Let me express my deepest gratitude to all of you who on this blog or in personal emails reached out to me offer to support and hope for my wife's well-being. I am glad to be able to report that the neurologist she saw two days after the attack was very encouraging about the future. Susie has rebounded from the experience and I think will continue in her lifelong effort to put up with me and my quirks. Thank you all from the bottom of my heart.
Needless to say, Susie and I have been glued to the television set watching the proceedings in the Senate chamber. One purely personal note about those proceedings: Susie and I each of us individually knew Representative Raskin's father, Marcus Raskin, so for us the entire affair is a little bit like watching an adoptive nephew do well in public. There is really nothing much to say about the affair. The House managers are doing a brilliant job and will have no effect on the Republicans, but we all knew that already.
More tomorrow.
24 comments:
Great news. May her health continue steadily to improve, and your quirks become steadily diminished.
Perhaps the only amusing part of the Senate trial has been the debate over whether the top of Jeremy Raskin’s head bears a large bald spot, or whether he was wearing a yarmulke. (Answer – the former.) Others were confused why Trump’s lawyer David Schoen kept putting his hand above his head every time he sipped water from a water bottle. (Since Schoen is an Orthodox Jew, in the absence of a yarmulke, he was covering his head before imbibing, as required by Orthodox ritual.) The two polar ends of contemporary American Jewish political culture on full display. But, perhaps, not really surprising, given the comparable political polarization in Congress and in our country among citizens of all religions.
Oh wow glad she is alright.
"The two polar ends of contemporary American Jewish political culture on full display."
Yes; the one who naively, in the face of worldly evidence much to the contrary, asserts that strength is only to be had in association with goodness; and the other who, with no circumspection whatsoever, defends the prerogatives of gangsterism -- proving his bonafides as a made-man. One preaches that the world can be "repaired". The other rides in his little chariot ahead of all the rest, like the pious, pompous Rumkowski of Lodz.
I.E. Rabinovitz
Positive news on your wife'said condition. Wishing you both well in what I imagine are unsettling circumstances.
I just came across your blog and I like your writing style and musings.
Here in New Zealand I only watch the occasional clip, but I thank Sam Chase for the answer to the question that had been bugging me (Representative Raskin: bald spot or Yarmulke?). I was leaning toward the correct explanation on the grounds that 'it' looked rather more flesh-coloured than I believe is usual for a yarmulke.
The ' bald spot or Yarmulke?' issue was only a minor distraction from a brilliant performances. But so far as I can see every one of the House managers did an excellent job.
I.E. Rabinovitz,
I get your comparison of Schoen’s defending Trump to Rumkowski’s efforts to appease the Nazis by organizing the transports from Lodz to the Death Camps, only to be deported with his family in the last transport to Auschwitz (where he was murdered by other Jewish inmates), but comparing Raskin to naïve do-gooders is less convincing, since he and his fellow House prosecutors are taking a position opposite to that of Schoen. Advocating for Trump’s deserved punishment for his inciting an insurrection against our democracy and disrupting the peaceful transition of power hardly seems equivalent to turning the other cheek, so much as insisting that justice be done.
Mr. Chase:
Raskin does not turn the cheek. Not at all! But the tone struck me as outraged, quaking innocence; the formula is that outrage and descriptive precision in respect to the minutiae of the events in question, will stir or re-kindle the common share of goodness and good-sense. This talk of goodness and good-sense looks like preaching to the choir; but the situation is precarious now for merely that. Put it another way: the "choir" had better not sleep through or otherwise miss any more of the regular services. The congregation had better make itself resolute and vigorous. Those of us who've long stopped attending may need to think again of the pros and cons. Else who *is* minding the shop? Meanwhile, the assiduous preachers of the good must not suppose that mere careful and detailed assertions *outrage* can in themselves have the curative effect. The appetite for gangsterism has been stoked; we must understand that the "opposite virtues" are weak unless vigorously cultivated. Half the senators quake in fear for what their hillbilly cousins-in-law crosstown will do if they were to cross them. (Or they think they're clever enough to quietly direct the whole vile phenomenon, like von, von, von-what's-his-name, General Too-Clever-By-Half let's call him, what he must have thought when he imagined he had it in hand).
I.E. Rabinovitz,
I am not sure I am getting the drift of your criticism. (I had to read your comment several times in order to comprehend where I think you are going, and I still may have gotten it wrong.) It sounds to me like you are accusing the Democrats of being the pot calling the kettle black, i.e., that they are making sanctimonious accusations against Trump, when they have not been such great exemplars of moral behavior themselves. But it is a matter of degree. The fact that some of the Democrats are flawed human beings and imperfect legislators – have engaged in hypocrisy on occasion; have taken advantage of the public on occasion; have failed to purge corruption from their midst on occasion – does not mean they have no moral authority to criticize Trump. No Democrat in any office has ever done anything which approaches Trump’s treasonous conduct. No Democrat has ever challenged a lost election to the degree that he did – in fact, some have been overly gracious to concede when perhaps they should not have, i.e., Gore. If the prerequisite for impeachment is a prior faultless record, then no President, current or former, could ever be impeached. And if sanctity were the standard for prosecution, the Nuremburg trials would not have been held.
