Quote of the Day (Pamela Paul, on ‘The Dudebro Candidate’)

“Broadly speaking, the dudebro candidate is more about vibes and style than about policy or platform. Picking up on the attitude and aesthetics of the manosphere, he is out to court attention, the tonal opposite of politic or cautious. This is a guy who openly disparages the need to watch what you say—and that's part of the appeal. Running for office almost as an act of defiance, the dudebro offers a potent brew of strong masculine energy, cross-party populist fury, frat-boy antics and straight-talk authenticity.”— American journalist, correspondent, editor, and author Pamela Paul, “Politics With Swagger. Meet the Dudebros,” The Wall Street Journal, June 13-14, 2026

First, the “Tech Bros”; now, “The Dudebros.” I wish the whole bunch would just bro away!

Well, one such “Dudebro,” reality TV star Spencer Pratt lost his bid for LA Mayor a month ago—and, by the end of the week, one more is likely to fall by the wayside. All kind of questions had been swirling about the Democratic primary winner for U.S. Senator from Maine, Graham Platner, even before the weekend.

But now, with a claim from a woman he dated that he had raped her several years ago—and the subsequent withdrawal of endorsements by prominent Democrats and a threat by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee not to invest in his campaign if he remains on the ballot—it’s hard to see him continuing.

Pamela Paul identifies Donald Trump as the prototype “dudebro candidate,” though I would argue that the real forerunner of this type was former wrestler turned Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura.

In any case, Trump won’t be going away any time, insulated from accountability by an acquiescent Supreme Court and GOP majorities in the House and Senate, as well as from so many gaffes and missteps that anyone else would have disappeared from the scene a long time ago. 

(Consider this: while Platner has one unadjudicated sexual assault charge against him, Trump has had at least two dozen women who accused him of sexual misconduct---and a civil jury found him liable for sexual abuse against E. Jean Carroll.)

The “Tech Bros” are unlucky to go away any time soon, either—unless one or more fall out with Trump, as almost happened with Elon Musk.

“Frat-boy antics” might be one description for this entire crew, but I prefer “obnoxiousness.” It’s an indictment of our time that these men are able to come out of nowhere and be seriously considered for high positions in government or business.

(The image accompanying this post, showing Pamela Paul at the 2019 Texas Book Festival in Austin, Texas, was taken Oct. 26, 2019, by Larry D. Moore.)

Oooh, Cage Fight! Or, the Great Mullin-Paul Confirmation Faceoff

“What is so appealing to men about a cat fight?” Elaine asked on a famous episode of Seinfeld. Just the use of the term is enough to make her friend Kramer stop in his tracks and exclaim, “Oooh, cat fight!”

Last week, instead of the female hair-pulling contests that, Elaine noted in exasperation, turn on so many men, our nation’s capital was transfixed by a male variant involving two U.S. Senators from the same party: Rand Paul of Kentucky and Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, the Trump Administration’s nominee to replace the late, unlamented Kristi Noem (nom de guerre “ICE Barbie”) as Homeland Security Secretary.

Trust me, I have seen more examples than I’d like of heated confrontations between our nation’s representatives and individuals testifying before them, but nothing even remotely like this.

Yes, it’s the Capitol Hill answer to the cage fight, those Ultimate Fighting Championships, with contests unapologetically brutal, in an enclosed area to prevent participants from going out of bounds.

Mullin first came across the radar screen of many of us in 2023, when he sparred at a Senate committee hearing with Teamsters head Sean O’Brien, challenging him to “stand your b—t up” over a social media post. 

Matters got so heated between the two that Senator Bernie Sanders, the panel’s chair, had to remind the two would-be gladiators to maintain Senate decorum. (Nice to know that the two men have apparently since reconciled.)

