Dinner Parties, "Bowling Alone" and social capital

This post was published in the Wilson Times Oct. 12, 2019.

A Miss Manners column posted Sept. 30 asked the provocative question, “Are dinner parties dead?”

Miss Manners, AKA Judith Martin, concludes that, yeah, they probably are dead.

In a world of “Bowling Alone” (Robert Putnam’s 2000 book about the loss of “social capital,” the connectedness and sharing of people’s lives, in America today) if bowling leagues, civic clubs, fraternal organizations and other forms of communal, civic and social engagement are all faltering, why shouldn’t dinner parties go the way of buggy whips and slide rules?

Miss Manners admits that Americans don’t “entertain” the way they used to. It once was standard procedure in good neighborhoods to invite the new neighbors over for dinner, and the new neighbors would reciprocate the favor. On practices as simple as this are strong neighborhoods and close neighbors formed.

But in a world of two-earner households, long, tiring hours at work, corporate expectations of 10-hour days and six-day workweeks, no one has time for dinner parties. We hardly have time to eat a snack at our desks.

The few who do welcome the new neighbors to the neighborhood are more likely to offer dinner at a nearby restaurant rather than a home-cooked meal in the home. This is the result of rising numbers and varieties of restaurants as well as the stressed home life (who has time to clean and bake?) of today’s couples.

Not long after I moved into our current home, an old friend stopped to tell me he had lived on this short street and enjoyed the hospitality of neighbors several times a week when he and the neighborhood were much younger. There were dinner parties, potlucks, card games, and other social gatherings to fill nearly every weeknight. Now, I try to learn the names of the people on this same street and have some difficulty with that.

Americans have grown more insular and secluded, Putnam’s study showed. Many people would rather sit in front of the television every night and ignore the outside world.

Unfortunately, good neighborhoods, good communities, and good cities didn’t become that way because people sat in their dens and ignored the outside world. The abandonment of formal dinner parties can be seen in the fire-sale prices for entertainment dishes and utensils. If no one throws fancy dinners, no one wants or needs fancy dishes, matching china and sterling silver flatware, so the specialty gift stores that used to rely on weddings, anniversaries and other special occasions to drive their sales are struggling or already closed. Changing habits have economic impacts.

When I moved to Wilson almost 40 years ago, the level of civic involvement deeply impressed me. A multitude of civic clubs offered opportunities to make the city better. Nonprofits also flourished here and did outstanding work addressing a variety of needs. The local United Way was strong, with top executives of nearly every business in town participating in the annual United Way campaigns. Political meetings attracted big crowds.

Wilson still has strong civic club and nonprofit sectors, but even here the “bowling alone” syndrome is evident. Demanding jobs, two-earner households and the lure of ready, economical, on-demand, in-home entertainment have dwindled the number of civic activists, even here, in a city I once described as “feeling like a small town,” even though it is a small to mid-size city.

Reviving dinner parties may be next to impossible, but it’s not too late to work on that social capital Putnam recognized. More participation in the daily life of the city or neighborhood can have far-reaching consequences and make this community (dare we say it?) a better place.

Trump decision plays into Putin's hands

What can one make of President Trump's abrupt, contradictory, unadvised decision to pull American troops out of Syria and abandon America's Kurdish allies to the whims of a sworn enemy, Turkey? Many Trump pronouncements in domestic and foreign policy are inexplicable, except to cite Trump's all-knowing "gut" instincts, but this one seems especially bewildering.

American military officers are left shocked and angered, knowing that they are abandoning Kurdish allies, who were primarily responsible for the wresting of its territorial "caliphate" from Islamic State (ISIS). Turkey has sent its troops pouring over the border into Syria, killing Kurds and further destabilizing that war-riven country.

To explain the unexplainable, it is helpful to ask "Who gains?" In this case, it seems obvious that this policy shift benefits not the United States, not Syrians, not Middle East stability; it benefits Russia under Vladimir Putin. Russia has long been a protector of the Assad regime in Syria, and Russia has been a historical defender of the Kurds. 

By abandoning America's brave Kurdish allies, Trump has opened the door to Russian domination of Asia Minor, Syria, and Lebanon, along with Turkey and Iran. It's hard to believe that Trump, although proudly ignorant of international alliances and diplomatic thinking, could not recognize that his decision turns over Syria and the whole region to Russia.

The seemingly outlandish theory that Trump must be a Russian plant posted to the American presidency as a way to bolster Russia's international power and prestige, gains some apparent logic through Trump's action in Syria. Why else would an American president hand over a highly strategic region to America's most hostile adversary?

