MITTIYUCK ROMNEY

You've all heard by now about the Republican so-called War Against Women,  an allusion to, among other things, the Republican Party Platform which would forbid abortion even when incest, rape or the health of the mother is involved.  Have you also heard about  another conflict, Romney's War Against Words? Read on.

When Romney isn't reciting what his speech writers have written for him, his English is very poor indeed.  It is a double indemnity since he tends to say the wrong things--that is, wrong according to Repulican policy--which he also expresses in the wrong way, that is, clumsily.  I give you an example of his English, chosen at random, thus indicative of Romney neither at this best nor at his worst.  It is taken from his response to the notorious ant-Muslim video:

"It think it's dispiriting sometimes to see some of the awful things people say.  And the idea of using something that some people consider sacred and then parading that out a negative way is inappropriate and wrong..."

He goes on to say:

"I think the whole film is a terrible idea, I think him making it, promoting it showing it is disrespectful to people of other faiths.  I don't think that should happen, I think people should have the common courtesy and judgment--the good judgment--not to be--not to offend other peoples' faiths.  It's a very bad thing."

The English is, at best, clumsy, which makes the thoughts expressed appear rather fuzzy.  These excerpts would make a good assignment for a ninth-grade class; the students would be instructed to convert Romney's into acceptable English.  I will only make a few corrections; I leave it up to the reader to come up with her own version.

"I think it's dispiriting sometimes"--implying that at other times it's not dispiritng at all; to see some of the awful things people say--implying that other awful things that people say are just fine.  A film  is not an idea, and why does he qualify that noun with the adjective "whole?"  The inept video, "The Innocence of Muslims," languished on the internet for nearly a year before it was translted into Arabic--does this amount to "promoting it showing it" and "parading that out a negative way?"  It was posted on the internet, not shown in theaters.  He writes that the film was disrespectul to people "of other faiths"--does this mean that a Buddhist would be more offended than an agnostic?

The English-speaking world has produced many eloquent politicians--Jefferson, Lincoln, Churchill, etc.   Is it too much to demand that politicians on lower rungs of the ladder of eloquence to at least be able to organize their thoughts and speak simply, clearly, and correctly?  As a writer, Obama is not a Lincoln; but he is a Lincoln comparted to Romney, who, I fear, will prove, if elected, to be another Bush in regards to both language skills and policy.  A dreadful combination!

I understand Spanish, German and French and have listened to speeches of politicians from these countries.  They tend to speak well.  Georges Pompidou, by the way--oh, those lovely French vowels-- sounded as eloquent as an actor from the Comédie Française. (In the title of this essay I call Mitt Mittiyuck--this is a reference to Chidiock Tichborne, executed in 1586 at the age of 23, for his political activity.  On the eve of his execution he wrote an eloquent poem, "Written on the Eve of His Execution."   I shudder to think of the poem Romney would write on November 7th -it is of course exceedingly doubtful that he would write a poem on this or any occasion--entitled, perhaps,  "Written On The Morning  of His Loss."  I do hope, though, that the results of the election  will give him the opportunity to write such a poem.

I've read that in Britain glaring grammatical errors and poorly expressed thoughts indicate a lack of education.  Not here--Romney and Bush received Ivy League educations.  Although Obama's command of English is vastly superior to Romney's,  poor language skills, despite a so-called good education, has become, to be fair, commonplace.

I conclude with a poem I wrote in response to a judge's egregious assault on the English language.  (He has since had to recuse himself as the trial judge in the murder case against George Zimmerman, accused of murdering Travon Martin.)  The poem opens with a reference to Zimmerman's wife, who lied to the court. The judge did not not recuse himself, I might add, for his poor use of English:


LAST MONTH HE ACCUSED HER OF

“lying like a potted plant
while leading the court
down the primrose path.”

Today he said, “By any definition,
the defendant has flaunted
the system.” What would Dickens do?

Send him to gaol, goal, gaol,
send him to the English-language gaol!
Let Mrs. Grundy set the bail

at a billion proper darning needles!
Poke out his I’s after prepositions!
Make his home merely a house.

Let him learn some respect
for his tongue which is ours
until he opens his mouth.

Romney's poor language skills are consistent with someone who pays attention while reading only to the what and never to the how.  I doubt if he ever reads for the delight of reading.  (His lack of a sense of aesthetics was also demonstrated by the way he sang America The Beautiful--how can you sing a song like that with absolutely no phrasing, coupled with a very apparent inablilty ot carry a tune?  Ask Romney.)

