Benjamin Franklin famously said that the "Founding Fathers" were "giving [us] a democracy, if [we] can keep it."
In science, the rule is that "nature abhors a vacuum." In sociology, and human and non-human animal behavior, the fact is that some people and other animals have an urge to lead, and others have an urge to follow. And those who are programmed to lead want power. They never bother to consider what they want with the power, or, when power is translated into money, what they want with vastly more money than they need, can use, or frankly even want. One of my friends, who has a remote history of substance abuse, says the watchword of substance abusers is "more." That's how primitive is the frenzy for power, or money. It's "more" for more's sake. It's not even about anything. Just "more." Or, as the substance abusers say, "chasing the dragon." The subtext is that no one ever catches the dragon.
In the news right now is a ridiculous and pathetic court case in which Jean Carroll is accusing Donald Trump of raping her many years ago. These are, in a sense, two different versions of the same person. Carroll was reportedly shopping for intimate apparel, somehow in the company of Trump, and she now claims that he raped her in a fitting room. I'm told that the intimate apparel department of that high end store was on the sixth floor (out of the way of general foot traffic). Carroll and Trump were flirting with each other, and the only way Trump could have been in that fitting room was either if he offered to give his opinion on Carroll's appearance in intimate apparel, and his offer was accepted, or if Carroll asked him to come into the fitting room to give his opinion. Were they in fact together in that fitting room? I have no doubt they were. Did they, like high school kids, use the opportunity for some nookie? They were in a fitting room, far off the beaten path, with the door closed, consensually, while Carroll was modeling intimate apparel for some allegedly rich and self-described powerful then good-looking guy who never laid eyes on a good-looking woman he didn't try to score. Of course they got down. Donald wanted his score, Jean wanted hers, and they each got what they wanted. What's interesting is that Carroll's "evidence" that she had been raped was that she told two friends that she had been. One reportedly told her to report this to the police, and the other told her just to let it pass. She took the latter advice. If you've been raped, and allegedly emotionally traumatized, and possibly physically hurt, and maybe impregnated, are you really going to shrug your shoulders, and get back to your job? As a journalist or advice columnist? Who has a byline of which she was no doubt proud? It raises the question of whether Carroll was complaining to her friends, or bragging to them. Donald can tell his "friends" that he scored Jean, and Jean can tell her "friends" that she scored Donald. They reportedly had no further contact with each other. They just wanted that interaction, even though neither of them wanted anything more, or anything real, from the other. All each of them got, and all each of them wanted, was a notch on a belt.
But back to the matter at hand, this country has devolved. It is not the democracy Franklin and the others gave us. It is a plutocracy, heavily loaded with campaign donations (that come with expectations), dark money, decreasing accountability, resistance to more (you don't need me to tell you about the disaster the Supreme Court now is), "revolving doors," and lust for more money and a blind campaign for power. And the lust for power is incoherent, setting aside that it is antithetical to the US Constitution. It's a play for power over things that should be of no interest to the people who want the power. Why would anyone care if someone else is homosexual, or is pregnant and doesn't want to be? It is ravenous and raging. It is as authoritarian as anything to which this country ever used to object. (At least current Republicans have the semi-decency no longer to pretend to object to Vladimir Putin, although this posture, too, appears only to represent whatever is the opposite direction of where Democrats seem to want to go.) And really, that seems generally to be the normal and natural trajectory of rulers, and power. Franklin and the other founders offered us a way to avoid that trajectory, and at this point, we have declined it.
The book I'm currently reading, The End of Europe, by James Kirchik, includes a chapter on Hungary, which is also increasingly authoritarian. Viktor Orban, who has no use for or interest in reality and history, is consolidating his power just as is Vladimir Putin, or American Republicans, or any of many others. Those in power don't want a "balance of power." They just want all the power. This certainly raises the question that is related to "you can't take it with you:" what happens when you get what you want, which is domination over everyone else, and then you die, which everyone does? Or can't you think about that now, because the feeding frenzy has overtaken your mind?
And if it took the US about 250 years to get here, and Hungary about 80+ years, it's taken Israel about 75 years: On their nation's 75th anniversary, Israelis ask: Is this still a democracy? (msn.com)
Maybe Benjamin Franklin glibly asked the slightly wrong question. He asked if we "could" keep the democracy. The question more to the point is if "we" want to keep it. It doesn't appear we do.
Greetings from Texas Fred.
