Super Bowl Trolling_____________________________________
I'm writing this on Wednesday, January 29, just to make it clear if this doesn't get published before the Super Bowl. No matter if the Niners win or loose, the Pats traded the wrong QB. There, I said it.
Impeachment 2020______________________________________
In 1974 there was a clear consensus in the nation that Richard Nixon should be impeached. It never went to trial, but it's a certainty that he would have been removed after a Senate trial if he hadn't resigned first. The process had bi-partisan support in congress as well as popular approval.
As in 1998-'99, today's process has been partisan in nature, with little real support among the people for removal. You can quote me polls, but in truth I don't trust them. Nixon's crimes were clear and easy to understand. Clinton's, while concrete (let's not forget he was disbarred in his native Arkansas and by the Supreme Court for committing perjury), the American people didn't see them as grave enough to warrant removal from office. The charges against Trump are vague and hastily prepared (It took over two years between the Watergate break-in and the drafting of impeachment articles - the Ukraine phone call only happened in August of last year and I'm not sure obstruction of congress is really a thing).
The opponents of the president need to be careful here. It's unwise to turn a process meant to be used rarely and with great caution into just another political weapon to hurt a president you disagree with, even if those disagreements are deep and sincerely held. Such a strategy is both bad for the life of the country, and for the political future of the Democrats.
What Do You Do With a Problem Like Bernie ?_____________
Whether you support him or not, Bernie Sanders is to be admired. At first in 2016 he reminded me of a left wing version of Ross Perot, or maybe Steve Forbes: a one issue candidate there to push a point of view. For them actually winning wasn't the thing. They were about influencing the direction of the party (for Perot disrupting might be the better word). Like Rocky Balboa, though, who didn't realize he was supposed to play patsy to Apollo Creed, Sanders actually campaigned hard against Hillary Clinton, nearly winning the nomination, as Rocky came close to defeating Creed in the first movie.
Against all odds the septuagenarian who, if elected, will turn 80 during his first year in office, is running again, and is leading in some polls (yeah, I know, I don't trust polls - just go with it). There is some talk the party is trying to "rig" the process so that someone else, anyone else, that isn't Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard or Andrew Yang, gets the nomination.
I put rig is scare quotes because the truth is the political parties are private institutions. Contrary to popular belief primary elections aren't mandated by law, and the parties can choose their nominees anyway they want. Since the 1960's both parties have relied more on primary elections in choosing delegates for their conventions to give the impression that the process is all about democracy at work, not about backroom deal making. In reality the parties can decide how many delegates are elected by popular vote and how may are chosen in some other way. They can even decide if the delegates are bound to vote for the candidates they were chosen to poll for or not.
The Democrats have a dilemma. The party establishment believes Joe Bidden or Mike Bloomberg have a better chance against Donald Trump in November than Sanders. That may be so - I'm not sure the U.S. will elect a socialist, no matter what qualifier he likes putting in from of it.
As a self described democratic socialist, Bernie isn't a conventional Democrat, and his followers by and large have no loyalty to the party. They are ideologically motivated, caring more for doctrinal purity than adherence to a coalition platform. If it's perceived that Sanders was robbed by the Democrats he will either go third party, or sit it out. Either way the left-progressive vote is split and or stays home. I'm not sure his endorsement or active campaigning on behalf of the eventual nominee would be enough to get the more entrenched Bernie Bro's and Sis's out on election day. This makes the reelection of Donald Trump more likely, no matter who the nominee is.
1917 and Nationalism___________________________________
I caught the World War I epic 1917 over the Christmas break. I was reminded a bit of Christopher Nolan's 2017's film Dunkirk, set in WW II, which might sound funny. The latter film is a series of flash backs and forwards that plays with the timeline, culminating in all the various threads converging at the end. 1917 is filmed in a "single shot," with a completely linear sequence of events. Dunkirk deals with a specific historical event seen from different vantage points, while 1917 constructs a single narrative out of various stories told to director Sam Medes by his grandfather, a veteran of the war. What the films have in common is the they tell very intimate stories, giving the viewer an idea of what it was like to be on the ground, in the air or in the water as war is raging around you.
Both are also very British films. Neither movie is jingoistic, but both, in their own ways, offer positive images of England at war. 1917, even more so than Dunkirk, which does make some attempts to show that the English soldiers weren't all angels, serve as tributes to the men and women who served during the two great conflicts, and saved the island nation from occupation.
1917 has come under some fire for being "irresponsibly nationalistic," as Matthew Rozca in Salon put it. He may have been uncomfortable because the movie didn't do enough to show how virulent nationalism helped cause World War I, but I was uncomfortable at how Dunkirk failed to show the horrors of Naziism that was being combatted by the allies in the later conflict.
While focusing on the human element of the Dunkirk story is more than valid, ignoring the bigger picture issue of fascist aggression and racial genocide is a greater sin than Mendes' failure to get into some esoteric discussion on the evils of nationalism that has nothing to do with the story. Personally, I take both movies at face value, with Nolan's turning the Nazi's into faceless and mostly nameless shadow menaces as a minor annoyance.
1917 is unapologetically pro-British. Yes, the two times we encounter the enemy up close they are not shown in a sympathetic light. All the same the movie doesn't bash you over the head with anti-Teutonic propaganda, either.
I'm going to stop here, and take this up again next time. Rozca is placing his argument into the wider context of "Trumpism" and, presumably, Brexit. In constructing his argument he fails to draw a distinction between nationalism and patriotism, and in that lays the fatal flaw.
No comments:
Post a Comment