Thank god for Trump

Never have I seen moral purity so easily obtained and so cheaply.  We are now experiencing a time when peripheral figures, sycophants, and otherwise happy-go-lucky types suddenly find their ethical redemption is readily available at bargain basement prices.  And this is all thanks, I suppose, to the general mood engendered by the Trump presidency.  But, frankly, low bars are just that, and one really is just a bit deluded when he thinks he brings home the love of his life at the last call.

What do I mean?  Well, we’ve got the so-called #metoo movement, a movement, I’d suggest, that would not have nearly the momentum it does now, if not for the President and all that he represents.  Then we have the “shithole” moment, when the President basically has given voice to what is a fundamental cultural meme in Peoria.  I’ll go no further, but a moment’s reflection will make it clear that folks whose moral uncertainty was partly founded on some kind of profound or, maybe, unthinking awareness of their own failings, have now found that, lo and behold, their ship has arrived!  Ahoy mate!  At last, America’s political cynosure is such as to make even the most fallen a saint by comparison.  At least, it is now possible for any person of uncertain character to assert otherwise.

This is just a bit revolting.

The #metoo movement, which is fundamentally a witch hunt in the old timey sense – even hunting for witches probably found people who were bona fide miscreants – is a fire that probably never would have had sufficient oxygen but for Trump and, well, the Hollywood Caligula, aka Weinstein.  But now that the train is underway, oddly enough, everyone is jumping on board to poor both scorn and condemnation on any and all, apparently unaware that purity itself becomes a competitive affair in these kinds of situations.  I’m not endorsing rape or touching people uninvited, but it is rather astonishing to see all the post hoc folks who materialize ex nihilo to proclaim their love of women’s rights once the enemy is routed and the field is safe.  Presumably they pile on because they assume that a) they will never be called to account even for acts which they assume to be innocent and b) they figure that cheering the good guys or wymyn will make it appear that they too are among the annointed.  Fools.  History reveals the critical fact, namely, that no one is ever sufficiently pure, particularly when one comes from a group that is a priori suspect.  That means, men folk, rally round #metoo all you like in the hope that your purity will be shown, but judgment of your histories is only in abeyance pendente lite.  First things first.

At any rate, if not for the groundwork laid by the exposure of the infamous “Trump Tape,” in which he spoke with all the shocking vulgarity that one could easily have heard in any gym or on just about any episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm, #metoo probably would have fizzled earlier.  Again, I do not mean that I endorse grabbing people.  But the fact is that, if not for the environment engendered by the President, this probably would have imploded by now.  But here we are.  And in a world where accusations matter more than proofs, that means that even defending oneself is ruled out.  Why?  Mere defense, mere questioning of the allegation is interpreted by the politically advanced as “blaming the victim.”  If that attempt to shame won’t do, then one can always offer that no one would ever make a false accusation of that sort, which has, of course, been shown to be untrue time and time again.  But, if it’s factually untrue, it is not morally untrue, and that is what counts in this kind of discourse.  There is only moral high ground, and those who condemn inequality etc., occupy it. 

Now there’s this recent brouhaha about “shithole,” a term which the President allegedly applied to African countries.  Let’s be honest: this is the meme that American media has used for I don’t know how long to describe Africa when it wasn’t presenting stories about Latin America or Haiti.  For anyone, I mean any single person, to pretend otherwise is just absurd.  However, now that the President has actually uttered what I’m sure many inside and outside government have not only thought, but actually said, everyone is full of moral indignation.  Shocked, shocked!  It’s a Casablanca moment, hiliarious for its hypocrisy.  Grave Senators and Members of Congress suddenly step forward to intone their moral indignation that such an expression could ever, like winged words, have broken the barrier of Presidential lips.  No doubt they have not recalled their numerous visits to those benighted countries out of a certain modesty or desire to mask all their vacations enjoyed at public expense.  Doubtless they were among the first to pile into Monrovia’s hotel suites once ebola was safely stuffed back into its forest fastness.  Actually, the fact is that, while a President should always be more dignified, the present case was merely an expression of an American prejudice so widespread as to make complaint pure hypocrisy.

At any rate, leaving aside what I consider fundamental problems with those who pile on to the #metoo or shithole movements, I would just add, as I began, that it represents a kind of moral version of Gresham’s law.  In other words, scoundrels and political calculators of various sorts join in precisely because the joining is cheap while the returns, or seigniorage, are high.  The coin of their morality costs nothing, but they look good all the same for uttering the desired verbiage.  And this in an era where the mob is ascendant, ever eager to reward such scoundrels. 

