My First Heartbreak

Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer.
            Mark Twain

Have you ever had your heart broken?  I’m not talking about the unrequited love of a woman or man who did not know you existed or would later prove unworthy of your affections.  I’m talking about the kind of love that was born and fostered with attention, nurtured through time and strengthened through ecstasy and adversity.  Then, they meet someone younger, sexier and all the years, all the tribulations and exaltations are defenestrated as if they never existed – as if they never meant anything at all.  On 28 March 1984, Baltimore Colts owner Robert Irsay, emboldened by greed, spite and alcohol, brought Mayflower moving trucks into the Colts Training Complex in the middle of a snowy night and ripped the heart out of a city.  I know because I was there…crying. 

My wife thinks I need to get over this but I was fourteen years old, growing up in my beloved Baltimore.  I lived in an apartment building in Owings Mills and delivered newspapers to my complex, as well as the slightly nicer ones behind me.  Because of our proximity to the Colts training facility, I had several Colts along my route.  From time to time, Colt players could be seen walking along store fronts or running the track of the nearby middle school.  I once was given a ride home by the great Joe Washington as I left school early, sick.  We watched the games every Sunday and occasionally, we traveled to Memorial Stadium to see them in person.  The players were a part of us and though I lived in a time when that was beginning to change, my world and that of the city’s fans was centered on the Baltimore Colts.   

There was talk about Robert Irsay not being happy with the situation in Baltimore.  The team was not at its best and the fan turnout was not as robust.  There was talk by the mayor, William D. Schaefer, who sought a way of placating the cantankerous owner.  There was an embarrassing scene at the airport when the mayor met the owner, recently arrived from, if reports were to be believed, Arizona.  Were the Colts moving?  A drunken Irsay demanded to know who was saying such things.  He wanted to know who would suggest he was meeting with other cities.  He lashed out at the reporters and, worse yet, the city and Colts fans.  He said if he had been supported by the city and its citizens, none of these stories would have materialized.   

Then, one morning, the city awoke to news reports live from Owings Mills and the training center, the last remnants of our love affair strewn around the parking lot and vacated practice fields in the form of random cars and abandoned equipment.  The team had moved to Indianapolis.  Employees who had worked for the team for decades arrived at the office, only to find their job no longer existed.  I kept looking at my father, trying to understand what was happening but he looked at me sadly.  He had no answers.  No one did.  Mayor Schaefer, who had tried to organize the city legislature to pass a law to keep the team from leaving until negotiations were complete, faced the cameras with tears in his eyes and little in the way of explanation.  He was as dumbstruck as the rest of the city.   

The Baltimore Colts were no more.  Instead, the team, its history and tradition, now rested in a city where, as famed Baltimore reporter John Steadman once said, the best bagel in town could be found in the frozen foods section of the local Piggly Wiggly.  The Mayflower moving company went out of business in Maryland.  I did not know they were still around until a trip to Texas left me gobsmacked as I saw a green and gold monstrosity drive down the interstate.   

Watching them on television in the subsequent years was like watching your ex-girlfriend stepping out with her new guy.  With the Baltimore Ravens in town now, my allegiance has shifted and my new love is great.  Still, from time to time, I look at the old one and wonder what could have been.  If you are not from Baltimore or a sports fan, this post will make no sense.  These are simply the memories of a scarred teenager who could not make sense of the world around me.  Sometimes, I still can’t. 

The Fall of a Great American City?

This is no time for ease and comfort.  It is the time to dare and endure.
            Winston Churchill

What do you know about Detroit, Michigan?  If you are like most Americans, it is decidedly negative.  Images of collapsed industries, abandoned neighborhoods and ambivalent political leaders pop to mind.  Despite the recent Cadillac campaign blitz to show a city that is clawing its way back to relevance, the city faces seemingly insurmountable challenges that few of its predecessors have addressed.  Kevyn Orr, a bankruptcy lawyer and “turnaround expert”, has recently been tasked as emergency manager of the city and represents the largest U.S. city taken over by a state.  He is excited, he says he is optimistic but big government dependency and spending are hard nuts to crack. 

Before Mr. Orr has settled into his job and announced a plan of action, he has been met with a host of protestors, led by the likes of the Rev. Jesse Jackson.  Various groups, fearful of how major cuts in Detroit’s budget could impact them, are galvanizing their forces to object to anything proposed, despite its merit.  Michigan Governor Rick Snyder appointed the bankruptcy lawyer for the express purpose of turning around the shockingly degraded and possibly hopeless case of the Motor City – a city that, throughout U.S. 20^th-century history, was the epitome of American ingenuity, industry and innovation.  Throughout the world, Detroit was the standard bearer of what the United States could accomplish.   

