A Catholic website for the modern reader
Putin
The Score Stands at 1 - 1
Forget about the multitude of World Cups in sports. Forget about the numerous World Championships in international athletic competitions. Forget about the different World Series events. As exciting as they all are, not one of them matters in the greater scheme of life. None of them makes a significant difference on world history; on how we live our lives; on whether or not we survive. Only one major competition truly matters. Call it the World Cup, or World Championship, or World Series of GOVERNANCE. The current score is Vladimir Putin 1, Democracy 1.
Putin inherited the Russian State while it was still a fledgling democracy and immediately began to morph it into an autocracy. His rallying cry was rooted in a forlorn despondency as he openly lamented the demise of the Soviet Union. In 2005 he stated that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”
Deep in what passes for his soul, Putin knew that he could not reclaim Russia’s former status without dismantling liberal democracy around the globe. Although he attempted to achieve his aims in some of the former Soviet satellite states, his most brazen venture was the disruption of the American democratic process in 2016. The result was that he took an early lead: 1 - 0. He proudly told his own people that liberal democracy did not work and was on the decline.
In one sense Putin chose the perfect candidate to foist upon an unsuspecting American public: Donald Trump. This was a man not only deeply indebted to Russian oligarchs. Trump was also a person for whom democracy meant nothing. He lived by the mantra of Lord Voldemort: “There is no good or evil, there is only power and those too weak to seek it.” But the deceptive reality remains. Voldemort’s mantra is itself the definition of evil.
Many bottles of expensive vodka were consumed as Putin watched Trump seek to demolish the United States Constitution. If he had succeeded, democracies the world over would have fallen. As insurance, Putin’s forces began to interfere with elections throughout Europe. But his eyes were always on the prize: The USA.
Putin interfered again in 2020. But this time he failed. As Biden repeated many times, this election was a battle for the soul of the nation. As true and critical as that statement was, something even more foundational was at stake.
Over four years Trump, systematically sought to emasculate the Constitution. He employed executive orders, relying on an acquiescent and sycophantic Republican congress, and a court system corrupted by numerous unqualified, but Republican-confirmed judges.
Give Trump credit. He telegraphed his intentions by claiming that the second article of the Constitution gave him authority “to do whatever” he wanted. Even to point of wrecking that same constitution. He saw no need to respond to Congressional inquiries or even subpoenas. He declined to turn over documents; he regularly refused to allow members of his administration to appear before congressional committees. With the Republican Party willingly enabling Trump, Putin sat back and drank—every sip of vodka better than the one before.
But Putin did not learn the lesson of history. 2020 would see the giant awake again. Although not as cinematically dramatic as Pearl Harbor, the United States once again woke from its slumber. Americans were not about to allow their democracy to be destroyed. More citizens voted in 2020 than in any other election in U.S. history. At this writing, Biden’s count of the vote was more than any person who ever ran for office—four million plus votes over Trump’s tally. As Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo tweeted, “Welcome back America!”
The United States is not the only victor in the 2020 election. The entire world has exhaled a sigh of relief. First, because the tense, fraught and exhausting last four years are approaching an end. Secondly, because the cause of democracy has been strengthened. For now.
It is also important to recognize that the contest is not over. Putin’s powerful army of GRU internet operatives are constantly at work. For the rest of the world, there is no going it alone. Democratic governments must stand together and support one another. The alliances that have maintained freedom for more than seventy years must be reinforced.
For now the score is Putin 1, Democracy 1.
But the world of Putin, Trump and Voldemort is driven by power. And it remains an evil world. My bet is on democracy. Its foundation is not power. It is truth. As it turns out, Voldemort was wrong. There is good and evil. Or, as it is phrased in American lore, “Truth, Justice and the American way.” Trump is gone and Putin has no chance.
Putin inherited the Russian State while it was still a fledgling democracy and immediately began to morph it into an autocracy. His rallying cry was rooted in a forlorn despondency as he openly lamented the demise of the Soviet Union. In 2005 he stated that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”
Deep in what passes for his soul, Putin knew that he could not reclaim Russia’s former status without dismantling liberal democracy around the globe. Although he attempted to achieve his aims in some of the former Soviet satellite states, his most brazen venture was the disruption of the American democratic process in 2016. The result was that he took an early lead: 1 - 0. He proudly told his own people that liberal democracy did not work and was on the decline.
