BL-24 - Flipbook - Page 26
TA B L E TA L K
“I am what I am because I’m
Popeye the sailor man.”
No matter how much we may hate
Donald Trump, he is entitled to say
what he wants to say. Others are
entitled to disagree but not imprison
him for it. I have spoken to many
on the left who are slowly realizing
that they are responsible for Donald
Trump’s return to of昀椀ce. How did this
happen? Hatred. And you also have
a right to Hatred. But...beware how
Hatred paves the way to one’s own
destruction! So, in my world, Hatred
is not encouraged but it is also not
forbidden. It is discouraged, but left
up to you. After all, we can try to save
our fellow man, but sadly once lost in
Hatred, even our loved ones vanish in
its thrall.
Speci昀椀cally, though, it seems I will
have to deal with the phenomenon of
President Donald J. Trump. I support
him. Some of you may know that.
Some may 昀椀nd it a surprise. Many of
my Democrat friends in the past have
bemoaned my conservative position,
saying “How can you be so intelligent
and yet be a Conservative?”
Well, I don’t measure my intellect
or intelligence by how popular my
thinking is or how many people agree
with me. Years ago, I coined this
phrase: “Judgment without knowledge
it the greatest of all crimes, but if
you’d like your daily dose, just read
the New York Times.”
So it remains with me. I think what I
think because I am paying attention. I
am what I am because I’m Popeye the
sailor man. I still read The New York
Times once in a great while. Just to
remind myself how narrow thinking
can become so self-righteous, and
how very narrow the self-righteous
can be. Almost delightfully narrow.
Provincial, even.
I’d like to circle back for a second to
this idea of the American Dream...it is
granted to you, and even to the world,
at birth. It is as easy as imagination
itself. The thing is, it requires work
to be realized. Hard work. It also
requires Freedom. Freedom has
become a dirty word to the far left
in my country. It remains the pivotal
concept of existence, however, in
Grammerland.
I also think in America it was a
mistake when President Obama was
in of昀椀ce to say people could no longer
enjoy the American Dream. The only
promise he was willing to make was
ensuring that another’s American
Dream would be a little smaller.
You can’t get there anymore, and we
can’t help you, he suggested; but a
vote for him would at least assure
you no one else could either. If I ruled
the world, that kind of crap would
close out of town. Unfortunately, it’s
just about to open a four-year-run on
Broadway.
I may be running astray here. I have
developed a truly keen sense of the
political run-around. Suspicion. My
favorite poet, W.H. Auden, once
coined a phrase “the balancing
subterfuge”. I quali昀椀ed it to embrace
politics by adding, “political doublespeak.”
Yes, put together, we get the
“balancing subterfuge of political
double-speak.” Most of our politicians
excel at it. The consequence is that a
gifted practitioner can speak for hours
and hours and still manage to say
nothing. Political double-speak. I have
a very quaint notion that there should
be honesty in our politics.
Honestly, though, when I 昀椀nd the most
glaring examples of it, I tend to balk.
One of our representatives in America
once said famously that to know what
was in a bill, they had to pass it 昀椀rst
26
BOISDALELIFE.COM
ISSUE 24
and then read it. A shocking moment
of a candour amid a nightmarish truth.
She was admitting they had no idea
what they were doing. But she was
also acknowledging that whatever
they did, they would be there for a
long time to come. Job security, by
virtue of a job not done at all.
Because I am not an atheist, this idea
of ruling the world is unsatisfying in
many ways. I know there is a God
above me who has this thing covered.
But should I be in charge, as t’were,
many of the things I have discussed
would not exist in my world. In the
world I rule I would seek fairness,
kindliness, tolerance and joy.
In truth, I would abdicate my rule
in deference to the people. I would
ask them to send one, or several
from among them, to spend time
exchanging thoughts about how to
better the lives of all.
For the time appointed them, I would
expect debate and discord with
compromise and discourse. They
would conclude a bargain that assured
all people were considered in their
dealings.
This would mean an even-handedness
based on nothing but the presumption
that all men are equal and are entitled
to the same rights without entitlement
to the same outcomes. If we are all
equal, the only equality we can defend
or guarantee is the abiding right to
choose for ourselves.
Those choices will be different; the
results will be different. Each path
will have a different outcome. Each
path would lead to its own station, and
success would be limited only by the
imagination and the desire to keep at
it. Each of us would have “enough”
while understanding that our version
of “enough” might be different than
someone else’s.
