Herb Strentz: AMERICA CAN BE ‘GREAT’ – DESPITE TRUMP AND GOP DEBATES

Say what you will — and we all have — the lead-up to the 2016 election so far is….is….is?

Well, maybe Shakespeare characterized much of the give-and-take among presidential candidates in “Much Ado About Nothing.” Or maybe he caught the spirit of today’s political rhetoric in Macbeth:

Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

When it comes to the “sound and fury” of presidential debates, consider a quote attributed to both Mark Twain and Winston Churchill: “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”

And some 270 years ago, Thomas Gray explained why Republican and Democratic candidates ignore obvious and well-founded truths and instead play to the misguided, and even false, beliefs of their base. Gray wrote, "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." (So GOP candidates question the worth of vaccines, ignore climate change and defy anyone to mention evolution.)

Linking any one of the Shakespearean or other insights to a specific episode in today’s campaign entertainment is frustrating, however; the flow of charges and counter-charges, slogans and sound bites is halfway around the world before you can sort things out.

Better to focus on something relatively stable in the 2016 campaign — Donald Trump’s promise to “Make America Great Again” and the other candidates who say our nation is a basket case sorely in need of their quack remedies.

The line “Make America Great Again” scores at least a hat trick by being much ado about nothing, full of sound and fury and appealing to a blissful base. It’s the sort of political and mindless manipulation that George Orwell warned about in his essay “Politics and the English Language.”

“Make America Great Again.” What does that mean? At Fourth of July commemorations three months ago and for at least a century Americans have heard speakers say America IS the greatest nation on earth. That declaration Fourth after Fourth goes unchallenged — at least until it suits today’s candidates to resort to Halloween and horror stories instead of flag waving.

In a few ways we’re better than ever. The Affordable Care Act has extended medical insurance coverage to several million of our fellow citizens. Court decisions have extended human rights to people other than white men. Few of us desire a supposed return to be “great again” if that “again” means subservience to white males with everyone else in the back of the bus.

Besides, an agenda for greatness must look forward, not backward.

Look forward to actions and not just talk about serving the millions of armed forces veterans so long neglected in actions, but well-supported by bumper stickers. Look forward to dealing with our prison incarceration rate, the worst in the world. Look forward to enhancing, not debasing, women’s reproductive rights and health care. Look forward to making college education costs manageable and encouraging, not prohibitive. Look forward not to cutting or raising taxes, but to giving citizens a better return on the taxes they already pay. Those and other steps to greatness are all but ignored in the “Much Ado About Nothing” and “sound and fury” approach.

Further, what does it mean to be a great nation? Is that a goal simply to talk about, after which we can lean back and relax? Or maybe strut about, having achieved greatness? Or is national greatness always more of a starting point, a challenge to continually extend freedom and the fruits of greatness to others in our nation and beyond, rather than building walls?

Sadly, we remain far short of the nation that James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and others envisioned in their grand experiment. Rather than yearn for a return to a delusional past, however, we should accept the challenges and opportunities in the years ahead. That’s what elections are supposed to be about — despite Trump and the debates.

Herb Strentz: CARTER FOR PRESIDENT? MAKES EVEN MORE SENSE TODAY!

Offered below is an Iowa newspaper's editorial endorsement of Gov. Jimmy Carter of Georgia for U.S. President. It likely was the first-in-the-nation endorsement for a candidate then known as “Jimmy Who?”

But the endorsement resonates today because of Mr. Carter’s recent diagnosis of cancer and because the qualities ascribed to him in the endorsement differ so markedly from what candidates claim today.

The endorsement was from John McCormally, editor of the Burlington Hawk Eye from 1968 to 1979; before coming to Iowa he was editor of the Hutchinson, Kansas, News, which won a Pulitzer Prize in 1965 for news and editorial coverage of the need for legislative reapportionment. John died of cancer in 1993 at the age of 71. A grandson, John McCormally, is an Iowa assistant attorney general.

The Burlington Hawk Eye

Jimmy Carter For President ...

