If one thing is certain, Brett Kavanaugh has become a rallying cry for the Republican Party. As proof, the results of a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll published Thursday show that the GOP has narrowed the 10-point enthusiasm advantage held by Democrats to a statistical tie in the wake of his controversial confirmation hearings.
"Whether you’re a Trump Republican, a Bush Republican, a McCain Republican, a libertarian or a vegetarian, you’re pissed," Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-N.C., claimed at The Atlantic Festival this week. "I’ve never seen the Republican Party so unified as I do right now. The defining issue in 2018 has changed. It’s about this . . . This cannot be the new normal."
"We know politics is poison," co-host Greg Gutfeld said on Thursday's edition of "The Five." "And I am an agnostic when it comes to religion, but I know one thing in my 12 years of Catholic Church...Crucifixion was an important event because it was designed to establish a wall between justice and mob rule."
Gutfeld asked: "Christ died so that the mob wouldn't survive, right?
"He got there. He died for everybody's sins," Gutfeld continued. "What the Democrats have tried to do is tear down the wall between justice and mob rule," the Fox News host added. "They decided to crucify someone once again. That's what's wrong."
"I know. I did this for 30 years," Pirro asserted on Wednesday. "I've prosecuted rape cases."
As if in a courtroom, she continued to gnaw away at Ford's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. According to Pirro, Ford's inability to remember some of the details about an attempted rape that allegedly occurred in the 1980s deems her not credible.
"The women who have been victimized are asking the same question. Why do I remember when I was raped? Why do I remember who was there? Why do I remember who the first person was I spoke with?" she continued.
As Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell pushes ahead to a Saturday floor vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation, three key Republican swing votes remain undeclared: Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Jeff Flake of Arizona and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
Collins said Wednesday that the FBI's report on the allegations raised by Ford appeared to show the results of "a very thorough investigation." "We've seen no additional corroborating information," Flake added. The pair's comments suggest a willingness to vote along party lines.
With a slim 51-49 majority in the Senate, the GOP can only afford to lose one vote given the tie-breaking power of Vice President Mike Pence. Whether the results of that vote become a deciding factor in the results of November's midterm elections remains to be seen.
The reopened FBI background check on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh was always going to be something of a sham. Consider how the request by Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona was originally worded in the Judiciary Committee meeting last Friday:
I think that we ought to do what we can to make sure that we do all due diligence with a nomination this important. I think it would be proper to delay the floor vote for up to but not more than one week, in order to let the FBI do an investigation, limited in time and scope to the current allegations that are there.
Until that moment, it had been assumed that the Republicans were going to "plow through," as promised by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. When Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said they were with Flake, McConnell and the White House knew they had to go along. They didn't have the votes.
Nonetheless, the fix was always in. Flake's request for a short investigation "limited in scope to the current allegations that are there" was wide open to interpretation. Which "current allegations" were they talking about? At that point, two other women had come forward following Christine Blasey Ford's initial accusation, and there was ample reason to investigate whether Kavanaugh had committed perjury multiple times during the hearings.
Everyone was aware by this time that the Senate had no authority to order the FBI to reopen the background check. It was up to the White House to issue that directive. What this meant in practice was that the White House would likely burn up time on the clock as much as possible and ensure that the "scope" would be very limited indeed. And that is exactly what happened.
This was cleverly disguised in a fog of shifting responsibility and presidential comments that left everyone scratching their heads about what was really going on. When asked whether he had limited the FBI investigation, President Trump said on Saturday, “They’re going to do whatever they have to do, whatever it is they do. They’ll be doing things that we have never even thought of. And hopefully at the conclusion everything will be fine.” Later on Twitter he said, “I want them to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion.”
That sounded as if the White House had decided to allow the FBI to do its job as it normally would. Experts all said this would be something the bureau could easily accomplish. After all, the FBI has thousands of employees and tremendous capacity. But reporters were already hearing that the White House would actually only allow the FBI to interview four people. Then the stories changed and nobody really knew what was happening.
The White House insisted it would defer to the Senate, while senators insisted it was out of their hands and the White House was in charge. On Wednesday the investigation was concluded and it became clear the FBI had only been permitted to interview six people, which did not include either Kavanaugh or Ford. Meanwhile, dozens of other people were coming forward with corroborating evidence, offering to make statements under oath. They received no response from the FBI.
All of this brings up an interesting conundrum. Theoretically, the FBI had a choice to make here. Trump said publicly, more than once, that he wanted agents to have free rein, follow all leads and do a thorough investigation. Obviously, the bureau was getting other private instructions from the White House. They could have chosen to take the president's public comments as their marching orders rather than the other ones. They could even claim that they had it in writing:
NBC News incorrectly reported (as usual) that I was limiting the FBI investigation of Judge Kavanaugh, and witnesses, only to certain people. Actually, I want them to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion. Please correct your reporting!
But the FBI did not seek that kind of confrontation, and that's not surprising. The president and his henchmen in the House Freedom Caucus have taken a page out of the old conservative movement's playbook. For years Republicans hectored the so-called liberal media for being biased against conservatives. The point was to make journalists second-guess themselves, to create a sense of paranoia and caution about being too aggressive in reporting what conservatives were doing. It was highly successful and tilted the coverage for decades, helping pave the way for the "post-truth" crisis in which we find ourselves today.
Trump has taken that tactic to a place I don't think anyone ever expected by applying it to the intelligence and law enforcement institutions. (Of course, no president has ever been so personally threatened by criminal and counter-intelligence investigations before, either.) He has been relentless in his criticism, and the effect on these institutions is to make them extremely cautious about being seen as hostile to Trump Look at what happened to people like Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. The message is clear.
That's how "working the refs" gets the job done.
Political reporters assume the Democrats are going to jump on this if they win the House in January:
If the Democrats take power in either House next year, they will of course subpoena every single FBI document related to this investigation, including all the tips to field offices that went unexamined. And all of Chris Wray's memos about his interactions with the White House.
Democrats should think hard about that. Echoing the Freedom Caucus approach and bringing the FBI before Congress over this might not be the wisest use of oversight power. Even though it's arguably more important for the long term, impeaching Kavanaugh once he's on the Supreme Court (assuming that happens) would be even more difficult than impeaching Trump. Kavanaugh's performance before the Judiciary Committee last week certainly doesn't lead one to believe that he would ever have the grace to resign, regardless of what they turn up. Putting the FBI on the hot seat over this, unless it's very carefully choreographed, could backfire.
If you hate what you're hearing about the FBI Kavanaugh investigation, know this is precisely how the White House will run the Russia investigation if they get the chance. It is not just an outrage...it is a warning.
Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., seems to have anticipated this potential problem, making sure not to hold the FBI in contempt for the poor investigation and laying it at the feet of the White House in his comments on Thursday.
If the Democrats take over either house of Congress in January, they will have to think through all their moves very carefully. Trump and his minions have shown that they are willing to go to any lengths to protect him and keep the courts in right-wing hands. Flailing wildly at every target will quickly turn chaotic. And Donald Trump is nothing if not effective at making chaos work to his advantage.