Senator Paul brought up that exchange in his own face-off with Mullin, and added to it. The background to this—and the resulting anger and bitterness on Paul’s part—are worth quoting in full:

Paul: Senator Mullin, if you have time to listen, you were confronted by constituents that were angry because you voted against my amendment to stop all funding for refugee welfare programs. Instead of explaining your vote to continue these welfare programs for refugees, you decided to transfer the blame. You told the media that I was a freaking snake and that you completely understood why I had been assaulted. I was shocked that you would justify and celebrate this violent assault that caused me so much pain and my family so much pain. I just wonder if someone who applauds violence against their political opponents is the right person to lead an agency that has struggled to accept limits to the proper use of force.

You might argue you were mad and upset about being confronted by your constituents, but Senator Mullin, your constituents are justifiably upset with you. By now, most of America knows that the Somali welfare fraud in Minnesota stole over $9 billion. But instead of defending your vote, you took to continue the vote to continue these refugee welfare programs, you chose to lash out at me. You went on to brag that you had already told me to my face that you completely understood and approved of the assault. Well, that's a lie. You got a chance today. You can either continue to lie or you can correct the record.

You have never had the courage to look me in the eye and tell me that the assault was justified. So today you'll have your chance. Today I'll give you that chance to clear the record. Tell it to my face. If that's what you believe, tell it to me today.

Tell the world why you believe I deserve to be assaulted from behind, have six ribs broken, and a damaged lung. Tell me to my face why you think I deserved it. And while you're at it, explain to the American public why they should trust a man with anger issues to set the proper example for ICE and Border Patrol agents. Explain to the American public how a man who has no regrets about brawling in a Senate committee can set a proper example for over 250,000 men and women who work at the Department of Homeland Security.

Did Mullin apologize, let alone “explain,” as Paul demanded? See what you think.

Mullin: I think everybody in this room knows that I'm very blunt and direct to the point and if I have something to say, I'll say it directly to your face. If you recall back in your back in my house days, we actually did have this conversation because of remarks that I made. You were in a room. I simply addressed that I said I could understand because of the behavior you were having that I could understand why your neighbor did what he did. As far as my terms, the snake in the grass, sir, I work around this room to try to fix problems. I've worked with many people in this room. Seems like you fight Republicans more than you work with us. I did address those remarks. I did explain your gimmicks by the amendment you put forth. And as far as me saying that I invoke violence, I don't think anybody should be hit by surprise. I don't like that. But if I do have something to say, everybody in this room knows. I'll come straight to you. I'll say it publicly and I'll say it privately, but I'll never say it behind your back. So for you to say, I'm a liar, sir, that's not accurate. And I got proof to say that because you have spent millions of dollars in my campaigns against me because we just don't get along.

However, sir, that doesn't keep me at all from doing my job. I can have difference of opinions with everybody in this room, but as Secretary of Homeland, I will be protecting everybody, including Kentucky, as much as I will my own backyard in Oklahoma. It's bigger than the partisan bickering that we have. It's bigger than the political differences we have. The truth is I have a job to do and I don't like to fail at anything at all. So I can set it aside if you're willing to set it aside. Let me earn your respect. Let me earn the job. I won't fail you. I won't back down from a challenge.

You have to ask, as MS-NOW’s Joe Scarborough did: Why didn’t Mullin just apologize? 

He was certainly risking his confirmation, as demonstrated by Paul’s committee vote against forwarding the nomination to the full Senate. Mullin was lucky to squeak by in committee, courtesy of a “yea” vote by (take your pick) maverick/renegade Democratic Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania. Despite their experience with this feisty colleague, the Senate approved the nomination last night, 54-45.

It’s just another example of Congress letting Trump having his way with them. Back in 1989, the Senate rejected one of their own (and the hoary tradition of “senatorial courtesy” with it), John Tower, when George H.W. Bush nominated him for Defense Secretary. 

There were concerns about the nominee's past experience with alcohol intake and hitting on women--issues also raised about Pete Hegseth for the same post in the second Trump administration, but not enough to sideline him. 