Pundits tell us that Romney's recent foreign policy gaffe will not influence the election, since the electorate is more concerned with domestic issues.  The governor's atrocious English will be, of course, considerably less decisive.  But I do believe that poeple who can't think, speak or write well also tend not to act well--if you don't believe me, try reading Mein Kampf.

ROMNEY; PODLYETZ. KONYETZ.

There is a beautiful little Russian poem that goes like this, in a version using the Latin alphabet:

Luna,
Balkon,
Ona
ee on;

Vdrug
Cuprug--
"Podlyetz!"
Konyetz.

Translation: The moon/the balcony; she/ and he/ suddenly/ the spouse/ "Scoundrel!"/ the end.

I hadn't thought about that poem for, well, to be precise, forty-seven years.  While listening to Romney's press conference about the tragic death of four diplomats in Libya and the attack of the U.S.consulate in Cairo, the words came back to me. I said to his image on the screen, feeling both pity and anger, "Podletz!" Konyetz.  I always try to give the benefit of the doubt to those with whom I disagree; maybe it's me, I tell myself, and sometimes it indeed is.  I'm certain that this time my instincts are correct.  From now on it's konyetz between us, Mr. Romney, as it should be between you and the rest of us who will choose the next president in November.

You know the story.  On Tuesday, September 11, 2012, the  embassy in Egypt and consulate Libya were attacked.  The radical Islamist group, Ansar al Sharia, which Secretary Clinton appropriately designated as  being a small, savage group, used rocket-launched grenades to attack the consulate in Benghazi, Libya; the U.S. ambassador and three staff members were killed.  This was not the Libyan government, mind you, which fought to protect the consulate staff.  The cause of the outrage was a brief, amateur American film which presents a wild and poorly made caricature of the Prophet Mohammad.  (The director is now reported to be in hiding.)  The embassy staff in Cairo, in response to an ominous and dangerous crowd of people gathering in front of the building, announced that "Respect for religious belief is a cornerstone of American democracy," and that Americans oppose the denigration of any religion.  Some mobsters breached the walls, desecrated the American flag and replaced it with an Islamic one.  The police were able to protect the staff; no one was hurt.

During the first part of his little speech, Romney expressed outrage at the attacks.  He made several grammatical errors; he came across as stiff and aloof,  But he picked up steam during the second part, a duplicitous, unwarranted attack on President Obama.  You got the impression that the first part of the speech was merely a bridge of platitudes that was necessary only as a means to get to the other side, where he gave his dark side free reign.

He said, among other things, "It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."

Look, the staff was trying to save innocent lives, realizing that an attack was imminent.  Did Romney expect them to lecture an angry mob about the beauty--and it is beautiful--of the First Amendment, which guarantees free speech?  In order to avoid violence, is an announcement that Americans don't like to denigrate anyone's religion in any way equivalent to sympathy for a mob about to attack?

If Romney didn't know that this was said before the attack in order to prevent it, he should have done his homework before opening his mouth.  As President Obama said later, Romney tends to shoot first and aim later.  He went on to say that, he, Obama, learned that you can't do that as president.  His self-inflicted wound made Romney look very unpresidential.

One gets the impression that Romney is so desperate for votes that he will use any means to justify his ends.  Trouble is,  his judgement is often so poor that he winds up shooting himself in the foot.  Doesn't he know at a time of national tragedy it's imperative--at least for a day--to put petty politics aside?  At least for appearance' sake!  That this was a political blunder on Romney's part is evident by the fact that both Boehner and Mitchell didn't criticize the president in their comments about the events.

Remember the time, not too long ago, when he shot himself in the other foot?  If not, I'll remind you: he enraged the British by doubting that their preparations for the Olympics were adequate.  Yes, he even enrages allies.

I think I know what he was trying to do before wounding each foot.  In the London case, he wanted to present himself more as the Great Expert Manager rather than criticize the British.  The fact that he couldn't foresee their reaction indicates a severe lack of diplomatic skills.   The Libyan case confirmed this suspicion.  He used the tragedy in a disgraceful attempt to promulgate the myth that Obama is a weak leader.  It was very unpresidential behavior; such inability to anticipate the results of one's words could get a president into a lot of trouble.

Obama said, quite rightly I think, that although he did not agree with the statement by the Cairo staff, he likes to cut some slack to people in a dangerous situation.  I've been cutting Romney a lot of slack--until now.  The London gaffe.  The birther joke--maybe it was just a stiff attempt at humor, I thought.  The racist ad about "gutting" the work requirement for those on welfare--an outright lie.  Oh, that might be the work of a PAC and not reflect Romney's views.  His statement to seniors that Obama is taking money from Medicare to give health care to people 'who are not you.'  Oh, maybe he didn't mean that to come across as racist as it did...