In one sense Putin chose the perfect candidate to foist upon an unsuspecting American public: Donald Trump. This was a man not only deeply indebted to Russian oligarchs. Trump was also a person for whom democracy meant nothing. He lived by the mantra of Lord Voldemort: “There is no good or evil, there is only power and those too weak to seek it.” But the deceptive reality remains. Voldemort’s mantra is itself the definition of evil.
Many bottles of expensive vodka were consumed as Putin watched Trump seek to demolish the United States Constitution. If he had succeeded, democracies the world over would have fallen. As insurance, Putin’s forces began to interfere with elections throughout Europe. But his eyes were always on the prize: The USA.
Putin interfered again in 2020. But this time he failed. As Biden repeated many times, this election was a battle for the soul of the nation. As true and critical as that statement was, something even more foundational was at stake.
Over four years Trump, systematically sought to emasculate the Constitution. He employed executive orders, relying on an acquiescent and sycophantic Republican congress, and a court system corrupted by numerous unqualified, but Republican-confirmed judges.
Give Trump credit. He telegraphed his intentions by claiming that the second article of the Constitution gave him authority “to do whatever” he wanted. Even to point of wrecking that same constitution. He saw no need to respond to Congressional inquiries or even subpoenas. He declined to turn over documents; he regularly refused to allow members of his administration to appear before congressional committees. With the Republican Party willingly enabling Trump, Putin sat back and drank—every sip of vodka better than the one before.
But Putin did not learn the lesson of history. 2020 would see the giant awake again. Although not as cinematically dramatic as Pearl Harbor, the United States once again woke from its slumber. Americans were not about to allow their democracy to be destroyed. More citizens voted in 2020 than in any other election in U.S. history. At this writing, Biden’s count of the vote was more than any person who ever ran for office—four million plus votes over Trump’s tally. As Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo tweeted, “Welcome back America!”
The United States is not the only victor in the 2020 election. The entire world has exhaled a sigh of relief. First, because the tense, fraught and exhausting last four years are approaching an end. Secondly, because the cause of democracy has been strengthened. For now.
It is also important to recognize that the contest is not over. Putin’s powerful army of GRU internet operatives are constantly at work. For the rest of the world, there is no going it alone. Democratic governments must stand together and support one another. The alliances that have maintained freedom for more than seventy years must be reinforced.
For now the score is Putin 1, Democracy 1.
But the world of Putin, Trump and Voldemort is driven by power. And it remains an evil world. My bet is on democracy. Its foundation is not power. It is truth. As it turns out, Voldemort was wrong. There is good and evil. Or, as it is phrased in American lore, “Truth, Justice and the American way.” Trump is gone and Putin has no chance.
Autocracy is a Slide, not a Turn
The 2016 presidential race raised serious concerns about Donald Trump’s commitment to democracy. Some people took the extreme position of suggesting that he was another Hitler. That was never an accurate depiction. For although he tapped into similar types of populism and nationalism, he did not have the oratorical skills to match Der Führer. Hitler spoke in complete, grammatically correct German. Trump is still learning English. And failing dramatically.
On the other hand, there were clear signs that Trump tended toward an autocratic approach to government. Nothing stands as a better example than his narcissism. And two quotes serve as perfect examples.
When speaking about the so-called Islamic State, Trump said, “I know more about ISIS than the generals.” Clearly, that was an absurd claim. At the time I thought that anyone with more than a third grade education would find his statement completely untenable. I was wrong.
The other claim was far more treacherous. When speaking about Washington, D.C. and describing everything as a mess, Trump said, “I alone can fix it.” Only a dictator speaks in such exclusivity and superlatives. That, more than anything else should have set alarms screeching.
After Trump was first sworn in, a concern surfaced that he would immediately set about establishing and exercising the power he so admires in other dictators. I am hesitant to suggest that Trump is clever. He’s not. But neither is he stupid. Initially he was savvy enough to move only on the xenophobic nonsense that fueled his campaign, e.g. the Muslim travel ban. Had he attempted a power grab that early on, he would have lost the support even of the now subservient Republican senate.
Trump took gradual steps to mimic the members of the autocratic club he so desperately wants to join. But it takes time to lay a foundation, to prove that you belong, and that requires deviously simple steps. First, every autocrat must lie. Over time, of course, lies add up. But there is a tipping point after which it does not matter. No one can keep track (with the exception of the Washington Post), and the familiarity that comes with persistent untruths tends to numb even the most critical of minds.
