Wednesday, August 21, 2019

EVEN OLD MOVIES KNOW AMERICA BETTER THAN TRUMP DOES

By Dominique Paul Noth

When Trump originated his MAGA chant (Make America Great Again) my reaction was what the hell was he talking about?  It quickly became clear he would destroy the actual past for his own fabrication and he dreaded building his policies on past American dreams and progress. He found a cadre of voters that knew as little as he did or thought his fact-free style would improve their lives.

He set out to dismantle every good thing previous administrations had accomplished -- and even the good halfway steps they had taken in hope that America would continue to evolve.

Now after nearly three years, the citizens are at a crossroads – try to get rid of Trump now in what is shaping up, as Nancy Pelosi feared, to a one political party impeachment or grind it out until the end of 2020 while Trump kicks up the level of damage to American institutions and principles, destroying our global reputation while banking on an economy growing shakier every day.

His MAGA chant evokes some imaginary US past in his fevered brain, maybe the Gilded Age of the 19th century when business ran rampant, maybe the 1920s when businesses again ran rampant on the way to the Great Depression, maybe some aspects of the Eisenhower years with the widely spread but misleading slogan “What is good for General Motors is good for the country.”

I don’t like going back when the nation has to keep pressing forward, but Trump clearly isn’t thinking of the era when America’s democratic fortitude emerged and scared the right wing half to death – the greatest generation as Tom Brokaw called it – the 1940s after the war. 

Gregory Peck, Celeste Holm and John Garfield confront
a drunken Jew hater in 'Gentleman's Agreement'
Even Hollywood, a studio dream machine built around making money, was forced to confront the changing globe confirmed by World War II.  Suddenly, even the movies with their historic caution began to say things that were universally American in values.  They had done so hesitantly in earlier decades but this time the bite was more socially pronounced.  Trump would have hated the impulses.

The movies remained cautious on what we now call civil rights, making films where Southern theaters could snip Lena Horne solos out of MGM musicals.  The movies were particularly bad for blacks and native Americans and by the 1960s routinely added Hispanics to the stereotypical mix. 

But there were glimmers.  In 1943’s “Sahara,” starring Humphrey Bogart (and not to be confused with later movies of the same title), a veritable United Nations of straggling soldiers gather in the desert to fight the Germans and it is here that a black man is allowed to kill a white man on screen to the cheers of the audience.  The white man is a blond despicable Nazi and the black man is a Sudanese soldier (played by a famous black actor, Rex Ingram). 

Hollywood was in the myth making business but slowly the world was creeping in.  Noted directors and actors went to war and came back with a harder edge.  Even studio solvers from the stage world like Vincente Minnelli could play a dual game – creating one of  the best showcases for black talent in “Cabin in the Sky” (1943) yet sending a valentine vision to GIs of the white America worth saving -- loving, comfortable,  family knit,  untouched by social upheaval.  His “Meet Me in St. Louis” (1944) is a great musical, yet what it doesn’t show is alarming.

Turn of the century St. Louis had  a half million residents,  but 35,000 were blacks, and there is not a black face on the screen, much less horror at how many lynchings were taking place around the World’s Fair. The boy next door romancing sweeps away any sense of darkness until a cork face Halloween nightmare Minnelli inserts.

The right wing had an angry counterblast that roiled the nation after the war with (is this where Trump got it?) fears of socialists, Communists and military Armageddon resulting in HUAC (the House Un-American Activities Committee, which gave rise to such political stars as Richard Nixon) and the McCarthy era. Socially aware Hollywood names were blacklisted for more than a decade in a fever that also served up politically neutral figures whose celebrity was now sought by Quisling replacements.

So rampant was this fever that a staunch Republican like Ginger Rogers would be dragged through the mud for making a homefront drama about women working in factories, “Tender Comrade” (1943),   because the title  could be made to sound so Bolshevik.

Yet “Tender Comrade’ actually represented a flowering of socially conscious Hollywood movies built around American principles like immigration and justice.   Almost all their creators wound up on the blacklist. 

