Ambrose Pierce, Political Satirist, Good For All Times

In times when some western governments do not face a strong political opposition, satire becomes a useful weapon for those who use ridicule and shame to hold accountable those who rule us. I became aware of the genre in the 1960s with shows like Beyond the Fringe. David Frost’s television show, ‘That Was The Week That Was’, broadcast on Saturday nights, became essential viewing. Frost, with the help of others like John Cleese and Ronnie Barker, would poke fun at the rulers of British society. Bernard Levin would take a few minutes to destroy celebrity businessmen. It was huge fun!

There is a long history of political satire in America. Starting with my own awareness, in the 1960s Lenny Bruce’s biting humour offended the establishment, who repaid the favour by imprisoning him on drug offences. The laconic Smothers Brothers featured on US television in The Comedy Hour. Their songs were so provocative that CBS ordered the brothers to record their programs ten days before airing so CBS could censor what they did not like. In recent times, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have taken up the cudgels to lambast the political great and good of the US Congress and The White House.

Although the genre is male dominated, Janeane Garofalo has gained quite a reputation for deadpan and witty observational humour. In the 1990s she introduced progressive, left-leaning politics into her act and her on-screen persona. She played the part of press secretary to Matt Santos, the Democratic nominee for president, in the final series of The West Wing. In this role, she seemed to play herself.

I am aware that political satire is not solely a phenomenon of post WWII life. Benjamin Franklin was quite a dab hand. Recently, a good friend introduced me to the works and thoughts of Ambrose Bierce. A nineteenth century American, Bierce was an editorialist, journalist, short story writer and satirist. Amongst his works was the compilation of a satirical lexicon, The Devil's Dictionary. His vehemence as a critic, his motto, "nothing matters" and his sardonic view of human nature have enormous appeal.

Bierce had little time for the law. “A lawsuit,” he wrote “is a machine which you go into as a pig and come out of as a sausage.” Likewise, he had no respect for politicians. “What is a Democrat? One who believes the Republicans have ruined the country. What is a Republican? One who believes the Democrats would ruin the country.” Religion did not escape his sharp wit. “The sacred books of our holy religion are distinguished from the false and profane writings on which all other faiths are based.” He defined cynics as “blackguards whose faulty vision sees things as they are and not as they ought to be.”  He also advised public orators to “speak when you are angry and you will make the best speech you will ever regret.”

There is much humour in these quotes as well as satire. However, what Bierce had to say about America and his fellow-countrymen pinches a nerve. “War,” he wrote, “is God’s way of teaching America geography.” When you live in a country the size of America, where some 70% of the population do not own a passport, and when you consider that America has been at war almost continuously since 1941, the observation is astute and apparently timeless.

I am no geographer but I have been astonished over the years by the inability of some Americans to know about the rest of the world. Do you remember Joe the Plumber? He was the man depicted by John McCain in 2008 as the ordinary American, the hard-working, family man who did the right thing. Would he have cared where Syria is? Would he be able to describe the land occupied by ISIL? Perhaps yes, perhaps not. I suspect similar questions could be asked of Europe’s version of Joe the Plumber, with adverse answers.

The point is that Bierce regarded many of his fellow citizens as dumb. In Bierce’s times, public education was nowhere near the size it is today as many children were required to work on the family farm or in the sweatshops and factories of the cities. Perhaps this explains his opinion.

Bierce also famously stated, "America is a mistake! A giant mistake!" Why would he say such a thing? America became the leading nation of the 20^th century. It assured a quantity of life for the majority of its citizens. It was victorious in two world wars, played the world’s policeman for more than half a century and sought to be a force for good, even if its methods in countries such as Iraq might seem the contrary.

However, Bierce wrote in the period following the Civil War when the executive branch of the US government was almost invisible. The chief executives were popularly termed “The Postage Stamp Presidents” because that was pretty well all the people saw of them. When I look at the current crop of candidates for the Presidency in 2016, now all too visible in the media, I wonder whether Bierce had a point about mistakes.

The Paris Tragedy: Donald Trump – Keep Your Mouth Shut!

On Friday night, a handful of gunmen murdered 129 people on the streets, in restaurants and a theatre in Paris. The dead and injured had committed no crime against Islam. This attack was targeted at the way of life followed by millions of people in the first world. All told, more than 500 people have been killed or wounded. When you add to this the numbers of family members and friends who will have been affected by the slaughter, there will be thousands of innocent people whose lives will now change. No doubt the terrorists will enjoy this fact.

Why has Paris and France been targeted so often this year? I cannot say but Western Europe is not a safe place at the moment. I, for one, am relieved that the British government has toughened up the surveillance rules. GCHQ Cheltenham and MI5 are not infallible but it is claimed their work has foiled at least seven terrorist attacks in the UK in recent times.