And the fact that they are calling Trump to account does not mean that hereafter their own conduct must be unimpeachable. Such a conclusion would demonstrate that its advocate fails to understand the degree of culpability that Trump’s conduct constituted, because it makes a false equivalence. After the trial is over, the Democrats will make mistakes during their stewardship of the government - mistakes both moral and venial. But none of those mistakes will mean that they are hypocrites, because none of them will approach the degree of treason that Trump’s conduct did. Such missteps will not legitimately be a basis for those on the far right to accuse the Democrats of not being any better than they are, or be a basis for riling up Trump’s base. They supported a traitor, and do not even realize it. Those taking Trump to task, like all of us, are imperfect, but they are not traitors, nor do they support traitors. So no, this is not an instance of the pot calling the kettle black.
Samuel Chase and I.E. Rabinovitz:
“But the tone struck me as outraged, quaking innocence; the formula is that outrage and descriptive precision in respect to the minutiae of the events in question, will stir or re-kindle the common share of goodness and good-sense. This talk of goodness and good-sense looks like preaching to the choir; but the situation is precarious now for merely that.”
“The appetite for gangsterism has been stoked; we must understand that the "opposite virtues" are weak unless vigorously cultivated.”
I read these comments as follows. The Republicans, especially Trump, are utterly amoral and follow realpolitik (aka “gangsterism”): Might makes right. Justice is the advantage of the stronger. Whoever is the strongest or most powerful determines what is good or bad, right or wrong, in accordance with his self-interest. Power is the ultimate goal and whoever (or whatever nation) has maximal power can do whatever he or it wants, others be damned.
This is basically the view of Thrasymachus in Plato’s ‘Republic,’ Callicles in Plato’s ‘Gorgias,’ Nietzsche, Dick Cheney, Trump, and the contemporary Republican Party.
Since the Republicans are amoral followers of realpolitik, the Democrats will not persuade them to convict Trump by appealing to our “common share of goodness and good-sense.” The Republicans recognize and worship only power. In short, appeals to morality or virtue do not work when you’re dealing with amoral sociopaths. And if amoral sociopaths are in high positions of power (e.g. controlling the White House for the past four years, controlling the Senate for the past six years, and now having 50 votes in the Senate), then the “opposite virtues” of morality, conscience, and rational prudence seem weak and ineffective in comparison. It’s like trying to lecture about ethics/morality to someone who is trying to rob, rape, or murder you. In that case, the only effective response is force and strength.
For the Democrats, the (only) effective responses to the Republican tactics are to shove legislation down their throats via budget reconciliation, to gain more House and Senate seats in 2022 and 2024, and to maintain control of the White House in 2024. Largely forget about bipartisanship.
C,
Your interpretation of I.E. Rabinowitz’s comments may be more accurate than mine. I thought he was criticizing the Democrats for claiming that they are more virtuous than the Republicans and the Trump supporters. But perhaps you are right, that he was asserting that the Democrats need to be more aggressive and not merely seek “to repair the world” if they are to defeat the Republicans and the Trump supporters. If that is what he meant, then I do not disagree with him, with this caveat: I believe that by seeking to “repair the world” you are automatically opposing the Republicans and the Trump supporters, and you can still do both vigorously.
C.,
We've already argued at length about Nietzsche and I don't see anything to be gained by repeating our debate on the subject. I see Nietzsche as much more complex than you do.
I have my Nietzsche, you have yours, Heidegger has another, Leiter has still another, Deleuze has his too, and since Nietzsche is now "in", I suspect that we will see more and more Nietzsches in the future.
I agree with you that Trump is a sociopath, but to characterize the whole Republican Party as amoral sociopaths is a bit exaggerated. In fact, many Republicans are sincere evangelical Christians who far from being amoral sociopaths are moralistic fanatics. Their morality isn't mine and it isn't yours, but it is sincerely held and perhaps for that reason even more dangerous just as the moral fanaticism of Osama Bin Ladin was dangerous.
We human beings are strange creatures and the most moralistic among us will often resort to the most immoral means to obtain what they consider to be their lofty moral goals.
More effective responses to Republican tactics:
The Department of Justice should successfully prosecute the insurrectionists (i.e. the ones who broke into the Capitol building) and *severely* punish them with maximum sentences. They should basically scare the hell out of future potential insurrectionists.
The Democrats should aggressively move to remove those representatives and senators who provided serious assistance to the insurrectionists.
The US Attorney for SDNY, the US Attorney for Washington DC, the New York State’s Attorney, and the Georgia State’s Attorney need to unleash absolute hell on Trump by prosecuting him for his most serious criminal offenses (of which there are many). Trump should spend at least the next 10 years fending off prosecutions. If something doesn’t stick, then prosecute him for the next most serious criminal offense. Ideally, Trump will be convicted, sentenced to prison for a long time, and have a large share of his assets seized.
If Bill Clinton or Obama had done what Trump did in January 2021, the Republicans would have gone ape shit and gone nuclear in so many respects. (Recall the Republican response to the 2012 Benghazi incident, which involved fewer deaths.) The Democrats need to take a lesson from them, without being so extremist.
