Upcoming Events

Editor’s Notebook

© by John Arkelian

The best of writing, photography, art, and argument – on everything from film to foreign policy.

“Ever dreamed of subscribing to a cultural magazine that doesn’t seem to be eating out of the hand of half a dozen media magnates? Something pluricultural and unassuming but nonetheless covering everything worth seeing, reading, doing or listening to for a season? Well, it exists, and in Canada to boot!”

“There is no on-line version or web site, which either makes John a dinosaur or a man of character. (I opt for the second, since the editorial team occasionally has a kind word for me.)”

John Howe — Canadian artist and co-conceptual designer on all three “The Lord of the Rings” motion pictures.

* Editor’s Note: The age of the dinosaurs has at last come to an end — with the arrival of this website!

Presidential Politics 2016:  Cry the Beloved Country

On October 24, 2016

© By John Arkelian

How can it come down to this – in the greatest nation on Earth, the best hope for mankind, the land of the free and the home of the brave?  Have the lights gone out in that shining city on a hill?  The presidential election campaign poses precisely those questions, with its choice of two unsatisfactory candidates for the most powerful job in the world.  Consider Donald Trump.  Every time he opens his mouth, he confirms our impression that he is an obnoxious, bloviating bully and a vulgarian.  The very antithesis of a thoughtful, well-informed figure, his stock-in-trade is broad generalizations and stereotypes.  It’s a puzzle that anyone was surprised by his ever-so-crude sexual words caught on tape some years ago:  It has been crystal clear from the get-go that he is a crude man.  Is there a word for the diametrical opposite of “classy?”  If so, he is its walking, talking definition.  Why his appeal?  For some, he appeals to their thinly veiled prejudices and fears.  Others like Trump’s unvarnished demeanor.  But far more people have found in Trump an unlikely answer to their deep craving for change.  Now that’s something with which we can find common cause.  The status quo is not serving the interests of America or most of her citizens.  Trump isn’t part of the political establishment.  He isn’t even a politician.  And that has a certain superficial appeal when partisan deadlock and abject neglect of the 99% are the order of the day.  But, there is nothing about Trump that suggests that he would be a balm to those injuries to the commonweal.  He is merely a celebrity, in a society which is entirely too fixated with celebrities.  He is not the white knight, the exemplar of just reform that America so desperately needs.  Bernie Sanders, on the Democratic side, maybe, but not Trump.  Rather, his rashness, impulsiveness, pettiness, and unbridled egotism, combined with a seeming dearth of good judgment, leave him unfit for high office.

What of Hillary Clinton?  Her supporters point to her years of public service – as First Lady, as a Senator, and as Secretary of State.  But Clinton is nearly as disliked and mistrusted as Trump.  Clinton’s ethical and practical shortcomings abound, whether it was vouching for her husband to get him elected (when it is likely she knew she was telling bald-faced lies about his fidelity); contributing to the mess that poorly-planned Western intervention wrought in Libya; selling access to power by granting donors to the Clinton Foundation preferential access to herself as Secretary of State; taking large sums of money from Wall Street and pledging her allegiance to them in leaked confidential talks; using dirty tricks (in cahoots with the leadership of the Democratic Party) against Bernie Sanders to impede his bid for the presidential nomination; being part of the so-called ‘war on terror’s’ insidious attack on inalienable human rights (through the routine assassination of real or perceived foes by drone strikes, and through the unconstitutional mass surveillance of law-abiding citizens) under the Obama Administration; or glossing over her reckless breach of secure-handling requirements for classified emails while she was at the State Department.  Clinton may have 30 some odd years of public life, but what has she got to show for them?  Where are the lasting policy successes, the reforms, and the commitments to real change or to improving the lot of ordinary citizens?  There’s a hard-to-pin-down (but awfully off-putting) sense of entitlement about Clinton:  Many suspect that she feels entitled to the post, that this is “her time.”  Clinton and her supporters have been so bold as to suggest that we should vote for her because she’s a woman, and that her election to the highest office in the land is part of some ordained victory against gender barriers.  In fact, however, Clinton’s gender ought to be irrelevant to voters:  Her gender is neither a reason to vote for her, nor against her.  What’s far more relevant is the fact that Clinton is part of the establishment, when there is a justified hunger in the land to be rid of the establishment’s yoke.  The paradox is that Trump is a dream-candidate for Clinton:  He manages (almost) to make her look ‘good’ by comparison.

One candidate likes to talk about the process being “fixed.”  And maybe it is, in ways that don’t seem to occur to him.  Third parties are shoved aside, effectively blocked from participating in presidential debates that are run by the two main parties.  Democrat and Republican.  How different are they, really?  Both seem to neglect the 99% in favor of the narrow interests of one-percenters.  Maybe they are just a good-cop, bad-cop tag team, an unholy pairing that gives us the illusion of choice, when, beneath the rhetorical ‘differences,’ each of those parties is one-half of a single Janus-faced party of the status quo.