December 20, 1974

By John McCormally

I reserve the right to change my mind several times between now and November 1976, but as of now, I'm for Jimmy Carter for president. And if I had to decide today, I'd round out the ticket by teaming the outgoing governor of Georgia up with the in-coming governor of Connecticut, Ella Grasso, for vice president.

That gives you a ticket nicely balanced, north and south, male and female, with executive experience, the right touches of liberalism without being suicidally radical. Best of all, neither of them has ever given the impression they thought they were God Almighty.

That's why neither of them has impressed you much. They haven't yet been remanufactured by the media and put on sale as the saviors of mankind and leaders of the free world. How faithful I remain to them will depend a lot on how successfully they resist the determination of the icon makers to turn them into plastic persons.

Liberals will consider Carter's first liability his southern address. I shared that bigotry once myself, distrusting anyone from the South. But if recent events have taught us anything, it is that, block for block, there are more rednecks in Boston than there are in Atlanta.

The other thing that disenchants the kingmakers is that Carter just doesn't look like king making material; it is safe to say that most people still have never heard of him. He doesn't give any assurance of "generations of peace" or that his administration will produce the greatest events since creation.

Which is all in his favor. If there's anything we don't need, it's another superman. We need to start out with the premise - which we abandoned with Coolidge - that all we need for president is someone capable of managing one of the three branches of government for four years, with the generally accepted minimum of honesty and ability that is expected of all of us on our jobs. If we luck out and do better than that, it's a welcome bonus. In fact, the less we expect of the president, the more attention we will pay to the performance of the congress and judiciary and the state governments and the business conglomerates that own the country, all of which affect our daily lives far more than any president.

Still, we want a president who sets an acceptable tone. If he is too obviously a charlatan, like Johnson, too obviously a crook, like Nixon, or too obviously a dodo, like Ford, he detracts from the overall performance.…

Carter's an appealing fellow. There's an air of decency, a disarming simplicity, about him that's long been lacking in Washington. He has a varied background: Annapolis graduate, practicing scientist, peanut farmer, and politician.

He still needs to be measured against whoever else, in either party, comes on, but for now, I think he's the man to beat.

And for the benefit of the female chauvinist piglets, I wouldn't care if the ticket were reversed.

Herb Strentz: AMERICAN HEROES—CAUSE FOR JOY AND LAMENT

The recent death of an American hero, Dr. Frances Kelsey, like the deaths of most real heroes, is cause for both joy and lament. Joy because such heroes reflect our society at its best; lament because of the contrast between their heroics and the shortcomings of others that too often haunt us.

Dr. Kelsey was one of those folks routinely damned by those who want to be the next U.S. president. She was a bureaucrat — you know, a government employee who gets in the way of the marketplace and free enterprise and creating jobs.

Sure enough, Dr. Kelsey cost drug manufacturer Richardson-Merrell millions of dollars and cost the U.S. countless jobs. In the early 1960s she had questions about a drug introduced in Germany in1957 and then available in 46 nations around the world; that was Merrell’s Kevadon, whose generic name was thalidomide.

Despite pressure from the pharmaceutical industry and free-market ideologues, she blocked thalidomide from a hasty entrance into the U.S. market. After griping about obstructionist government regulators, in 1962 Merrell withdrew its application for marketing Kevadon in the U.S. Evidence of the birth defects it caused was overwhelming — not in the way of tests in government labs, but in the way of children born with flipper-like limbs and other birth defects. It’s estimated that at least 10,000 babies, whose mothers had taken the drug, were born with deformities. 17 such births were recorded in the U.S. by mothers who apparently got the drug in Canada. Most of the estimated 100,000 women who took the drug to combat morning sickness suffered miscarriages. Estimates are that 5,000 to 6,000 thalidomide victims survive today. (In recent years, thalidomide has been found to be helpful in treating some forms of cancer and leprosy.)

