20 September 2019
Dear Interested Readers,
Are Late Night Shows A Better Forum Than The Presidential Debates?
I have come to a conclusion. I really do not need to listen to the dysfunctional televised debates that are being presented each month with ten candidates at a time shouting at one another and trying to launch the “one liners” that their staffs have pre-written for them. Despite my good intentions, I will probably pass on my insight and be tuned in for the next debate that will be presented on Tuesday, October 15 at Otterbein University in Westerville, Ohio.
If more than ten candidates meet the qualifying requirements for the debate on October 15, there is the threat that there will be two nights, with the second debate on October 16. This time around the journalists asking the questions will be from CNN and The New York Times. It’s my opinion that they should put the qualifying requirements much higher to get the program down to one night with five candidates. As of September 13, there were still 20 active candidates. It’s hard to believe, but candidates like Michael Bennett, Marianne Williamson, and Bill di Blasio are still in the race. If we only had the top five it would be Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris, and Buttigieg. I wish that I had the patience and good judgment to wait until there are only two candidates who are still standing. I fear that by then the issues will not be how to get to universal health care, how to manage global warming, how to pay for needed infrastructure, or any one of all of the other topics worthy of discussion, since there is little substantive difference between the candidates. The subject of that later debate will be, as it seems to be now in the current debates, which candidate will be the most convincing in a head to head debate with the president.
I don’t remember where I got the idea, but a disappointing and hard to ignore reality is that there is something about this president that allows him to control the conversation. Worse yet, when he controls the conversation it becomes an exercise in the inane, and to participate is to give him some weird credibility. He creates circumstances and controversy where controversy should not exist while avoiding or sidestepping important questions with diversions, fallacies, and delft use of the “well what about…” maneuver, or if you prefer “Whataboutism.” It is ridiculous to think that you can rationally debate him on any subject. He can invert reasoning or avoid logical debate of any substantive issue like whether migrant children should be taken from their parents at the border. It is even more ridiculous to try to talk with him about the ethics of retaining minor children in facilities that look like jails. How crazy is it to think that he could participate in a logical debate about the legality of using an executive order to reduce California’s ability to determine emission standards for cars driven within its borders?Any logical Republican, or one not totally terrified of his power, would see that his idea flies in the face of their 150 year advocacy of “States Rights” What would his response be in a debate if he were asked, “Do you want Southern California under a low hanging cloud of smog again?”
The president can make the subject of any debate something that only he has made an issue for our times. Now that he has attempted to undermine our political norms, the questions that he has created are the big issues of the moment. While we debate the logic and legality of his ridiculous agenda, we continue to avoid the real issues of our time like gun violence, racism (or the flip, continuation or revitalization of white supremacy in all of its sanitized forms), and our continuing tolerance of economic inequity, which is the foundation of healthcare disparities and poverty in general. Yes, that final debate will be about who can effectively challenge him and all of his prevarications, and not about issues of substance. Deciding who can best stand up to Trump and ultimately be elected has become the only real issue of the Democratic primary process. That is not the way it should be, but that is the way it is.
Since I don’t get any real enlightenment from debates, I have turned to alternative sources, the late night talk shows. Trump has become the butt of jokes that seem to be a better way to deal with the insanity of many of his positions than to join in a debate about whether they are logical or legal. It is amazing that the big three, Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Fallon, and Stephen Colbert, harpoon the president almost every night to the delight of their audiences. Seth Meyers, Trevor Noah, Samantha Bee, Conan O’Brien, and James Corden, do the same thing for viewers who stay up really late or are loyal viewers who are drawn to their unique humor. Conan O’Brien has volunteered to help the president succeed in buying Greenland. John Oliver on HBO’s “This Week Tonight” is on for only thirty minutes a week, but Oliver probably offers some of the most fact based, well constructed, and informative information on air about the president’s illiberal tendencies.
I admit to having a preference for Stephen Colbert’s monologues that are on almost every week night when he is not on one of his numerous vacations. He has given just about every Democratic candidate an opportunity to appear on his show, and according to one industry analyst (the link at the beginning of the last paragraph) Colbert is the best of all the late night Trump roasters. Colbert has given the most airtime to Trump’s potential opponents.
The Late Show with Stephen Colbert is by far the most dedicated late night show when it comes to covering all things Trump. And the show has been rewarded by consistently topping the ratings…
I’ve run down the list of those currently qualified for the next debate and Colbert has interviewed everyone of them with the exception of the latest addition, billionaire Tom Steyer. If you want to hear any of these delightful exchanges that may well reveal more than you will ever learn from the debates just type into your search engine “Name of candidate” on the Colbert Late Night Show.”
