Tuesday, March 24, 2026

Quote of the Day (J. William Fulbright, on ‘The Arrogance of Power’)

“The ‘arrogance of power’…[is] a psychological need that nations seem to have to prove that they are bigger, better or stronger than other nations. Implicit in this drive is the assumption that the proof of superiority is force—that when a nation shows that it has the stronger army, it is also proving that it has better people, better institutions, better principles—and, in general, a better civilization.”—J. William Fulbright (1905-1995), U.S. Senator from Arkansas and chair, US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, “Address Delivered at Johns Hopkins University,” May 5, 1966

In 1966, unable to receive straight answers from the Johnson Administration about the course of the Vietnam War, J. William Fulbright helped give wide public currency to a phrase that had been gaining traction among Washington observers: a “credibility gap” covering the distance between what officials said and the reality on the ground.

In the decades since then, presidents and their advisers have certainly trimmed the truth. But aside, perhaps, from the Watergate era, I’m not sure that “credibility gap” has been used much. It is certainly time to bring that phrase back, as well as another one that Senator Fulbright popularized: “the arrogance of power.”

In Lyndon Johnson’s college days, biographer Robert Caro revealed, the future President’s friends nicknamed him “Bull Johnson” because, as one classmate said, he “just could not tell the truth.” But LBJ’s mendacity has been exceeded thoroughly by Donald Trump, who can barely move his lips without uttering an untruth.

Trump’s secret sauce as a liar? Lie so fast, so often, so much, without fear that one day’s statement might contradict an earlier one, that it will be impossible to keep up and eventually inure the public to what he says.

Trump voters could console themselves, based on the lack of new military commitments abroad in his first term, that his deceptions were at least not putting service personnel at risk. That assurance is now gone.

Trump’s credibility gap is a necessary precondition for aggrandizing not just America’s power but his personal sway. He couldn’t get the correct synonym for the invasion of Iraq (it’s “incursion”), but for him it might as well be an “excursion,” a holiday from history and truth.

Throughout these first few weeks of the war, it’s been bad enough that he hasn’t been able to offer a consistent rationale for the invasion, but he simply lied about the nature of the threat posed by Iraq. While it was true that Iraq’s stockpile of weaponry posed a threat to Israel, it in no way endangered the United States.

The “arrogance of power” and “the credibility gap” have particular consequences in matters of war and peace, not only because of lives endangered but also because of violations of international law that endanger order between and even within nations through shredding human rights. (See, for instance, Marc Weller’s mid-January analysis for the London-based think tank Chatham House, which explains why, despite Trump’s second-term disregard for the concept, without international law, “The aim of predictable and stable relations, and clear pathways for international transactions, would be destroyed.”)

In his book The Arrogance of Power, Fulbright offered a defense of international law that has, sadly, been forgotten over the past decade:

Law is the essential foundation of stability and order both within societies and in international relations. As a conservative power, the United States has a vital interest in upholding and expanding the reign of law in international relations. Insofar as international law is observed, it provides us with stability and order and with a means of predicting the behavior of those with whom we have reciprocal legal obligations. When we violate the law ourselves, whatever short-term advantage may be gained, we are obviously encouraging others to violate the law; we thus encourage disorder and instability and thereby do incalculable damage to our own long-term interests.

Monday, March 23, 2026

Song Lyric of the Day (Gilbert and Sullivan, on ‘Little Errands for the Ministers of State’)

“Oh, philosophers may sing
Of the troubles of a King;
Yet the duties are delightful, and the privileges great;
But the privilege and pleasure
That we treasure beyond measure
Is to run on little errands for the Ministers of State.”— “Rising Early in the Morning," from The Gondoliers: or, The King of Barataria (1889), libretto by W.S. Gilbert (1836-1911), music by Arthur Sullivan (1842-1900)

The image accompanying this post shows Rutland Barrington and Courtice Pounds as Giuseppe and Marco, the title characters in the 1889 production of The Gondoliers

Times have changed greatly since then, but it seems like all over the world, there’s still no shortage of people ready to run “little errands for the Ministers of State.” Only they're called bureaucrats rather than gondoliers.