What the Paris perpetrators represent is a hatred of societies that are educated, liberal, free, tolerant, multi-racial and multi-cultural, values which any right-thinking person would applaud. I cannot pretend to fathom the thought process of fundamental Muslims, people who advocate extreme violence and are a disgrace to their religion. Those who direct the terrorist attacks are cowards. They hide in bases in Syria, Iraq and Iran whilst sending “soldiers” to do their dirty, violent work.

At a local dinner on Saturday night, I stood in silence for a minute with 40 friends to show respect and solidarity to our French friends. Monuments throughout the world have been illuminated in red, white and blue, the colours of the Tricoleur. Friday night’s outrage seems to have brought together people from the free world in protest at what ISIL has done.

Whether the reaction of the French government sending fighter aircraft to bomb Islamic State is right remains to be seen but a proportional response seems to have gone by the board. Western leaders seem to be building up to a joint onslaught. History tells us this is a mistake and troops on the ground will be needed if ISIL is to be wiped out but the emotional reaction by the Hollande government is understandable. However, are the French playing into ISIL’s hands by creating more civilian deaths and more martyrs to their devilish cause?

What is totally unacceptable is the view expressed by Donald Trump at a rally in Beaumont, Texas, on Saturday:

“When you look at Paris — you know the toughest gun laws in the world, Paris — nobody had guns but the bad guys. Nobody had guns. Nobody. They were just shooting them one by one and then they (security forces) broke in and had a big shootout and ultimately killed the terrorists. You can say what you want, but if they had guns, if our people had guns, if they were allowed to carry –” Trump said, pausing as the crowd erupted into raucous applause, “– it would’ve been a much, much different situation.”

The only country in the first world where citizens carry guns as of right is America, which is also the country with the highest number of shooting crimes and deaths, year on year. Does Trump really think the terrorists would have thought about their actions twice in the knowledge that Parisians had guns? Does he not understand that the reason why Western Europeans, Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians do not carry guns is that they are not wanted? How many more people would have died in shoot-outs on the streets of Paris?

Mr Trump, your ill-considered, puerile and simplistic solution might appeal to the gun-toting voters in your part of the world but over here, you would not get an audience to applaud. People would hoot in derision. What happened in Paris was a huge tragedy and statements like yours are about as unhelpful as can be. You enjoy the right to freedom of speech but if you want to be taken seriously, think more carefully about what you say. Uttering stupid and self-serving remarks may work with some people state-side. However, I wouldn’t put a wooden nickel on the Presidency being yours. It's hard enough fighting challenges to our way in life in Europe when we are attacked by terrorists. Mr Trump, we don't need you doing it too.

Right-Wingers Challenge The Affordable Care Act Again.

On several occasions, I have blogged about the ACA and the determination of Congressional Republicans and right-wing groups to damage and defeat the new healthcare legislation. Let me remind you that, prior to ACA, Americans might qualify for Medicare or Medicaid but the millions who could not avail themselves of this help had either to insure themselves or pay for medical care from their own resources. The major principle of the ACA was that all Americans should have health insurance and the federal government would offer affordable health insurance. Citizens had no obligation to take up the offer. They were fully entitled to keep their own healthcare cover. However, if a citizen did neither, he or she would be fined.

I do not pretend the legislation was simple and straightforward. It was not. Nor did the processes work well to begin with. There were massive computer glitches and failures. Secretary of Health Kathleen Sebelius took a huge amount of flak for her boss, President Obama. However, according to NBC, since the ACA became law, almost seventeen million Americans now have healthcare insurance, provided courtesy of the federal government. This is a significant number.

The Supreme Court has considered ACA on three occasions.  On the last day of the 2011-2012 Term, the Court ruled 5-4 in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius that the individual mandate under the Act was upheld and the Medicaid expansion was kept intact. As a result of the Court’s decision, the implementation of health reform was protected.

In 2014 the Court held in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that some closely held corporations are protected from having to provide contraceptive coverage that offends the owners’ religious beliefs. Quite how deep religious beliefs are relevant in for-profit corporations is debatable. Again, this year, the Act returned to the Court for further consideration. In a 6-3 decision in King v. Burwell, the Supremes ruled that tax subsidies, that make health insurance affordable for low-income individuals, can continue.

The challenges continue. Last week, the Court agreed to hear another case, this time to decide whether religiously affiliated organizations such as universities, hospitals and charities can be free from playing any role in providing their employees with contraceptive coverage. I would have thought the Hobby Lobby decision was sufficient to establish the legal principle but, evidently, it is not. The new challenge pits questions of religious liberty – some might say dogma and special pleading - against a woman’s right to equal health-care access. The Obama administration says it has provided the organizations with an easy way to opt out of the legal requirement that employers include contraceptives as part of health insurance coverage; employers who object to the cover must make clear their religious objections and let insurance companies and the government provide it separately.

The issue for the Court is whether the religious-freedom law entitles petitioners not only to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage themselves but also to prevent the government from arranging for third parties to provide separate coverage to the affected women. Is this not a ploy by the bible-bashers to prevent contraceptive coverage for all women, regardless of their religious affiliation? If so, where exactly is the discrimination?