Mullin, then, is not even the worst nominee that Trump has sent up to Capitol Hill. All the President’s major nominees have been confirmed. Why should Mullin be any different?

Mullin is an example of a notable trend of the second Trump term: facho, or fake macho. As the Iranian War began, Secretary of War Hegseth vowed “No stupid rules of engagement,” before a US military-guided weapon struck school building, killing 168 people, including over 100 children. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. went shirtless with Kid Rock in a bizarre workout video.

Not to be outdone, Mullin glories in his past as an undefeated professional mixed martial arts fighter. Like his new boss, he doesn’t so much stand his ground as dirty the ground beneath him. He sees an apology as groveling rather than a grace note and confuses rudeness with candor.

No question: cage fights like Mullin’s make for great spectacles. They don’t make for good, let alone great, government.

Quote of the Day (Roger Ailes, to a Client He Masterminded to Victory)

“Jesus, nobody likes you. Your own mother wouldn't vote for you. Do you even have a mother?”— American television executive and media consultant Roger Ailes (1940-2017), before creating successful ads for his client, eventual 1980 New York Senate race winner Alfonse D’Amato, quoted by Gabriel Sherman, The Loudest Voice in the Room: How the Brilliant, Bombastic Roger Ailes Built Fox News—and Divided a Country (2014)

It may be hard for some voters to see, but some candidates, like former Senator D’Amato (nicknamed “Senator Shakedown” by The New Republic), cannot be stomached at any level, no matter what sleazy commercials and social-media posts that will reach an Election Day crescendo may tell you about an opponent.

Roger Ailes might agree with the proposition that a politician can be sold like soap, but I don’t think that does justice to what he and other political consultants have wrought. Now, crud can be sold as if it’s soap—at least, if you make the perfectly logical equation that certain politicians are crud.

So take your responsibility seriously as you cast your ballots on Tuesday. If you’re not careful, you might get 18 years of a politician that even his consultant can’t stand, as New York State did once it elected D’Amato, the sleazy product of Joseph Margiotta's Nassau County political machine.

(The image that accompanies this post about Roger Ailes, president of Fox News and chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group, was taken at the Fox News Headquarters in Times Square, New York, June 14, 2013, by Sgt. Christopher Tobey—before, of course, Ailes lost his job over sexual harassment allegations.)

Quote of the Day (Arthur C. Brooks, Calling for a ‘Politics Cleanse’)

"Start with a politics cleanse: For two weeks… resolve not to read, watch or listen to anything about politics. Don't discuss politics with anyone. When you find yourself thinking about politics, distract yourself with something else. (I listen to Bach cantatas, but that’s not for everybody.) This is hard to do, of course, but not impossible. You just have to plan ahead and stand firm. Think of it as ideological veganism. On the one hand, your friends will think you’re a little wacky. On the other hand, you’ll feel superior to them."— American author and academic Arthur C. Brooks, “Treat Yourself to a Politics Cleanse,” The New York Times, Aug. 2, 2018

Seven years after Brooks wrote this, a “politics cleanse” is all the more necessary—and all the more elusive. Even today, on the 24^th anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, politics obscures what should be a day of solemnity and service.

(The image that accompanies this post, of Arthur C. Brooks speaking at an event in Phoenix, AZ, was taken on Apr. 13, 2017 by Gage Skidmore.)

Quote of the Day (Francis Fukuyama, on Anger, Inequality, and Disrespect)

“There are many people who are angry right now because they feel they’re not respected. They feel that people disregard them or look down on them. Capitalism is very good at fulfilling material desires, but it’s not so good as fulfilling the desire for others’ desires. It also produces a lot of inequality, and one of the problems with being poor is not only the lack of material resources but the problems it creates with regards to respect. If you’re poor, you’re not remarked upon. Politicians don’t pay attention.”—Stanford University political scientist Francis Fukuyama quoted by Cody Delistraty, “SOAPBOX: Rosamund Pike, Kaws and Francis Fukuyama on Desire,” WSJ. Magazine, Issue 126 (Spring 2021)

(The image accompanying this post, of Francis Fukuyama at Nexus Instituut, was taken Sept. 25, 2005, by Robert Goddyn.)