The political fight over whether to seat Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court -- a man who has been accused of sexual assault and was nominated by a man who has bragged about sexual assault -- seems, to most people anyway, to be a fight primarily about gender. But if you flip on Fox News these days, you would think this battle is largely about race, and that white men are being subject to false rape allegations to perpetuate some kind of anti-white oppression — an inverse of the way false rape accusations were used as pretext for lynching black men in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
"You might wonder what in the world this story, the Kavanaugh story, has to do with race," Carlson said, before arguing that the real agenda here was about "punishing everyone who looks like Brett Kavanaugh," as opposed, perhaps, to holding abusive men accountable for their behavior.
Variations of the anti-white racism charge have echoed through Fox News coverage in recent days. Martha MacCallum wondered if Kavanaugh should say he's "not guilty just because I am a white guy," which completely overlooks that the actual argument against him is based on corroborating evidence and the lies he told under oath. Ben Shapiro later announced that "white men are presumed guilty because they are white men," which ignores not just all the evidence against Kavanaugh and his false statements to the Senate, but also the fact that Kavanaugh was given a Senate hearing to defend himself and allowed to speak after his accuser.
All of these folks were likely following Ann Coulter's lead. Even before the Senate hearing in which Christine Blasey Ford testified against Kavanaugh, Coulter appeared on Carlson's show to deliver a rant about how the term "white privilege" meant that "any white male can be accused with an evidence-free accusation like this," and appeared to equate being accused of something with being found guilty.
"I thought it was weird that she explicitly threw the race piece in there," Angelo Carusone of Media Matters told Salon. "Why not just say this can happen to any man or any person?" he wondered. Since then, Carusone said, he has concluded that Fox News is deliberately racializing this issue because the network sees "as an opportunity to rally white people."
To be clear, there's no doubt that race — as well as class, education, wealth and family connections — has always been a part of this story. Many commentators have written and discussed the way that Kavanaugh's life growing up surrounded by immense privilege shielded him from all sorts of consequences for misbehavior. But that makes the race angle Fox is peddling even harder to swallow, since the kind of privilege that Kavanaugh enjoyed is rare even among white men, only a handful of whom are positioned to attend fancy prep schools and gain legacy admission to an Ivy League college.
But Carlson in particular is embracing the opportunity to use Kavanaugh's skin color to convince white middle-class and working-class Americans to align themselves with the moneyed elite against people of color whose economic interests they share. Carlson was even shameless enough to characterize a crowd that booed Sen. Lindsey Graham for his defense of Donald Trump as waging a revolution "against the working class." Is the working class defined by the skin color or by socioeconomic status? (This should hardly need saying, but people of color are more likely to be working-class than white people.)
This strategy of channeling the resentment many men feel at women who challenge male privilege and abuses, and using it to lure those men toward racism or overt white nationalism views is something Fox News learned from the alt-right's online organizing. As groups like the Anti-Defamation League have chronicled, white nationalists have effectively used online forums where men gather to complain about feminism as hunting grounds for recruitment.
"One of the most powerful inspirations to violent misogyny across all of these movements – alt right, MRA, incel – is the baseless charge that white men are victims who are falling prey to feminism, changing social norms, progressive thought and politics," the Anti-Defamation League report explains.
Such men might be drawn to forums because they want to bash anti-rape activists or complain about sexual harassment policies at work. But once they get there, they're ready for the message that white women are in cahoots with people of color to seize control and subject white men to oppression.
Carlson and other Fox News personalities are playing the same game: They're using anti-feminist rhetoric to open the door to the kind of racist rhetoric being peddled by the likes of David Duke and the KKK. White people are being oppressed by many sinister forces, the argument holds, and racial diversity is a mask for the supposed genocide of white people.
Carusone perceives an ideological agenda on here — Trump is a semi-overt racist (although he denies that specific label) and Fox News has an interest in keeping his views in the political mainstream — but also a financial one.
Fox News needs "that younger audience," Carusone said, because the network's audience, with an average age of 68, is about eight years older than the typical cable-news viewer. Fox News is having some problems with advertising, and has openly yearned to attract more eyeballs among the 18-to-45 crowd that advertisers crave. Fox Nation, an online service that still hasn't launched, is clearly one effort to grab that crowd. But another is to shifting the rhetoric on Fox News itself to more closely mirror the racist, paranoid nonsense being eagerly gobbled up by the young men who flood places like 4chan, Reddit and 8chan and decorate their social media avatars with the Pepe the Frog avatar.
Fox News, Carusone argued, increasingly sees "the alt-right Periscope channels and YouTube channels that really speak to the audience of young men" as their principal competition. That crowd isn't interested "the 30 or 40 minutes of standard right-wing stuff" normally seen on Fox News, he continued, but wants "vicious attacks and conspiracy theories" of the kind they often encounter online. Carusone notes that, along with the "white genocide" rhetoric, Fox News has also shilled for a conspiracy theory that has lately bubbled up in the 8chan and Reddit swamp: the proposition that Christine Blasey Ford has had false memories implanted.
The forces of online organizing behind white nationalism and other fringe, fascist-flavored ideologies have already had a significant impact on younger people. PRRI research indicates that while most young Americans are politically to the left of their elders, young white men, no doubt influenced by far-right online culture, increasingly reject the existence of actual racism and sexism and believe instead that white men are the true victims of oppression. Carusone expressed concern that seeing such views "featured front and center at one of the most prominent news channels" will offer the apparent imprimatur of mainstream acceptability, and encourage the existing audience to become even more overtly racist than it is already.
The constant drumbeat of news items about President Trump's racist remarks or Tucker Carlson's latest flirtation with white nationalism can be numbing, but the grim reality is that this situation is getting worse all the time. Fox News has seized on the increased stemming from the Kavanaugh showdown to push claims that used to be entirely disreputable even on the right. That suggests the network is determined to tie the Republican Party's to Trumpism and define racial grievance as its core ideology.
Although Joe Scarborough—the ex-Republican and former Florida congressman who now hosts “Morning Joe” with Mika Brzezinski on MSNBC—has been one of President Donald Trump’s most prominent critics on the right, he offers some valuable insights when it comes to explaining Trump’s appeal. Scarborough dislikes Trump vehemently, stressing that he believes the president has been terrible for the GOP and the conservative movement. But Scarborough is also quick to point out that Trump can be really effective when it comes to rallying his base.
Rather than relying on polls, Scarborough told Brzezinski during their October 4 “Morning Joe” broadcast, Trump rallies his base by employing “algorithms.” One could also describe them as recurring Culture War themes or messages, but whatever one calls them—and however ludicrous they might seem to his critics—they rally his hardcore base in a big way.
Here are four algorithms, as Scarborough calls them, that Trump uses to rally his delusional base.
1. Masculinity Is Under Attack in the U.S.
So far, three different women—Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick—have come forward with sexual abuse allegations against Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh. And instead of encouraging a dialogue on sexual misconduct, Trump has painted Kavanaugh as not only the victim of a Democratic Party witch hunt, but also, as a victim of a liberal campaign against masculinity in general. Trump is great at conflating criticism of sexual misconduct with attacking the overall male population, and the men-under-attack theme is an effective tool for rallying his base.
