Hitch & George

I warned you, there might be book reviews.  Coincidentally, “There Might Be Book Reviews” opened for “They Might be Giants” at the Hamtramck Palladium Theatre back in’ 98.  Solid show, Dan Miller just joined the group…but I digress.

I finished Christopher Hitchens’ book, “Why Orwell Matters” about a month ago.  When one’s favorite essayist pens a work centered on their favorite essayist, how could I not pick it up?

Now, Hitchens himself could be rather problematic, to use the parlance of today.  At least on certain issues (on gender, on US foreign policy re: Iraq post 9/11) he was “off.”  I still don’t understand his motivation for crafting the 2007 Vanity Fair piece, “Why Women Aren’t Funny.”  The only plausible explanation being a misogynistic block in the right hemisphere of his cortex.  At least on the latter issue, the Iraq War, one can see the consistent line of anti-authoritarianism throughout his life that enabled him to view the Hussein regime as the clear antagonist, which led him to side with the Bush Administration’s “hawks” (a rather charitable image, considering the descriptors that could be employed here).

I believe, had Hitchens not passed in December 2011 and if he were still alive to the present day, his views on the War in Iraq would have evolved, as history reveals more about the run-up, the war itself, and its aftermath.  Alas, this can only remain conjecture.

The point is, as Hitchens argues in his tome, that George Orwell possessed both the wisdom and moral fortitude to stand opposed, consistently and volubly, to three of the worst ‘isms that afflicted the 20^th Century:  Nazism, Stalinist Communism, and Imperialism.  A product of rather comfortable means, Orwell could have quite easily been a willing cog in an imperialist system, in which he played a minor part as a police officer stationed in Burma in the 1920s, but he chose to reject that life in favor of one where he could write about society, its ills, and a possible path forward.  In his own words, Orwell stated that “every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it.”  (the italics are Orwell’s)

Of course he didn’t merely use his pen to advance his polemicist inclinations.  He took a bullet in the throat whilst fighting in the Spanish Civil War against the fascists.  It was there, while serving with the POUM militia (a non-orthodox, Trotskyist faction) that he struggled against not only the authoritarians on the right, led by General Francisco Franco (who remains quite deceased), but also the Stalin-aligned Communists who attempted to brand POUM as fascists-in-disguise.  This was a war of not only right against left, but left against left, and Orwell was very nearly captured by pro-Soviet forces before he found his way into France and out of the war.    

This first-hand experience dealing with Stalinists convinced Orwell that they were, indeed, not comrades with whom he shared a common vision, but a threat to the democratic principles that he espoused so fervently. 

It is through this lens that Hitchens captures, in his own fluent style, the life and writings of Orwell, taking us through his experiences in England and across the world (although not the United States, as Orwell never set foot on American soil before he died at age 46), his politics, his views on gender, on race, and other issues and dynamics that remain terribly relevant today.

And this is why I chose to write about this book.  As certain strains of fascist thought appear to be taking hold and gaining adherents in several nations (such as Brazil, the Philippines, and the United States, to name three), it is useful to recall those who argued for a different vision of society, one in which individuals are able to enjoy greater effective liberty over their own lives through fairer economic policies and via truly democratic processes.  Orwell was such a figure, and his views were brought to life quite effectively by a wordsmith who, seemingly and singularly, was born to tell Orwell’s story.  Yes, for many reasons, Orwell continues to matter very much today.

What am I reading now?  Militant by Michael Crick.  Will I review it?  Perhaps…

In solidarity.

And so in closing...

Some random thoughts:

At the risk of invoking the Spectre of Mawkishness, I found myself actively searching for Christmas music on Pandora…on 12/29.  Usually, I am done with Yuletide-related songs at precisely the same time that local radio stations flip back to their non-Holiday programming.  Perhaps the season went by so quickly, I did not reach my quota of tunes like “Home for the Holidays” (as performed by the incomparable Perry Como).

Jesus, am I turning into my grandfather?  What in tarnation…

I will offer up one unambiguous Winner for 2018:  Allan Kittleman.  The statewide Republican “bench” in Maryland is closer in size to a standard-issue barstool, and now he can run for Governor without the worries that come with being County Executive.  When did Kittleman’s 2022 campaign launch?  When he delivered his in-person concession at Kahler Hall on Election Night.

What else is looking up for 2019?  Democratic socialism in the West.  With the rise of publications such as Jacobin in the USA and the timely re-launch of the Tribune in the UK, the Left is experiencing an intellectual Risorgimento (note: nationalist term appropriated on purpose) that is taking a fresh look at how best to create a fairer society.  A new generation of leaders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib being two of the best known among them, is emerging and sharing their vision of economic democracy and a government that is, of, and for “the many, not the few.”  With over 55,000 members (and growing) the DSA has become a political force in a way it hasn’t been since, well, it was DSOC.  And this membership only represents a fraction of those who find themselves in vigorous agreement with some of the major policy initiatives pursued by the broad Left such as a Green New Deal and Medicare for All.