President Obama made the mistake of threatening the Assad regime if it violated a "red line" in its war on its own citizens and then did nothing when Assad violated the line. But that error pales in comparison to Trump's crazy decision in Syria. Trump destroys American credibility and trustworthiness while handing over the region to Russia. How can this possibly be in America's best interests?

History is anything but "boring"

This post was published in the Wilson Times Oct. 19, 2019.

I recently received a letter that began, “Dear Fellow Student of History.” With a salutation like that, you know you are getting a fundraising appeal. The letter from Jim Lighthizer of the American Battlefield Trust, was, indeed, a fund-raising appeal. Like other such letters I’ve received over the past three decades, this letter was alarming and effective.

The American Battlefield Trust, formerly the Civil War Trust, is a nonprofit devoted to preserving and restoring American battlefields. Originally, the organization focused solely on Civil War battlefields but has expanded to include Revolutionary War and War of 1812 battlefields. Walking around on the “hallowed ground” of battlefields is one of my favorite things to do on vacation. Just four years ago, I made my third visit to Gettysburg and hiked all around the boulders and fields where more than 51,000 Americans were killed, wounded or missing in a three-day battle in 1863.

Lighthizer’s organization has preserved many acres of battlefield land at Gettysburg, Richmond, Chancellorsville, Harper’s Ferry, Bentonville and dozens of other places. The Battlefield Trust has been very successful in saving “hallowed ground” from commercial and residential developers and other threats.

What worries Lighthizer is the lack of interest, especially among younger generations, in the history he and other supporters are preserving. He calls it “a crisis in history education” and writes, “The numbers are terrifying.” Here’s a brief listing of scary facts:

1.    Over a recent 20-year period, no more than 17 percent of U.S. eighth graders scored “proficient” or better in history in national tests. That leaves 83 percent who are less than proficient in history, and they will be able to vote!

2.    A 2015 survey found that one-third of new college graduates could not place the Civil War (the most significant American event since the founding of the Republic) in its correct 20-year time frame.

3.    A survey of America’s top 75 colleges found that a third of them did not require an American history course to earn a degree in history!

4.    A survey by the Woodrow Wilson Foundation found that only 40 percent of Americans could pass the U.S. Citizenship Test given to immigrants seeking to become citizens.

These statistics reinforce other findings that Americans are ignorant of their nation’s history. Many young students say they find history “boring.” These are probably students taught that history consists of a bunch of dates and obscure people who are all dead anyway. That’s not the way to teach history.

To teach the Civil War, take students to Gettysburg. Have them stand at the stepping off point of Pickett’s Charge, and point out the ridge three-quarters of a mile away, and tell them they must walk briskly uphill toward that ridge while 10,000 well dug-in soldiers supported by cannon delivered a hailstorm of bullets and cannonballs at them. There’s nothing boring about being shot at. Use that incident to open the door to the whole history of the Civil War.

Meanwhile, the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, which has been “selling” history for 80 years as a 301-acre living history museum (and the colonial capital of Virginia), is alarmed that freedom, liberty and democracy seem to be declining worldwide. Williamsburg CEO Mitchell Reiss used his column in the Foundation’s quarterly magazine to warn that liberty is in decline and authoritarianism is on the rise around the world.

In Williamsburg, visitors can walk the streets and visit the homes and government buildings the founders of American democracy inhabitated. This “living history” also is not boring. It is the closest thing we have to a time machine that transports us to the age of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and others.

Nevertheless, Colonial Williamsburg has struggled with changing tastes of American vacationers. Many parents want their children to have fun on vacation, not learn how their nation began. CWF has changed its programming to include more child-friendly activities and more African-Americans of the 18^th century, both enslaved and free.

Both the Battlefield Trust and Colonial Williamsburg offer on-site seminars for teachers, showing them how to turn “boring” into excitement and equipping young Americans to understand their rich history and to appreciate the courageous acts that give them their liberty.

-->

Impeachment 2019 won't be like Impeachment 1974

As the impeachment of a president begins to look more and more likely, I have found myself thinking back to the 1974 impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon. I was working in Washington at the time, reading the Washington Post daily and feeling excited about having a close-up seat for this political drama.

Nixon was not impeached, but the House Judiciary Committee had filed articles of impeachment and sent them to the full House for a vote. Recognizing that the House vote would be overwhelmingly for impeachment, Nixon reluctantly resigned, thereby allowing appointed Vice President Gerald Ford to ascend to the presidency and issue a pardon, which saved Nixon from charges for criminal conduct the impeachment inquiry had revealed.