I’m no supporter of mob politics, which seems to be gaining steam.  These two recent exponents, the #metoo and shithole folks, are manifestations of that.  The fact that they lay claim to an unearned morality at the same time makes them all the more worrisome.  Robespierre and his gang ended up, as such usually due, in a morality spiral, competing over purities.  That may be where we head, and, while at some level I do not mind if those who wish to purchase reputations with cheap morality end up losing the bargain, I do worry that such moments might be extreme and violent in nature.  That is, I suppose, the bigger issue.

A Modest Proposal

A Modest Proposal

I’m alarmed by the growing number of persons coming forward to accuse people of sexual harassment.  I’m not totally clear about what sexual harassment is because it seems to have a variety of meanings, but it certainly is serious.  And we should put an end to it, even if it was decades in the past.  Men are clearly a problem, and sexual attraction is as well.  To be sure power structures play some kind of role too.  Granted our entire culture is oriented towards marketing sex, and people, if they were to give a moment’s thought to the semiotics of clothing, would understand that sexuality is pervasive, like some plaguing disease.  But someone has to say enough is enough and have the courage to propose a measure which will surely bring to a close the male side of the problem, that being the true source and root in any case.

I stand ready to offer my services and herewith submit my proposal.  Now we all, at least, most of us, circumcise the male at birth, rendering the source of his libido comparatively mute with a simple snip that is forgotten because it is performed so early in life.  And therein lies our ultimate solution to the problem of sexual attraction in the work place, which really is where human value is decided nowadays.  My proposal then, drawing inspiration from the great boon of circumcision, is that we gouge out the eyes of our babes at the first opportunity.  I mean, why not?

The eye is highly problematic.  It might gaze at the breast in an unwanted fashion.  While sometimes a woman will wear a shirt with text on it, thereby ostensibly inviting examination, the fact is that the text really is for the wearer, not the observer.  Why invite the observer to observe?  Only evil can follow.  A person might wear a brooch.  Again, the ornament is for the wearer, clearly not for the observers, especially those observers who might compound their observation with sexual desire.  Frankly, male sexual desire, no matter how inadvertent, is clearly nothing more than domination by other means.  The time has come, and I say this as a man bent on doing right, to expunge from ourselves that attraction which can result in nothing less than the objectification of our counterparts.  Who can doubt that, because male originated sexual impulses are implicitly hierarchical, power itself is the fundamental issue at hand.  I know not myself how best to counter that imbalance than by removing from my brethren that pointed weapon which torments the weak and enforces their subordinate status.  And who can doubt that the primary organ of that repression lies in that which gives perception: the eye.

The time has arrived to grasp the nettle of decision and sacrifice for communal interest.  I hardly see how we can reach a true equality than by the blinding of those whose wicked libidos are the mere expression of innate evil.  What I propose is straightforward, simple of execution and certain to achieve the desired goal of extinguishing sexual interest.  Let us blind our newborns.  Gouge out their eyeballs and leave them blind and indifferent to all women in their presence. 

Some might object that this measure is extreme.  Well, no, it is not.  The fact that all women, or nearly all, if we are to judge correctly what is protested everywhere, are victims of harassment impels us to extreme measures.  What sane man would call for moderation where spreads a plague.  Ebola you say?  Do all you can to stop its ravages.  So it is with the male gaze.  Some will object on economic grounds.  What will come of our beer commercials, so to speak, if the key audience cannot even see the advertisements.  My argument is fundamentally moral in nature.  The question turns on how we do the right thing: is it not right to blot out absolutely the source of so much wrong?  Though slaves may have built a wonder such as the pyramids, it hardly justifies slavery!  Trivial goods count as nothing compared to great transgressions.  I find myself unpersuaded by such arguments for male sight.    Some of the soft-hearted will speak of the cruelty involved with digging out the eyes of babes: to which I say it is a cruelty forgotten before that child achieves speech.  More importantly, what good might be achieved by donating those eyes to the needy? 