I've been too kind.  After your disgraceful, base and clumsy attempt to score points from a tragedy, I have two words for you, Mr. Romney:

"Podlyetz!"  Konyetz.

TWO LITTLE ROMNEYS AND ONE BIG BILL

The Democratic National Convention, September 4-6, 2012


Part A: The First Day

Platitudes, platitudes, platitudes...

The platitudes traveled from Tampa to Charlotte without hindrance, as easily as neutrinos pass through walls.

I got the impression that if a speaker at either convention was born into the upper middle class or into wealth,  he or she would vehemently criticize the candidate from the opposite party right from the outset.  But if the speaker was born poor, you can bet that we would hear in detail the latest example of a rags-to-riches story so beloved by both Reds and Blues.  Biden said it best, that is, worst: in America, if you're willing to work hard you can become anything you want to be.

In popular culture, this is known as the American Dream.  In reality, however, it is the American Pipe Dream.  A study proved this.  Among major industrial countries, a father's income was compared with his son's.  The degree of discrepancy between the two was used as an index of social mobility.  You guessed it; America has the highest correlation of all.  The American Dream is now the German, French, Italian, Australian Dream.  It seems we have outsourced social mobility too.

By the time the young Hispanic mayor of San Antonio told his Dickens-from-Texas version of the American Dream, I was fed up; the implication was that if you really pulled yourself up by your bootstraps you would, well, go into orbit.  His was one of many versions of this hackneyed  myth.  His grandmother was illiterate when she came from Mexico.  She taught herself to read both English and Spanish.  His mother was the first in the family to attend college.  And her twins went on to Harvard and Stanford  after which each has launched a promising political career.  Yes, it is an impressive story; I am glad for them and glad for our country.  But if the study mentioned above is correct, those like them would have been twice as likely to rise to greatness in Canada!

I don't like these riffs on the American Dream ditty  for two reasons.  First: one rises in the world due to a combination of opportunity, chance, hard work and talent.   For every Mayor Castro story there are legions of stories of grandmothers who came from Mexico and never learned English; whose daughters never went to college; whose grandsons went to poor schools, trying to learn while equipped with brains not nearly as brilliantly wired as those of the Castro twins.  What would two such young men think of themselves? How come we've been working hard for many years and are still working hard at MacDonald's?  If they listened to the convention speakers, they might consider themselves to be abject failures.  "Who knows how much work it took/for him to become average?"  (This is from a poem I wrote about my working class best friend, who, despite truly terrible odds, became a high school teacher--albeit an average one.)  "Vivas for those who have failed!" wrote Walt Whitman.  Second: the implicit message is that those that rise from poverty will be better candidates and more in touch with common people.  I don't believe that any of the powerful of either party believes this.  I will give you an example from the Democrats.  Michelle Obama was presented as having brilliantly arisen from a family of modest means.  Her husband, we all know, was raised by a single mother, also of modest means.  The implication is that this makes them more fit to govern than Romney.  Well, Mrs. Obama is now a very powerful woman and is married to the most powerful man in the world.  They are very wealthy, and, in addition, have power and influence to a degree neither of their mothers could have imagined.  Her two lovely daughters, therefore, have each been born with a silver spoon in her mouth and will have a silver scepter in her hand when she comes of age.  I don't envision them ever suffering from the scourge of not being able to find a job they love.  In other words, they are extremely priviliged; they are thus two little Romneys.  Do you think that Michele Obama thinks that this will put them at a disadvantage if they chose to run for office?

I oppose Romney for his policies and not because of his wealth.  Great family wealth might tend to make one more indifferent to the poor than having had to struggle, but his is not necessrily so.  Lincoln and F.D.R are widely considered to have been among the best U.S. presidents ever.  The former was born poor and the latter was born wealthy. And wealthy  F.D.R. did more for the poor and the working class than any president we ever had.  What about Teddy Kennedy, who was deservedly praised in a video at the convention?

The height of cant, of course, was Ann Romney's attempt at a Horatio Alger story of her own.. We were informed that  she and her husband ate off a dining board in a basement apartment; they only could afford tuna and pasta.  She never mentioned that her husband's supperrich Daddy was always just a phone call away.  I imagine that the dining board was soon consigned to a maid.

Platitudes, platitudes, platitudes...

