Political Violence

It seems only a couple of short weeks ago that I wrote an essay entitled, “Civil Discourse” that recounted the civilized debates and exchange of ideas between David Axelrod and Tom Cotton and between Roger Meyerson and Casey Mulligan.   In both cases, the opponents actually listened to each other, responded with reasoned and data backed retorts and were not subjected to catcalls, disruptions, or actual or implied threats from the audiences.   The debates were lively, engaging and entertaining and even laced with humor.

That blissful condition was shattered this as a deranged Bernie Sanders volunteer opened fire on a group of Republicans practicing for the annual Democrat/Republican baseball game.  As of this writing, Steve Scalise remains hospitalized, after having been seriously wounded.  A review of his social media accounts and his statements before the attack show that this was clearly a politically motivated attack and that it was only the Capitol police and his bad aim that kept the assault from becoming a massacre.

We are seeing an escalation in political violence, and it is coming from the Left.  And the Left does it in two ways—by actual violence or by disruption and threat of violence.   This week’s  is not really new.  The Left’s intimidation, threats, tolerance of violence and actual violence has been building for some time as its political power has been steadily eroding since 2010.  The new tactic seems to be, “If we can’t win at the ballot box, we will win in the streets.”  This modus operandi has been explicitly or implicitly supported by liberal politicians, higher education, and media and entertainment.

Universities have given a nod to political violence by permitting thugs to overrun their institutions and use force to silence points of view that run counter to liberal orthodoxy.   The Berkeley riots, the disruptions and threats against Charles Murray at Middlebury, and Heather MacDonald at McKenna College without repercussion demonstrate higher ed’s complicity in the shutdown, by force if necessary, conservative voices.   Most disturbing was the mob action against the professor at Evergreen State when he refused to go along with the student demands that whites leave campus for a day.  Higher ed has also hired former terrorists that should have been relegated to jobs at 7-11-- Bill Ayers and Kathy Boudin obtained faculty positions despite their connections with the Weather Underground (Boudin actually did time, which Columbia University whitewashed).

The media and Hollywood are in on this, too.  Undeterred by the shock of Kathy Griffin’s hideous ISIS-like pose with the head of Donald Trump, Madonna’s fantasy of blowing up the White House, and the performance in NY of Julius Caesar depicting the assassination of Trump, Johnny Depp joked about “the last time a president was assassinated.”  These are thinly veiled incitements hiding behind comedy and artistic license and go beyond anything we have seen before.   The Griffin episode was particularly disturbing since the image of a beheaded Trump  was unmistakably similar to the barbaric images we have seen from ISIS and, along with the black, face covered garb of Antifa, symbolically cements a relationship between radical Islam and the Left (think Linda Sarsour).  Even more disturbingly, Scott Pelley asserted that the assassination attempt on Scott Scalise was, “to some degree self-inflicted.”

Most shockingly, political violence on the Left has been encouraged by our elected officials through their statements….and sometimes through their silent assent.   Tim Kaine implored Democrats to “fight in the streets against Trump.”  Loretta Lynch asserted that the “most effective response to terrorism is love” but used phrases like “taking to the streets” and “bleeding and dying” when she talked about opposing Trump. 

Which brings me to Barack Obama and his tacit approval of political violence.  He piously called for “civility in discourse,” after the shooting of Gabby Giffords (even though we now know that rhetoric had absolutely nothing to do with the attack).

His embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood was unnerving.   But most disconcerting was his support of the Black Lives Matter movement AFTER they  openly chanted for the deaths of law enforcement officers (“pig in a blanket; fry ‘em like bacon,” and “what do we want? Dead cops.  When do we want it? Now.”).  Whatever their complaint about police officers, no group advocating violence should have been accorded respect by the White House.  

But an even more conspicuous indication of his support for political violence is what he didn’t say.  Barack Obama has never been bashful about sharing his views—whether it was about local incidents like the Cambridge police run in with Henry Louis Gates to the Trayvon Martin matter to the NCAA tournament.  And unlike most ex-presidents, he has been a vocal critic of his successor from the start. Yet when protests turned violent after November’s election, Obama stood silent.  And most tellingly, after the Scalise shooting, Obama was mute, not a word, a statement or a tweet (and none from Hillary Clinton or Chelsea either).  The man whose oft repeated phrase, “that’s not who we are” somehow could even find those words after the assault on Republicans.

When the Baltimore mayor gives rioters “room to destroy,” when a college like Middlebury or Evergreen State fails to take tough action against a mob, when leaders either in words or in action either encourage or fail to condemn violence, and when leaders embrace groups that use violence, we are headed down a slippery slope. 

And this is all coming from the Left. And it’s scary.