Elizabeth Warren returned to Colbert’s show on Tuesday for a long interview in two segments. The second segment was such a good exchange that I have transcribed it for you just in case you can’t invest the six minutes it will take you to watch it. He pushes her hard about who is going to pay for Medicare for all. Bernie Sanders has been asked the same question many times.
Stephen: (to the audience) We’re back with presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren.
Stephen: (to Senator Warren) When I say you look back, I don’t mean you’re backward thinking. I’m trying to say that there were certain things that were gained in the 20th century that you are proposing that we go back to that people are calling radical, but they’re actually they used to be taken for granted. The most radical thing that you’re proposing is Medicare for all.
Senator Warren: Ugh, huh. You think that’s the most radical? I kinda like the 2% wealth tax myself. But yeah, I like them all. I’ll take them all. But, I am big on Medicare for all.
Stephen: I think the 2% wealth tax is nothing compared to the 90% top tax bracket that happened, was during the Eisenhower Administration. So that is not as radical as that was before. But there’s never been Medicare for all before. You keep being asked in the debates, “How are you going to pay for it? Are you going to raise the middle class taxes?”
Senator Warren: Right
Stephen: How are you going to pay for it? Are you going to raise the middle class taxes?
Senator Warren: So, here’s how we’re going to do this. Costs are going to go up for the wealthiest Americans, for big corporations.
Stephen:Taxes which is what you mean by “cost?”
Senator Warren: Yea, and hard working middle-class families are going to see their costs go down. And…
Stephen: But, will their taxes go up?
Senator Warren: But, here’s the thing…
Stephen: …no but, here’s the thing. I’ve listened to these answers a few times before, and I just want to make a parallel suggestion for you about how you might defend the taxes that perhaps you’re not mentioning in your sentence. It’s that, isn’t Medicare for all like public school?
Senator Warren: (interrupting Colbert) … so you know actually, I…
Stephen: ( interrupting Warren to finish his thought) ...their might be taxes for it but you certainly save a lot of money on sending your kids to school, and do you want to live in a world where kids aren’t educated? Do you want to live in a world where your fellow citizens are dying even if it costs a little bit of money?
Senator Warren: (Her tone becomes more serious) I accept your point and I believe in your point. Healthcare is a basic human right. We fight for basic human rights and that’s medicare-for-all. Everyone gets covered. But, here’s how I look at it. I’ve spent a big chunk of my career studying why families go broke, and a big reason that families go broke is health care, and even today people with insurance are going broke over a bad medical diagnosis. And, people are getting stretched financially. Why? Well, first you have high premiums, and then you’ve got that co-pay. You need to go to the doctor, you’re going to have to do a co-pay. Oh, and for, the insurance company says I’m sorry we’re not going to cover that doctor, not in network, and then for the specialist that you need to see that the insurance company says, “No you don’t need to see the specialist.” And the extra physical therapy, and for going to the pharmacy, and that drug is not covered, and this has a high co-pay. Families are paying and paying, and paying, and a big part of the reason they’re paying is because the insurance companies have set up their business model. And their model is to rake in as much money as you can in premiums, and then say no as often as you can to health care coverage. And the consequence of that is they pulled $23 billion dollars out of the system last year. They imposed costs on everyone else with all the forms that had to be filled out, and people arguing over could they get this covered and that covered. This is not a sustainable health care system. I am so deeply grateful to President Obama who moved this country to say, “We as a country want every person here to have health care coverage.” And now, it’s time to take the next step and say let’s do that in the most effective way possible, and what every study shows is that Medicare for all is the cheapest way to do that, and it’s the way to make sure that those who have more will pay more, but that hardworking families will pay less. Nobody has to go bankrupt over health care, if we get Medicare for all.
Senator Warren pauses, smiles and shakes her head positively in affirmation of what she has just said. There is some applause and some muffled cheers from the audience, but not nearly the response that she had gotten earlier in the evening when she called President Trump the epitome of corruption.
Stephen: Now, a couple of quick ones. My old lightning round…
Colbert moves on to other subjects.
Whether you watch it or read it, it was an important exchange. It’s my opinion that Senator Warren almost handled the question well, and that Colbert was trying to help her present a plausible explanation about what real people would experience. What will happen to the total cost of care, and whether or not the benefit to the country and to individuals is worth that cost, is the critical question that needs further discussion. It would be great to believe that the total cost of care might go down, but that will be even a harder sell to a skeptical middle class. The debates will never clear up that question to everyone’s satisfaction. Warren needs to develop an answer that promotes trust in her advocacy for Medicare for all.