Dreamers confronting reality: Peggy Ann Garner and
James Dunn in 'A Tree Grows in Brooklyn'.
Director Elia Kazan, excoriated later for cooperating with HUAC, always urged looking at his films rather than his behavior, because he was 20th Century-Fox’s go-to guy for social dramas. In his first film, “A Tree Grows in Brooklyn” (1945), set at the turn of the century, a grandmother from the old country in tortured English contemplates how, now that she’s old, she sees what drew her to Brooklyn:

In that old country, a child can rise no higher than his father's state. But here in this place, each one is free to go as far as he's good to make of himself. This way, the child can be better than their parent and this is the true way that things grow better. And this has to do something with the learning, which is here free to all people. l who am old missed these things. My children missed these things. But my children's children shall not miss it.

Weirdly, the same immigrant dream remains 74 years later.

By 1946, returning American veterans confronted the emerging nativism that Trump so typifies in “The Best Years of Our Lives,” from newly observant Hollywood master William Wyler. The encounter then was with an America First boor (sound familiar?).

Then a Hollywood flavored portrait of American middle class anti-Semitism emerged under Kazan in “Gentleman’s Agreement” (1947, like “Tree” based on a nationwide best seller). The gimmick is that Gregory Peck pretends to be Jewish to feel firsthand the rejection and humiliation felt by Jews.  The movie simplifies like a lesson play and actually paints over a nasty past when FDR’s state department itself was riddled with anti-Semitism (while McCarthyites later claimed it was riddled with Communists!).

But it contains an interesting excerpt from Peck’s fictional magazine piece after being rejected at the “restricted” (euphemism for anti-Semitic) Plume Inn:

Driving away from the inn I knew all about every man or woman, every youngster, who'd been turned down by a college or a summer camp. I knew the rage that pitches through you when you see your own child shaken and dazed.  From that moment, I saw an unending attack by adults on kids of seven and eight and ten and twelve...  on adolescents trying to get a job or an education or into medical school.   
     
And I knew that they had somehow known it, too. They, those patient, stubborn men who argued and wrote and fought and came up with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They knew the tree is known by its fruit and that injustice corrupts a tree, that its fruit withers and shrivels.

The allusions back to nature are typical of the era, conjuring up an integrity to Earth that American principles embody in the writers’ minds.  Seldom since have the Founding Fathers been so nobly portrayed.  Seldom since have the purposes of a free education and a free integrity for all people been so artistically explained to the masses of Americans, assuming a universal level of language and interest in the American ideal.

By 1949 even the issue of undocumented immigrants was recognized for what it really was – an exploitation of cheap labor by business owners and their middlemen  (“Border Incident”), a vision of desperate immigrants  that seems to have vanished from the White House.

For all its warts – and the eras of my childhood had many – there was a presumption of universal acceptance of basic principles.   The MAGA of Trump by his own behavior rejects all that.  I fear he is talking to an audience that, because of their own upbringing and indifference to learning and self-education, has no idea what I’m talking about – or what the majority of Americans are fighting to preserve and restore. 

About the author: Noth has been  a professional journalist since the 1960s, first as national, international and local news copy editor at The Milwaukee Journal, then as an editor for its original Green Sheet, also  for almost two decades the paper’s film and drama critic. He became the newspaper’s senior feature editor. He was tapped by the publishers of the combining Milwaukee Journal Sentinel for special projects and as first online news producer before voluntarily departing in the mid-1990s to run online news seminars and write on public affairs and Internet and consumer news. From 2002 to 2013 he ran the Milwaukee Labor Press as editor. It served as the Midwest’s largest home-delivered labor newspaper, with archives at milwaukeelabor.org.  In that role he won top awards yearly until the paper stopped publishing in 2013. His investigative pieces and extensive commentaries are now published by several news outlets as well as his DomsDomain dual culture and politics outlets.  He also reviews theater for Urban Milwaukee.