Part B: The Next Two Days

Things really picked up when Elizabeth Warren spoke.  She obviously is passionate about fighting for embattled workers  Her speech had substance and was well delivered.  Someone at least is fighting for consumers.  She rightly faulted Romney for his ridiculous belief that corporations are people.  Citizens United, thy name is Romney.  But I wish she would have praised corporations too, for without them there would be no medical advances, no tech revolution, etc.  Corporate greed needs to be regulated, corporate innovation needs to be supported.  I know she believes this, I just wish she had said it.  You were looking quite vice-presidential, though Ms. Warren; good luck.

Then it was President Bill Clinton's turn.  His delivery was breathtaking, and I don't use that term lightly.  You had the illusion that he was speaking to you while you sat together at the kitchen table; a wise uncle who had much to say to you, his potentially wise nephew, to whom he spoke without a trace of condescension.  He engaged the audience in a thoroughly impressive way; it was  a beautiful Call and Response session  between a loving congregation and a loving teacher.  I'm not talking about what he said, but about how he said it.  His speech, however, was not without important details.  We learned, among other things, that the Democrats have created many more jobs over the years than did Republicans.  He also said what I've been saying for long time--namely that the 2008 recession was the worst since the 30s, and the 30s downturn took a dozen years to resolve.  A housing crisis takes  an especially long time to correct.  No one, especially one who was hindered by the Tea Party from initiating a large back-to-work program, could have cleared up this mess in four years.

Evgeny Kissen is one of my very favorite pianists.  He plays Listzt's extremely difficult transcription of Schubert's Erlkoenig better than anyone alive today, period.  I had the impression that Clinton's speech almost reached an equivalent height.  I was awed.

We learned that Obama has accomplished a lot in a very difficult political and economic environment.  One wonders why Obama has failed to communicate his achievements to the American people. If only Obama could channel his inner Clinton and appear less supernatural and more super-natural!

Then came Biden and Obama the following day.  Vice President Biden was a bit too stiff and overly serious.  He no doubt was told to inform us that Obama has a backbone of steel, which he very portentiously did.  (I am not doubting this, Obama has been admirably tough when needed--I'm talking about foreign policy here-- as illustrated by the death of Bin Laden.)

Obama's speech, as you might imagine, was vastly superior to Romney's platitudes.  But he didn't engage the audience the way Clinton did.

In short, I thought Warren and Clinton appeared more vice-presidential and presidential,  respectively, than did Biden and Obama.  Fact is, though, that the former pair is not running for office while the latter pair is so vastly superior to Ryan and Romney that the upstaging was of no consequence.


Additional Dorsett blogs:

thomasdorsett.blogsspot.com
bachlittlepreludesandfugues.blogspot.com
thomasdorsettpoetry.blogspot.com
dorsetttranslations.blogspot.com

WHITE RAGE

I have gray hair, and although fit, I can't run as fast or as long as I used to.  And the melanin of my skin, compared to the world average, is low.  Yes, I'm a white man of European descent at the cusp of old age; I receive both social security and medicare.  I also come from the working class.  From a statistical perspective, I belong to the most conservative group in the United States.  Conservatism usually increases with age, and this can be a good thing.  I would like the chance to consider, perhaps choose, a conservative view on some issues.  But in today's Republican Party conservative has become a synonym for loony.  If the choice is between extremism and moderation, well, moderation gets my vote.

Today's loony Republcans have two sources of support: the superrich, who are not loony at all.  They know where their interests lie. They are very powerful, but their numbers are relatively few.  Despite Citizens United, however, elections are still decided by ordinary voters.  So they must be bought off, they must be tricked into voting against their own interests.  I'm referring here to the second source of Republican power: their manipulation of white rage.

Remember Lewis Carroll's great mock-ballad, The Walrus and The Carpenter?  Both walrus and carpenter plan to eat the oyesters alive and the old oysters know it.  The young, more adventerous and much more uninformed, rise from their beds and follow the duo with trust and joy.  Here is how the young and old reply to the walrus's siren call:

The eldest Oyster looked at him,
but never a word he said;
the eldest Oyster winked his eye
and shook his heavy head--
Meaning to say he did not choose
to leave the oyster-bed.

But four young oysters hurried up
all eager for the treat...

Four young oysters followed them
and yet another four,
and thick and fast they came at last
and more, and more, and more--
All hopping through the frothy waves
and scrambling to the shore.

Well, we all know what happened to them.  Even weirder than Carroll's  great poem is today's reality, in which the old white oysters are flocking to Walrus-Romney and Carpenter-Ryan, while the younger ones know better.  The exceptions are white working-class males, who, young and old, are zealously following the walrus--and especially the carpenter. It is very illogical to vote for the mouths that will consume you; rage, however, is anything but logical.  What is the source of white-male working-class rage?  And what is to be done about it?