For Trump, taxes were a good place to start lying. When queried about releasing his tax returns—as Americans have become used to in presidential politics—Trump declined, saying he could not release them because he was under audit. That was not true. But it sounded reasonable enough, so many people let it slide and some were even willing to believe his claim of being a successful businessman. Never mind that the bankruptcy of one venture after another told a different story. Trump knew that without his returns no one would know that even his famed real estate holdings, specifically his golf courses, were hemorrhaging millions.
Beyond lying, a successful dictator must disparage and demean his opponents. In this particular regard, Trump is practically phenomenal. In reality he could put many dictators to shame. For he chose to go after true American heroes, like John McCain. It was a risk. But he banked on Kool Aid being a refreshing drink. Good people could disagree with McCain's politics, but no one could question that he was a patriot and a war hero. Trump, by contrast, faked bone spurs to avoid military service. No heroism there. Then again, that was so long ago. Not unlike an airborne virus, Trump’s attacks against heroes were an hallucinogenic capable even of unmasking the totally shallow and superficial Lindsey Graham. Previously, Graham considered McCain his best friend. But apparently death and autocrats have a way of making one forget. Lindsey has a new friend, now. Only one.
In order to join any fraternity or club, one must first cozy up to its leaders or its most influential members. For Trump, secret meetings and phone calls with Vladimir Putin were followed by accepting Putin’s word over US intelligence agencies; protestations of a love affair with Kim Jong Un; warning Syria’s Assad of a missile attack so there would be no loss of life or major damage; defending the brutal Mohammad Bin Salman after his orchestrating the murder and dismemberment of an American resident. The list goes on, but it is too long for this piece.
Manipulating the populace is one of the most critical steps in an autocrat’s evolution. Trump accomplished that by holding post election campaign rallies and misgoverning by tweet. He took a page from PT Barnum, and turned it into his own circus. Barnum realized that if you keep entertaining people, no matter how absurd or extreme the illusion, no one has time to examine reality. I believe magicians call it misdirection. The rallies created the illusion of massive support that both galvanized the base and frightened any moderate Republicans. The result was that the Senate was quickly added to Trump holdings. And it cost him nothing.
Eventually, of course, people become suspicious of a burgeoning autocrat and opposition mounts. It then becomes necessary to eliminate any accountability. For his first two years Congress, controlled by Republicans, questioned nothing Trump did. But when the Democrats sought a desperately needed accountability, even enlisting the impeachment process, Trump simply refused to cooperate. He withheld evidence, ignored subpoenas and sought assistance from the conservative courts he was packing.
Delegitimizing the voting process is one of the most critical moves in the autocrat’s play book. It is the reason that various non-profits closely monitor elections around the world, usually in countries that have a history of corruption. This year, thanks to Trump and Republican legislatures around the nation, the United States of America will join the countries needing international monitoring. But whatever the outcome it will not matter, because there is an open seat on the Supreme Court.
If there had ever been an indication that Trump was trying to become another Putin, his rush to fill the seat before the election is proof positive. Unlike other dictators, however, Trump does not hide his ambitions. He unabashedly admits what he is doing. He wants his people on the Supreme Court so that they can hand him the election—an election he has promised to fight in the courts. Still, there is one final thing Trump needs to do to gain admittance into the autocratic club. And he can only accomplish it if he is reelected.
In a contested election, Trump will receive a great deal of pushback from Democrats, especially those elected members of Congress. If the Supreme Court indeed hands him the election, Trump will disband that Congress, especially if both houses are controlled by Democrats. That is the final stage of his autocratic initiation. Trump will then rank among the most despicable despots in history. The sad thing for American democracy is that the evidence was there each step of the way. When Trump succeeds, we will only have ourselves to blame.
Autocracy is not a turn. It is a slide. And we are all on it. But unlike an amusement park ride, it does not end with giggles in a splash of water. It ends with death. It ends with the drowning of democracy, itself. It ends with Republicans leading a national salute and chant, “Heil Trump!”, while Democrats are left with "Heil Dic!"
On the other hand, there were clear signs that Trump tended toward an autocratic approach to government. Nothing stands as a better example than his narcissism. And two quotes serve as perfect examples.