Sunday, March 22, 2026

Spiritual Quote of the Day (Mary Karr, on Prayer ‘In Times of Pressure or Anxiety’)

“In times of pressure or anxiety—like when Mother was dying—I’ll do a daily rosary for everybody. Or I’ll light candles and climb in the bathtub, try to put my mind where my body is—the best prayers are completely silent. Otherwise, I do a lot of begging. I just beg, beg, beg, beg like a dog, for myself and those I love. And I do the cursory, ‘If it’s your will . . .’ but God knows that I want everything when I want it…. The real prayer happens when I’m really desperate, like when I was going through a period of illness last year. Amazing what power there is in surrender to suffering. Most of my life I dodged it, or tried to drink it away—'it’ being any reality that discomfited me.”—American poet, songwriter, essayist, memoirist—and Roman Catholic convertMary Karr, “The Art of Memoir No. 1,” interviewed by Amanda Fortini, The Paris Review (Winter 2009)

Saturday, March 21, 2026

Quote of the Day (Len Deighton, on What Led Him to Write Spy Fiction)

“I was 10 when World War II started. My parents were servants. We lived in a tiny mews house in central London. Our neighbor Anna Wolkoff was the daughter of a czarist admiral. We knew her. My mother sometimes cooked for her dinner parties. I remember her arrest, late at night. The police came. I watched out the window with my parents. We learned she was a spy. Antisemitic. A Nazi sympathizer. My dad fought the Germans in the trenches in World War I. In 1939 he commanded a civilian first-aid post. Anna’s betrayal had a profound effect on my family.”—British novelist Len Deighton (1929-2026), quoted in “By the Book: Len Deighton,” The New York Times Book Review, June 25, 2023

Like fellow spytale spinner John le Carre, Len Deighton—who died earlier this week—found in the genre a vehicle for exploring his childhood memories of trauma. In le Carre’s case, the trauma was inspired by his con man father, a cause of such embarrassment to the son, even into middle age, that it inspired his novel A Perfect Spy.

For Deighton, as indicated by the quote I’ve used, personal betrayal and the trauma it came from Anna Wolkoff. I couldn’t read about her case without seeing this as a British version of the spy-next-door cable drama of the 2010s, The Americans, starring Keri Russell.

Deighton might be known best for several espionage trilogies (e.g., the “Harry Palmer” books and the so-called “Game Set Match” sequence) that, like le Carre, de-romanticized the business of spycraft set out in Ian Fleming’s James Bond tales.

But the nightmare possibility created by Wolkoff—what if she and others like her had helped pave the way for a Nazi takeover of Britain?—may have inspired his 1978 foray into speculative fiction, SS-GB.

That novel is part of a small but intriguing genre of alternative history in which the Nazis remained in control of Europe, including:


*The Man in the High Castle, by Philip K. Dick;
*Fatherland, by Robert Harris; and
*Dominion, by C. J. Sansom.

Friday, March 20, 2026

Quote of the Day (Keith Richards, on How Records Represented ‘The Emancipation of Music’)

“I’ve learned everything I know off of records. Being able to replay something immediately without all that terrible stricture of written music, the prison of those bars, those five lines. Being able to hear recorded music freed up loads of musicians that couldn’t necessarily afford to learn to read or write music, like me. Before 1900, you’ve got Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Chopin, the cancan.  With recording, it was emancipation for the people. As long as you or somebody around you could afford a machine, suddenly you could hear music made by people, not set-up rigs and symphony orchestras. You could actually listen to what people were saying, almost off the cuff. Some of it can be a lot of rubbish, but some of it was really good. It was the emancipation of music. Otherwise you'd have had to go to a concert hall, and how many people could afford that?”—English rock ‘n’ roll guitarist and songwriter Keith Richards, Life (2010)

Movie Quote of the Day (‘Woman of the Year,’ As a Sportswriter Introduces His Date to the Game of Baseball)

Tess Harding [A sophisticated foreign correspondent played by Katharine Hepburn]: [In the stands at a major-league ballpark, observing the large crowd in attendance] “Are all these people unemployed?”

Sam Craig [A sportswriter, played by Spencer Tracy]: “No, they're all attending their grandmother's funeral.”— Woman of the Year (1942), screenplay by Ring Lardner Jr., Michael Kanin, and John Lee Mahin, directed by George Stevens

A lovely hat that Miss Harding is wearing, isn’t it? Except that it blocks the view of the large, angry-looking fellow behind her.