Making Literature in Chicago Great Again

Chicago is beset by a host of problems.   It now has a global reputation for violence that rivals its reputation of the days of Al Capone.  The city is in a fiscal mess (on top of the near bankrupt state of the State of Illinois).  Its school system is in a fiscal crisis and it had to borrow to finish the school year.  The city continues to lose population and most worrisome, African Americans (especially working class and professional class) are fleeing the city.  Politicians are desperately exploring new forms of taxation. One entrepreneur intimated to me a couple of weeks ago, “You’d have to be crazy to start a business in Chicago.”  It is not an altogether pretty picture.

Yet, amidst some of the gloom, Chicago has asserted itself as a mecca for literature.  In addition to two world class universities (and some other very good ones), Chicago is now home to a trifecta of literature--- The Poetry Foundation, the Newberry Library and the newly opened American Writers Museum.

I waited with anticipation all winter for the museum to open its doors and toured the museum on opening day in May at its North Michigan Avenue location.  It is the only museum of its kind in the country, with a wonderful walk through historical galley of banners of American authors—from Thoreau and Hawthorne to Cather and E.B. White to Frederick Douglas and James Baldwin.   It has several interactive stations with video of scholars speaking on the works of certain authors.  My personal favorite exhibits were the “American Voices” galley and the “Surprise Bookshelf” that displays samples of great American writing.   Chicago is the perfect location for a national museum as it has its own strong literary history—Gwendolyn Brooks, Studs Terkel, Nelson Algren, Theodore Dreiser, James T. Farrell, Ernest Hemmingway and Saul Bellow among others, are rooted in Chicago and provide the backbone of a Chicago literary tradition.

The American Writers Museum adds a third leg to the city’s literary stool.  The Newberry Library also has transformed itself from a sleepy, dusty old research library to a vibrant intellectual center with a wonderful array of programs and celebrations.  I attended one a couple of years ago that marked the 100^th anniversary of Carl Sandburg’s poem Chicago, which, in addition to a dramatic reading of the play had several speakers, including one that talked about Sandburg’s influence on Bob Dylan, who last year won the Nobel Prize in literature.  And next year, The Newberry Library is undergoing a major renovation that will certainly enhance its standing as an intellectual center.   The American Writer’s Museum together with the Poetry Foundation,  and the rejuvenated Newberry Library makes Chicago a true literary center.   It will be marvelous if the leadership of each of these institutions can find ways to jointly work on some events and programs to magnify their presence in the city’s cultural life.

Coming on the heels of the grand opening of the American Writers Museum is one of the finest summer literary festivals in the country.  The Printers Row Lit Fest, held in early June, is an extravaganza of booksellers, authors, and writer’s that converge in the South Loop for two days.  This year, I had the opportunity to listen to, and chat with, Mary Dearborn, author of the new biography of Ernest Hemmingway and Laura Dassow Walls, author of a new biography of Henry David Thoreau, due out on Thoreau’s 200^th birthday in July.   If you have never been to the Printer’s Row Lit Fest, you are missing a wonderful day (if you are a book lover).

Yes, Chicago has its struggles and challenges.  It is easy to get a bit morose about its prospects, but institutions like the American Writers Museum, remind us that Chicago still has a rich vibrant intellectual and literary foundation, and I applaud the founders for making this museum a reality.

Civil Discourse

It seems like a long time ago since Barack Obama called for civility in discourse after the shooting of Gabby Giffords in 2011.  Since then, there has been a marked deterioration in public discourse in the media, among politicians and the polity at large.  At American universities, public debate has been shut down entirely. Conservative, libertarian and classical liberal voices have been stifled, smothered, shamed and disrupted.  “Safe spaces,” “trigger warnings,” and “white privilege,” havw gotten traction at many universities.  In the most troubling cases, mobs have taken over such places as Middlebury, Berkeley, and most egregiously at Evergreen State.  The deterioration of discourse, its coarseness and crudeness  hit absolute rock bottom with the antics of Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher and Kathy Griffin.

I am proud to have graduated from a place that has been able to stave off these terrible trends.  The University of Chicago is a place where people engage in in public and private debate continuously, where ideas are challenged, premises are attacked, and data are recast, and few, if any, get offended .  It views this process as integral to the development of the excellent minds that the school churns out.  The University of Chicago was the only university to send letters to incoming freshmen, letting them know that the school doesn’t do “safe spaces” or “trigger  warnings.”  It is a place for free and open inquiry.  In contrast, Morton Shapiro, president of Northwestern labelled those that oppose safe spaces as “idiots,” and “morons.”

I attended two engaging debates/conversations this weekend at The University of Chicago that probably could not have happened at another university.   The first was between former Obama chief of staff David Axelrod and conservative senator Tom Cotton.  The second was between self- described knee jerk liberal and Nobel Prize winner Roger Myerson and “habitual skeptic on government spending” Casey Mulligan.  In both cases, it would be hard to pair up opponents farther apart on policy matters.