When speaking about the so-called Islamic State, Trump said, “I know more about ISIS than the generals.” Clearly, that was an absurd claim. At the time I thought that anyone with more than a third grade education would find his statement completely untenable. I was wrong.
The other claim was far more treacherous. When speaking about Washington, D.C. and describing everything as a mess, Trump said, “I alone can fix it.” Only a dictator speaks in such exclusivity and superlatives. That, more than anything else should have set alarms screeching.
After Trump was first sworn in, a concern surfaced that he would immediately set about establishing and exercising the power he so admires in other dictators. I am hesitant to suggest that Trump is clever. He’s not. But neither is he stupid. Initially he was savvy enough to move only on the xenophobic nonsense that fueled his campaign, e.g. the Muslim travel ban. Had he attempted a power grab that early on, he would have lost the support even of the now subservient Republican senate.
Trump took gradual steps to mimic the members of the autocratic club he so desperately wants to join. But it takes time to lay a foundation, to prove that you belong, and that requires deviously simple steps. First, every autocrat must lie. Over time, of course, lies add up. But there is a tipping point after which it does not matter. No one can keep track (with the exception of the Washington Post), and the familiarity that comes with persistent untruths tends to numb even the most critical of minds.
For Trump, taxes were a good place to start lying. When queried about releasing his tax returns—as Americans have become used to in presidential politics—Trump declined, saying he could not release them because he was under audit. That was not true. But it sounded reasonable enough, so many people let it slide and some were even willing to believe his claim of being a successful businessman. Never mind that the bankruptcy of one venture after another told a different story. Trump knew that without his returns no one would know that even his famed real estate holdings, specifically his golf courses, were hemorrhaging millions.
Beyond lying, a successful dictator must disparage and demean his opponents. In this particular regard, Trump is practically phenomenal. In reality he could put many dictators to shame. For he chose to go after true American heroes, like John McCain. It was a risk. But he banked on Kool Aid being a refreshing drink. Good people could disagree with McCain's politics, but no one could question that he was a patriot and a war hero. Trump, by contrast, faked bone spurs to avoid military service. No heroism there. Then again, that was so long ago. Not unlike an airborne virus, Trump’s attacks against heroes were an hallucinogenic capable even of unmasking the totally shallow and superficial Lindsey Graham. Previously, Graham considered McCain his best friend. But apparently death and autocrats have a way of making one forget. Lindsey has a new friend, now. Only one.
In order to join any fraternity or club, one must first cozy up to its leaders or its most influential members. For Trump, secret meetings and phone calls with Vladimir Putin were followed by accepting Putin’s word over US intelligence agencies; protestations of a love affair with Kim Jong Un; warning Syria’s Assad of a missile attack so there would be no loss of life or major damage; defending the brutal Mohammad Bin Salman after his orchestrating the murder and dismemberment of an American resident. The list goes on, but it is too long for this piece.
Manipulating the populace is one of the most critical steps in an autocrat’s evolution. Trump accomplished that by holding post election campaign rallies and misgoverning by tweet. He took a page from PT Barnum, and turned it into his own circus. Barnum realized that if you keep entertaining people, no matter how absurd or extreme the illusion, no one has time to examine reality. I believe magicians call it misdirection. The rallies created the illusion of massive support that both galvanized the base and frightened any moderate Republicans. The result was that the Senate was quickly added to Trump holdings. And it cost him nothing.
Eventually, of course, people become suspicious of a burgeoning autocrat and opposition mounts. It then becomes necessary to eliminate any accountability. For his first two years Congress, controlled by Republicans, questioned nothing Trump did. But when the Democrats sought a desperately needed accountability, even enlisting the impeachment process, Trump simply refused to cooperate. He withheld evidence, ignored subpoenas and sought assistance from the conservative courts he was packing.
Delegitimizing the voting process is one of the most critical moves in the autocrat’s play book. It is the reason that various non-profits closely monitor elections around the world, usually in countries that have a history of corruption. This year, thanks to Trump and Republican legislatures around the nation, the United States of America will join the countries needing international monitoring. But whatever the outcome it will not matter, because there is an open seat on the Supreme Court.
If there had ever been an indication that Trump was trying to become another Putin, his rush to fill the seat before the election is proof positive. Unlike other dictators, however, Trump does not hide his ambitions. He unabashedly admits what he is doing. He wants his people on the Supreme Court so that they can hand him the election—an election he has promised to fight in the courts. Still, there is one final thing Trump needs to do to gain admittance into the autocratic club. And he can only accomplish it if he is reelected.