@ S. Chase
A small belated correction: the Congressman's name is not Jeremy Raskin; it's Jamie Raskin.
L. F. Cooper,
Picky, picky. Jeremy Ben Raskin is his Hebrew name. I am sure that that is how they address him in synagogue when he is called to the Torah.
By the way, are you in any way related to that guy who jumped out of the plane over Oregon with all that money? Where's the money? ( won't tell.)
Ha ha. No, not related to D.B. Cooper. It's a very common last name.
I'm also not related to the late Senator from Kentucky, John Sherman Cooper. I have an anecdote about that, but as I'm on my phone and its tiny keyboard it must wait.
"Since the Republicans are amoral followers of realpolitik, the Democrats will not persuade them to convict Trump by appealing to our “common share of goodness and good-sense.”
C reads my comment accurately.
I also agree with Mr. Chase: that "repair of the world" is not to be sniffed at. It must be pursued with a particular vigor -- a Churchillian vigor I believe; if the project of "repair" itself is not to become a trap, the trap of innocence into which, say, Billy Budd, Foretopman stepped when he would not our could not evaluate the nature of his opponent.
I.E. Rabinovitz
L.F. Cooper,
I suddenly had an epiphany regarding why you have been making comments correcting trivial errors I have made in my own contributions to this blog, e.g., the correct first name of Rep. Raskin. You are still nursing a grudge against me for having attacked your ancestor, Thomas Cooper, to wit: “[I]n April 1800, Chase acting as a district judge, had made strong attacks upon Thomas Cooper, who had been indicted under the Alien and Sedition Acts; Chase had taken the air of a prosecutor rather than a judge.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase
L.F.C., you have got to let go of this. It’s already been over 200 years. Let it go!
I regret to say that I don't know very much about the genealogy of that side of my family from which the name Cooper derives. But it's an Anglicized version of whatever precisely the name was when my paternal grandfather arrived in this country, either as a child/adolescent or young man, sometime in the last decades of the C19th. Sorry to be so vague on it: not inclined to do genealogical research and there's no one around to ask.
(As for Raskin, I corrected you partly b.c I happen to live in his congressional district -- a fairly diverse district, both socioeconomically and racially/ethnically, though that's not how it's sometimes seen.)
Sen. John Sherman Cooper just name-checked by Rep. Joe Neguse in his closing argument at the impeachment trial.
Way, way too long since we've heard from S.Chase. Christ, it's been over a day. Surely there's something to Comment upon. Do, my dear Chase, give us quickly soon some choice morsel of rhetorical sustenance. Even a, "fuck-off", would gratify.
Great to see a reference above to Marcus Raskin. It was also great to see Julian Bond being mentioned--and defended (in the face of van der Veen's slur)--by Jamie Raskin today. Also Robert Moses and SNCC. But does this signify that the root causes of today's 'conservatism'aka reactionism are going to be further acknowledged and that the Sixties are going to be treated with less than the condescension or condemnation which have become so widespread?
Btw just read the statement posted on Medium by Rep. Raskin and his wife about their late son. (I had missed this whole story at the time.) It's moving. Search on "Thomas Bloom Raskin" and it will come up.
S. Wallerstein:
For those who want to read about our debate regarding Nietzsche, read my comments and S. Wallerstein’s comments here.
In my first comment on that post, I stated, “Overall, Nietzsche is a proud immoralist, atheist, Anti-Christian (he calls himself "The Antichrist"), elitist, fascist, and Social Darwinist.” You rejected the claim that he is a Social Darwinist and fascist. Even if I’m wrong on those two counts, Nietzsche is still a proud immoralist, atheist, Anti-Christian, elitist, and aristocratic radical, and he considers religion, Marxism, (democratic) socialism, and FDR liberalism as delusions. You never denied any of those charges.
However, I cited many quotations from many different texts (not just ‘The Will to Power’) to support the claim that Nietzsche is a Social Darwinist. And you eventually said, “I concede on the social Darwinism, but not on the fascist question.” So, back then, you conceded that Nietzsche is a Social Darwinist or at least has many Social Darwinian elements in his thought.
Thus, back then, you ultimately accepted many of my charges against Nietzsche, except for the charge of fascism.
In your comment above, you state, “I see Nietzsche as much more complex than you do.” I agree that Nietzsche is more complex and layered than my comments indicate. Indeed, one can interpret Nietzsche in many different ways (e.g. my interpretation, Brian Leiter’s interpretation, John Richardson’s interpretation, Heidegger’s interpretation).
However, I think any strong, compelling interpretation of Nietzsche must accept the fact that he is an *unrepentant* immoralist (by the standards of “slave morality,” i.e. Judeo-Christian morality), atheist, Anti-Christian, elitist, aristocratic radical, and Social Darwinist. I think that any (left-wing) interpretation of Nietzsche that tries to minimize or refute these characteristics is fundamentally wrong. In short, Nietzsche interpreters should not try to soften or tame Nietzsche to make him more palatable for “the herd” who believe in liberal democracy, socialism, egalitarianism, etc. Nietzsche would despise this!
Post a Comment