2020 Democratic presidential candidates, and not just Senator Sanders, need to bear in mind the energy on the Left.  2020 is not just an opportunity to defeat Trump (which is an absolute must); it also provides a means to change the conditions that helped produce a Trump in the first place.

I am starting a new gig in January.  While I was able to publish a record 119 articles this year, including this one, I will likely be scaling back to something closer to once-a-week in 2019.  With an emphasis on international and national politics, with infused musings on popular culture or whatever esoteric interests capture my attention, it will be a different Spartan Considerations.   Maybe it will be entirely book reviews by June…or perhaps Slats will take over writing duties for weeks at a time.  Who knows? It's all a mystery...

Have a happy and safe New Year.

Always in solidarity.

Being and Its Alternative(s)

Presidential campaigns are defined both by those who choose to run, as well as those who opt against running.

For example, the race for the 1976 Democratic presidential nomination might have taken a far different path had either Senator Walter Mondale located the “fire in the belly” he deemed necessary to enter the fray, or if Senator Ted Kennedy decided to seek the presidency that cycle.

Or if Senator Joe Biden ran in 1984…he would likely have likely cut deeply into what became Gary Hart’s base, while also attracting a certain number of Mondale supporters.  Of course both Biden and Hart experienced their own problems in ’88.

Thinking about 1988, would Al Gore still have emerged as a top-vote getter (after Mike Dukakis and Jesse Jackson) had Bill Clinton been in the field as well? Would Dukakis have gotten anywhere if Mario Cuomo said, “I’m in?”

And flipping the script on the previous cycle’s scenario outlined above, would Bill Clinton have won the nomination in 1992, as damaged and flawed as he was, had Al Gore been available as an active alternative?

Would Paul Wellstone have fared better against Al Gore than Bill Bradley in 2000?  What if Joe Biden or Dick Gephardt had been presidential candidates that cycle?

Or what if Hillary Clinton ran for the White House in 2004? Or if Gore (again) followed up on his 2000 campaign in an effort to have a re-match against W.?  Would John Kerry have been able to obtain the Democratic nomination if either of those two sought it?

My point is all of this is that some names being floated as potential 2020 Democratic presidential aspirants, including at least one or two heavy-hitters, may decide to forgo a run this time around.  There are many reasons for this.  The time is not right for themselves and/or their family.  They see no clear path to the nomination.  They would rather wait for 2024 and an open seat (on the assumption that Trump somehow manages to serve two full terms).  They are not ready to enter the meat grinder.  The “Invisible Primary” isn’t going as well as expected for them (media attention, staffing, fundraising, etc…).

You want predictions? Fine.  While Cory Booker is currently making moves as a soon-to-be-presidential candidate, it would not surprise me if he took a pass on 2020.  He is young enough to run down the road and he is up for re-election in 2020.  Granted, bearing in mind recent changes to NJ election laws, he can pull a Bentsen and run for both President (or Vice President) and the U.S. Senate, so that removed one potential issue.  I still believe he is likely to seek the presidency in 2020, but I don’t yet see it as an automatic bet.

For different reasons, I think Joe Biden is not a mortal lock to run in 2020.  With a Democratic party looking to the future, do they really want as the standard-bearer someone who came to DC two years before the Watergate Babies took office and who has been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate since 1984, the year Night Court began airing?  He and his brain trust must be pondering that question, recognizing that Biden is currently basking in the glow provided by serving as President Barack Obama’s veep.  What happens when the focus shifts to Biden’s full record?  Does he want to risk ending his long public service career on a down note, perhaps tarnishing his Elder Statesperson standing, for one more shot at the Big Chair?

Finally, while I believe the progressive electorate is large enough to support a field that includes both Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren, I don’t believe both of them will seek the nomination in 2020.  This cycle has all of the makings of Bernie’s Last Run (unless a 2024 re-election campaign is a possibility).  Meanwhile, Senator Warren doesn’t yet seem like someone who actually wants to run for President.  She clearly wants to accomplish substantive reforms, but she doesn’t strike me as someone who believes that they need to be a resident of the house at 1600 Pennsylvania to do so.

Booker. Biden. Warren.  At least one and possibly two will not buy the ticket for the 2020 ride.

The next few weeks will be a critical time as many candidates and their families are discussing The Big Decision and finalizing their go/no-go plans.  Those who announce “early” (before 2/28/19) will help shape the field and influence the choices of those who will make their intentions known in the spring.

So many possibilities, so many what-ifs.  All that can be known with certainty is that, somewhere in Iowa, at this very moment, five people at a diner are sipping coffee and patiently listening to John Delaney explain his vision for America. 

And so it goes.

In solidarity.