Ten Solutions to Unity

The election is over, and like the cocktail parties of decades ago, when alcohol and cigarettes were consumed freely and too often, some of us are still recovering, lamenting that there's unlikely anything to glide us through the next four years – at least without a prescription.

Before you know it, the American electorate, fickle as it is, will likely dispatch many of today's leaders from either side of the aisle for the next flavor of the day.

 

What's disturbing during political campaigns of late is that some people think their views furnish them with an element of superiority. In contrast, others are certain theirs keep them grounded, in touch with the common folk, the regular Joes and Josephines. 

 

But that's nothing compared to what's even more disconcerting.

 

It's the separation. The echo chambers. The refusal to engage with those whose views are different. And when we do, often anonymously, it's not a civilized exchange as it is an effort to demean someone in a digital boxing ring.

 

We can beat a retreat with coloring books and Crayons – maybe even to another country, as some mentioned after Nov. 5th – banishing ourselves so we're "safe" from views we find hideous and threatening, or we can pull out a relic that might just save us.

 

I recall the 1970s and 1980s, when the cocktail party was de rigueur for socializing long before there was anything called the internet, a smartphone or an echo chamber, which holds us hostage to our views.

 

Perspectives other than our own – whether political, economic, social or theological – can be angering, no doubt, which is all the more reason for some lubrication.

 

There isn’t a problem we can’t solve while throwing back one, many or all of the 10 solutions to common ground: Whiskey, brandy, vodka, rum, gin, tequila, wine, beer or ale. Throw in the 10^th solution – cigarettes – and this is a winner.

 

As the Canadian Club trickles across the rocks, the martini is being shaken, or we’re helping someone – whose views we’re convinced are completely contrary to our own – light their cigarette, we'll discover what political scientists already know: We're a version of purple.

 

Few of us, in fact, are hardened Democrats and Republicans, which means, despite whatever fears we may have, this cocktail party should go off without a fight. Maybe a boisterous debate or two but without fisticuffs. 

 

As the great Tom Lehrer once crooned, "shake the hand of someone you can't stand/You can tolerate him if you try."

 

And if you're doing so while consuming your favorite booze, it'll be easier and, hopefully, a friendlier exchange.

Smoke 'em if you got 'em!

Alzheimer's and the Health of Public Officials

Years ago, when covering Massachusetts public schools and the state’s education department for Bay State Parent, a monthly magazine, I had my own run-in when writing about the health of a public official. Instead of it being the governor, or even the president of the United States, it was the Bay State’s education commissioner. Mitchell Chester wielded a lot of power, overseeing the state’s K-12 public schools. 

 

If the teachers’ unions weren’t taking issue with him, it was the parents and others who thought they knew better than he about the best way to educate kids. I interviewed him a few times, and I always found him quite pleasant.

 

In fact, I often thought if the state board of education – to whom he reported – really wanted to sell what the Department was doing – pushing standardized testing, especially Common Core – they should have put on him on the road, doing more public speaking around the Commonwealth. He made a strong case for standardized testing -- “the system needs feedback" -- and he always did it with a smile. He was very engaging.

 

Tragically, back in 2017, he was diagnosed with cancer. The Department didn’t make the news public, but the board of education allowed Chester so much time away from the office they appointed one of the Education Department’s top leaders “acting commissioner.” The appointment and Chester’s health were kept out of the public eye.

 

Then, one Friday afternoon, an incontrovertible source called me. This individual had a lengthy professional history with the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. They had worked alongside Chester for years and had also served, for many years, on the state’s board of education before retiring. They knew the state’s education Department quite well, and many in the Department fed them documents that weren’t supposed to be seen by the public; this source shared them with me. 

 

They didn’t make the Department look so good, showing that it was being supported, on occasion, financially by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation so it could enact certain policies – mostly to do with Common Core – they wouldn’t need to be run by the legislators on Beacon Hill for funding. (Talk about a threat to democracy!)

 

Of course, I wrote about it, and that put me on the Department’s well, let's say, "bad list." Not that I cared, of course. 

 

When I heard about the cancer diagnosis, it was a huge story. The Massachusetts Teachers Association knew something was wrong with him, too. As I recall, they were getting it from their members, plus, likely, the rumor mill. 