2. Christianity Is Under Attack in the U.S.
Trump is hardly a religious scholar, but when it comes to the Christian Right, he knows what buttons to push—and one of them is the Christianity-under-attack theme. Barack Obama, as president, was hardly anti-religion; he obviously knows a lot more about the Bible than Trump and has spent much more time attending church. His rhetorical style even incorporates elements of the African-American church experience. But Obama embraces a non-fundamentalist form of Mainline Protestant Christianity that stands in stark contrast to the Christian Right, white nationalism and prosperity theology. And when Trump plays the Christianity-under-attack card, it rallies the far-right white fundamentalists in his base. Mark A. Thiessen, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, has exalted Trump as the U.S.’ “most pro-religion president”—which is a ridiculous statement, yet shows how effective Trump can be at manipulating the Christian Right and wrapping them around his finger.
3. Immigrants Are the Enemy
Trump’s supporters would argue that he isn’t xenophobic or anti-immigrant, only pro-American. But his actions speak otherwise, whether he is denouncing El Salvador and Haiti as “shithole countries,” pushing for a border wall or separating families at the border. And that intense nationalism plays to the fears of Trump’s hardcore base, who blame immigrants for their economic worries.
4. Democrats and RINOs Don’t Want to ‘Drain the Swamp’
Trump rallies his base not only by attacking Democrats, but also, by lambasting so-called RINOs: Republicans in Name Only. “The swamp” is Trump’s term for the corrupt, elite Washington D.C. establishment, which in Trumpspeak, consists of both Democrats and NeverTrump Republicans—and whenever he is criticized by either a Democrat or a NeverTrump Republican, Trump will claim that they resent his insistence on “draining the swamp.” To Trump, “the swamp” could be anyone from Sen. Dianne Feinstein to anti-Trump conservatives such as Scarborough or veteran columnist George Will. And whenever Trump rails against “the swamp,” his supporters applaud wildly.
In a new piece for the New York Review of Books, historian Christopher Browning warns that there are troubling parallels between the present-day United States and the days of fascism's rise in Europe.
Browning, a specialist in the areas of the Holocaust, Nazi Germany, and world war-era Europe, isn't arguing that President Donald Trump is a modern Adolf Hitler or that Trumpism is akin to Nazism. But he does argue that certain stress fractures in the society and the international order appear to be re-emerging and that these patterns portend troubling trends for the United States and the rest of the world.
And there is one figure in American politics that Browning does see as a relatively direct — and troubling — analog to a crucial world war-era figure. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican, is becoming "the gravedigger of American democracy," Browning wrote, a role played for Germany beginning in the 1930s by President Paul von Hindenburg.
Hindenburg didn't defend democracy in Germany. Instead, he unleashed emergency powers in 1930 to appoint chancellors to skirt over political divisions in parliament. Eventually, Hitler became chancellor, when Hindenburg erroneously thought he could be controlled.
Now, McConnell shows a similar disregard for democracy and likewise opens up the country to serious risk, Browning explained:
He stoked the hyperpolarization of American politics to make the Obama presidency as dysfunctional and paralyzed as he possibly could. As with parliamentary gridlock in Weimar, congressional gridlock in the US has diminished respect for democratic norms, allowing McConnell to trample them even more. Nowhere is this vicious circle clearer than in the obliteration of traditional precedents concerning judicial appointments. Systematic obstruction of nominations in Obama’s first term provoked Democrats to scrap the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominations. Then McConnell’s unprecedented blocking of the Merrick Garland nomination required him in turn to scrap the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations in order to complete the “steal” of Antonin Scalia’s seat and confirm Neil Gorsuch. The extreme politicization of the judicial nomination process is once again on display in the current Kavanaugh hearings.
As a result of McConnell's strong-arm tactics, Browning argued, it will now be impossible for a president to make significant judicial appointments — including to the Supreme Court — unless the Senate is led by the same party. This dynamic will push the country toward greater dysfunction.
He continued:
Whatever secret reservations McConnell and other traditional Republican leaders have about Trump’s character, governing style, and possible criminality, they openly rejoice in the payoff they have received from their alliance with him and his base: huge tax cuts for the wealthy, financial and environmental deregulation, the nominations of two conservative Supreme Court justices (so far) and a host of other conservative judicial appointments, and a significant reduction in government-sponsored health care (though not yet the total abolition of Obamacare they hope for). Like Hitler’s conservative allies, McConnell and the Republicans have prided themselves on the early returns on their investment in Trump. The combination of Trump’s abasement before Putin in Helsinki, the shameful separation of families at the border in complete disregard of US asylum law (to say nothing of basic humanitarian principles and the GOP’s relentless claim to be the defender of “family values”), and most recently Michael Cohen’s implication of Trump in criminal violations of campaign finance laws has not shaken the fealty of the Republican old guard, so there is little indication that even an explosive and incriminating report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller will rupture the alliance.
Most ominously, Browning warns that the detrimental effects of figures like McConnell and Trump will last for a long time. However long they stay in power, they will eventually leave — but the damage done to democracy and American institutions may persist for generations.
One of the great things about computer games is that anything is possible in the almost endless array of situations on offer, whether they are realistic or fantasy worlds. But it has been reported that gamers are boycotting Total War: Rome II on the grounds of historical accuracy after developers introduced women generals, apparently to please “feminists”.
But while it’s true that the Romans would not have had female soldiers in their armies, they certainly encountered women in battle – and when they did it created quite a stir. The historians of the ancient world recorded tales of impressive female military commanders from across many cultures.
In the ancient world, when women did go to war, it was usually reported as a complete reversal of the natural order of things. The ancients believed, as Homer’s Iliad claimed, that “war will be men’s business”. In the eyes of the (male) contemporary historians, female warriors were aberrations and often remembered as embodiments of the mythical one-breasted Amazons. These legendary warriors were usually portrayed as slightly unhinged women who behaved unnaturally, and symbolised – to ancient men at least – a world turned on its head.
Achilles slaying Amazon queen Penthesilea in combat.
Yet the star-crossed tale of Achilles and the Amazon warrior queen Penthesilea fascinated the ancient chroniclers. Penthesilea, who led her troops to the support of Troy, was the mythical daughter of Ares, the god of war. She was killed in combat by Achilles who then mourned her, falling in love with the warrior queen for her beauty and valour. The moment is captured on a famous 6th-century BC vase now in the British Museum and was represented in text and imagery across classical Greece and Rome.
When Artemisia of Caria commanded ships on the side of Persians at the battle of Salamis in 480BC she fought so well that the Persian king Xerxes exclaimed: “My men have become women and my women men.” It was a world turned upside down according to the Greek historian Herodotus – but the soldiers who willingly followed Artemisia into battle could not have thought that way. She must have been skilled and competent and inspired those she commanded.
Cleopatra’s warlike family
In the Hellenistic period – which is generally held to be the period between the death of Alexander the Great in 323BC and the conquest of Egypt by Rome in 31BC – women with real power and agency appear in numerous kingdoms across the Eastern Mediterranean. These extraordinary and influential queens often held the keys to power, had personal armies and would not hesitate to go to war.
They were the mothers, daughters and sisters of the kings and generals who succeeded Alexander the Great. The fabulous Cleopatra VII – best known for her affair with Julius Caesar and marriage to Marc Anthony – was the last of a long line of impressive Egyptian queens who went to war. The role of fighting queen had already been well established by her namesakes including Cleopatra Thea and Cleopatra IV.