What must be done?  How can Kevyn Orr resuscitate the decaying form of a once proud city?  What exactly are his powers?  There are a great deal of questions – not least of which are the broad powers Mr. Orr possesses and whether they are democratic in spirit or intent.  That notwithstanding, he faces near-overwhelming odds.  Recently, he announced that the relatively low salaries for the mayor of Detroit and the city council will not be touched.  In a press conference, he said that Detroit will not make it back from the brink without their help.  People have complained and Lansing is wondering what they will be getting for their money.   

The first thing that needs to happen is that the unions, both public and otherwise, need to be addressed.  They will fight vociferously against anything Mr. Orr proposes but some of the biggest drains on Detroit’s abysmal finances are the various salaries and benefits jealously protected by the labor unions.  That is not an easy request to carry out.  It could easily sink Mr. Orr’s efforts before they really begin but as the governors of New Jersey, Wisconsin and Indiana have proven over the last couple of years, it is one of the biggest steps towards financial stability.  Second, large-scale tax reform needs to draw businesses and industry back to the city.  For decades, Michigan Democrats have slowly killed the Motor City with anti-business taxation and regulations and it is little wonder that the last couple of decades have seen an Exodus-like flight towards the suburbs or out of the state altogether.   

Lastly, Mr. Orr needs to get out of the job as quickly as possible.  If the citizens of Detroit have little faith in an elected government, all these steps will be for naught.  A new crop of men and women must take the helm towards financial stability that spurns the age-old entitlements and built-in graft that have stripped the city of any ability to govern.  A leader must rise up, face the citizens of Detroit and let them know that, like a Phoenix, they can rise again.  Ultimately, unions, vested leeches and unelected “managers” will not pave the path toward the future.  A new type of leader is required.  Until that happens, Detroit will be the subject of study on how a city can get it so wrong. 

A Forgotten Duo

James Garfield never wanted to be president.  Chester Arthur likely never thought he was up for being president.  However, in one brief moment in United States history, these two men worked together to revolutionize the nature of government work and highlight the epitome of the disinterested politician.  However, lumped in with the hirsute presidents of the Gilded Age, they are often forgotten and their achievements disregarded and not considered by the typical survey history student.  Yet, as is often the case with American history, the greatest stories have the smallest build-up and appreciation.   

Entering the 1880s, the Republican Party was a divided one.  On one hand, a group known as the Stalwarts felt that the old system of patronage established by Andrew Jackson was the best way to staff the government.  Government jobs in exchange for political support guaranteed a certain level of political participation, money and therefore power.  The champion of the Stalwarts was Senator Roscoe Conklin of New York.  Representative James Blaine of Maine championed the cause of the Half-breeds – a group who wanted to phase in a civil service system that would allow meritocracy to government service.  For the Stalwarts, the Half-breeds represented a threat, not just to the current political structure but, to their personal statuses and futures.   

With this backdrop, the Republicans met in Chicago to decide their presidential candidate with President Rutherford B. Hayes not considered a serious option.  For President Hayes, running again was not a serious option for him either.  He wanted out and the Republicans obliged him.  During the actual convention, many were considered, including a serious push to bring Ulysses S. Grant back from retirement.  However, Rep. James Garfield (R-OH) emerged as a candidate for his rebuke for a Conklin plan on who should be considered (and not considered) for the presidency.  A surely shocked Garfield was given Rep. Chester Arthur (R-NY), a Stalwart, as a vice-presidential candidate to help heal the wounds with king-maker manqué Sen. Conklin and that faction of the party. 

The 1880 election was not much of a contest as Rep. Garfield defeated General Winfield Scott Hancock (D-PA), a competent military governor of Louisiana and Texas during Reconstruction.  As president, James Garfield initiated the formation of a civil service reform but tragedy, as it is wont to do, interfered.  While at a train station in the capital, a deranged office-seeker, Charles Guiteau, shot the president, who later died from the attack.  (A recent book by Candice Millard suggests the president’s death had more to do with medical incompetence than a madman’s bullets*).  Charles Guiteau felt that the ascendency of Chester Arthur to the presidency would re-establish the patronage system but, in fact, it did just the opposite.  Roscoe Conklin thought he would be able to control the new president as he did when Chester Arthur was a New York official.  However, Sen. Conklin had misread the tea leaves and missed the overwhelming public support for the fallen president and his ideas, including the civil service plan.  President Arthur shook off his former boss’ influence and pushed for what later became known as the Pendleton Civil Service Act.  