 

On Monday, I spoke again with my source. As on Friday, they confirmed their source was someone no one expected -- the acting commissioner. I quizzed the source about details about how the discussion came about and mentioned that this better be true. They swore it was. As for the details about their talk, it was surprising and somewhat comedic.

 

Of course, Bay State Parent’s editor and I were in touch on this issue with many phone calls. We saw this as a huge story that needed to be reported.

 

On Monday morning, I also called the state Education Department’s spokesperson. After we exchanged pleasantries, I asked her about the commissioner’s health, telling her what I knew. She promptly went into a 15-minute tirade, screaming that I was the worst reporter she ever met. I replied, saying the sources were solid and she had until 3 p.m. to provide a statement; otherwise, I said, we would update our website with the story -- as is. 

 

She provided a statement. We had a scoop. The commissioner died three weeks later. 

 

So, if a state education department can be highly defensive about its leader’s health, imagine what the Biden White House is going through. It has lots to lose, so they’re being as protective as possible about the president’s health. I’m not a Joe Biden fan. I’m not a Donald Trump fan. As a voter, I feel like that great social commentator and comedian Tom Lehrer once remarked, a "Christian Scientist with an appendicitis."

 

The WSJ’s story on the president’s health was likely as good and objective as could be expected. They quoted both sides. Could it have been better? I think so. But there’s always an editor – no matter if the media outlet sides with the left or the right – driving their reporters to get the story as quickly as possible.

 

As for Biden’s mental acuity, I’ll say this:  His actions, particularly the way he speaks, are reminiscent of the way my mother was just before she was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. 

 

It’s important to keep in mind that President Reagan underwent the same scrutiny about his health during his re-election campaign in 1984, which Democrats were all too happy to discuss and push. His first debate appearance against former Vice President Mondale didn’t go so well, and it was thought he was in decline. Reagan acquitted himself in the second one, saying he wasn't about to take advantage of Mondale’s “youth and inexperience.” 

 

It generated several laughs, and Reagan waltzed into victory.

 

Imagine if the Biden campaign did the same.

Biden - Trump -- Again????

I’m surprised to find myself writing this, but I haven’t wanted to vote for a president of the United States since the 2016 election, and it doesn’t appear my view is about to change anytime soon. In ’16, I thought it was Hillary Clinton’s to lose and figured she’d win up until that fatal moment when she castigated half of all President Trump’s supporters as deplorable. She lost my vote with that comment; instead, I voted for the Libertarian.

In 2020, I very reluctantly voted for Trump – and much of that was due to President Biden’s mental acuity, which reminded me all too well of my mother when she was suffering from Alzheimer’s Disease. I don’t believe for a second he’s fit for office. On the other hand, one might say he’s got a decent staff that (mostly) keeps him going.

Given that Trump never figured out how to act presidential, I wasn’t surprised he lost in 2020. As The Wall Street Journal pointed out in an editorial just prior to the election, only Trump could fire Trump and, given his petulance over the course of four years, he did – successfully!

Enter the 2024 election, and my only thought is please, God, spare us another contest between those two.

I’m ever hopeful – I’m allowed to dream, right? – others will want the presidency as much as Biden and Trump do and give them a run for their money during the primaries. On the Republican side, U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins could make interesting candidates. So could former Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker as well as current Governors Chris Sununu and Brian Kemp. I wonder if former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley can pull off the nomination. She appears to be as much of a longshot as U.S. Sen. Tim Scott.

Given that we’ve heard so much from Florida’s Ron DeSantis, I wouldn’t be surprised if he burns out. If that happens, Murkowski, Collins, Baker or, possibly, Sununu or Kemp could step in. Given Kemp’s two election wins over Stacey Abrams, he could make a very viable candidate.

The Republicans need to moderate their stance on abortion (as Haley has suggested) and push more of an economic agenda with lower taxes. They also need to go heavy on defense and crime. If they can figure out the messaging on those issues, they can probably win the presidency in 2024.

The Democrats need to have a heart to heart with Biden. Forget his politics, his mental health makes him bad for the country. Democratic politicians who should consider running against him for the nomination include U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore. There are likely others.

The Democrats need to modify their stance on abortion, too, put a damper on woke politics, take the southern U.S. border issues seriously, and moderate their views that the government can solve all problems. Like Biden, they need to say that people like Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping are threats.

Alas, I dream!