The indomitable Cleopatra Thea held her own in the ruthless world of Hellenistic dynastic chaos as the queen to three Hellenistic kings, while Cleopatra IV, when divorced from one husband, took a personal army with her to her next husband as dowry.
Palmyra’s warrior queen
Centuries later, Zenobia, queen of Palmyra, took advantage of a period of upheaval in the Near East in the late 3rd century AD to carve a kingdom for herself and her city – and it was no coincidence that she connected her ancestry back to the fighting traditions of the Hellenistic Cleopatras.
When Zenobia led her armies she did so in the name of her son and took on the Roman emperor Aurelian to protect her city, her region and the interests of her realm. According to the Greek historian Zosimus, Zenobia commanded her troops in battle and people from across the region flocked to her side. Ancient writers were scandalised at the idea of a woman dominating Roman power but she remained a legend across the Middle East in Classical and early Islamic histories.
Boudica: Britain’s greatest warrior queen
Boudica statue on the Thames Embankment in London.
The most iconic of the female warriors from antiquity has to be the Iceni queen Boudica. When Boudica led her rebellion against the Roman occupation of her land in c. AD60, the historian Cassius Dio remembered it thus:
All this ruin was brought upon the Romans by a woman, the fact which in itself caused them the greatest shame.
There is a visceral image that accompanies her name, with long red hair (although Dio says she was blonde) flowing behind as she charges forth in her war chariot. The ancient writers speak of her terrorising the Roman occupants of newly conquered Britannia with her tall stature and fierce eyes. Boudica was viewed by the Roman men who recorded her history as a woman wronged and hell-bent on vengeance.
Tacitus, our best source for Boudica’s rebellion, claims that the Celtic women of the British Isles and Ireland frequently fought alongside their men. And when wars were about the survival of a kingdom, a family or a home and children, women would fight if they had to, especially when the only other option was slavery or death.
So when women took to the field in battle in antiquity it was both astonishing and terrifying for the men who recorded the events and shameful to lose to them. It almost always occurred at times of political chaos and dynastic upheaval, when society’s structures loosened and women had to, and could, stand up for themselves. Ancient men did not like to think about having to fight women or having women fight – and it still seems to irk some people today.
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands. – Douglas Adams
Why do so many Christians believe in miracles? Former Evangelical minister, John Loftus—now author of skeptical books and founder of the website, Debunking Christianity—asked me to address this question as part of an upcoming anthology, The Case Against Miracles.
One obvious answer is that Christians believe because our ancestors did. Handed-down religious beliefs are remarkably powerful and change-resistant, and Christian belief in miracles dates all the way back to the beginnings of Jesus worship. In fact, it dates back even further, back into the beginnings of the Hebrew religion and the earlier religions of the Ancient Near East from which the Hebrew stories and beliefs emerged.
Christianity was born at a time in history when every religion included a belief in magic or miracles. Miraculous healings, natural “signs and wonders,” good things magically happening to good people and (even more satisfying) bad people magically getting what they deserve . . .
Belief in all of these was the norm, along with the conviction that we humans can draw magic to ourselves by attracting the attention of supernatural beings, engaging in certain rituals, eating or drinking special foods, touching objects with talismanic powers, and more. What would have been truly miraculous would have been the emergence of Christian texts and traditions that didn’t include magical thinking.
That would have been a real wonder.
You can tell from the language I just used, that I see the Christian belief in miracles as a subset of humanity’s broader belief in magic. Christians for centuries have claimed that what they call miracles are somehow different than magic. They have claimed this, typically, while believing in other kinds of magic. The Bible writers and Church fathers were no exception. The Bible and the traditional Christian worldview include all manner of supernatural beings with special powers. In the Bible itself, this includes disembodied spirits, angels, devils, unicorns, dragons, seers, human sorcerers and witches, enchanted animals, and a whole pantheon of deities.
Many modern fundamentalists, at least in their own minds, continue to inhabit this wonderland. They believe that an invisible ethereal plane underlies the physical world, and that our lives are part of a cosmic battle between the forces of good and evil which spills from the otherworldly plane into this one. Magic, for them, still exists. On the website, Got Answers, one believer tried to clarify the difference between magic and miracles. His answer reflects the thinking of many other Bible believers:
“Basically, magic and miracles differ in their source: magic has either a human or demonic source, but miracles are a supernatural work of God. . . . “Magic is an attempt to circumvent God in the acquisition of knowledge or power. . . . “Miracles and magic sometimes look the same, but their goals are different. Magic and illusion distract the eye from reality, while miracles draw the eye to reality. Miracles reveal; magic hides. Miracles are an expression of creative power; magic uses what already exists. Miracles are a gift; magic is a studied skill. Miracles do not glorify men; magic seeks to be noticed and bring glory to the magician. Jesus was not a magician. He was the Son of God, known for His many miracles.”
Got that? Miracles are the magical stuff done by the Christian God or his proxies. Magic is the magical stuff done by the competition. The latter is bad, bad, bad, because it might trick you into worshiping someone or something else. And it’s real! The Occult. The Dark Arts. Keep your kids away from Harry Potter.
For those of us who don’t believe that any supernatural stuff is done by either the Christian god or any other gods for that matter—the distinction is little more than a cloud of smoke from an illusionist’s mist-making machine. It is just one of the many tedious ways that Christianity claims to be different—not a religion but a relationship, not man-made like all the others, not polytheistic like Hinduism, not antiquated like the fairy tales of Pagan Europe, and definitely not a bundle of superstitious woo like New Age wonders involving crystals and incantations. I find Christian exceptionalism of this sort—philosophers call it special pleading—to be narcissistic and irksome, and I’m going to use the terms miracle and magic interchangeably.
But I digress. It is true that specific Christian beliefs about miracles and magic are products of a specific handed-down tradition, kept alive by the architecture of the Church and the flow of history. But Christians are not alone in their miracle belief. Nearly 8 in 10 Americans say they believe in miracles, including almost 20 percent of nonbelievers.
The fact is, most all of us find ourselves attracted to magic, even if we are firmly convinced it isn’t real. People flock by the thousands to marvel at tricks performed by illusionists. Viewers flock by the millions to watch movies about super-villains and superheroes with superpowers. Young Adult fiction is dominated by genres like fantasy and science fiction and even paranormal romance. We humans love us some magic!
So, to answer the question, Why do Christians believe in miracles? we really have to ask—Why do we all love magic so much, child and adult, skeptic and believer alike? Why does magic so delight and call to us that it emerges in a myriad of different forms when we are given the freedom to build worlds from the unconstrained raw material of the human imagination? And what are the habits of mind that make us so prone not only to create magical stories but to believe the ones that have been handed down by our parents, and their parents, and their parents before them all the way back into the shadowy mists of pre-history?
To understand the panic that white men in the Republican Party are in these days, it’s useful to go back to April of 2016, when Trump was still running for the nomination. He held a rally at the Grumman Studios, located in what used to be the Grumman Aircraft factory in Bethpage, a community adjacent to Levittown, Long Island in suburban Nassau County, east of New York City. Levittown was the first suburb built on Long Island after World War II, a tight grid of narrow streets lined with wood frame houses that could be had for five or six thousand dollars.