Friday, August 9, 2019

THROWING A RED FLAG ON RED FLAG LAWS

By Dominique Paul Noth

The idea sounds good.  The police would be empowered to temporarily take guns away from citizens in danger of hurting themselves and others. There is supposed to be follow-up counseling to keep the community safe and decide when the guns can be returned. 

Versions vary from state to state – several have the red flag laws -- but the concept basically is police or family members can petition a court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves.  The idea of a judge is central to the concept, until you start thinking of judges whose political views tend to control their opinions.  That’s when the slippery slope of due process, much more important to me than restriction of gun rights, rears its head.

A plus for the idea is that the NRA is against it and another is that Republicans who have avoided gun legislation find aspects of this attractive. Moscow Mitch is even making favorable grunts.

I frankly find their attraction suspicious. 

Red flag laws are a decent tool if carefully written to not make someone who talks about taking action against Trump sound crazy and committable. If you think my fear is far-fetched, try applying the law to judges who rely on politicians as well as voters to get into office.   Try thinking about the need to remove weapons.  Who decides?  The sheriff? The spouse?   Which judges in Wisconsin?  How is the evidence gathered – and by whom?

In a country when so many gun deaths are suicides, red flag laws have proven to help take guns away from people going through obvious trauma, or drinking bouts or opioid distress.  There is evidence that taking away the methods of suicide – guns, pills, whatever –deter suicidal folk.  But there is little evidence that, outside suicides, red flag laws are more than a drop in the bucket of blood our society endures.

No, this has merit, but limited merit.  It is a feel good piece of legislation rather than a direct assault on our gun culture.  It is shaping up as another salve to the GOP conscience – and frankly, to the Democratic conscience because the Republicans have blocked everything else and now we can all pretend to real progress.

Don’t misunderstand. Guns should be taken away – but not just from people with chronic mental problems.  We all have moments of sickness, of anger, and it is foolhardy to believe police officers or a judge will know best when our fit has passed and we can go about our regular lives.  Temporarily named can become permanently stigmatized. In an era when people lose it for a moment on a phone video, and that moment flies around the globe, a Big Brother mentality can create a lot of problems. 

And once guns enter the picture we have plunged into a world that defies logic. Gun owners are fiercely protective that there is nothing wrong with them and people who fear gun owners are not the best judges of who is safe and who is not.

Moreover this is all happening in the world of Trump.  Law enforcement in general and national security in particular are being politicized.  The president is electing friendlies to the justice department, the intelligence community and the federal courts, which some legislation would seek to get involved. Is this a time when we want to extend police power and claim it will always be rationally employed?

Red flag laws that give more power to law enforcement and to judges in a partisan environment strike me as multiple kinds of danger.

Obviously the legislation has to be tightly crafted. Equally obvious, there will be human beings taking action – motivated after a mass shooting, motivated by a presidential tantrum, perhaps more careful during a lull; hyped with genuine concern about a loved one,  stridently worried about the unloved. 

Republicans now want to do something, but the public shouldn’t let them use baby aspirin when major surgery is required. 

About the author: Noth has been  a professional journalist since the 1960s, first as national, international and local news copy editor at The Milwaukee Journal, then as an editor for its original Green Sheet, also  for almost two decades the paper’s film and drama critic. He became the newspaper’s senior feature editor. He was tapped by the publishers of the combining Milwaukee Journal Sentinel for special projects and as first online news producer before voluntarily departing in the mid-1990s to run online news seminars and write on public affairs and Internet and consumer news. From 2002 to 2013 he ran the Milwaukee Labor Press as editor. It served as the Midwest’s largest home-delivered labor newspaper, with archives at milwaukeelabor.org.  In that role he won top awards yearly until the paper stopped publishing in 2013. His investigative pieces and extensive commentaries are now published by several news outlets as well as his DomsDomain dual culture and politics outlets.  He also reviews theater for Urban Milwaukee.