It took a visit from Sen. Barry Goldwater, the most recognized and admired Republican in the Senate, to convince Nixon that his presidency could not survive an impeachment vote. If Nixon had not resigned, the impeachment trial before the full Senate could have dragged on for weeks, leaving the country nearly rudderless.

The 2019 impeachment debate will play out in a very different climate. Nixon had lost the support of all but the most dedicated Republicans. A recent poll showed Trump’s overall approval rating around 50 percent, but his approval among registered Republicans was more than 90 percent. It’s difficult to explain the disparity in one large portion of the electorate. Trump’s lashing out at every criticism and total denial of every accusation has to be a factor in the polls’ schism. His true believers have been trained to ignore all news reports that do not emanate from Trump himself or his minions.

Another factor in Trump’s favor if impeachment happens is his demand for personal loyalty from all appointees in his administration as well as elected officials. Although federal officials take an oath to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution, Trump demands and usually gets personal loyalty. If enough people in power violate their oath to uphold the Constitution and rule instead in favor of Trump’s interests, any impeachment vote will fail.

For Nixon, the secret Oval Office audiotapes were the deciding factor for impeachment. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Nixon had to release the tapes. Would a 2019 Supreme Court, with a 5-4 Republican majority including two Trump appointees, rule against this president? We may find out before this is all over.

Trump has been frequently accused of violating his oath of office and seeking to rule regardless of Constitutional restrictions and balance of power. He also faces lawsuits alleging he is violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution by accepting (and even marketing) stays at his hotels and resorts paid by foreign governments. His latest alleged violation involves telephone calls to the president of Ukraine. Those calls could be problematic on two counts: (1) Trump asks for “a favor” involving a Ukrainian investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son; and (2) Trump uses his elective office to conduct personal business, a vendetta against the Bidens, and brings in his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and U.S. Attorney General Robert Barr. Using company time, company assets and company resources to conduct personal business is unethical on any level. If true, Trump has committed what amounts to a corporate executive conducting his Amway business from his corporate desk.

What makes this impeachment inquiry particularly difficult is Trump’s insistence that he has never, ever done anything wrong (and claimed the calls to Ukraine were “perfect”), and his followers’ willingness to believe every word from a man with an astounding history of prevarications. A delegation from Congress, like the one that convinced Nixon to resign, will not work with Trump. If he goes down, he will go down screaming his innocence and perfection.

Amendment will clear the way for The Leader

Proposed Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: 

Article 2, Section 1: The Second Article of the Constitution of The United States is hereby rescinded.

Section 2: The following wording shall constitute, in its entirety, Article 2 of this Constitution: The executive power shall be vested in a President, henceforth to be known as The Leader. He/She shall hold this office for an indefinite period to be determined by The Leader himself/herself. When The Leader is ready to relinquish his/her office, he/she may appoint, at his/her sole discretion, one person to succeed him/her. The successor shall be an adult citizen of the United States and may be a relative or direct descendant of The Leader, but kinship with The Leader shall not be a prerequisite for office.

Section 3: The Leader shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and the Navy, the Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Internal Revenue Service, the Treasury, Federal Trade Commission, Federal Communications Commission, and any and all executive agencies he/she wishes to command. As Commander of the Federal Communication Commission, the Leader shall have the authority to restrict reading of newspapers, watching of television, listening to radio or reading anything on the internet that fails to meet the Leader's news standards.
The Leader shall have the authority, without any input or consultation with any other person, to make treaties, trade agreements, declare war on other nations, and appoint ambassadors, federal judges for district courts, appeal courts, and the Supreme Court without any consultation, advice or consent from any other branch of government or public opinion. The Leader may decide on punishments for various crimes, and the punishments he selects cannot be challenged. Immigration offenses may be punished by public hanging, if The Leader so chooses. Disagreement with The Leader may also be punished by death.

Section 4: The Leader may, from time to time, offer reports to Congress on the State of the Union, but is not required to make any reports or pay any attention to Congress or to the various state legislatures. Congress shall have no authority to question decisions or actions of The Leader or even to know about The Leader's decisions and actions. The Leader shall be the sole authority on all issues foreign and domestic, and his authority shall not be challenged. The Leader shall have the right to receive payments from foreign countries, non-governmental organizations, or foreign or domestic individuals who wish to donate to The Leader's fortunes out of gratitude for The Leader's service.

Section 5: This amendment will be in force on the first January 1 following ratification of this amendment. The Leader may choose to use the title "Der Fuhrer" if he/she so chooses.

Section 6: The Leader may require the teaching of the German language in all American high schools.  

Note: Three-fourths of each branch of Congress and two-thirds of the states must vote for ratification for this amendment to become law. How will you vote?