Veterans of the war and people seeking to get out of New York’s Lower East Side and South Village flocked to Levittown, and Bethpage and East Meadow and Salisbury and North Bellmore and communities like them that sprang up on Long Island in the decade after the war. Almost all of the residents were white people, and they started businesses along the main drags throughout those early suburbs, like New York Route 107, which separated Levittown and Bethpage. The Grumman factory was located on Route 107, a massive collection of giant hangers and an airport where many of the fighters that won World War II were built in the early 1940’s. The new residents of Levittown and Bethpage opened pizza parlors, and gas stations, and hair salons and clothing stores and delis and grocery stores and donut and bagel shops. And those neighborhoods stayed that way for decades, homogeneous and safe and suburban, far from the grime and crime left behind in New York City. And white. They stayed white.
But no more. When candidate Donald Trump rode south in his motorcade down Route 107 from the Long Island Expressway on his way to his rally in one of the old Grumman hangers, he passed no less than 40 businesses owned by Afghan and Egyptian and Iraqi and Jordanian and Iranian and Syrian and Indian families. There, on the right, was Hamza & Madina Halal Food, and the Salai Junaid Jamshed women’s boutique. Just down the street was Shah’s Halal Food, and Channai Dosas, and the Shaheen Plaza, where Samaira Dress shop was across the street from the Karizma Beauty Shop. Just down the street was the Anian Beauty Salon, and the Rajbhog Café. Trump drove past the Sai Fashion Boutique, and the Super Halal and the House of Dosas, and many, many other businesses owned by immigrant families from the Middle East and Central Asia.
I also rode down Route 107 on a shuttle bus that took me from a distant parking lot to the Grumman Studios. Sitting behind me were a couple of white guys from Long Island, on their way to see the man they would vote for in November. When they looked out of the bus windows, they saw the same landscape of immigrant businesses Trump saw from his motorcade. One guy turned to the other and pointed to the passing scene, how different is was from the way it had been before.
“You know what they do? They come over here, and they get a job washing dishes somewhere, and they get their family over here, and the next thing you know, it’s not a pizza joint, it’s one of these kabob places! They’re taking over everything! You can’t even get a slice in Bethpage anymore!”
Trump’s rally was in Bethpage, and his audience was virtually all-white, but when they walked out of the rally, they may as well have been in Kabul or Baghdad or Tehran: women walking around in hijabs, men wearing shalwar kameez. And not a pizza joint in sight. The two guys were on the shuttle bus because they didn’t live there anymore, they had moved out of Bethpage, further east into Suffolk County, where it was still largely white, where you could still get a slice.
That’s what’s driving the white men in the Republican Party crazy. Metaphorically, they can’t get a slice anywhere. There are Route 107’s all over the country – in Chicago, and Detroit, and Los Angeles and San Antonio and Pittsburgh and Columbus and Tallahassee and Charlotte and Houston. Streets lined with ethnic businesses of one kind or another, crowded with people who are brown and black and Asian and Middle Eastern and North African. Crowded with people who are not white.
What you saw at the hearing for Judge Brett Kavanaugh last week was one of the last bastions of the white male patriarchy. There was Kavanaugh, the Republican’s white nominee, and on the Republican side of the dais, the 11 white male senators trying to push him over the finish line to confirmation. It wasn’t going well, and they were pissed. He was being questioned by the Democrats, who Kavanaugh identified as part of the “conspiracy” out to get him. A black man from New Jersey, a couple of white women, and a black woman from California. I mean, just look at that line up! You wouldn’t find them out at the country club, or on the golf links!
When you talk about the world of Brett Kavanaugh and the Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee, what you're really talking about is a world of white male privilege. Workplaces that are largely white and largely male, especially at the top. Country clubs that are all white or close to it. Golf clubs that are white and male, except for a few tokens they admitted under pressure, like Augusta National Golf Club, where the Masters is held every year, which barred blacks from membership until 1990, and women until 2012. Wealthy communities, some of them even gated and guarded, that are all white. Parties they go to that are all white. Fundraisers held in hotel ballrooms and living rooms and on lawns of estates that are all white. Corporate boards that are all white, or close to it, and almost all male.
This is the world that Kavanaugh grew up in, and it's the world he still lives in. Same with the 11 Republican men on the Judiciary Committee. So long as they are behind those walls, walking those golf fairways, inside those locked, guarded suburban gates, they're at home. They're comfortable. They're around people they recognize, people they feel natural with.
Then they walk outside any of those buildings or clubs or gated communities, and they walk around a city like Washington D.C., or New York, or L.A., or San Francisco, or Chicago, or Houston, or Philadelphia -— because that's where their courts are, that's where their office buildings are, those are the cities just outside of which their country clubs and golf courses are — and every other person they see around them is a different color, speaks a different language, wears different clothing, and they're all walking around just as comfortable and natural as you please, like they actually belong there, and they do, because they live in those cities, they go to school in those cities, they work in those cities, those cities belong to them, even lowly suburban Bethpage on Long Island, where Trump held his rally.
That's what drives them crazy. All those colors, all those women, all those languages, all those accents, all those head-coverings. The utter absence of all-whiteness and all-maleness. It's going away, right in front of their eyes, and there's nothing they can do to stop it. They can try, by putting a Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court and counting on him to make rulings against all those forces that are non-white, and non-male, and non-wealthy. But they can't stop it.
It drives them crazy. It drove Kavanaugh crazy last Thursday when he felt the position he was "born to" at risk. He went crazy in front of a Senate committee on national television. He broke down in real time. He couldn't control himself. What we saw was the reaction of white America to the coloring of America writ large. We saw its rage at what they can't control and its self-pity that they are losing control of what they've always felt is rightfully theirs. We saw it on Brett Kavanaugh's out of control facial expressions and completely inappropriate sobbing and anger.
The man is 54 years old. You're supposed to be able to hold yourself in check by the time you're 54. But he couldn't. His fear, and their fear, is just too great. He came apart in front of our eyes. The only thing he didn’t do was run screaming from the room in frustration.
All those shops along Route 107, all those people on the streets who are not white and don’t speak English without an accent, those people let them know with every business they open, and every dollar they make, and every step they take that white men are fading, they’re losing their grip on power.
Brett Kavanaugh has repeatedly lied under oath about his drinking habits in an attempt to refute claims that he drunkenly assaulted women on multiple occasions. These are the witnesses who have come forward to tell the truth about Kavanaugh’s drinking.
To defuse his image as a hard-drinking, privileged party boy, he lied over and over again – that he’s never blacked out; about the real meaning of “Devil’s Triangle,” “Ralph week,” “Renate Alumnius,” and other terms; that he didn’t drink during the week because of work, even though his calendar disproves this; and on and on.
When someone tells so many lies, how can we trust them with the monumental life and death decisions of the Supreme Court?
“On many occasions, I heard Brett slur his words and saw him staggering from alcohol consumption, not all of which was beer. When Brett got drunk, he was often belligerent and aggressive.”– Charles “Chad” Ludington, college friend from Yale University.
On his way out of town on Tuesday afternoon, President Trump took some questions from the press corps and defended embattled Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's youthful drinking habits. Trump said that while he has never had a beer himself he knows lots of people who have and he doesn't consider it a problem.