Wednesday, August 7, 2019

SILLY AMERICA KNOWS THE PROBLEM AND WON’T DO A THING

By Dominique Paul Noth

America is having a cause and effect problem – a dawning realization that sometimes you can’t prove legally what you know is actually true. We know the cause and the effect, yet can’t seem to do anything about it.  We are as paralyzed socially and politically as we are with climate change.

Hate crimes, white nationalism and mass shootings have been a rampant gathering storm for  three years.  They were once a whispered ingrown national shame but this time they have  a direct time correlation to Trump’s statements and behavior.  He cannot be called criminally guilty in the California, El Paso and Dayton shootings, among many.  But you don’t have to be a genius to see the connection.

The Mueller Report is stuffed with examples of Trump playing nice with Russia, with his criminal machinations, yet having nothing to do with his tax returns, emoluments and basic fraud as a businessman. 

The media is still consumed with his every utterance as they typically have been for decades with any president of the United States, which means that citizens know his nasty nicknames for his rivals without being there in person at his rallies or signed up for his tweets.

They know, endlessly, that he equates all groups that dislike Trump as “hate groups”  even those that haven’t killed people. Providing him a megaphone is doing great harm, but that reality  seems to  escape most cable news outlets, aside from the one happy to be his servile megaphone.

It is past time for the media and the public to exercise restraint and sometimes self-imposed silence, so that only FOX is willing to raid the henhouse. 

Everyone watched in disbelief as Trump tried to pontificate against white supremacy (briefly), condemned the Internet but not his own tweets, blamed video games, tried to tie gun control to immigration reform as a crass way to suggest Latinos are responsible for their own mass murders, and read Teleprompter platitudes while Pence stood behind him like a cardboard cutout.

It was a display – mechanical empathy substituting for the real thing --  that inspired revulsion  throughout the world and forced the Secret Service to contemplate they may have to shoot  regular citizens as Trump insisted on visiting Dayton and El Paso. Typically, Trump turned those visits into campaign stops rather than solace calls. 

And yet half the country is not sure all this is grounds for impeachment.  Obvious racism may be enough for Texas Rep. Al Green but history let Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan slide by. And today’s public is letting Trump slide because his racism is out there in the open.

As Shakespeare said in “Hamlet” we are hoisted “on our own petard.” In this case the petard (or bomb that blows the user up and lets the target escape) is free speech.  It is protecting the most outrageous statements and in Trump’s case the most outrageous contradictions. To act against him requires using his own hateful methods or abandoning our core principles.

The courts, already suffering a right-wing sheen from Trump’s appointments, aren’t equipped to validate our historic sense that the presidency is a moral center of decency.  The Constitution may limit his powers but in the heat  of the moment the courts succumb to fears of political involvement.

Even if justices mentally know that using military money to build a wall is a waste of resources, the legal issue is whether the president, empowered with protecting the nation, should be contradicted by the courts if he wants to fritter money away.  As long as the Senate refuses to go along with the House, just how much do we expect the courts to do?

Even when suffering communities like El Paso urged him not to visit, there  were and always will be handfuls fascinated by the aura of a presidential visit and a minority of supporters who demand the same sort of federal protection from harm that other minorities, like blacks attempting to integrate schools in the South in the 1960s, expected from their leaders.  There will always be a few Mexican Americans who may hate what Trump says but add, “At least he called attention to our border problems,” as one told NPR.

In America, before Trump, we thought we had a nation built  around an ethical theme, around  human rights.  Many times we failed – our national tragedy --  but until now we tried to return to the moral center.

The times clearly call for some adjustments, some reckonings that go beyond the slow walk the electorate usually uses to correct  itself.  But these are not the adjustments we are getting. 

As a misdirection, Republicans now want “red flag” laws  to let the police  step in early against those too dangerous to use guns or advocate violence.  Such laws may be peripheral to the real problems, and in a Trump era they could be used against his political enemies, forcing the community  to arrest its own woke citizens.  But many Democrats, including Wisconsin’s Democratic governor, Tony Evers, are tempted by the new narrow opening of Republican minds. They know the Republicans are adamant against deeper measures.