I suspect the latest challenge is inspired by those on the right who hate President Obama and all he stands for. However, they may shoot themselves in the foot at the polls. According to the UK Economist, “in a recent poll 62% of Republican supporters feel betrayed by their party. Hardliners itch to use blunt instruments including blocking rises in federal debt and shutting down the government rather than allow public money to be spent on programmes that displease them.” Add religious bigotry and you have a poison that may well kill Republican hopes in next year’s elections.

I feel certain that those who continually seek to challenge ACA in Congress have the best health insurance policies available on the market, paid for by their employers. These same people seek to deny health cover for the poor in American society, based on narrowly held religious or social views. It is a credit to freedom of speech that these people should have their day in court but it does far greater discredit to a society and legal system that would permit continual challenges to a law that seeks to benefit so many. Health insurance may not be a birth-right but in America’s unequal healthcare system, surely a law that seeks to level the playing field should remain untouched by its dissenters.

The American Election Day, 2016.

I am writing this blog on 3^rd November. One year hence on 1^st November, 2016, America goes to the polls. There are votes to be cast for all kinds of offices at town, city and state level. But the media will be focused on Washington DC and the race for the White House, as well as keeping an eye on Congress.

By one year hence, the candidates for President, the Senate and the House of Representatives will have fought through the primary season, attended the Party National Conventions to approve the planks and platforms and will have campaigned all the way up to Election Day. Without doubt, the losers will feel depressed. But what of the winners? Mental and physical exhaustion will dominate. Once the result is known, the adrenalin goes.

Put yourself in the position of the President-Elect. He or she will have fought for more than a year, put themselves and their families in the glare of publicity, and been examined in greater detail than pretty well anyone else on the planet. There will be no time to rest. Although much spade-work will have been done beforehand, nevertheless the President-Elect has a mere six weeks to put a new government together, which includes thousands of jobs in all departments of government. In addition, he has a legislative agenda to get ready, possibly in the face of a hostile Congress. Deals may need to be done to get legislation moving.

After inauguration, the new President might get a honeymoon period from press and television but nowadays this is more unlikely than likely. President Obama came into power in 2008 on a wave of sentiment where the bar was set so high, no one could have scaled it. Four years ago, he was given little time before the media brickbats were thrown. I applaud President Obama for many achievements, especially the Affordable Care Act, but his record is not unblemished.

I have never pretended that governing is easy. Quite the reverse, I have often written that it is extremely hard, especially in democracies like America’s where power is distributed. What the new President faces is problems left by the Bush administration and the admission by the Obama administration that some problems, like the debt, have not been challenged. In domestic policy, no solution has been found to resolve both the debt ceiling and the amounts that America borrows to finance its lifestyle. In recent years, the US has become almost self-sufficient on energy, yet its borrowing remains high. The Bush administration ran huge deficits to fund the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, social security and healthcare. The Obama administration has been unable to tackle and reduce the debt. As the President has said, “we have kicked the can down the road.” But eventually, somebody has to pay the debt. This problem will follow the new President like an evil shadow.  

Funds in the trillions of dollars are needed to rebuild America’s infrastructure. Those of us who have enjoyed road trips know the interstates and major roads are in a poor state of repair. Take a look at the internet. There is ample evidence that America’s bridges are often closed temporarily for emergency repairs and some will have to be closed for months for major repair. Mass transit is limited to airlines. The US railroad system is patchy to non-existent. The trouble is, where will the money come from to pay for the years of neglect? The federal government will say this is a problem for the states. The states will say they have insufficient funds to fix problems. The real difficulty is that infrastructure is not on the agenda for 2016. The new President needs to lead in this area, if he or she accepts the infrastructure problems cannot be left for the next occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in 2020 or 2024. It could be good news as it will provide many jobs and borrowings will be specific and spent on capital projects, something that might appeal to both sides of the aisle.

How will the new President approach racial issues, immigration and unemployment, not to mention gun control? It’s all very well for the current crop of candidates to say they want to see America great again but half-baked policies a la Trump won’t help. These are serious issues which deserve detailed solutions and which ought to dominate the political scene. Perhaps these policies will materialize in the primaries but I doubt it. Instead, there will likely be bland generalizations where the voters will have to fill in the blanks.

As for foreign policy, in my view, the Obama administration has not scored well. It has turned its face against Israel. In Syria, it has allowed Putin and the Russians to run the show. What has it done successfully to keep ISIS at bay? At least it has reached an accord of sorts with Iran. If the new President wants to take on the role as leader of the west, then he or she has to lead in an intelligent manner. “Kicking ass” is not a policy that served G W well.

I have to say that if I was a candidate for president in 2016, I’d be thinking very hard about whether I could solve any of these problems and that, maybe, I should drop out. Fortunately, those who aspire to what FDR called “the greatest job in the world” are made of sterner stuff. I look forward to the start of the primary season in the optimistic belief that politically, things will get better.