Chester Arthur, still a Stalwart, set aside his personal convictions in lieu of what the people wanted – something that is not always a given by presidents.  Before the overwhelming call for the act’s passage, the president knew the people had voted for change with James Garfield and he felt it was his duty to see this challenge through.  In doing so, Chester Arthur, a small New York politician who stood tall in a big moment, was a unique man of personal strength at a time when presidents seldom displayed such traits.  What these two men highlight is the power of little-known stories and people and the roles they played in American history.  Still, there is much more to this story, despite the seeming completeness of my riveting narrative.  There is so much more to explore and is that not what is amazing and cool about history?   

*For a striking new account of President Garfield and his assassination, check out Destiny of the Republic:  A Tale of Madness, Medicine and the Murder of a President by Candice Millard

For Whom Shall the Gavel Strike?

Last week, the Supreme Court heard opening oral arguments on overturning portions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, an act that was designed to protect black voters in the face of seemingly insurmountable obstacles to voting.  Over the course of the arguments and in the immediate aftermath, a great deal of hyperbole and dramatics were dished out, making it nearly impossible to rationally consider the case and its merits.  As usual, the Supreme Court is in the position to consider the law through the disinterested lens of jurisprudence but it certainly will not end there. 

The law was written and passed in horrible circumstances.  Blacks trying to vote in the southern states met with unprecedented travails to exercise their rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution as U.S. citizens and particularly due to the Fifteenth Amendment, granting black men the right to vote, and the Nineteenth Amendment which granted women the right to vote.  Poll taxes were placed to force out those considered “unworthy” while literacy tests were yet another hurdle to overcome.  This is not to mention the various threats and acts of violence that often characterized the nights leading up to the vote.  At the time, Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS) said, “If there is a single man or woman serving (as a registrar) would cannot think up questions enough to disqualify undesirables, then write Bilbo….But you know…the best way to keep a nigger from voting.  You do it the night before the election.  I don’t have to tell you more than that.  Red-blooded men know what I mean.”   

When considering the backdrop of the law, it is understandable that so many, scarred by the memories of those days, might be reluctant to see it go but eventually, go it must.  First of all, we must recognize a level of racial equality that would have been unthinkable to those suffering in the Jim Crow South.  That is not to say that we have racial equality but we are closer to it than any time in our history.  As part of the law, southern states are required to get “pre-clearance” of any change to their voting statues.  However, in the last decade, only one law was struck down, making up .03% of all suggested changes to relevant laws of southern states. It would suggest that the sins of the father have not passed down and southern states should hold equal status with other states. 

Furthermore, during oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts challenged the Solicitor General Donald Verrilli that the continuation of the law maintains the idea that the South is still more racist than the rest of the country.  While Mr. Verrilli stated that was not the government’s position, it is hard to figure out, then, the rationality of continuing the pre-clearance portion of the law.  Yet, Chief Justice Roberts was not done when he asked Mr. Verrilli if he knew which state has the greatest disparity of blacks and whites voting.  When the Solicitor General said he didn’t, Chief Justice Roberts said it was Massachusetts, which is not covered by the law.  The state with the greatest amount of blacks voting compared to whites was Mississippi, which is covered by the law.   

Again, it needs to be reaffirmed that racism is still alive and well but there are so many political avenues for victims to redress wrongs, the unfettered methods of racist policies are simply not possible today.  During oral arguments, Justice Scalia said that the formation of race-based entitlements, so needed in 1965, is nearly impossible to do away with once the situation has improved by politicians and the political process.  “Even the name of it is wonderful, the Voting Rights Act.  Who’s going to vote against that?”  Throughout world history, foes have had to learn to let go of the past in order to work and build together.  At some point, and perhaps it will not happen until the next generation is in charge, blacks and whites must learn to move beyond the crimes of the past (without forgetting) in order to build and work together.  That cooperation must begin with the elimination of laws such as elements of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 

Habemus Papam

It is a ceremony that is unique in its old-fashion qualities.  An announcement of epic proportion done through smoke signals – a white smoke signal that sends an electrical charge throughout the crowd outside St. Peter, filling out the square that stretches out before the famed cathedral.  Within the Eternal City, Catholics and curious onlookers from around the world, some bedecked in the colors of their country or their region, many clutching crucifixes, stood facing the Loggia of the Blessings, the balcony at the front of the St. Peter’s Cathedral.  To add to the antiquity quality of the event, the cardinal deacon Jean-Louis Tauran of France made the announcement of the new pope in Latin.  Whether devout or secular, ambivalent or rapt, all find a curiosity in the announcement Habemus papam – we have a new pope. 