Quote of the Day (Evan Thomas, Correctly Sensing a Dangerous Political Shift)

“[T]he old and weary (and increasingly cowed) mainstream media, of which I have been a charter member for more than 30 years, may not be as successful as it used to be at exposing the sort of distortions that can fuel mindless rage. Whether those distortions come from the far right or far left, the consequences could be disastrous: a protectionist who sets out to shield workers from foreign competition and wrecks the free-trade regimen that has made America prosper; a law-and-order vigilante who comes to office after a terrorist attack with a program to suspend cherished individual liberties to keep America ‘safe’; a soak-the-rich populist who kills economic growth in the name of helping the little guy.”—American journalist and biographer Evan Thomas, “Why It’s Time to Worry,” Newsweek, Dec. 13, 2010

Of the three alternative nightmare Presidential candidates described by Thomas, the one that has come closest to realization is the first: a protectionist.

However, the second candidate, seeking to “suspend cherished individual liberties to keep America ‘safe,’” has also come to pass—ironically, in the form of a President who once aired an ad, “Let our politicians give back our police department's power to keep us safe,” only to foment a coup d’etat on Jan. 6, 1921, in which police desperately tried to prevent the safety of members of Congress.

Finally, a “populist” has won twice, but not through a “soak the rich” program (he is, after all, a plutocrat!), but by appealing to the worst prejudices of voters.

Sadly, the "time to worry" has passed. The emergency is here; it's now time to ensure, against growing odds, the survival of the republic.

(The image accompanying this post, showing Evan Thomas reading at Annapolis Book Festival, was taken Apr. 28, 2018, by Slowking4.)

Quote of the Day (H.L. Mencken, on ‘A New Fallacy in Politics’)

“[I]t is not the leadership that is old and decorous that fetches [the American], but the leadership that is new and extravagant. He will resist dictation out of the past, but he will follow a new messiah with almost Russian willingness, and into the wildest vagaries of economics, religion, morals and speech. A new fallacy in politics spreads faster in the United States than anywhere else on earth, and so does a new fashion in hats, or a new revelation of God, or a new means of killing time, or a new metaphor or piece of slang.”—American journalist, essayist, and philologist H.L. Mencken (1880-1956), The American Language: An Inquiry Into the Development of English in the United States (1919)

Quote of the Day (Peter Wehner, on ‘When Civility is Stripped Away’)

“When civility is stripped away, everything in life becomes a battlefield, an arena for conflict, an excuse for invective. Families, communities, our conversations and our institutions break apart when basic civility is absent.”— Peter Wehner, American writer and former speechwriter for the administrations of three Republican U.S. presidents, in The Death of Politics: How to Heal Our Frayed Republic After Trump (2019) 

Movie Quote of the Day (‘All the King’s Men,’ on a Would-Be Dictator Warding Off Peril)

Jack Burden [played by John Ireland] [narrating]: “He roared across the state making speeches. All of them adding up to the same thing: 'It's not me they're after. It's you!' Willie hollered 'foul.' He knew if you hollered hard and loud enough... people begin to believe. Just in case they didn't, he organized demonstrations.”

Willie Stark [played by Broderick Crawford]: “Tell the boys to get the hicks out. Bring them in from the sticks. Empty the pool halls. Turn ‘em out! Turn the yokels out!”

Jack: “In case anyone hollered back, he organized spontaneous slugging. Willie pulled every trick he ever knew and added a few more.”—All the King’s Men (1949), written and directed by Robert Rossen, adapted from the novel by Robert Penn Warren

Seventy-five years ago this Thursday, this adaptation of All the King’s Men premiered in New York City. Though a remake came out in 2006 starring Sean Penn, the earlier version remains, for many, the gold standard, going on to win Oscars for Best Picture, Actor (Broderick Crawford) and Supporting Actress (Mercedes McCambridge).