I don't have to give many examples of white-male working-class rage; it is a well known phenomenon.  The country singer, Ted Nugent, for instance, has said that If Obama is reelected, he, Nugent, would either be dead or in jail.  Our president is called the Anti-Christ, Hitler, an alien who hates America, etc.  This is obviously rage speaking, since none of the accusations have any basis in reality.  But instead of writing off such people as loonies, it might also be prudent to examine the roots of white rage--this doesn't mean that it is justified.  But if understood, one is better able to counter it.

Working-class rage is rooted in the collapse of working-class life.  A generation ago,  one didn't even need a high-school diploma to get ahead.  One only needed to work hard; manufacturing jobs were readily available.  Not too long ago manufacturing jobs employed nearly forty percent of the workforce--now it is about ten percent.  Worse, modern manufacturing jobs require skilled, tech-savvy workers; gone forever are the days when many of the jobs consisted of rote work.  And whites, with their Protestant work ethic did work hard; the males especially had their identities, their pride, rooted in their ability to support a family.  They blame themselves for their current plight; but one can only endure guilt for so long until a scapegoat is found.  Now their pride has devolved into: At least we aren't freeloaders like them.

If you have any doubt that this sentiment is not being shamefully exploited by the Republican Party, take a look at that welfare ad for Romney.  It claims that Obama  has removed the work requirement for welfare.  This is of course a blatant lie, a shameless lie.  The implication is that Obama wants to help his buddies in the ghetto while punishing those who want to work, that is, the white working-class.  This of course is a horrible slander, but slander often works.

The disaffection of the white working-class is especially acute.  Women--justly so--are gaining power; African-Americans--justly so--are too.  White working-class males, however, are in precipitous decline.  Never mind that a good deal of their prosperity was based on gender and racial discrimination.  This is undeniably the case.  The movement toward gender equality and racial equality is a noble one and it is here to stay; lower-class white men are going to have to come to terms with progress.   Classifying them as hillbillies and bigots, however,  is of no help.  Democrats will need to lead by example, and not by rhetoric,;they will need to teach them that their enemies are not women, gays, or minorities, but those--mostly white and male like themselves--who exploit them.

Obama has written off white working class males, just as Romney has written off the support of Blacks of any class.  The Presedent's support among the former group stands at 29%--the lowest since Lyndon Johnson--and you of course know why Johnson received so little support from this group.  The president is reaching out to women, contrasting the Democratic views of contraception and abortion  with the far-right views of Republicans, and by support of the Lily Ledbetter Law. Is it a surprise that white male workers feel left out and flock to the Republican Party whose members at least look like them?  All they get is a promise not to raise their taxes--which is part of the Republican strategy also.

I'm not advocating a program specifically aimed at the white working-class; that would indeed be racist, since the working class of many minorities is even doing worse.  But I do believe that white rage is a good measure of the lack of equality, the misery index of this country,  and must be addressed.  And the way to address it is a serious jobs program and a serious attempt to make the system more fair for all workers.

What we need--and needed--is a massive stimulus program to get America back to work.  The Obama stimulus, effective as it was, was much too small and consisted mostly of tax cuts instead of back-to-work programs and education programs. If we can afford unjust wars and egregious welfare for the rich in the form of tax breaks, we can certainly afford to help those who want to work but can't find a decent job.

Regarding fairness, I would suggest we begin with what I call the CEO/Joe, Jo Ratio Law.  Did you know what the U.S. salary ratio is between a CEO and a newly hired worker--whether a Joseph or a Josephine?  It is 475 to 1.  In Germany and Japan, both very successful capitalist countries, it is about 11 to 1.  The greed of CEOs in the United States is disgusting.  I would propose in the ratio law that this ratio should be capped at, say, 20 to 1. That would be a start.

There is a close partnership of labor and management in Germany that simply does not exist here.  During recessions, for instance, the German government pays up to half one's salary for a period, so that the worker does not need to be laid off.  They learned the hard way; white rage is, after all, what elected Hitler. It is important for us to learn that fairness fosters democracy and prosperity while we still have time.

I'm sorry to say that Democrats are not proposing such changes, not to mention Republicans.

The policies of Obama are definitely better for the white working class than Romney's.  (The white rich don't care a fig for the white poor.)  But it is not enough.  The Republicans are playing with fire; the Democrats are not doing enough to put the fire out. White rage, for now, will  unfortunately continue to have an outrageous present, and, quite possibly, an even more outrageous future, which, I fear, will prove to be disastrous for all.