Oh, well—with the help of Sam, she’ll learn about not just the balls and strikes that affect the players, but appropriate attire for spectators like herself! 

Thursday, March 19, 2026

This Day in New York History (Bill O’Dwyer Withers Under Questioning at Kefauver Crime Hearings)

Mar. 19, 1951—The Kefauver Committee hearings on organized crime, in the middle of a 14-city media road show, had already reached a crescendo upon arriving at New York's Federal Courthouse within the prior week, particularly with testimony by reputed mobster Frank Costello.

But now, in the first of two successive days, the nation would be transfixed by more testimony unfolding through the emerging medium of television: William O’Dwyer, the current US Ambassador to Mexico and the former mayor of New York City, crumbling under hostile committee questioning, was experiencing the effective end of his public career.

Costello, nicknamed the “Prime Minister of the Underworld,” would be sentenced to 18 months in prison for contempt of Congress when he broke off his testimony. O’Dwyer, more cooperative, saw his reputation shrivel, a judgment formalized in the committee’s final report that took him to task for allowing organized crime to fester under his watch while he was Brooklyn District Attorney and New York’s Mayor.

But the hearings' importance lay beyond destroying O’Dwyer or the intrigue surrounding the appearance of Costello, who worked out an agreement with the five-man committee to allow only his hands to be seen by TV viewers.

Indeed, the Special Committee to Investigate Organized Crime in Interstate Commerce, which held hearings in 14 cities, demonstrated the corrosive effects of organized crime at the city and state levels, marked a cultural watershed, positioned chairman Estes Kefauver for presidential and vice presidential bids, and set the stage for deeper investigations into mob influence.

What follows in this past is based on research for a biography of O’Dwyer’s faithful younger brother Paul that I wrote with Rob Polner, An Irish Passion for Justice.

Accusations had already appeared in the New York press related to what O’Dwyer’s interim replacement as DA, a Republican, called his “laxity” and “maladministration” of his district attorney’s office. The mushroom cloud of these questions led to his hurried 1950 resignation from City Hall and appointment by President Harry Truman as ambassador to Mexico.

Then Truman gave his blessings to Kefauvera colorful Tennessee politician who had made a coonskin cap his trademark in his successful 1948 Senate raceto examine mob infiltration of city and state governments and summon their leaders, many of them fellow Democrats, by request or subpoena.

Understanding the environment surrounding the hearings can bewilder contemporary readers unless they keep in mind these factors:

*Television: An estimated 30 million Americans tuned in to watch the live proceedings in March 1951. By the time the committee, its staff, and attendant cameras rolled into New York, the hearings had become a sensation. Suddenly, “Kefauver block parties” became the rage, and Broadway attendance took a nosedive as viewers found the real-life drama on their small screens at home even more fascinating and entertaining than what they would normally see on the Great White Way.

*Cold War pressures: Just as communists sought to erode the international appeal of democracy following World War II, so the mob world’s money was subverting democracy from within, the new zeitgeist went.  For that reason, Bill would be regarded not simply as someone who may have pulled punches on behalf of shadowy figures believed to have underworld connections, but rather as a supporter of an “alien” conspiracy fomented by Italian American criminals who were destabilizing the American experiment from within.

*A focus on gambling: Though the committee’s understanding of “organized crime” encompassed “protection,” prostitution, murder, blackmail, and gambling, according to the committee’s mission statement, it was the last that consumed the lion’s share of its attention. Gambling was, Kefauver claimed, "the life blood of organized crime," so the committee went to the areas where the activity was most likely to flourish: cities, which were often controlled, as in New York, by Democratic political machines.

Paul O’Dwyer, an attorney normally with a heightened awareness of his clients’ rights and interests, long afterward regretted having strongly urged his brother to testify, even though Bill’s doctor had cautioned about the physical strain created by the hearings:

“I felt his [Bill’s] appearance was imperative because he should not let his detractors say they had frightened him from coming to a town over which he had presided with such distinction for five years. It was immature reasoning, and in retrospect, I believe I would not have given that advice to a client not related to me but otherwise under the same circumstance.”