It’s not just Republicans, though. In the wake of the gruesome mass shootings, listen in to how debating progressives were fighting among themselves. Some, like Cory Booker, argue for nationwide gun licensing while others also running for president say that doesn’t impact what a survey  suggests already exists in the US -- 114 million handguns, 110 million rifles and assault weapons, and 86 million shotguns.  Have to do something about that, too.  But the cry of “Do Something” becomes “Do My Something First!”

California Governor Gavin Newsom, in open outrage after the Garlic Festival shooter got a legal assault  rifle in Nevada, wants every state to ban not just  assault weapons but put strict controls on ammunition magazines  as his state had done.  Republicans claim there is no public appetite for such bans – but they are  clearly not talking to the public in the streets.  Diane Feinstein wants to revive the assault weapons ban.  The organization established after the brain-spattering shooting of Gabrielle Giffords points out that the House has already passed universal background checks and bipartisan control bills that have gone to the Senate to die under Moscow Mitch.

A massive mandatory buy-back proposal is also suggested, yet progressives are arguing among themselves about the details.  The clarity of America’s majority reaction to Trump and to gun violence is already splintering apart in ridiculous opposition and equally ridiculous “on the other hand” debates among Democrats.  How many more mall shootings will it take? Cause and effect can become cause and neglect.

A representative democracy relies on thoughtful measured action after debate and the sausage-making process of legislation.  In the face of a bullish gargoyle elected (in some manner) to the White House, is our democracy flexible enough to react and survive?  Can it keep its essential values and rise to the challenge? Or are we about to find out it can’t?


About the author: Noth has been  a professional journalist since the 1960s, first as national, international and local news copy editor at The Milwaukee Journal, then as an editor for its original Green Sheet, also  for almost two decades the paper’s film and drama critic. He became the newspaper’s senior feature editor. He was tapped by the publishers of the combining Milwaukee Journal Sentinel for special projects and as first online news producer before voluntarily departing in the mid-1990s to run online news seminars and write on public affairs and Internet and consumer news. From 2002 to 2013 he ran the Milwaukee Labor Press as editor. It served as the Midwest’s largest home-delivered labor newspaper, with archives at milwaukeelabor.org.  In that role he won top awards yearly until the paper stopped publishing in 2013. His investigative pieces and extensive commentaries are now published by several news outlets as well as his DomsDomain dual culture and politics outlets.  He also reviews theater for Urban Milwaukee.






Thursday, August 1, 2019

2018 HANGS OVER 2020 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

By Dominique Paul Noth

The phantom thread under the presidential debates weaves back to how well the Democrats did in 2018, amazingly well given how the Republicans had gerrymandered the states after the 2010 US Census. This underpins why the televised debates seemed so much a dispute between idealistic conviction and skeptical pragmatism

Don’t underestimate the GOP – they still fully control 22 states and have far more state legislators.  But they lost 350 state seats in 2018 and now the Democrats control 14 states -- six were taken from the Republicans in 2018. 


Pew Research provided this graph
to explain trifectas
Pollsters borrow a term more familiar from horse betting to describe the shift – trifectas, when one party controls both the state’s executive (governor) and the legislative chambers (usually two – Nebraska has one and it’s nonpartisan so that state doesn’t count in this pollster math).

It was noteworthy in 2018 that the GOP didn’t pick up a single state in the trifecta game their party had long mastered -- and the Democrats picked up six, another demonstration of how Trump has pushed the nation away from the GOP.

That trend has altered political thinking, affecting the presidential race and the state by state politics, elevating both the interest in forward looking moderates and Green New Deal progressives. Both groups gained in the 2018 election.

As one TV pundit put it: “Democrats ran and won in 2018 on the environment, education funding and health care.” It’s no surprise that many presidential opponents to Trump are running on the same issues.