I will list below a handful of the bullet points/takeaways from the debates.  But the real takeaway is THAT THESE CIVILIZED DEBATES ACTUALLY HAPPENED ON A COLLEGE CAMPUS, without disruption, interruption, harsh words or invective.   The exchanges were spirited, but civil.  Barbs were traded with good humor.  And most astonishingly, the audiences were generally polite, and well mannered.  The questions asked were challenging, yet not preachy or nasty.   Tom Cotton was subjected to derisive laughter a couple of times but at no time was any of the speakers heckled or disrupted.   It is what public debate should be. I was especially impressed with the Axelrod/Cotton exchange.  Here are two men that experienced political life at opposite ends of the spectrum and I thought both made excellent points, actually listened to each other, and both were very witty. 

Here are a few of the punchlines.

Cotton:  I went to Harvard Law [instead of Chicago] because I didn’t want to work that hard.
Axelrod: Stop pandering, Tom [laughter]

Cotton:  The Republican Party stand for free soil, free men, natural rights as described in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.  Give people the greatest freedom of action that you can.  Just what Lincoln envisioned.

Axelrod:  But Lincoln also stood for strong federal government: railroad infrastructure, land grant colleges, and the national science foundation.  Government needed to play a role in peoples’ lives. 

Axelrod:  You supported withdrawal from the Paris Accord.

Cotton: The climate is changing and human activity is a factor.  But where I differed was the remedy.  I support an “all of the above” strategy: natural gas, new coal plants, fracking.  It doesn’t take government mandates to do this.  It’s better to invest in basic scientific research.  Democrats view Paris Accord as alternatively 1.  Voluntary or 2.  Our last chance at salvation.  Activism didn’t solve our energy problems getting off whale oil. Rockefeller did.

Axelrod: Russia?
Cotton.  Russia is an adversary.  The Cold War didn’t end.  It was just halftime. Obama reset happened six months after Putin invaded Georgia.  Obama refused to arm the Ukrainians.  We should stop compartmentalizing our relationships with Iran and Russia and take a much tougher line.

Axelrod:  Obama imposed withering sanctions on Russia.
Cotton:  They were not withering.

Axelrod:  How has Trump handled things so far?
Cotton:  He could have been more disciplined and focused on his agenda.
Axelrod:  Well that was a diplomatic, disciplined and focused answer.

Cotton:  If you listened, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump were speaking to the same anxieties and said many of the same things. 

Axelrod:  What about immigration?
Cotton:  Politicians need to address it or fringe parties will.

Mulligan:  [shows chart]  This displays how much of the recovery hasn’t happened.  Economic recovery was not an Obama priority.   Climate change and health care reform were.

Myerson:  Withdrawal from the Paris Accord was a major event.  Obama regulated carbon when he should have taxed it.

Myerson:  [on income inequality] the bottom 10% and median wages stagnated while the top 10% increased dramatically.  It is not a terrible crisis if the top 10% is growing.

Mulligan:  Trump doesn’t know much but his instincts are to go 180 degrees from Obama. 

Myerson:  Employment statistics will improve if taxes are cut.  It will be good for the stock market and improve labor conditions.   Inflation will surface shortly.

Mulligan:  Inflation is very hard to predict.

Meyerson:  I worry about the reliability of the U.S. and the marketability of U.S. debt.

Meyerson:  Companies should not be given tax concessions in small towns that they can walk away from.  States and local governments should be given a share of equity.

Mulligan:  Policy distorts decisions and is biased against small towns.  A $15/hour minimum wage doesn’t make sense in rural Illinois.  Rural hospitals can’t comply with regulations.

Mulligan:  Studies show that recipients value Medicaid at $.33 on the $1.  We should just give them the money.

Myerson:  I advocate a carbon fuel tax of 2-5% of GDP to make up for lowering corporate rates.  Lowering corporate rates and closing loopholes is sensible.

Myerson:  The success of the country depends on immigration.  U.S. growth is supplied by immigrants.  I predict that immigration policy will not be as extreme as Trump rhetoric.

Mulligan:  We have laws that we don’t enforce.  No Man’s Land is the worst place to be.  A mafia type approach is not good.

Myerson:  ISIS strategy is to provoke a military response that destroys the overall structure of a society that creates opportunity.  Bush and Obama said they wouldn’t nation build, but they did.  I like McMaster.  He brought in someone that understands how important building a stable society is.

Mulligan:  The best thing you could do is take a Zippo lighter and Obamacare and unite them.

Myerson:  There is no theory, no model that shows that competition works in health insurance markets because of the adverse selection problem.

Mulligan:  [addressing how the Republicans will do in the near future] I did my PhD thesis on regression to the mean.

Myerson:  Never support someone that has not held power under the Constitution or one of the separate states.