This isn't the story we've heard in the past, at least as it concerns his son Donald Jr.'s reported issues with alcohol in his youth, and especially when it came to his alcoholic older brother Freddy, whose history is said to have been the reason Trump has always abstained. All the stories about their relationship have Donald angry and impatient with his older brother, including an anecdote about one dinner where Donald told Freddy to grow up and "make something of himself in the family business."
“Donald put Freddy down quite a bit,” said Annamaria Schifano, then the girlfriend of Freddy’s best friend, who was at the dinner and recalled Donald’s tendency to pick fights and storm out. “There was a lot of combustion.”
Since he's been president, Trump has pretended that he isn't as judgmental about his big brother's drinking as he used to be. He now claims to understand that Freddy simply wasn't cut out for the business. Nobody believes him. From his tone, Trump is actually not thrilled with the tales of Kavanaugh's youthful boozing either but he undoubtedly believes has to defend his hand-picked judge from all the vicious women who are assaulting his good name. After all, Trump has walked at least 19 miles in those shoes.
After Trump's comments on Tuesday, I was reminded of a famous illustration of his vengeful nature. When the patriarch Fred Trump Sr. passed on and the family heard the will, Freddy's family was shocked to find out that they'd been written out and would receive nothing. Freddy's kids sued, claiming that Donald had manipulated their grandfather, who had suffering from dementia, into making that decision. Donald retaliated by canceling an agreement to pay for the medical care of his infant nephew who had cerebral palsy. Apparently, the family came to an "amicable agreement" later, which probably meant that Donald agreed not to sue Freddy's family back.
Given all this family lore, I think most people have assumed that Trump cut Freddy's kids out of the will out of contempt for what Trump saw as his brother's embarrassing weaknesses. But Tuesday's New York Times exposé of Fred Trump Sr.'s real estate empire and how he bankrolled Donald's entire career suggests another possibility: That maneuver could have been yet another desperate cash grab aimed at bailing out the repeated failures of Trump's allegedly brilliant business career.
It's obvious just from observing him that Trump's supposed business acumen has always been 90 percent hype. He's just not that sharp. It's clear that he has always spent most of his days thinking of ways to make people think he's richer, smarter and more successful than he really is. He created the celebrity image of himself as a genius businessman, even managing to parlay his name into a reality TV show and a reasonably successful consumer brand in recent years. But it turns out that the wealth itself was almost entirely due to his father's business savvy, not his. In fact, according to Tuesday's Times report, Fred Trump spent his life figuring out ways to fraudulently and unethically flow massive sums money to his children, especially his favorite son.
Trump's origin story has always been that he received a "small" $1 million loan from his dad to start his real estate business, and had to pay it all back. Instead it turns out that Trump's famously parsimonious daddy actually loaned him at least $60.7 million, which is more like $140 million in 2018 dollars. Even rich guys have to admit that's real money. Of course, the subtext of that story was that his dad wasn't really all that rich. His business was in middle-class neighborhoods of Queens, not the glamorous Manhattan that Trump later conquered. Part of the Donald Trump myth has always been the idea that he was much more successful than his father.
That too is BS. Fred Trump was massively rich, and his wealth is what supported Trump throughout his career. The Times procured hundreds of thousands of confidential documents, including 200 tax returns from Fred Trump's business that show many years of shady business practices designed to hide all these transactions -- which add up to Donald Trump receiving at least $413 million in today's dollars.
Trump has always said he got "peanuts” from his father. That's a lot of peanuts. And they started rolling in when he was a tiny boy. The Times found that even as a toddler, he was earning the equivalent of $200,000 a year in contemporary dollars. He and was a millionaire by the time he was eight years old. Year after year he received more money from his father's various trusts, until he was getting $5 million a year all the way into his 50s. It's always been unclear how Trump could maintain his luxurious lifestyle even when his businesses were all cratering in the '80s and '90s. Now we know. Fred Trump took very good care of his boy even after he found out that Donnie was fiddling with the will without telling anyone and had his daughter Maryanne (now a federal judge) find someone to draw up papers stripping his son of sole control over Fred’s estate.
The Times, in an unusual move, called itself out in noting that for years the media took the books and TV appearances and shameless promotion at face value. It's not like they couldn't have checked out the facts before this. The family wasn't exactly low profile. But this massive piece of investigative journalism may provide a roadmap for an investigation into Donald Trump's more recent finances, which he's gone to great lengths to hide. If the Democrats take over the Congress next year they can subpoena Trump's tax returns. And the state of New York may have some interest in the Trump family tax avoidance strategies as well (although the statutes for prosecuting any possible crimes have likely expired).
In fact, the Trump kids should probably take a good hard look at the books and make sure they have what they think they have. Donald Trump learned to cheat at this daddy's knee but he's probably lost most of what he inherited by now and anything he's still got, he intends to keep. He's not likely to have cheated to benefit his kids the way Fred did. Donald J. Trump cheats for the benefit of one person, and one person alone.
In The War YearsLincoln biographer and poet Carl Sandburg wrote,“Lincoln was the first true humorist to occupy the White House. No other President of the United States had come to be identified, for good or bad, with a relish for the comic.” More recently Richard Carwardine has devoted a whole book to Lincoln's humor. In contrast, former FBI director James Comey has stated that he never personally witnessed President Trump laugh, and conservative columnist Max Boot has written, “Has there ever been a president as humorless as Donald Trump? Doubtful.”
Is it just coincidental that our most humor-appreciating president was one of our wisest; and our most humorless one, probably our most foolish? I think not.
America’s outstanding twentieth-century theologian, Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971)— a favorite of President Obama as well as Comey, who wrote his senior thesis on him—once stated, “To meet the disappointments and frustrations of life, the irrationalities and contingencies with laughter, is a high form of wisdom.” Psychologist Erik Erikson wrote, “I can’t imagine a wise old person who can’t laugh.” Niebuhr thought that a sense of humor was especially important for politicians: “All men betray moods and affectations, conceits and idiosyncrasies, which could become the source of great annoyance to us if we took them too seriously. It is better to laugh at them. A sense of humor is indispensable to men of affairs who have the duty of organizing their fellowmen in common endeavors. It reduces the frictions of life and makes the foibles of men tolerable.”
Various wisdom scholars have also included a sense of humor as one of the values or virtues of wise people. I included it in an essay on political wisdom written before Trump ran for president. Wisdom also includes: a proper mix of realism and idealism, compassion, empathy, humility, tolerance and a willingness to compromise, creativity, temperance, self-discipline, passion, and courage. In addition, practical wisdom or prudence is necessary in order to properly balance, prioritize, and fit together these virtues and values in any particular situation so as to achieve the greatest good.
Skimming through Lincoln’s collected writings, speeches, and letters, one is struck by how concerned he was with wisdom. In the Kindle 7-volume edition (Madison & Adams Press, 2017), there are 59 mentions of “wisdom” and 85 for “wise.” Just a few examples, of how he valued wisdom should suffice.