Bill’s testimony, frequently non-specific, struck many as evasive. Moreover, the normally self-confident pol who had been twice elected Gotham’s mayor had been replaced by am energy-drained witness who, battling the flu and mopping his perspiring brow, reacted with annoyance to his inquisitors rather than his customary charm. He did little to hide, for instance, his scorn of Republican Charles Tobey of New Hampshire as a hypocrite:

Tobey: “Why did [O’Dwyer aide James] Moran go to the apartment [of Frank Costello, in 1942] with you, to carry a bag or what? Was he an errand boy, a companion, an advisor?”

O’Dwyer: “Senator, if the answer is intended to be anything other than sarcastic, I will answer it.”

Tobey: “When you were there, were you conscious that he was a gangster?”

O’Dwyer: “I was conscious that he had a reputation as a very big book-maker.”

Tobey: “It seems to me you should have said about Costello, ‘Unclean, unclean!’ And that you should have left him alone, as if he were a leper. But instead you trotted up to his place—”

O’Dwyer: “I had business with him. They say there is a lot of it in your home state of New Hampshire—30 million dollars a year… I wonder who the bookmakers in Breton Woods support for public office in New Hampshire?”

Tobey: “I hate a four-flusher!”…

When Bill was back at his hotel room after concluding his testimony, family and friends quickly sensed that he had lost his old elan, as described later in an oral history interview by Brooklyn Eagle reporter Clifford Evans:

“Suddenly he looked old. Suddenly this very proud man . . . who had gone from bartender here in N.Y. all the way up to being the No. 1 citizen as Mayor, and then during the war, had become a General and had been given the rank in our State Department of minister—a man who, single handedly, on assignment from Roosevelt, had negotiated with dollars and in secrecy for the saving of thousands of Jews from Hitler’s Germany—a man who had done so much to make us feel good, and suddenly, everything just crashed. The grayness about him and the open window there— it was kind of a difficult moment.”

Now in his early 60s, Bill finished out his term as ambassador a year and a half later. Any possibility of a further diplomatic, or even political, career, let alone influence at any local or national level, was over. Though he was never charged as a result of the multiple investigations into his time as prosecutor and mayor, he also was never able to dispel the miasma of doubt about his conduct until his death in 1964.

City Hall reporters recalled that, only a generation before, a prior New York Democrat, the dapper “Beau James” Walker, had also departed Gracie Mansion in haste as a corruption scandal erupted. More than seven decades would pass before another mayor would see his time in office end prematurely.

The rise and fall of Eric Adams eerily echoed O’Dwyer’s. As ex-cops from Brooklyn, they ascended the political ladder largely based on their crime-fighting reputations. The Irish emigrant and African-American tapped into the fierce pride of marginalized groups that, by the time the politicians reached middle age, had become crucial cogs of the city’s Democratic coalition.

In the end, they could not maintain their political base. Party leaders prevailed upon Truman to appoint O’Dwyer as ambassador. Adams, despite the Trump Administration’s decision to drop federal charges of bribery, fraud, and soliciting illegal foreign campaign donations, was forced to withdraw his independent bid for reelection as mayor in the fall of 2025.

The Kefauver hearings demonstrated the power of televised congressional hearings to lift or lower individual politicians’ reputations. Ironically today, bipartisan investigations of important national issues—a hallmark of Congress at least since the Teapot Dome scandal— are in abeyance. They’ve all but disappeared from contemporary politics since the election of Donald Trump to a second term.

That is a striking if rarely commented-on development, especially considering that Capitol Hill panels have shed light on government waste and misconduct through the eras of Jim Crow, Joe McCarthy, the Vietnam war, Watergate, rampant FBI and CIA abuses, 9/11, and Wall Street recklessness. The nationally televised hearings focused on the January 6 US Capitol attack were the last of any magnitude.

New rounds of televised hearings are painfully overdue—inquiries unrelated to the dangers once posed by organized crime, but to organized money and its similarly pernicious effect on the functioning of democratic government.

As the line between private and public interests has gone from blurred to all-but erased, the survival of a balanced two-party system hinges, at least in part, on the willingness of Congress to examine enormous conflicts of interest and alleged corruption in Washington.