During production of the first version, the cast and crew involved in translating Warren’s Pulitzer Prize-winning novel to the screen never uttered the name “Huey Long,” recalled star Broderick Crawford.

In fact, the state depicted onscreen was left intentionally unnamed, even blurred, with not even a Southern drawl, let alone the down-home Louisiana cadences of Long.

The plot of the movie, when you get right down to it, could even have been set in the American Heartland—a place like Ohio, maybe even Michigan.

Michigan—these days, the state is no longer the uncontested world center of the automotive industry, as it was during the making of this film, but a laboratory for far-right coups—not only against its governor, but, through the courts and otherwise, the Presidency of the United States.

At least Stark/Long started out with good intentions, and actually built things while in office: a highway program of 13,000 roads, free textbooks for schoolchildren, LSU Medical School, and an expansion of the state Charity Hospital System. The former occupant of the Oval Office now seeking a return only destroyed while in office. 

Re-read some of that dialogue above: “It’s not me they’re after. It’s you!” It’s all too easy to supply the contemporary follow-up: “And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution."

Back in 1989, the late New York columnist Jimmy Breslin, sourly surveying a local real-estate developer who’d just taken out a full-page ad calling for the execution of the Central Park Five, warned, “Beware always of the loudmouth taking advantage of the situation and appealing to a crowd’s meanest nature.”

That loudmouth runs from the semi-fictional Willie Stark to the all-too-actual Former Guy.

Quote of the Day (Martha Nussbaum, on Ignorance and Political Misbehavior)

“Knowledge is not a guarantee of good political behavior, but ignorance is a virtual guarantee of bad behavior.”— American philosopher and legal scholar Martha Nussbaum, “Cultivating the Imagination,” The New York Times, Oct. 17, 2010

The image of Martha Nussbaum that accompanies this post was taken in 2008 by Robin Holland.

Movie Quote of the Day (‘The Best Man,’ on a Candidate’s Missing Wife)

Sue Ellen Gamadge [played by Ann Sothern, far right]: [to William Russell, played by Henry Fonda, center] “We want to see a lot more of your wife—a great deal more. You know, there are still people who don't trust the English.”

Dick Jensen [played by Kevin McCarthy]: “Mrs. Russell was sick during the primaries.”

Sue Ellen: “Yes, yes, yes. I know. But she has to be at your side at all times. She must seem to be advising you. It did Adlai Stevenson great harm not having a wife and trying to be funny all at the same time, too. Great harm.”— The Best Man (1964), screenplay by Gore Vidal, based on his play, directed by Franklin J. Schaffner

Gore Vidal’s political satire has lost little if any of its sting, six decades after he wrote it. The setting—the smoked-fill rooms at a convention that will determine a party’s candidate—may have lost its importance, but his Broadway play and adaptation are at heart about power and its use in smashmouth politics.

And, even though we now—courtesy of Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump— have Presidents who’ve been divorced, voters are still awfully curious about candidates’ spouses.

Which brings us to William Russell’s wife Alice in The Best Man.

The actress who played Alice on Broadway, Leora Dana, was American, as were the actresses who took on the role in 21^st century revivals: Michael Learned, Candice Bergen and Cybill Shepherd. So perhaps that line about “the English” above was made to account for the casting of the admittedly marvelous Margaret Leighton (pictured far left) when the play became a movie.

But, as a student of history, Vidal would probably have been struck by the irony of a foreign-born First Lady. For the first two and a quarter centuries after the founding of the republic, there had only been one such spouse: Louisa Johnson Adams, born in—yes, England.

Then came Melania Trump, Donald Trump’s second wife from Eastern Europe. (Perhaps he might want to reconsider his position on imports?)