In a letter of January 5, 1863 he wrote: “No one is more deeply than myself aware that without His [God’s] favor our highest wisdom is but as foolishness and that our most strenuous efforts would avail nothing in the shadow of his displeasure.” In another letter of September 4, 1864, he states: “We hoped for a happy termination of this terrible war long before this; but God knows best, and has ruled otherwise. We shall yet acknowledge His wisdom, and our own error therein. Meanwhile we must work earnestly in the best light He gives us, trusting that so working still conduces to the great ends He ordains.” In a short piece on “Democratic Government,” on November 10, 1864, we read: “In any future great national trial, compared with the men of this, we will have as weak and as strong, as silly and as wise, as bad and as good. Let us, therefore, study the incidents of this as philosophy to learn wisdom from, and none of them as wrongs to be revenged.”
In an Introduction to Lincoln’s collected works, Theodore Roosevelt quoted these November 1864 words and then added that Lincoln’s life taught Americans that “they must act with wisdom, because otherwise adherence to right will be mere sound and fury without substance; and that they must also act high-mindedly, or else what seems to be wisdom will in the end turn out to be the most destructive kind of folly.”
Lincoln’s concern with wisdom was not just a late development in his life, but was already present in him from a young age. In a long “circular” to the people of Illinois in 1843 (when he was in his thirties), he stated: “That ‘union is strength’ is a truth that has been known, illustrated, and declared in various ways and forms in all ages of the world. That great fabulist and philosopher Aesop illustrated it by his fable of the bundle of sticks; and he [Jesus] whose wisdom surpasses that of all philosophers has declared that ‘a house divided against itself cannot stand.’ ”
The citation from Jesus was taken from the Bible, which Lincoln knew well. Fred Kaplan in his Lincoln: The Biography of a Writerlists the Bible, Aesop’s Fables, and the works of Shakespeare as three of Lincoln’s greatest sources of inspiration. About Aesop’s Fables influence, Kaplan wrote, “Such commonplaces seemed profound wisdom simply expressed. Aesop became an enduring favorite.”
Kaplan also wrote, “That the Bible as wisdom literature contained truths about the human condition and provided moral guidance he did indeed believe.” And “A lifetime of reading wisdom literature thoroughly informs the two Lincoln essays [the Gettysburg and the second inaugural addresses] that have most permeated the American historical consciousness.”
Like all humans, Lincoln was not always wise, but he not only valued wisdom, he also possessed many of the values and virtues of a wise man, including a sense of humor.
In The War Years Sandburg provides many examples of Lincoln’s humor. One apt example indicates how Lincoln used it to keep his mental balance and cope with tragedy:
On the day after [the North’s crushing defeat at] Fredericksburg the staunch old friend, Issac N. Arnold, entered Lincoln's office [and] was asked to sit down. Lincoln then read from [humorist] Artemus Ward. . . . That Lincoln should wish to read this nonsense while the ambulances were yet hauling thousands of wounded from the frozen mud flats of the Rappahannock River was amazing to Congressman Arnold. As he said afterward he was “shocked.” He inquired, “Mr. President, is it possible that with the whole land bowed in sorrow and covered with a pall in the presence of yesterday's fearful reverse, you can indulge in such levity” Then, Arnold said, the President threw down the Artemus Ward book, tears streamed down his cheeks, his physical frame quivered as he burst forth, “Mr. Arnold, if I could not get momentary respite from the crushing burden I am constantly carrying, my heart would break!' And with that pent-up cry let out, it came over Arnold that the laughter of Lincoln at times was a mask.
Joshua Wolf Shenk writes in Lincoln's Melancholy: How Depression Challenged a President and Fueled His Greatness(2006) that Lincoln used humor to cope with tragedy. “More than any medication, more than any doctor’s counsel, Lincoln drew on two therapies for inspiration and succor: He read poetry, which helped him cut straight into the heart of real life. And he told jokes, which he called ‘the vents of my moods & gloom.’ It’s an apt image, as humor helped keep Lincoln’s inner life in circulation, keeping him in a kind of equilibrium with the environment.”
Another source on Lincoln’s humor observes that he was “known for his humor and folksy anecdotes, he liked to tell all kinds of jokes, bawdy stories, and yarns—usually poking fun at himself. . . . When he was accused of being two-faced [during a Lincoln-Douglas debate], Lincoln responded: ‘If I had another face, do you think I would wear this one?’ ”
The willingness of this man, who many thought homely in appearance, to make fun of his own looks attests to his willingness to combine humor with humility. Niebuhr believed that the best humor reflected this combination:
Humor is a proof of the capacity of the self to gain a vantage point from which it is able to look at itself. The sense of humor is thus a by-product of self-transcendence. People with a sense of humor do not take themselves too seriously. They are able to “stand off” from themselves, see themselves in perspective, and recognize the ludicrous and absurd aspects of their pretensions. All of us ought to be ready to laugh at ourselves because all of us are a little funny in our foibles, conceits and pretensions. What is funny about us is precisely that we take ourselves too seriously. We are rather insignificant little bundles of energy and vitality in a vast organization of life. But we pretend that we are the very center of this organization. This pretension is ludicrous; and its absurdity increases with our lack of awareness of it. The less we are able to laugh at ourselves the more it becomes necessary and inevitable that others laugh at us.
Although much of Lincoln’s humor was self-deprecating, it could also be sarcastic. Sandburg observed as a young Illinois state representative in Springfield, Lincoln “let himself go in sarcasm and satire that was to bring him shame and humiliation. He would change. He was to learn, at cost, how to use the qualities of pity and compassion that lay deeply and naturally in his heart, toward wiser reading and keener understanding of all men and women he met.” As he got older his humor became more “good-humored.”
The poet W. H. Auden, a friend of Niebuhr’s, agreed with the theologian that such humor was superior to the mean-spirited kind. In one of his essays on Shakespeare, he commented that Shakespeare’s comedy was superior to classical comedy because it reflected a Christian sensibility, which tells us that we are “forbidden to judge others and that it is our duty to forgive each other.”
Although Lincoln’s humor matured as he aged, he continued to relish some satire, which can be wise if employed to combat evil and further the common good. One of the president’s favorites was a man who a New York Times blog essay referred to as “The Stephen Colbert of the Civil War.” His name was David R. Locke, but writing as Petroleum Vesuvius Nasby he promoted progressive causes like racial equality by appearing to oppose them. Before going to the theater where he was assassinated, Lincoln read aloud to a few friends a Nasby piece that satirized Confederate’ thinking and the claim that Lincoln was “a buffon, a ape, a gorriler, a smutty joker.”
Although James Comey and Max Boot have indicated that Trump is humorless, we should be more specific and note that Trump can laugh at, and sometimes mock, others—who can forget the video of Trump mocking a reporter with a disability? In theNew Yorker, Emily Nussbaum compared the campaigning Trump to “the insult comic, the stadium act, the ratings-obsessed headliner who shouted down hecklers.” This type of “comedy,” however, is opposed to the type of humor supported by Niebuhr and Auden and is more akin to many ethnic jokes which use humor to make oneself feel superior and put down others.
What Trump cannot do, as Lincoln did, is laugh at himself. His colossal egoism will not allow it. And this same egoism is his chief impediment to gaining any type of wisdom or wisdom values. His outlandish statements —e.g., “I do have actually much more humility than a lot of people would think”; “I’m a very nice person who gets along very well with people”; Everybody loves me”—illustrate Niebuhr’s point that the less we are able to laugh at ourselves, the more others will laugh at us. No wonder he is such fodder for the likes of Stephen Colbert and Alec Baldwin.