Dr. Kelsey was new to her drug-approval post in the Food and Drug Administration in 1960 when assigned to review and expected by many to routinely approve thalidomide. Fortunately, however, for some 30 years she had already been a researcher dealing with related drugs and their effects. (She got her first research job — before government regulators would introduce equal employment opportunities for women — because the fellow who hired her assumed Frances was a man.)

At the FDA, she saw some red flags about thalidomide as did some of her colleagues. Her experience and her courage served us well — even though the likes of her are fodder for politicians who draw laughs when they amuse their supporters with the line “I’m from the government; I’m here to help you.”

Dr. Kelsey worked in government into her 90s and died at 101, on Aug. 7. Some commentaries about her noted that at the same time that Dr. Kelsey was blocking thalidomide, another person, a former federal employee in the U.S. Fish and WildLife Service, was about to publish a book, “Silent Spring”, which led to the banning of DDT. She, of course, was Rachel Carson, who died in 1962 at 57.

So, the work of Kelsey and Carson merits praise — Kelsey-and-Carson or Carson-and-Kelsey has a nice ring to it as a name for a public-interest firm, doesn’t it? But KC Inc. is cause for lament, too. After all, they were scientists, the kind of people whose work is scorned nowadays by deniers of climate change, foes of vaccination, opponents of the teaching of evolution or those, like Iowa’s governor and the Farm Bureau, who ignore calls for sound public policy to combat pollution of Iowa waterways.

Curious choice, isn’t it? Rely on government regulators, or let private interests and political game playing drive public policy?

Sounds clear cut. But often enough the marketplace and sound public policy find something in common. When it comes to climate change, for example, the marketplace may recognize that scoffing at scientific findings is simply bad business. At least we can hope such awareness will ultimately drive government decision making.

When push comes to shove, however, as it does with water pollution in Iowa, folks like Carson and Kelsey are cause for joy, and the governor and Farm Bureau cause for lament. (Even if my “American” hero Dr. Kelsey was born in Canada and got dual citizenship in 1950 so she could continue to practice medicine here!)

Gilbert Cranberg: ELECTILE DYSFUNCTION

If you have suffered an election for more than four years, cease all electoral activity and seek help immediately. You may be suffering from Electile Dysfunction, a malady that afflicts large numbers of people and creates havoc for marital relations because of what it does for intercourse about anything other than presidential candidates. Electile Dysfunction is exacerbated by election analysts in urgent need of treatment for overactive blather.

Treatment of Electile Dysfunction is difficult given that the best treatment is abstention from ALL political stimuli, which is nearly impossible given the presence of election analysts and consultants.

Americans need to declare an end to the electoral madness! Enough already! Who needs more of Donald Trump and his drivel?

Gilbert Cranberg: JAPAN’S STUPIDITY

I went to war with Japan during WWII and am prepared to do it again given the move it is making to become once more a military power. Japan surrendered, unconditionally, in 1945 after being shown the error of its ways. Now, the Japanese once more want to introduce Japanese troops into foreign combat. That is pure unadulterated stupidity. Japanese people need only look at Nagasaki and Hiroshima to realize the folly of war and of their own past militarism.

I can still hear the thwack of Japanese machine gun bullets inches from my head. Never again do I want to hear that sound. The sound I prefer is the satisfying thwack of a Japanese car door closing.

Herb Strentz: WHO KNEW? CANDIDATES LOVE THE USA!

For a moment, on July 5, I longed for Nov. 9, 2016, the day after the presidential election. Then we’d be rid of insidious campaign ads, overblown rhetoric and questionable press coverage. But it dawned on me (1) at my age I should savor each day and not wish time would go faster and (2) on Nov. 9, 2016, the press and political parties will focus on who leads the polls as a 2020 challenger to our new president.

The nonsense is unending.

Speaking of which, did you catch the Des Moines Register’s July 5th two-page spread on the candidates? It featured responses to the question “Which is your favorite color? Red, White or Blue?”

Okay, the real question was “How in your life have you best demonstrated PATRIOTISM?”

For a person concerned with questions, language and patriotism, however, there’s not much difference if a question is infantile or ill-conceived.