For the longest time, I thought Louisa Adams underwent some of the worst experiences of any First Lady as the marital and political partner of John Quincy Adams, a notably frosty fellow who suffered bouts of depression.

After being largely ignored in the White House by her husband, Louisa became something of a recluse and worked on an unpublished autobiography whose title signals her misery: Adventures of a Nobody.

But I’m afraid that the Slovenian-born Melania has—well, trumped her. Ms. Trump has been largely AWOL as her husband plotted his return to the White House (her appearance with him at the Al Smith Dinner being a curious and rare exception), and her memoir, Melania, has just been published.

There is one line from The Best Man, flung out by Leighton, that First Ladies Adams and Trump wish they could have said to their husbands, I’m sure: “I’ve had twenty years of nonsense, of being a good sport.”

At least Mrs. Adams, however, never had to read about her husband’s affair with an adult-film actress conducted during her own pregnancy, sexual misconduct accusations by dozens of other women, and even a civil court jury finding that he’d sexually abused and defamed one of them.

What does the Slovenian Sphinx think of all this? Publicly, nothing. Privately, if she’s ever had a chance to watch The Best Man, I bet she snorts at Ann Sothern’s line about “seeming to advise” the candidate—but nods vigorously at Leighton’s “twenty years of nonsense.”

Quote of the Day (Frederick Douglass, on When Political Parties Are Strong)

“[P]olitical parties, like individual men, are only strong while they are consistent and honest, and… treachery and deception are only the sand on which political fools vainly endeavor to build.”— American abolitionist and orator Frederick Douglass (1818-1895), Life and Times of Frederick Douglass (1892)

Quote of the Day (Robert Kennedy, on ‘Common Qualities of Conscience and Indignation’)

"There is discrimination in New York, the racial inequality of apartheid in South Africa, and serfdom in the mountains of Peru. People starve to death in the streets of India; a former Prime Minister is summarily executed in the Congo; intellectuals go to jail in Russia; and thousands are slaughtered in Indonesia; wealth is lavished on armaments everywhere in the world. These are different evils; but they are the common works of man. They reflect the imperfections of human justice, the inadequacy of human compassion, the defectiveness of our sensibility toward the sufferings of our fellows; they mark the limit of our ability to use knowledge for the well-being of our fellow human beings throughout the world. And therefore they call upon common qualities of conscience and indignation, a shared determination to wipe away the unnecessary sufferings of our fellow human beings at home and around the world.”— U.S. Attorney General, Senator from New York, and Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy (1925-1968), “Speech at the University of Capetown, South Africa, Day of Affirmation,” June 6, 1966

In his eulogy two years after this address, Ted Kennedy told the mourners in St. Patrick’s Cathedral that his murdered brother “need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life.” 

At least to some extent, the documentary record about Camelot and the cries of scandal-mongers alike ensured for our skeptical age that Robert Kennedy would indeed escape this fate. He could be the most complicated mixture imaginable of idealism and steely-eyed, brass-knuckle determination in pursuit of a goal.

Even so, and despite realizing that a yawning gap frequently exists between words and performance, I couldn’t read the above excerpt from his Capetown address (also known as the “Ripple of Hope” speech) without feeling that something immense was lost when he was cut down by an assassin’s bullet in Los Angeles after winning the 1968 California primary for President.

At some level, the words of politicians do matter. Even when using talented speechwriters, what they choose to say (or not) conveys what they regard as important and indicates some measure of their character.

Kennedy’s words in particular reflect an elevated tone befitting the magnitude of worldwide issues, a responsibility for alleviating “the imperfections of human justice.”

That gravitas, I’m sorry to say, is missing in today’s discourse. You can call this diminished rhetoric a casualty of a Sixties decade that didn’t achieve its lofty goals, of more than a half century of advertising sound bites that left listeners unable to absorb sustained arguments, or of the countless casual cruelties and callousness of Donald Trump.