Walter G. Moss is a professor emeritus of history at Eastern Michigan University and Contributing Editor of HNN. He is presently working on a book dealing with humor and wisdom from a historical perspective. For a list of all of Moss’s recent books and online publications, click here.
Recognizing that his 10,000-word essay was potentially "a lot" for some consumers, Nathan J. Robinson, editor-in-chief of Current Affairs magazine, has created a video version with the same title—"How We Know Kavanaugh Is Lying"—for those who might find it easier to digest.
Robinson first published his essay on Saturday, after the testimony of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, but the video version was posted online Monday evening.
If you like to read lots of smart words stringing together cogent arguments and facts, there's a link to Robinson's essay right here.
As numerous observers and lawmakers have now pointed out, if it's shown definitively that Kavanaugh lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee while under oath, that would be a clear case of perjury and "disqualifying" for a nominee seeking a lifetime seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Indeed, as Sen. Bernie Sanders declared Monday night, if Kavanaugh lied about anything that would be a "federal crime."
I’m a film studies professor, so when I first saw an image of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s June 1982 calendar, I immediately noticed his movie plans.
In between exams, a beach trip, basketball camp and workouts, Kavanaugh, like millions of other Americans that year, went to the movies. In fact, 1982 was, at the time, Hollywood’s most lucrative year at the box office.
In June alone, Kavanaugh scheduled three trips to the movies: “Rocky III” on June 13, “Grease 2” on June 16 and, on June 26, “Poltergeist.”
In June 1982, Brett Kavanuagh had three movies penciled into his calendar: ‘Rocky III,’ ‘Grease 2’ and ‘Poltergeist.’
Kavanaugh’s teenage moviegoing may not have been particularly noteworthy had he not invoked three films during his Sept. 27 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Asked to decipher some cryptic allusions on his yearbook page, Kavanaugh referenced the popular comedies as a form of justification.
“For one thing, our yearbook was a disaster,” he said. “I think some editors and students wanted the yearbook to be some combination of ‘Animal House,’ Caddyshack’ and ‘Fast Times at Ridgemont High,’ which were all recent movies at that time. Many of us went along in the yearbook to the point of absurdity. This past week, my friends and I have cringed when we read about it and talked to each other.”
Could the young men Kavanaugh encountered on screen, many of whom behaved badly but were also relatable – even popular – help us to understand the male culture of his adolescence?
It’s all about the ‘score’
I’m not the only one asking these questions about the role 1980s movies played in Kavanaugh’s high school years.
Writing for The New York Times, Ginia Bellafante recently explored Tom Cruise’s 1983 hit, “Risky Business,” as a film that celebrates male mediocrity at the expense of female weakness. Vox’s Constance Grady has written about the way that date rape is innocuously and humorously depicted in John Hughes’ hugely popular “Sixteen Candles.”
In the 1980s, the teen coming-of-age flick was almost a genre of its own. “Fast Times at Ridgemont High,” “Back to the Future,” “Risky Business,” “Sixteen Candles,” “Pretty in Pink” and “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” are probably the most well known today.
But there were many others, including “Valley Girl,” “Some Kind of Wonderful,” “Weird Science,” “Better Off Dead,” “Class,” “The Last American Virgin,” “Three O’Clock High,” “Zapped!” and “Say Anything.”
There was also “Grease 2,” which makes an appearance on Kavanaugh’s calendar.
Capitalizing on the success of its tremendously popular predecessor, 1978’s “Grease,” “Grease 2” takes place at Rydell High School in 1961.
Although “Grease 2” was nowhere near the box office success of the films Kavanaugh mentioned during his testimony, it’s worth exploring precisely because it is so typical, especially in the way it depicts the sort of male high school behavior that’s being scrutinized today.
The movie focuses on the two most popular social cliques at Rydell: the T-Birds, who are leather jacket-clad, preening greasers, and their satin-jacket-wearing female counterparts, the Pink Ladies, who, per their rules, are only allowed to date T-Birds.
Like so many teen boys of other 1980s movies, the T-Birds seem to be able to get away with anything. They make brazen innuendos in front of their hypersexualized teacher, Miss Mason; bully their way into winning the talent show; and pay for the new kid at school to write their papers.
The musical numbers that weave through “Grease 2” are laden with sexual innuendo. With its bowling alley setting, the T-Bird’s number “Score Tonight” lays out the most obvious of the film’s relentless double entendres.
‘Score Tonight’ is all about bowling, right?
Other songs imagine girls failing to give guys what they want, with the poor guys having to endure these sexual refusals. When Mr. Stuart’s biology class sings and dances their way through “Reproduction,” some guys wonder, “When a warm-blooded mammal in a tight little sweater starts pullin’ that stuff, is she sayin’ that she wants to do it?”
Some of the others reply, “Can’t prove it by me, cause they change their tune when you got ‘em in the back seat.”
Like “Reproduction,” “Prowlin” is all about girls who refuse sex: The best strategy, according to the tune, is to find “a chick who’ll give you more” at “a spot that I’ve discovered where a guy’s guaranteed to score.”
Boys will be boys – or something more sinister?
The most telling musical set piece is “Do It for Our Country.” In the scene, a T-Bird named Louis brings Sharon, one of the Pink Ladies, into a fallout shelter, where he tries to have sex with her.
After closing and bolting the door, Louis starts narrating a nuclear attack as his friends outside the shelter crank an air raid siren.
“The Russians are attacking – get down!” Louis proclaims, as he pushes Sharon onto a bed, gets on top of her and starts to sing, “Let’s do it for our country.”
‘Do It For Our Country.’
At first Sharon resists; Louis continues to try to persuade her, and she starts to warm to the idea. But just as it seems that Louis is going to have his way, she leaps up and opens the shelter door. Two eavesdropping T-Birds fall into the room, one of them cackling with laughter.
Sure, these are all silly scenes in a silly movie.
But as I rewatched “Do It For Our Country,” it was impossible to not think about Christine Blasey Ford describing her alleged assault – and the way “the laughter, the uproarious laughter” was seared into her memory.
For the T-Birds in this scene, this is fun and games, from the bowling alley to the bomb shelter, all in the name of getting laid.
Reviewing “Grease 2” for the Los Angeles Times in 1982, film critic Kevin Thomas described the shelter scene as “a funny misfired seduction scene.” Yet as Vox’s Grady notes in her essay about “Sixteen Candles,” today it’s hard to imagine even forcing a chuckle during scenes like this.
In the Journal of Popular Culture, film scholar Lesley Speed wrote about how 1980s teen comedies often depict “young, middle-class men’s presumed right to behave hedonistically on other people’s territory.”
In films like “Grease 2,” this territory also extended to teenage girls’ bodies. The T-Birds in “Grease 2” are convinced they deserve unrestricted access to the Pink Ladies, and while usually they don’t manage to get it, their relentless attempts are notable: Such predatory behavior, often without consequences, is one of the overarching characteristics of the 1980s teen movie.
As the coach in “Grease 2” advises the T-Birds on the practice field, “Football is like life. You gotta push. You gotta push your way through life.”