In a contested election, Trump will receive a great deal of pushback from Democrats, especially those elected members of Congress. If the Supreme Court indeed hands him the election, Trump will disband that Congress, especially if both houses are controlled by Democrats. That is the final stage of his autocratic initiation. Trump will then rank among the most despicable despots in history. The sad thing for American democracy is that the evidence was there each step of the way. When Trump succeeds, we will only have ourselves to blame.
Autocracy is not a turn. It is a slide. And we are all on it. But unlike an amusement park ride, it does not end with giggles in a splash of water. It ends with death. It ends with the drowning of democracy, itself. It ends with Republicans leading a national salute and chant, “Heil Trump!”, while Democrats are left with "Heil Dic!"
In the Image of...
31/08/20 15:36 Filed in: Image of God | Humanity
More than one religious tradition holds that all humans are created in the image and likeness of God. Although not specifically cited, that is the reason that the Declaration of Independence states “all men (sic) are created equal.”
But how can all people be created in God’s image if we look so different? Why are all people not white? After all, God is an old white man with a long white beard. A little less jolly than Santa Claus, but clearly more loving and joyful. Of course that concept sounds silly. It should. But it is at the heart of white supremacy.
From the halls of the Third Reich to South African Apartheid to the Trump White House, white people rule (d), sometimes even corrupting the Sacred Scriptures to support their air of superiority. In fact, if the residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC were painted any other color, it is unlikely that Trump would have ever run for President. The Pink House, The Black House, certainly the Blue House, even the Red House would not have been so appealing. But back to that "image of God" thing.
It is commonly held that simply the process of being created, results in another image of God. But I wonder. Should we not first determine what makes someone human? After all, we do not claim that any of the other animals are created in God's image. Only humans. So it is a fair question and it is not too difficult to look backward and conclude that some of the most notorious people in history were not really human. I’m not speaking of imperfections or even sinfulness. No one is perfect and we all make mistakes. But consider.
Would anyone really argue that Adolf Hitler was human? Not only did he drag the world into unimaginable war for the sake of his own ego, he implemented the Final Solution resulting in the murder of six million Jews.
Hitler’s counterpart in the Soviet Union was Joseph Stalin, a man whose rise to power would shame Machiavelli. That ascent was was both manipulative and lacking in loyalty—at least on Stalin’s part. His exercise of power was directly responsible for the death of some 20 million Soviet citizens. Despite his brilliance, Stalin’s disregard for human life makes it difficult to assign him the designation of “human."
Farther to the East was Mao Zedong. Like his predecessors in Germany and Russia, he brooked no opposition. His supposed acceptance of criticism lasted only a few months, long enough to identify and then persecute some 500,000 plus intellectuals. His vision for a post-agricultural, industrialized China, a world power on equal footing with Russia and the United States, resulted in the death of more than fifty million Chinese.
Each of the men mentioned above lacked compassion. They were ruthless and vindictive. Indeed they were devoid of basic humanity. An argument can rightly be made that they were not created in the image of God.
There are many imitators on today’s world scene. Most of them, however, lack the oratorical skill of a Hitler, the intellectual rigor of a Stalin or the world vision of a Mao. But what they all have in common are insatiable egos, a distortion of reality and, most importantly, a lack of humanity. Whether that person is a Putin or a Kim or a Maduro or a Trump. Yes, sad as it is, we must include the current American president.
What kind of human being would rip children, some as young as toddlers, from their parents and hold them in cages? Well, a Hitler would. What kind of human being would dismiss nearly 200,000 preventable deaths, all the result of his own incompetence, with the phrase “It is what it is?” Well, a Stalin would. What kind of human being would stoke racial violence and threaten democracy? Well, a Mao would. And Trump has done all that without oratorical skill, intellectual rigor, and clearly without a social vision.
This is not an exercise in curiosity. There is an election coming up and democracy is at stake. When we cast our ballots we must ask ourselves what kind of president we want. Trump has an out of control ego; he is ruthless and vindictive; he demands loyalty but offers none; he embraces evil as long as that evil likes him; he claims to support law and order but praises lawless violence—if the perpetrators like him. Trump has no appreciable intellect and no integrity. Hell, Trump has no humanity.