I’m not Catholic but like most people, I was quite Tiggerish about the idea of a new pope and the pomp and circumstance in which it was surrounded.  So, what does the new pope mean?  Remember that this man is immediately responsible for over one billion individuals who look to him for spiritual guidance and a church that seeks direction in the face of internal and external challenges.  When the new pope announced Urbi et Orbi, therein lies his new responsibilities – to the city and to the world.  The new pope, Jesuit Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina or Francis I, must restore the trust of people in the Church but also has a role to play in continuing the efforts of Benedict XVI and John Paul II by working with the conflicts that plague the world and, in particular, the Holy Land. 

There has been much speculation that a new pope, particularly one from outside of Europe, could be a more liberal, modern one – one that might extend different attitudes towards a greater role for women, contraception and gays and lesbians.  Despite the theological problem with some of those issues, the pope is likely to be more conservative considering that all the cardinals that made up the conclave were appointed by the previous two pontiffs – both were conservative, ideological and intellectuals.  It is unlikely that Francis I will be different and it is just as well because the church does not need a theologically flexible man but a steadfast one to ward off the evils from within and the pressures from without.   

Within the square, the media sought long and hard for those who had all sorts of demands of the pontiff.  Yet Francis I, as a direct descendent of the man Jesus entrusted with the keys to the kingdom of heaven, cannot afford to play fast and loose with the dictates of the Church.  Modernity and its demands are not a concern, nor should it be, of the church or the Holy Father.  The late Cardinal John O’Connor, the bishop of New York, once said that it was not the responsibility of the Church to bow to the sins of the congregation but it falls upon the adherents to rise to the standard of the Church and Christ.     

The pope has challenging years ahead.  At the age of 76, he does not have much time, one would surmise, to act upon his interests.  While a new pope suggests new possibilities, this man, by all accounts a humble one, shall be tested in quick order.  As Catholics throughout the world pray for their new leader, we all can play a role in making things better.  Perhaps we has Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists can all extend our own prayers to help put an end to what troubles us in this world.  It certainly could not hurt. 

There's Your Trouble

Ten years ago this week, the biggest American country band in the U.S., the Dixie Chicks, stepped upon a stage in London to an enthusiastic crowd.  With the imminent conflict in Iraq looming, lead singer Natalie Maines stepped up to the mike and said, “Just so you know…we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.”  Within days, the remarks exploded throughout the U.S. shortly thereafter, the band’s career was essentially over.  In the aftermath of the controversy, there was a national debate over the first amendment and the right for Ms. Maines and the rest of her band, made up of Martie Maguire and Emily Robison, to speak their mind and voice their concern about the imminent conflict.  It is a discussion that still rings today.  Yet, there were three components of Ms. Maines’ comments that drew the greatest ire. 

One, the comments were made about an upcoming military action.  A friend once asked me, as a combat veteran, is it possible to criticize the government without affecting the troops asked to carry out the national policy.  Now, it should be noted that in my experience, as part of the First Persian Gulf War, opponents to the war was rather thin on the ground but we were aware of them.  In a general sense, I think most soldiers can separate them but we often personalize our mission and grow to care a great deal for our goals and the people we are seeking to help.  Therefore, it is hard to differentiate the criticism.  Additionally, people who have criticized the war effort will throw in, usually at the end or the very beginning, a “but we support the troops.”  It appears to be a throw-in and not sincere.  That is not to damn everyone who has said that but the perception is that it is disingenuous.   

Second, Natalie Maines made this “mistake” of declaring her political views in another country.  Right or wrong, Americans tend to consider such actions similar to that of traitors.  It is one thing to complain about the government in country – indeed, it is a healthy component of a thriving democracy that people have the right to speak their mind, no matter the opinion.  However, once a person is on foreign soil, one does not air dirty laundry.  President Bill Clinton, in his run-up to his 1992 victory over George H.W. Bush, experienced difficulties with stories about his protest in England against the Vietnam War.  Now, one can certainly suggest that one’s constitutional rights are not checked at the customs’ gate and that we should be able to exercise our privileges anytime, anywhere.  While that is true, there is a question of decorum.  Ergo, the situation of the Dixie Chicks in London certainly violates this widely held opinion of when and when not to criticize one’s government. 