ReplyDeleteI highly suggest you read up on the E Jean Carroll account of her rape. Then possibly consider using editorial discretion and deleting it from this article. It appears to add little value to your otherwise solid arguments about our sad state of plutocracy. Adding it just to link it to insatiable lust for power is unnecessary. And your facts about the sexual assault in Bergdorf Goodman are really in need of a rewrite.
Rafa,
DeleteI rely on what I see reported. When you suggest that I "read up on the...account" of this episode, I did. If you know something different, please specify what it is. If you have reliable information that I didn't have, I will most certainly take your advice.
I realized I wound up talking about two different things --whether or not we have a democracy, and the Carroll/Trump issue -- but it seemed to me there was a power and self-interest thread that connected them. In this case, they were both exerting power, and deriving self-interest. I have been talking to a (female) friend who is a Trump hater, and sort of consequently a Carroll booster, and who disagrees with me about what I said (as you do). Interestingly, my friend's main complaint is not the interaction so many years ago, but Trump's libelous pronouncements about Carroll, calling her a liar, and not his type. I myself am a prominent anti-Trumper, and I don't have a complaint about Trump's calling Carroll a liar and not his type. He's a nasty and vicious person, but he can say what he wants, especially if he really does deny it (she really did lie), and he thinks she's not his type. No one but the two of them know what happened so many years ago. But if he manhandled her up six floors, into a fitting room, and attacked her against her will, then she was left with more than a story to tell her friends. And no one in the store saw anything?
Fred
By the way, Rafa, there most certainly are "facts" about this incident. Carroll's "account" of it is not equal to facts.
DeleteI well understand why women are reluctant to make formal complaints, and it was without question more so in the past. But this places the women at a disadvantage if and when they perhaps long after decide to make a complaint. There is no further evidence. It is in almost every case "he said, she said." But the process that relieves the woman of a disadvantage creates one for the man.
I'll give you an unrelated example of what I mean. Probably 20 or more years ago, I worked part time for a few years in a prison in Massachusetts. One inmate told me he had been arrested, because his significant other, who had a restraining order against him, called the police, and told them someone called her, didn't speak, and hung up. And she claimed that it was her estranged significant other. She said she could recognize his breathing. He completely denied having called her, and he said she just wanted to jerk him around. Personally, I doubted anyone would get arrested on a complaint as flimsy as that one, and I told this story to one of the therapists at the prison. She said that there was in fact a very low threshold for arresting people for things like violating restraining orders, and it was most certainly possible this inmate was incarcerated for no more reason than that. He might have done nothing, and this woman just wanted to make his life difficult.
So, what happened in Bergdorf Goodman? I don't know. Neither do you. All we have is two conflicting stories, but the indicator for me was that Trump was in that fitting room. Carroll wasn't 11. She had to have had some idea what happens when you flirt with someone known for being a roue, and allow them to come into the fitting room with you while you're trying on intimate apparel. My guess, sort of strengthened by which friendly advice she chose to take, is that they did have sex, and it was consensual. Do I know that for a fact? Absolutely not. No one in the world but the two of them know the facts.
But as I said, if you have some other angle that you think should be considered, and you think is something like dispositive, please specify what it is. If you ask me if I think Trump is dishonest, yes, I do. If you ask me if I think Carroll is dishonest, I don't know. What she now alleges is unlikely, or even preposterous, enough to be unreliable.
Fred
Fred.
ReplyDeleteThe verdict is in. The funny flirtations where E Jean thought Donald was going to model the catsuit for her and or maybe even steal a kiss (or have consensual sex in a semi private setting) becomes a nightmarish record scratch where he slammed her violently against the wall, forced a kiss then slipped his hand under her DKNY coat dress and pulled down some tights and presumably “grabbed her by the pussy” his characterization on the infamous Access Hollywood tape not hers.
Imagine yourself in a similar circumstance… you and a woman in some similar circumstance. She excuses herself to “freshen up” and next thing you know a brute slams the door locking you in. Before you register it’s not her he’s violated your manhood with his hands with such force it’s like a kick in the groin. He tries to kiss you- until you raise your knee and shove him off. Slinging the food open - you turn to punch him in the face? Do you scream for help? Do you escape and share within five minutes with a close confidant? Or is the shame and perfeived harm to your reputation and sense of “manhood” so great you just push it down and try to move on, traumatized?
Who knows. Except countless women and men who have been the object of sexual violence. I hope for your sake this fictional narrative is nothing like a real experience you’ve had.
When he tells you who he is. Believe him.