Stand For What?

The Democrats got stuck to President Trump's oratorical flypaper at the State of the Union speech.

By sitting stone-faced on their seats as though they had Gorilla Glue stuck on their duffs, appearing (though not actually being) unmoved by the tragedy of the Ukrainian refugee whose final flash of consciousness was as she was suddenly and randomly slaughtered on a train by a monster who knifed her through the neck, they allowed themselves to be conscripted into the President's narrative.

The optics gave stock to the canard that were it not for the Democrats' lax public safety policies codifying their misguided liberal philosophy, the serial predator would have been behind bars  and not at liberty to inflict agony upon society.

The Democrats' apparent aloofness seemed to disavow empathy. That was a gross indiscretion and tactical blunder. It gave free rein to the rhetorical special effects of a showman, who by controlling the story, extended its usefulness as allegory. 

He was able to conflate in the minds of much of the nation, his role as the champion of society's shared moral purpose and standard, and the battle against evil and  injustice.

Right now, the nation is, on many fronts, too susceptible to being caught in the riptide of fervor, exaggerated suspicion and primitive loyalties. President Trump has proven adept, by sleight of hand, tongue and historical reference, at communicating the illusion that eternal truths are not merely embodied by him, but are interchangeable with his name.

He knows how to dig. He knows how to troll.

His compilation of compelling human-interest stories with immense implicit dramatic appeal was brilliant. They were vivid, raw, and meticulously picked for relatability and range.

There were cross-generational tales of triumphant human courage and sacrifice with underpinnings of the shared culture of patriotism and non-partisanship. There were accounts of poignant victimization with hints of the hope to recover lost innocence through one-sided, dictated national reconciliation.

The medley moved the country to tears and made it swell with pride.  Whether gimmick or hoax, it was masterful political theater. The protagonist wrote the script, stole the show and left the critics brooding, outclassed and unspoken for.

Trump mesmerized his audience into blind affirmation of his will. Rationality is no obstacle or challenge to magnetic stage presence.  

In 1943, as the Battle of Stalingrad was sealing Germany's doom in World War II, propaganda minister Josef Goebbels, asked his audience at the Berlin Sportpalast, "Do you want total war?"  Everyone stood in ecstatic support. There is no similarity between Goebbels and Trump, except that they could exercise hypnotic power over masses.

The Democrats looked bored as the President played the crowd and swept them swooning away in a riptide of performance art.  The Democrats should not have fallen into the trap of lending themselves to be characterized as disaffected elitists on the wrong side of the human heart. 

They should have actively and visibly reacted to the description of the child who sustained grievous brain damage on a collision with an 18-wheel tractor driven by an undocumented immigrant who allegedly couldn't read road signs and was given a driver's license for which he shouldn't have been eligible, but plausibly received as an inducement to party loyalty at the ballot box.

Afterwards, they could have clarified and strengthened the public's awareness of their position about the legitimate rights of undocumented immigrants, and the larger and complicated issues involved.

They should also have stood up, regardless how they felt about the abduction of former President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela, as the Congressional Medal of Honor was conferred up a soldier who completed his mission and saved lives, while in agonizing pain from being wounded.

Don't confuse the warrior with the war. Heroism that inspires the popular imagination is not the idolatry of national mythology.  It should not be mocked, regardless of whether one agreed with the soldier's mission.  

Looking like scoffing sourpusses did not endear the Democrats to the general population. Maybe they disengaged themselves out of principle, but it was not smart optics. It will provide footage for vicious media commercials in the run-up to the midterms.

The only time the Democrats stood up was to honor the gold-medal winning men's Olympic hockey team. That added insult to injury, since it had the effect of accentuating the impression that they were opting out of the shared experience of numerous tender human-interest stories. 

It was also uncouth for a couple of distinguished guests to yell during the speech in a way that wouldn't be tolerated of parents of kids on a little league team.

One member of Congress wore a "F—-K  ICE" button. That was no mere violation of decorum or affront to ceremonial gravitas. It was trashy. It trivialized the substance and nullified its potential impact. 

Still, it was not as gross an apparel ornament as the laminated gall bladder stone that one of my relatives proudly wore as a broach.  Anyway, the State of the Union speech is "water under the bridge." 

Bridge to Tehran?

Regardless of our more or less jaundiced estimations of President Trump, that speech, on the eve of the Middle East adventure, boosted the perception of him as a charismatic leader and spellbinding mentalist. Charisma feeds and fuels credibility. It bears no relation and is not beholden to the moral high ground.

If it's true that Iran was at the cusp of possessing a nuclear weapon, rendering the U.S. within its threshold of targeting for annihilation, and that it has been for almost a half century the widely conceded world's foremost sponsor of state terrorism, and that the government recently massacred dozens of thousands of its own citizens who had protested its repression, is it, as alleged, nonetheless a violation of international law and a sovereign nation's right to self-determination, for external nations to seek its regime change, regardless of motive?

Is it relevant whether Iran was a mortal threat to the region with genocidal intent to a neighbor?  Is this an agenda item for debating societies to decide? 

For staggering hypocrisy and irony, consider the counsel of Vladimir Putin, who needs no introduction as the subjugator of Ukraine. He called the US-Israel initiated hostilities an "unprovoked act of armed aggression against an independent state," and warned of its igniting a "humanitarian and economic catastrophe" and "uncontrolled escalation."

China, taking its cue from the moral legacy of the venerable Mahatma Gandhi whilst shelving, for the moment, its vow to militarily seize Taiwan, explained in a diplomatic homily, that "Force cannot truly solve problems."

António Guterres, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, condemned the American-led war against Iran's military and administrative infrastructure. But he took a milder tone and ambivalent posture, a few years ago, when categorizing the Hamas attack against Israel, which killed the number of civilians that was the proportional equivalent per population, of 48,000 Americans. 

Guterres said it "did not happen in a vacuum" and pretty much left it at that.

As always in war, regardless of combatants and causes, the majority of victims are innocents. Right-wing and left-wing extremists, each under different guises and pretexts, have jumped at the chance to vent their obsessive, antisemitic and islamophobic conspiracy theories.

The theater of war overseas may be felt in the playhouse of New York.  Mayor Mamdani is not an impartial observer, but he earnestly seeks to keep the peace. 

Now that the hardened ice has disappeared from Washington Square Park, and two befitting arrests made, despite his viewing the pelting of police officers as minor, tolerable child's play, the mayor should start afresh and seek to make his mark as a statesman.  He must unify the public, even if it means keeping certain gratuitous convictions private.

Peace!