Lastly and among those who support the Dixie Chicks, there is a bit of hypocrisy.  In an effort to extol the women’s right to speak their mind, they denigrate the right of those who oppose the band to speak theirs.  Hollywood stars and other musicians like Madonna and Merle Haggard complained that the backlash was ending their career.  The constitution says that each of us has the right of speech but there is nothing in the document to suggest we have the right to be taken seriously or agreed with.  One cannot choose to exercise free speech while at the same time hoping to choose the consequences or fall out.  Free speech does not work that way.  Each of our freedoms has consequences, both good and bad.  In the case of the Dixie Chicks, they may rightly declare they have the right to speak their mind but they cannot abridge anyone else’s rights and therefore, the consequences.   

Personally, I think the women are extremely talented and though I disagree with them, I do, on occasion, like to listen to their music.  However, politically, their concept of the first amendment is a bit childish and lacks a complete understanding that we all have those rights and one must endure the consequences.  The ladies have remained unapologetic – they should if they meant what they said.  Unfortunately, they also misjudged the situation and in doing so, truncated a great career.

 

Who Doth Protest Too Much?

The national budget must be balanced. The public debt must be reduced; the arrogance of authorities must be moderated and controlled...if a nation doesn't want to go bankrupt.

               Cicero, 55 BCE

Over the last couple of weeks, the news coverage in the United States has been extraordinarily obsessed with talks about the budget cuts, sequestration and the blame game noted by the near apocalyptic visions of a post-sequestered world that seemed to keep the president up at night.  I dare say that little can compare to the degree in which the world will fall apart and off its axis if the howling of the congressional Democrats and the president are to be believed.  Only in the last few days has President Obama returned the land of the sane and reasonable with his declaration that the majority of Americans will likely not notice the budget cuts.  What would have happened if this approach had been the norm over the last couple of months?

Beginning with the Christmas holiday hand wringing that set up this due date, people have discussed this in the most extreme terms.  As congressional Republicans began pushing their leadership to let the cuts happen in hopes of getting some spending reduction, the Democrats responded with lamentations worthy of Jeremiah.  The $85b of spending cuts from a $3.6t budget represents not even 3% of the federal budget.  I dare say that most Americans do not understand such objections over 3% when they have had to cut much worse on a family level.  Meanwhile, in a world where one country after another is suffering the horrible effects of a debt-ridden economy, it is surprising to see the Democrats holding to the last vestiges of a big-government philosophy.  Greece, Italy, Spain and Ireland and many others are stepping from the brink by cutting back the role and expense of their governments.  Meanwhile, the United States is doubling down. 

Throughout American history, the government has been forced into major cuts in spending much more severe than the one being phased in now.  After World War II and during President Reagan’s term, the government cut its spending and the economy prospered as a result.  Economically, it is considered an axiom that as government spending decreases, private sector spending increases as they fill the void.  The more government spends, the more it occupies the limited factors of production.  This bromide philosophy that has been championed since the days of the Great Depression is a malum in se. 

In the final analysis, one has to consider how this plays out politically.  Journalist Bob Woodward, who helped bring down Richard Nixon, has pointedly explained that it was the Obama administration that introduced the idea of sequestration but as the Republicans have adopted it as their own policy, the president has ratcheted up the rhetoric and the calamitous prognostications.  If the president’s late reversal is correct and few Americans see or feel the spending cuts, the previous months of predictions by Democrats will seem like a red herring and they could lose horribly in the mid-term elections in 2014.  The American people will grow increasingly suspicious of the predictions of doom associated by Democrats of Republican policy.  Meanwhile, the Republicans could stand to gain a great deal both in the eyes of the people and in strengthening its hold on the Congress.  Conservatives, over the last months, have experienced the worst of character assassination.  They have been accused as wanting to hurt small children, pregnant women, disabled veterans and nearly anyone else the Democrats could imagine.  Is it any wonder that some Republicans questioned the wisdom of talking to the president at all? 

It has been said before by people much smarter than me that attitude reflects leadership.  Indeed, the president has created a vitriolic environment.  Opposing opinions are not granted much respect but rather tend to be characterized in the worst possible terms.  A man who was swept into office on the loftiest of oratory skills has descended into the deepest depths of vindictiveness.  The Republicans, in response, have grown more entrenched and less flexible.  Ergo, problems have prolonged much longer than necessary.  After the paltry percentile of cuts is fully realized, I hope lessons are learned but I’m not betting on it.