After all, patriotism — like love — is a matter of living day in and day out and it should defy being linked to a single “best” act. Further, some responses dealt with nationalism, not patriotism, and there is a difference. Beyond that, each candidate was limited to 100 words — the print version of the scorned sound bites of the electronic media or the absurd 140 characters of Twitter.

Futility, silliness and irrelevance, however, are no barriers to today’s political commentary and coverage.

If you want substance, consider how George Orwell (1903-1950) distinguished between nationalism and patriotism in his 1945 essay “Notes on Nationalism:”

“Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best…but has no wish to force on other people... Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.”

Orwell’s distinction is useful because, for one thing, patriots come in all stripes and often disagree about the course to be taken by the nation they all love; nationalists, on the other hand, don’t tolerate any opposition to their flag-waving. Maybe in Congress today, we don’t have so much a lack of civility as a lack of patriotism.

19 GOP and Democratic candidates responded to the Register invitation; George Pataki and Bernie Sanders did not.

Following the maxim “When given a lemon, make lemonade,” what might be gleaned from the Red, White or Blue query?

Given the word limit and the predictable responses, eight candidates focused solely or primarily on those serving in the military. (Jim Webb, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Lindsey Graham, Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Donald Trump.) Santorum and Trump stood out because Trump “best demonstrated patriotism” by funding a veterans parade with $1 million; Santorum “best demonstrated patriotism” because his son joined the US. Air Force and “I cannot give more to my country than one of my own” — without adding, “as long as I didn’t serve.”

Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, sons of immigrants, “best demonstrated patriotism” by living the American dream.

Service to others, including the most vulnerable, was the theme of Hillary Clinton, Dr. Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, and Dr. Rand Paul. John Kasich focused on meeting responsibilities as an elected official. Clinton’s and Carson’s comments seemed the most moving, with hers focused on 9/11 responders and Carson saying the Founding Fathers were his “touchstones.”

The two who embraced a patriotism closest to Orwell’s concept were Lincoln Chafee and Martin O’Malley, both longshots for the Democratic nomination.

Oh, when youngsters, Scott Walker and his brother collected money in a mayonnaise jar for an Iowa state flag at the Plainfield, IA, city hall. Relatively speaking, the Walker boys gave the widow’s mite.

But, on balance, the “Red, White or Blue?” approach doesn’t bode well for us.

Gilbert Cranberg: HOW THE PRESS HELPED FILL OUR PRISONS

On June 11, 2015 the New York Times devoted a big chunk of its front page and additional space on inside pages to the shortcomings of the bail system. What took so long? 

In 1966 then-Attorney General Robert Kennedy convened a National Conference on bail reform. The conference sparked a relatively brief spurt of interest in bail reform and the enactment of federal bail reform legislation. A number of local judges initiated steps to release criminal suspects on their recognizance rather than require money bail. These judges relied on information they required about the ties of the accused to their communities. 

The interest in bail reform sparked by the 1966 conference proved short-lived. In many cases the reforms were administered by functionaries not particularly motivated to promote pretrial release and the local courts soon reverted to the bad habits that prevailed prior to the national bail conference. It helped to reverse the tide of bail reform that professional bail bondsmen rallied to protect their turf.

The incarceration epidemic that is currently flooding the nation’s jails and prisons has given fresh impetus to bail reform. All too many people in jails are not serving their sentences but are simply awaiting trial for lack of money to pay for bail. This is not only wasteful but makes a mockery of the presumption of innocence. Too many in this country are guilty without a trial for lack of funds.

The space devoted by the New York Times to the inequities of the bail system is a much overdue antidote. The Times should have done this kind of reporting years ago. The press generally has been negligent in reporting on the early stages of criminal proceedings. Usually the most inexperienced reporters are assigned to arraignments where bail is set and attorneys are appointed. These early stages are critical to the judicial system and it’s past time for the press to emphasize them. 

If the press had done its job the short-comings of the bail system would not have languished so long.