And the status quo is unacceptable.  Critical issues face America.  Few of them are even being mentioned by Clinton or Trump.  Politics in America is corrupted by money.  The U.S. Supreme Court perversely endorsed the notion that money should talk.  Why is neither candidate calling for a constitutional amendment to attack that systemic corruption at its root?  Inequality is a crisis that demands action, as the chasm between rich and poor grows ever larger, undermining the existence of the strong middle class which has long guaranteed the nation’s stability, prosperity, and democracy.  No one mentions the gerrymandering of electoral district boundaries by individual states, a political ‘fix’ that predetermines the result in many states before the election is ever held.  Who has a plan to bring rationality to the debate over firearms and find ways (by constitutional amendment, if need be) to impose reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, including such obvious basics as thorough screening (for criminal records or mental instability) and sensible limits on the kind of guns deemed fit to be in civilian hands?

We concentrate on the dangers posed by terrorism and extreme fundamentalism while we neglect the looming geo-political rivalry with an expansionistic China.  Trump is challenging so-called ‘free trade’ pacts, but neither candidate is getting to the heart of the problem:  We have been sold a fraudulent bill of goods which asserts that “globalization” is both inevitable and good for us, when it is neither.  In the interests of the few, we have de-industrialized the West, transferring industry and jobs to the Third World (especially to China).  It is a profound betrayal of the West – and it poses a clear and present danger to our security.   What about environmental protection?  There are tough choices to be made there.  Why aren’t we hearing coherent plans about protecting the environment from the two main parties?  What about the grave risk to our freedom posed by the security state?  Why has neither candidate pledged to dismantle the unconstitutional measures, enacted in the wake of 9/11, that are intimations of Big Brother?  Why are we still unlawfully holding prisoners in Guantanamo Bay (and perhaps elsewhere) without charge or trial – in open breach of our most fundamental legal guarantees?  Why are we still propping up noxious, dictatorial regimes?  Worse still, why are we selling weapons to them?  Why aren’t we more discerning about who we call allies?  (Tyrannies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to name only two, don’t belong on that list.)  Why aren’t we insisting that a genuine friend, Israel, stop ignoring its own long-term interests (along with everyone else’s) by continuing to build settlements on land it does not have lawful claim to while endlessly postponing the compromises needed to try to heal the perpetual wound of conflict with the occupied Palestinians?  Why aren’t we insisting that China rein-in its reckless ally North Korea?  If China refuses, it is a direct part of the problem and needs to be sanctioned itself.  Why is America unwilling or unable to control the movement of people across its southern border – and what should we do about it?

Why are we not taking urgent measures at home to dismantle oligarchy in favor of real democracy?  Why are we not ensuring that wealthy individuals and corporations pay their fair share?  Why are we not reversing the reckless trend to militarizing our domestic police forces?  What are we doing about the ubiquitous presence of pornography, fraud, gambling, and misinformation on the internet?  Why on earth are we not dismantling large corporate conglomerates in favor of real competition and diverse choice for consumers?  It is intolerable that so many television networks, newspapers, and radio stations are held in so few (corporate) hands, when democracy needs a multiplicity of competing voices.  The Obama Administration elected not to hold the financial racketeers among our bankers and investment companies accountable for the criminal activities that nearly derailed our economy in 2008.  None of them were charged with an offense.  Why is neither of the candidates promising to lay charges against those whose greed, fraud, and recklessness did so much harm to so many people?  Why aren’t they promising to reform the operations of Wall Street, and bring it under strict control in the public interest?  And why is neither candidate promising to reverse the egregious misuse of the Espionage Act against whistleblowers and to instead guarantee protection of those who draw back the curtain on governmental or corporate wrongdoing?

Who is addressing the troublingly massive national debt and our large annual federal budget deficits?  How are we to get back to balanced budgets?  What about making health care universally accessible to all, regardless of their financial means?  (Other industrialized countries have done so:  Why not the United States?)  What about improving education?  What about reversing the inane notion of letting banks and polluters police themselves?  What about undoing the perverse trend to privatizing prisons?  Who is talking about sensible ways to reconcile two competing needs, that is (i) to ensure that the military might of America remains second to none and (ii) to ensure that we get the most bang for our buck in a defense budget that eats up the lion’s share of national spending?  And, why is no one talking about the acute national security threat that has been created by our foolhardy headlong rush to connect everything online?  Military command and control systems, critical infrastructure, sensitive government communications, electronic voting machines, and personal information about ordinary citizens – all of that, and more, needs to be unhooked from the internet.  But neither candidate is saying so.  And, why is neither of them addressing the deplorable decline of civility in public discourse – a decline that predated this election by years?

We have been reduced to two utterly unsatisfactory choices for chief executive. The very qualities we need – integrity, humility, decency, compassion, forbearance, self-control, and the wisdom, instincts, empathy, and grace of a statesman – are conspicuous by their absence.  The best we can do in this election is to consider the more substantive policies being advanced by the candidate for a small third party (specifically, Jill Stein of the Green Party) and cast our vote there until such time, if any, as the two main parties can be reformed and renewed.

Copyright © 2016 by John Arkelian.

John Arkelian is an award-winning journalist and author.  A former diplomat, who worked in London and Prague, he also served as a Federal Prosecutor and as a Professor of Media Law.

Comments are closed.