In every state where Democrats gained a trifecta edge, they introduced bills to expand voting rights.  In several of the GOP trifecta states that party introduced bills to curb women’s reproductive rights, relying on the one gift party leaders think Trump has given them – a more conservative high court that will chip away at Roe vs. Wade or flat eliminate it, as some in their ranks fancy.

Some states didn’t achieve a trifecta despite a proven progressive electorate. In Wisconsin, the GOP lost the vote totals to the Democrats but stayed in legislative power because of the extreme gerrymandering of legislative districts imposed by the Republicans in 2011. In US House races, Wisconsin was the only state in which the party receiving the majority of votes (Democrats) emerged with a minority of congressional seats. 

So Wisconsin got a Democratic governor but a heavily Republican legislature,  a five-seat edge in the state Senate (within 2020 election targeting for the Democrats) drifting into a probably insurmountable  63-36  advantage in the  Assembly.  But the issue of funding education has proven a winner in all the districts for the governor, Tony Evers, who previously served as the state’s chief of public education.  And the GOP margin is not so big as the two-thirds needed to override his vetoes.

He used the most powerful veto pen in the nation more cleverly to serve the public’s demands than did his GOP predecessors. Through nifty methods, he added back some $87 million to public education

The outmaneuvered GOP exploded and filed a lawsuit, hoping their conservative pets on the state supreme court will go along with them.

It is a blatant appeal to partisanship since the legal props are wobbly for the lawsuit, but it reflects what the GOP believes they have bought and paid for -- the courts.

There are also signs that the state GOP may try to use a joint resolution in the legislature to block any attempt by Evers to draw a fair election map after the 2020 Census.  Republican leaders deny this is in the works but Democrats were unmoved by the GOP denials, noting leaders were not ruling out running past Evers on new maps – and noting that the same gang of legal extremists had just filed the lawsuit against the vetoes.

This fight for control in one guise or another rips through all states’ politics.   One result is a total rethinking of a typical belief within the national electorate:  splitting the vote.  If the constituents split their votes among the parties – as they did when the House turned Democratic while the Senate and the White House are in Republican hands – the thinking was that might be better for the nation to not let one party run off with the silverware.

Trump’s behavior has changed that game.  He’s running off with the silverware regardless.

The Democratic gains in 2018 are looming strong for the 2020 election but one of the realities hitting voters is that changing the White House is not enough.  They have to change the Senate too. It has become the place where good bills from the House go to die. It is an echo of what Evers continues to go through in Wisconsin, helped only by the power of his office.

This is the political tension of the day.  It’s going to take a nimble Democratic presidential candidate to make the country look past the damage caused by Trump to what the US should aspire to. That candidate will set the tone for how fast the states have to react. Right now it is a fight between the candidates who want an explosion of change after Trump and the more moderate who want to put the country right and move on from there.

Political observers believe the degree of change will reveal itself most at the state levels -- among voters more closely impacted by policy.  It is a highly partisan environment at all levels but change is more quickly affected at the state level, suggests political scientist Carl Klarner who has made his election database at Harvard open to the public. 

Klarner bluntly states the obvious reality for 2020:  “A party needs to control both chambers of the legislature and the governor's office to significantly change the direction of policy.”


About the author: Noth has been  a professional journalist since the 1960s, first as national, international and local news copy editor at The Milwaukee Journal, then as an editor for its original Green Sheet, also  for almost two decades the paper’s film and drama critic. He became the newspaper’s senior feature editor. He was tapped by the publishers of the combining Milwaukee Journal Sentinel for special projects and as first online news producer before voluntarily departing in the mid-1990s to run online news seminars and write on public affairs and Internet and consumer news. From 2002 to 2013 he ran the Milwaukee Labor Press as editor. It served as the Midwest’s largest home-delivered labor newspaper, with archives at milwaukeelabor.org.  In that role he won top awards yearly until the paper stopped publishing in 2013. His investigative pieces and extensive commentaries are now published by several news outlets as well as his DomsDomain dual culture and politics outlets.  He also reviews theater for Urban Milwaukee.