Anyone who has the slightest flicker of faith must confront the reality that Donald J. Trump was not created in the image and likeness of God. That seems to narrow our choice this year.
But how can all people be created in God’s image if we look so different? Why are all people not white? After all, God is an old white man with a long white beard. A little less jolly than Santa Claus, but clearly more loving and joyful. Of course that concept sounds silly. It should. But it is at the heart of white supremacy.
From the halls of the Third Reich to South African Apartheid to the Trump White House, white people rule (d), sometimes even corrupting the Sacred Scriptures to support their air of superiority. In fact, if the residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC were painted any other color, it is unlikely that Trump would have ever run for President. The Pink House, The Black House, certainly the Blue House, even the Red House would not have been so appealing. But back to that "image of God" thing.
It is commonly held that simply the process of being created, results in another image of God. But I wonder. Should we not first determine what makes someone human? After all, we do not claim that any of the other animals are created in God's image. Only humans. So it is a fair question and it is not too difficult to look backward and conclude that some of the most notorious people in history were not really human. I’m not speaking of imperfections or even sinfulness. No one is perfect and we all make mistakes. But consider.
Would anyone really argue that Adolf Hitler was human? Not only did he drag the world into unimaginable war for the sake of his own ego, he implemented the Final Solution resulting in the murder of six million Jews.
Hitler’s counterpart in the Soviet Union was Joseph Stalin, a man whose rise to power would shame Machiavelli. That ascent was was both manipulative and lacking in loyalty—at least on Stalin’s part. His exercise of power was directly responsible for the death of some 20 million Soviet citizens. Despite his brilliance, Stalin’s disregard for human life makes it difficult to assign him the designation of “human."
Farther to the East was Mao Zedong. Like his predecessors in Germany and Russia, he brooked no opposition. His supposed acceptance of criticism lasted only a few months, long enough to identify and then persecute some 500,000 plus intellectuals. His vision for a post-agricultural, industrialized China, a world power on equal footing with Russia and the United States, resulted in the death of more than fifty million Chinese.
Each of the men mentioned above lacked compassion. They were ruthless and vindictive. Indeed they were devoid of basic humanity. An argument can rightly be made that they were not created in the image of God.
There are many imitators on today’s world scene. Most of them, however, lack the oratorical skill of a Hitler, the intellectual rigor of a Stalin or the world vision of a Mao. But what they all have in common are insatiable egos, a distortion of reality and, most importantly, a lack of humanity. Whether that person is a Putin or a Kim or a Maduro or a Trump. Yes, sad as it is, we must include the current American president.
What kind of human being would rip children, some as young as toddlers, from their parents and hold them in cages? Well, a Hitler would. What kind of human being would dismiss nearly 200,000 preventable deaths, all the result of his own incompetence, with the phrase “It is what it is?” Well, a Stalin would. What kind of human being would stoke racial violence and threaten democracy? Well, a Mao would. And Trump has done all that without oratorical skill, intellectual rigor, and clearly without a social vision.
This is not an exercise in curiosity. There is an election coming up and democracy is at stake. When we cast our ballots we must ask ourselves what kind of president we want. Trump has an out of control ego; he is ruthless and vindictive; he demands loyalty but offers none; he embraces evil as long as that evil likes him; he claims to support law and order but praises lawless violence—if the perpetrators like him. Trump has no appreciable intellect and no integrity. Hell, Trump has no humanity.
Anyone who has the slightest flicker of faith must confront the reality that Donald J. Trump was not created in the image and likeness of God. That seems to narrow our choice this year.
What's in a Name?
Romeo and Juliet may not be the best of Shakespeare’s plays, but it remains one of the most popular. How can one not appreciate a play about a love so strong that it seeks in vain to overcome longstanding hatreds? At the heart of that conflict rises the somewhat obvious challenge, “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”
I decided to run a little test. Outside my front door is a red rose bush. A few months ago I changed its name and began calling it a dandelion. I even flirted with the possibility of using it to make wine. But then I’m not a vintner. I watered it, sat back and waited for the next bloom.
Not surprisingly, my dandelion sprouted a beautiful red flower. But the test was yet to come. I picked it, raised it to my nostrils and inhaled. Wow! Shakespeare had been correct. It was just as aromatic as when I called it a rose.