But it was gone at both parties’ conventions this summer. Forget about that “When they go low, we go high” cry of the Democrats eight years ago. Just think of Barack Obama’s hand gesture to simulate Trump’s obsession with crowd size.

My sadness increased when I heard today that Robert Kennedy Jr. would be suspending his independent campaign and backing Trump for President. It would take a psychiatrist to plumb all the depths and traumas that led the son of the martyred Democratic candidate of the late Sixties to this decisive point in his own misbegotten Presidential race.

But it only takes an ordinary moral sensibility to know that the candidate who won his endorsement not only did not measure up to the job that Robert Sr. sought and Jack Kennedy achieved, but that he corroded the dignity of the Oval Office, widened the gap between rich and poor, and encouraged the forces of evil at home and abroad.

Robert Sr.’s Capetown address—one of the most famous in his short career—inspired inhabitants of Africa—a continent that Trump has dubbed, together with Haiti and El Salvador, as “s—thole countries.”

It is even more astonishing to realize that the crusade that Robert Jr. conducted so fervently these last couple of decades—conservation—was abandoned and utterly forgotten in his support for a former President whose administration took 74 actions that weakened environmental protection, according to an August 2020 Brookings Institution study.

Twenty years ago this month, Robert Jr. published Crimes Against Nature, a polemic with the most pointed of subtitles: “How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking Our Democracy.” If he felt this way about Dubya, then what on earth did he think Trump was doing in his term in office?

In bowing out, he noted that Trump had “asked to enlist me in his administration.” Assume that he does get tapped for such a position. How long do you think before, like so many others who agreed to serve the Former Guy, he awakens one morning to find via X that he’s been fired?

Robert Kennedy Sr. brought conscience with his indignation to the problems of the world and his country. His namesake forgot the conscience part.

His latest choice has dismayed members of his immediate family, who issued a statement rightly denouncing his endorsement as “a betrayal of the values that our father and our family hold most dear.” They understood better than their brother that their father appealed to the best instincts of humanity in general and his countrymen in particular, while Trump has never missed a chance to call forth the ugliest of both. 

But RFK Jr. has also disappointed the millions of Americans who like Robert Sr. have hoped to “wipe away the unnecessary sufferings of our fellow human beings at home and around the world.” Those sufferings will only increase because of the side with which he's thrown in his lot.

Quote of the Day (Godfrey Hodgson, on Presidents As Traders in Political Capital)

“Every modern president is a trader, entering office with a stock of political capital. If he were to sit back and attempt to live on the income from it, he would soon starve. So he must venture into the political market and trade. He proposes legislation, handles crises, applies leadership where required, and tries to avoid damaging associations. His record is observed and evaluated by Washington insiders and, in turn, transmitted to the wider public by the media. At the same time, polls recycle public opinion back to Washington, increasing or decreasing the president’s political capital.”— English journalist and historian Godfrey Hodgson (1934-2021), “What Makes a Great President?”, The Wilson Quarterly, Summer 2000

Quote of the Day (Hunter S. Thompson, on the Fate of ‘The Weird’)

“When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.”—“Gonzo” journalist Hunter S. Thompson (1937-2005), "Fear and Loathing at the Super Bowl" (Rolling Stone #155, (Feb. 28, 1974); republished in Gonzo Papers, Vol. 1: The Great Shark Hunt: Strange Tales from a Strange Time (1979)

Hunter S. Thompson wrote that line about America’s growing obsession with football—and I’m sure that there have been times over the last few years when both Green Bay Packer and New York Jet fans felt that it could also apply to polarizing quarterback Aaron Rodgers.

But this year, politics is becoming more like football every day—brutal, nasty, and yes, with all the sudden twists of the past few weeks, “weird.”

Wake me when it’s over, okay?

Quote of the Day (Eric Hoffer, on Retribution)

"Retribution often means that we eventually do to ourselves what we have done unto others."— American longshoreman-turned-philosopher Eric Hoffer (1902-1983), “Thoughts of Eric Hoffer, Including…,” The New York Times Magazine, Apr. 25, 1971

Something to keep in mind the next time someone famous flings around the “R” word carelessly. 

