Category Archives: Later, in commentary

The Next President: Debate One Afterthoughts

Neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton won the debate last night at Hofstra University in New York, but Clinton gave the better performance. Donald Trump played to his base. He seems incapable of appealing to voters who do not already support him. The same might be said of Hillary Clinton, although she was able, if only once or twice, to make a broader appeal to the middle class. She did not reveal anything new, anything that we did not already know about her. She did not follow the advice freely offered by the next chapter yesterday to “show voters the person she is.”

Surprisingly, the “basket of deplorables” question did not come up, and Hillary Clinton did not find the opportunity to acknowledge the error of those remarks and to reach out to those voters whom she had earlier characterized as irredeemable basket cases. TNC believes that she could make an effort before Election Day to reach out to those voters as well as to other voters who found her “basket of deplorables” to be troubling.

There is a lesson about leadership here that is being missed. The best presidents see a whole nation. The best leaders have a vision of the nation that is broader than ideological divisions. Barack Obama embraced this vision in his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston:

“Now even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America; there’s the United States of America. There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America.”

Meanwhile, Donald Trump did not help himself. His support is pretty well baked in by now—at something slightly less than the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. If he manages to gain a winning margin it will not be due to his appeal but rather to his status as not-Hillary. Anyone who was still expecting to see a new Donald Trump in the debates must finally realize that Donald Trump will always be as he has always appeared to be: petulant and puerile, pompous and pugnacious.

Hillary Clinton delivered the better debate performance. She was able to maintain her steadiness and good humor. She held her own against a domineering and thoroughly unpleasant male without appearing weak, strident or condescending. She maintained her composure in spite of Donald Trump’s frequent interruptions, insinuations, insults and attempts to intimidate. While Donald Trump frequently evaded and changed the subject, Hillary Clinton kept on track and answered the questions that were asked by the moderator, Lester Holt (who, by the way, did an excellent job). I would like to see her give shorter—more memorable—answers. It is counterproductive to disgorge the details of six policy proposals when the flavor of one would satisfy. I know she knows policies, positions and issues; I want to know her personality, her passions and her humanity.

Share This:

Hits: 458

Some other stuff for later,

  • 86
    The first general election debate will be held tonight. The contest between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is stubbornly close with the two candidates polling neck and neck, according to today's national averages reported by RealClearPolitics. Tonight, neither candidate will win, but it is difficult to see how Donald Trump…
  • 76
    The 2020 election is fifteen months away, and already the Democrats are intent on deciding how best to lose.  There is general agreement among the two dozen or so candidates that any one of them would be a far better president than the one we’ve got now.  Yet, their collective…
  • 73
    The morning after the drama of former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8, our local newspaper editorialized that the “key question” was whether anything the president said to him amounted to obstruction of justice. While most of the questions from Republican members of…

Bless Ed Bee

When I was growing up, a simple invitation to dinner at a friend’s house could set off a small wave of panic in my mind. The thing that terrified me was the possibility that, as the family settled at their dinner table, the presiding parent, mom or dad, would smile at me and suggest that I “ask the blessing.”

The “blessing” of food was not a ritual we practiced in my home. I would be astonished if my father called for a holding of hands at our table while he intoned a request to the Lord to “bless” our meatloaf. If we had any ritual at our dinner table, it would be my mother’s inquiry as to whether I had washed my hands before coming to the table. I became pretty devout about hand-washing at dinner time, but I never learned the appropriate words to “ask the blessing.”

On those unavoidable occasions when I sat cornered at an unfamiliar dinner table, invited to “ask the blessing” and feeling the expectant and hungry eyes of my friend’s family focused on me, I must have stammered out a few disjointed phrases seeking the “blessing” of the food we were about to eat. Those were not my best moments, and I did not often dine at friends’ houses.

The whole business about blessing things baffles me to this day. In spite of my lack of comprehension, I am compelled to use the word in some situations. For example, if somebody sneezes nearby, I will say “bless you!” It is an automatic call and response reflex. It is good manners, but what does it mean? Why do we ask a higher power to “bless” the sneezer?

Which of the several dictionary definitions applies here? Are we asking for the sneezer to be “consecrated” or “made holy?” Does the sneeze call for us to “feel gratitude toward” the sneezer or to “seek divine favor” for the sneezer? Do we seek “approval” for the sneezing? Do we call for the sneezer to be “favored,” “endowed,” “congratulated,” “gladdened” or otherwise “glorified” for sneezing?

I am baffled by blessing, whether in the sneezing context or in many other common blessing situations. For example, it has been suggested that I “count my blessings.” Here, I suppose it is meant that I take account of those good things that life has given me. I should be thankful for my health, for my family and friendships, for my abilities and my accomplishments. Whatever counts as a “blessing” should be counted. I don’t know why the number of blessings should be important to me.

And then there is the expression “God bless.” It is an expression commonly used by politicians at the conclusion of a speech, as in “God bless the United States of America!” It is a blatant supplication to a higher power to grant our nation special favor or holy protection. This overt manifestation of the ideology of American exceptionalism, however, makes me uneasy. It seems to me that there are many other perfectly good countries in the world that should be as worthy of divine favor as our own.

“God bless” is also utilized as a stand-alone expression, sort of a general purpose salutation. In place of the serviceable but mundane “good bye,” some people affect the more sanctified “God bless!” upon a parting. The expression is frequently added as a codicil in black marker on those corrugated cardboard signs held by the evidently homeless on street corners. It seems vaguely ironic for the beggar to be calling on a higher power to show favor when what is really being sought in that situation is the favor of a few bucks from a passing motorist.

Really serious blessing comes in the form of the two-syllable past participle of “bless.” The Beatitudes spoken by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount are most commonly expressed orally today using the two-syllable form: “Bless-ed are the meek, for they will inherit the world.” I don’t know what evidence there is that Jesus himself warped “blessed” into a two-syllable preciousness. Personally, I have my doubts. I think He would have chosen to be more plain-spoken and less pompous about it.

The Beatitudes usefully tell us who should be blessed and why. Without this useful context, we don’t know the who or the why for the unadorned imperative, “Blessed Be.” This expression might be heard, for example, as a hushed benediction at the conclusion of a sermon or religious service. Using the two-syllable form—“bless-ed”—makes the words somehow more magical but less comprehensible. One may well wonder who Ed Bee is and why he warrants our blessing.

There is a quaintness about the benediction, but its meaning is ambiguous. It could be an admonition to the congregation to “be blessed,” but being blessed is a passive activity. Someone else must do the blessing, and the blessee has nothing to say about it. On the other hand, “blessed be” may be a kind of universal acknowledgement that all is blessed. While that may be true, if all is blessed, then blessing becomes a hollow and indistinct characteristic. If all is blessed, what is blessed?

Share This:

Hits: 789

Some other stuff for later,

  • 50
    The murder of George Floyd, a black man, on May 25 (Memorial Day) by four white police officers in Minneapolis overshadowed the coronavirus pandemic. The killing triggered enormous protest demonstrations in the streets of cities throughout the United States and around the world. These demonstrations are continuing even now, three…
  • 49
    It seemed that I had acquired way too many things. Some things were useful to me, or had been. I kept some things because I thought they might be useful later on. Things evoked memories. Some things, probably, were necessities, and some things had neither utility nor necessity but seemed…
  • 45
    BILL. Do you folks have a faith? JEANETTE. We’re spiritual but we’re not part of any organized religion. … BILL. Neil, what about you? NEIL. My parents were agnostics. BILL. But do you have any kind of belief? NEIL. I’m not sure, Bill, when you say that you believe in…