That left me wondering further. Could I extrapolate the same way Shakespeare did? His theory was that a name meant nothing. It did not matter whether his lovers were one each a Capulet and a Montague. What defined them was their love. I attempted another experiment.
The current president of the United States is Donald J. Trump. I am not interested in who ran against him in the past or will run against him in the future. I am interested in what defines him. So I looked at other world leaders. And again, I discovered that William Shakespeare was correct—but that I was not prepared. I found four significant categories that reaffirm Shakespeare’s premise. By no means is the following exhaustive.
The first list consists of leaders who died in the last two years: Donald J. Bignone of Argentina, Donald J. Meza of Bolivia, Donald J. Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Donald J. Ben Ali of Tunisia.
The second list is comprised of unelected—and unaccountable—Monarchs. These include Donald J. Waddaulah of Brunei, Donald J. Said of Oman, Donald J. Salman of Saudi Arabia, Donald J. Khalifa of Bahrain.
The third list contains the names of currently elected leaders such as Donald J. Erdoǧan of Turkey, Donald J. Orbán of Hungary, Donald J. Duterte of the Philippines, Donald J. Aliyev of Azerbaijan, Donald J. Deby of Chad, Donald J. Bolsonaro of Brazil.
The final list are the Illegitimate presidents: Donald J. Maduro of Venezuela, Donald J. Lukashenko of Belarus, Donald J. Ortega of Nicaragua.
Three world leaders deserve special note. These are men with whom Donald J. Trump has either fallen in love, conducts a bromance, or holds in high esteem. They are, course, Kim Donald J. of North Korea, Xi Donald J. of China and most special of all, Donald J. Putin of Russia.
What do all these leaders have in common besides their first name and middle initial? They are all autocrats—dictators, despisers of democracy, delusional and drunk with power.
If Shakespeare were alive today, how might he rephrase his famous passage? I suspect he would engage an economy of words: “What’s in a name? That which we call a Trump by any other name would smell.”
I decided to run a little test. Outside my front door is a red rose bush. A few months ago I changed its name and began calling it a dandelion. I even flirted with the possibility of using it to make wine. But then I’m not a vintner. I watered it, sat back and waited for the next bloom.
Not surprisingly, my dandelion sprouted a beautiful red flower. But the test was yet to come. I picked it, raised it to my nostrils and inhaled. Wow! Shakespeare had been correct. It was just as aromatic as when I called it a rose.
That left me wondering further. Could I extrapolate the same way Shakespeare did? His theory was that a name meant nothing. It did not matter whether his lovers were one each a Capulet and a Montague. What defined them was their love. I attempted another experiment.
The current president of the United States is Donald J. Trump. I am not interested in who ran against him in the past or will run against him in the future. I am interested in what defines him. So I looked at other world leaders. And again, I discovered that William Shakespeare was correct—but that I was not prepared. I found four significant categories that reaffirm Shakespeare’s premise. By no means is the following exhaustive.
The first list consists of leaders who died in the last two years: Donald J. Bignone of Argentina, Donald J. Meza of Bolivia, Donald J. Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Donald J. Ben Ali of Tunisia.
The second list is comprised of unelected—and unaccountable—Monarchs. These include Donald J. Waddaulah of Brunei, Donald J. Said of Oman, Donald J. Salman of Saudi Arabia, Donald J. Khalifa of Bahrain.
The third list contains the names of currently elected leaders such as Donald J. Erdoǧan of Turkey, Donald J. Orbán of Hungary, Donald J. Duterte of the Philippines, Donald J. Aliyev of Azerbaijan, Donald J. Deby of Chad, Donald J. Bolsonaro of Brazil.
The final list are the Illegitimate presidents: Donald J. Maduro of Venezuela, Donald J. Lukashenko of Belarus, Donald J. Ortega of Nicaragua.
Three world leaders deserve special note. These are men with whom Donald J. Trump has either fallen in love, conducts a bromance, or holds in high esteem. They are, course, Kim Donald J. of North Korea, Xi Donald J. of China and most special of all, Donald J. Putin of Russia.
What do all these leaders have in common besides their first name and middle initial? They are all autocrats—dictators, despisers of democracy, delusional and drunk with power.
If Shakespeare were alive today, how might he rephrase his famous passage? I suspect he would engage an economy of words: “What’s in a name? That which we call a Trump by any other name would smell.”