Quote of the Day (William Galston, on Partisanship and Geography)

“[W]ith today’s deep polarization, voters in the minority experience the enactment of one-party programs as an attack on their deepest convictions. As they lose hope of turning the tide, many respond by leaving their states for others where the majority shares their beliefs. This further intensifies the link between partisanship and geography.

“If this trend continues, our nation will become a patchwork in which citizens live under fundamentally different legal regimes.”— American author, academic, political advisor, and Brookings Institution senior fellow William Galston, “Florida Turns Right, Minnesota Turns Left,” The Wall Street Journal, June 7, 2023

The accompanying photo of William Galston was taken Jan. 8, 2012, at a Civics Ed panel at the Brookings Institution by Medill DC.

TV Quote of the Day (‘All in the Family,’ on the Supreme Court and Presidential Politics)

Archie Bunker [played by Carroll O’Connor]: “What the Supreme Court says ain't got nothing to do with the law. They okayed busing too 'til President Nixon give 'em the old one-two.” —All in the Family, Season 3, Episode 1, “Archie and the Editorial,” original air date Sept. 16, 1972, teleplay by George Arthur Bloom and Don Nicholl, directed by Norman Campbell

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Just substitute an issue currently on the Supreme Court’s docket and the name “Trump” for “Nixon” and this line fits as well today as it did in 1972.

Or, as the great Irish-American satirist Finley Peter Dunne wrote in his “Mr. Dooley” column back in the early 20^th century: “No matter whether th' constitution follows th' flag or not, th' Supreme Court follows th' iliction returns.”

Quote of the Day (Samuel Johnson, on Distractions Created by Evil Men)

“Every whisper of infamy is industriously circulated, every hint of suspicion eagerly improved, and every failure of conduct joyfully published by those whose interest it is that the eye and voice of the publick should be employed on any rather than on themselves.”—English man of letters Samuel Johnson (1709-1784), originally published in The Rambler, No. 76, Dec. 8, 1750 [How bad men are reconciled to themselves], republished in Samuel Johnson: Selected Works, edited by Robert DeMaria, Jr., Stephen Fix, and Howard Weinbrot (2021)

Samuel Johnson was born nearly a century and a half before Sigmund Freud, but in the above quote the English essayist shrewdly anticipated, from an ethical and religious perspective, what the founder of psychoanalysis termed “projection,” or the habit of attributing to others what are faults of one’s own.

This defense mechanism did not die with Johnson, or with Freud for that matter. Instead, it continues to be practiced, with various degrees of adroitness, in the political sphere.

One Presidential candidate, however, employs projection compulsively, and he’s been doing so since he first burst on the political scene.

Five years ago, CNN senior political analyst John Avlon analyzed how that candidate did so. What is so extraordinary is not the degree to which this politician tries to throw others off his scent (perhaps, given a revelation of the last few days, quite literally off his “scent”), but rather the eagerness with which so many of this individual’s diehard supporters fall for his instinctive acts of desperation.

(Dr. Johnson's relevance to current events—and, specifically, to the politician discussed above—is also stressed in Jeff Kaplan’s post on the “Conflict of Interest” blog, which contains this quote from James Boswell’s great biography of the older English writer: “It is more from carelessness about truth than from intentional lying, that there is so much falsehood in the world.”)

Quote of the Day (T.H. White, on Where Division May Lead)

“The destiny of Man is to unite, not to divide. If you keep on dividing you end up as a collection of monkeys throwing nuts at each other out of separate trees." —English novelist T.H. White (1906-1964), The Once and Future King (1958)

Ladies and gentlemen, on the brink of a government shutdown, I present to you the mightily dysfunctional House of Representatives—or, to borrow a Kurt Vonnegut title, “Welcome to the Monkey House.”