dark Money and another about Political Action Committees. There also are specific stories about inside political influence and activities.

Fact Checker: “The purpose of this Web site, and an accompanying column in the Sunday print edition of The Washington Post, is to “truth squad” the statements of political figures regarding issues of great importance, be they national, international or local.” The web page bills it as “The Truth Behind the Rhetoric.”  This is the site that rates truthfulness by awarding Pinocchios, using the famous puppet whose nose grew with each lie he told.

Snopes: “The definitive Internet reference source for urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors, and misinformation.” One fairly new posting asks if “The CDC readjusted the COVID-19 death toll from 60,000 to 37,000.”  Snopes’ investigation rated the statement “false.”

Duke Reporters’ Lab: Fact Checking: Includes a database of global fact-checking sites, which can be viewed as a map or as a list; also includes how they identify fact-checkers.

AP Fact Check: Associated Press Journalists throughout the world check facts and accountability.

There are other resources, too:

CNN Facts First: This one recently had entries about nine conspiracy theories our president is pushing and a review of his opponent’s speech on Social Security, fracking, and crime. It also fact checks FOX News.

FOX News: We checked numerous sources for a FOX News fact checker but found no indication it has such a service.

ABC News: The Australian Broadcasting Company has a fact-check page but it focuses on that Australia, not the United States. (See below).

Traditional Networks: We searched for independent fact-checking efforts at the big three broadcast networks, ABC, CBS, and ABC. None of them seem to have their own fact-checking staff that we could determine. But they do report on the fact-checking by other entities.

C-SPAN: Does not appear to have its own fact-checking staff.

Unfortunately there are those who will look at all of these resources and decide to ignore them because they know all of them are liars, fake news, or some kind of joint anti-American conspiracy.

But for those whose minds might be open, even if only for a small sliver of light, they’re worth looking into. They might help convince a few folks that if they’re the only ones going a different direction than the rest of the traffic on a one-way street, it might not be the other drivers who have a problem.

More Great

Posted on by
Reply

(The quality of greatness, explored in our entry for Dr. Frank Crane about a month ago, deserves exploration from a slightly different direction. We’re going to hearing of greatness a great deal in the next two months, so it’s appropriate we offer an additional perspective as Dr. Crane writes about—)

GREATNESS

The greatness of a man lies in his ability to interpret his age.

Such a man must have that rarest of traits and genius: he must instinctively feel his fellow men.

He is not a leader. The whole strong-man theory is a humbug. He is a servant.

The greatest man in the man who comes nearest to executing the will of the people. He is “servant of all,”

If he is a poet, he utters the word they dumbly feel.  If he is an artist, he bodies forth their impotent fancy. If he is a statesman, he materializes their political convictions. If he is an orator or a writer, he says what they all would say. Always behind him is the mass from which he draws his force.

It is this power of submerging one’s self in the current of others’ feeling that is the gift of greatness.

The lawyer is great who loses himself in the interests of his clisents.

The physician is great who gives himself up to his patients, serving the poorest of them as loyally as any subject ever served his king.

The teacher is great who is the exponent of his pupils, the expression of their intellectual curiosity, the will of their highest ambitions.

The workman is great who feels the profit of his employer, the care of his goods, and the perfecting of his work as if it were his own.

The merchant is great who senses his customers, divines their needs, ministers to their wants; and he is greater yet if he feels his responsibility to those he employs, if he is the personal embodiment of the activities of all his working force.

A president, a governor, a senator, a congressman, a mayor, is great if he knows his people; if their conscience is his conscience; if his voice is their thought; if their desires and ideals move his hand and brain.

Homer, Goethe, Voltaire, Shakespeare, spoke their time.

The great men are the manufacture of the people.

David, Caesar, Washington, Napoleon, these knew how to ride the crest of the multitudinous wave.

Even of Jesus no greater thing can be said than that He uttered the heart of all mankind.