No, there is only upside to this temporary cruelty.  Never mind the organs donated, never mind the end to sexual attraction, which truly is the problem, I think that finally this practice, however cruel it is labeled by the ignorant, will help to bring men and women onto an equal plane.  At last.  Male sexual interest is wicked because of its dependence on power.  Truly, once women are no longer objects of desire, once no one wants them, once they are as attractive to men as any frigid stone, then, and only then, will we have achieved our utopia.  Finally, we will have become an army of equal units, waiting for direction to serve some greater good, yet to be defined.  But in the meantime, let us blind our youth.

The Vice-President and the Kneel

I was rather astonished that the Vice-President -- I forget his name -- decided to leave a football game today because he could not endure attending an event where some performers had supposedly failed to honor all those who had died on behalf of the American flag.

I suppose I'm not smart enough to know what all the fuss is about.  My ultimate trial came during Desert Storm, and, frankly, it ranks very low compared to whatever others endured during the invasion of Iraq.  As a veteran, I do not see my identity as particularly tied to the US flag.  I understand semiotics and symbolism; I acknowledge the value of a symbol.  That value, however, exists only as a product of contention: a negotiation among the people it represents.  Some people revere it as they would the limb of some dead saint; others call what it symbolizes into question. That is how it necessarily must be, and it doesn't offend me one way or the other.

What is bizarre, however, is this notion that merely kneeling rather than standing during the national anthem (a strange, arguably racist hymn) somehow desecrates the flag itself.  I suppose that this must be what the Vice-President meant when he departed the football match in a patriotic huff.  No, I don't get it.

Kneeling, if anything, is probably in historical terms one of the more significant gestures of loyalty.  One normally kneels to one's superior.  A Catholic kneels before the crucifix to signify reverence.  What might be arguably unique is the notion that kneeling signifies a kind of protest.  In the here and now, however, kneeling is fundamentally a sign of reverence, but reverence to what?  Reverence, perhaps, to an American ideal that the United States has failed to realize?  Maybe.  Let's go with that. Let's go with the notion that those football players are saying with their gesture that they reverence an American ideal that remains unrealized.  There are many good arguments -- actually, they require little to no argument at all -- to the effect that the United States has failed to live up to its principles when it come to a lot of matters, but what does matter is here is race.  The US -- all of us -- do not live up to our principles when it comes to race.  And so some football players kneel during the playing of the national anthem to signal this fact.  Nothing else.

Of course, the willingness to engage in this has increased since the President called those kneeling football players sons of, well, whatever flows off of his tongue too easily for a President.  I'd suggest that the increased willingness to kneel is related to a desire to defy the President.  The underlying symbolism remains: to signal America's failure to live up to its ideals.  Police killing black folks. That's what it was about.  All politics simplify, so I accept that this is simplifying, reductionist in some sense, but it still rings true.  And that is enough.

So here comes the Vice-President, the supposed honorable balance to a vulgar and evil President. Wrapping the flag around himself, the Vice-President claims that he cannot bear to attend a football game in which some men, mostly black men, kneel during the national anthem because this dishonors veterans and those who died for the flag.

I hear this and I wonder what kind of world am I living in.  Mere kneeling does nothing to dishonor my own service, let alone the sacrifice of anyone else.  I truly fail to understand that.  Kneeling, if anything, has always meant the exact opposite: honor to something higher.  Moreover, I wonder this about the Vice-President: does he truly feel that black men, or, more broadly speaking, anyone concerned about the ability of the United States to live up to its ideal, should just shut up?  What is the supposedly proper means of voicing concern?  Should folks confine themselves to humble letters addressed to the occupant of the White House?

Has Mike Pence truly sold his soul to the presidency he serves?  That really is the question.  I have read in various news feeds that people think Pence is some kind of principled man.  The supposed adult in the room.  Well, what is to be seen?  Is there any evidence that Pence has been anything but a complete Judas who, for 30 pieces of silver in the form of an office to be valued as nothing more than a bucket of warm piss, has with ever increasing enthusiasm sold himself to the President's vague purposes.

My point is that with this kneeling business, the Vice-President's duty really should have been to offer a message of unity.  What would it have cost him to watch the game and either say nothing about the kneeling or say that it was part of the American tradition.  Instead, his approach has not been honorable as the hopeful expected who knew him before he succumbed to the moral sewer that is this Presidency with its flow of excreta, but rather his approach has been to be at one with the leader from whom he apparently draws new meaning and purpose.  Power is intoxicating, I suppose.  Morals and principle, less so.