Colbert came much closer to provoking a real conversation about this complex subject of healthcare and the reason to move to Medicare for all than I have heard any of the “serious journalists” pull off during the debates. I think Warren struggled at first, and then found her voice. What she said has become “boilerplate” for her and for Sanders. The question of what Medicare will cost the average individual is even a harder barrier to overcome than the issue of whether you can keep your care if you want it.
Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post pointed out that Warren came up short in the Colbert/Warren exchange. She implied, and I think the transcript supports, the idea that Colbert gave Warren a chance to “come clean” about the fact that taxes will go up for many people with Medicare for all. He also laid the groundwork for a statement from Warren that any increase in taxes would be balanced by societal value, and perhaps even be associated with enough reduction in healthcare premiums to leave most families with more money in their pockets. Sanders has gone further with this argument, and he has pointed out that the current system is going to be getting more and more expensive. I hope that Warren will eventually get there on costs because much of her explanation is right on. It is interesting that the URL for the Rubin article says something that her column does not say:
Maybe I missed it in my reading of the column, but I agree,
maybe-stephen-colbert-should-moderate-next-debate/
On the question of whether Elizabeth Warren could go toe to toe with the president in a series of debates and come out on top, I am beginning to believe that I would not bet against her. I also hope that Colbert will continue to bring in the candidates and push them hard with his balance of good humor and questions that are hard to dodge.
Thank You Cokie.
I was deeply saddened this week when I heard that Cokie Roberts had died from her recurrent breast cancer. I was a huge fan of her intellect, presence, and communication style. I am a news junkie, and I have my favorite commentators. She was one of my most favorite favorites. If I made a list of my favorite providers of news and commentary, no one would be higher on my list. Her obituary in the New York Times leaves no doubt about her contributions, but it is woefully inadequate as a description of my appreciation of her talent. It’s just not enough to say:
Ms. Roberts was known to millions for both her reporting and her commentaries, moving easily among radio, television and print to explain the impact of world events and the intricacies of policy debates.
The Times obit did give Barack and Michelle Obama’s tribute:
In a statement, former President Barack Obama and the former first lady Michelle Obama called Ms. Roberts “a role model to young women at a time when the profession was still dominated by men; a constant over 40 years of a shifting media landscape and changing world, informing voters about the issues of our time and mentoring young journalists every step of the way.”
It is impossible to sum up the positive impact of such a life in a few words. Certainly it was beyond the capacity of our current president who could not control his narcissism even when all that was required was an acknowledgement of our collective loss:
“I never met her. She never treated me nicely. But I would like to wish her family well. She was a professional and I respect professionals. I respect you guys a lot, you people a lot. She was a real professional. Never treated me well, but I certainly respect her as a professional.”
I never met her either, but I did have the pleasure of hearing her speak once, and I am grateful for her lifetime of effort to bring us the news, the facts, and her honest opinion to consider as we try to make sense of our complicated world. She was one of those people who are such a positive force in your life that you feel that you really know them. Suffice it to say, her life made a positive difference in my life, and I am thankful.
Color Is Coming
Nighttime temps have been in the mid forties. In the early morning fog hangs over the lake. During the day the temp struggles to get to the low sixties. The air is light. A constant breeze during the day keeps a chop on the water of the lake, but in the evening the wind stills, the water gets glassy and the fishing has improved-a little. Along the shore line there is beginning to be some color that is early evidence of what is coming.
My neighbor who is a drone photographer caught the sense of it all in a little video that he published about a year ago. I was lucky to be able to lift today’s header from that video as a screen shot. You might remember that my lake is divided by a long peninsula which appears at the bottom of the picture. The brother of the drone photographer is a geologist and reports that the far right side of the peninsula was created by a glacial esker, and from the middle of the peninsula and extending to the left, the remainder of the peninsula is a glacial drumlin. It is hard to appreciate in this view, but from the shore line the peninsula bends like an arm. Everything from the “axilla” to the elbow is the eskar. From the elbow to the wrist it is a drumlin. I hope that does not bore you. It fascinates me. As I am sitting on the lake, I look up and try to imagine the glacier that was here only 12,000 years ago. It is amazing that the glacier was like a mountain that rose a mile into the sky.
As your eye moves toward the middle of the picture you see a smaller peninsula on the left. If you follow the far shore from that little peninsula toward the top of the lake you come to where I live. My home is around the corner of that far shore at the upper left corner of the lake. Mount Sunapee and a little strip of Lake Sunapee are at the top of the picture, but what makes the picture timely is the mist on the water and the early color along the shores.
The weatherman is suggesting that summer may make an encore appearance over the weekend. Don’t waste your time indoors watching either the Red Sox or the Patriots. The Patriots will win, and it won’t make any difference if the Red Sox do.
Be well, take good care of yourself, let me hear from you often, and don’t let anything keep you from doing the good that you can do every day,
Gene
