Whitcomb: Trump’s Admirable Decision; TV Land; Socializing the Risk

Robert Whitcomb, Columnist

Whitcomb: Trump’s Admirable Decision; TV Land; Socializing the Risk

Robert Whitcomb, former Editor of the Editorial Page
Trump’s admirable decision; TV Land; Socializing the Risk; New England Cod Stocks Are Way Down

 

President Trump was absolutely right to order missile attacks on mass-murderer Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s forces in retaliation for this verminous criminal’s latest poison gas attack on civilians. The president was eloquent in decrying the sadistic brutality of the Assad regime. "Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women and children," he said.

GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST

 

I wish he had said such things long before, but his new clarity and resolution after Assad’s latest war crime was welcomed by all those who know that appeasing thugs like Assad only encourages them to widen their barbarism. Civilized people everywhere applaud Mr. Trump’s decisive action.

 

"It is in the vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons," said Mr. Trump. Quite right.

 

Before he ordered missile attacks on the airfield from which the regime launched its latest war crime, he called the poison gas outrage “a consequence of the last administration’s weakness and irresolution.’’ Indeed, President Obama’s wishful thinking and passivity in the Mideast in failing to act against Assad (propped up by  fellow murderer/kleptocrat Vladimir Putin and the Iranian regime)  has had catastrophic results. Of course, Mr. Trump himself had long strenuously opposed attacking Assad’s regime.

 

It will be interesting to see how the president’s (former?) friends in the Kremlin, who have much blood on their hands as Assad’s allies, respond to Mr. Trump’s decision.

 

xxx

 

 

David Thomson, one of the most respected film reviewers, has written a terrific book about another medium in Television: A Biography (Thames & Hudson), an erudite and yet accessible discussion about the first 70 years of television as a mass medium, focusing on American television. He shows how TV and the broader culture evolved together, and how commercially and politically powerful TV swiftly became, including in electing good and bad presidents and other politicians and informing and misinforming three generations. He does this with numerous enlightening, amusing and troubling anecdotes connected with themes that link  the medium’ s decades.

 

I’m old enough to have seen most of this evolution, from fuzzy recollections of fuzzy images of Queen Elizabeth II’s  coronation;  the hijinks of Ernie Kovacs and Lucille Ball; the ads for detergents and kids’ cereal that seemed to finance the ‘50s;  Dave Garroway and his sidekick chimp on The Today Show; the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon presidential debate, which  Nixon won on the radio but Kennedy won on TV;  JFK’s assassination; the Vietnam War; the Watergate hearings; increasingly frank “adult’’ crime and other shows;   the rise of highly politicized cable TV news and opinion stations;  an explosion in pharmaceutical  ads (which have helped drive up healthcare costs); 9/11, and the wars and edgy comedy shows since then.

 

As do most people, I have vivid memories of where  I watched TV – such as the sitting room in our house, smoky from my mother’s Salem cigarettes, looking at the  funny and racist Amos ‘n’ Andy – black and white TV indeed! – to my school’s common room watching JFK’s funeral, with the haunting dirge of The Navy Hymn,  to the  college fraternity house room where we saw our contemporaries get shot at in the Vietnam War, to The Wall Street Journal newsroom hearing/seeing Nixon resign, to,  in a Jerusalem hotel room, learning of Princess Diana’s death, and watching, in The Providence Journal’s commentary department, the collapse of the Twin Towers – an event so transfixing that I had to ask my staff after an hour to turn off the TV and go back to work.

 

Television has both mirrored and profoundly changed American culture.

 

Whether you watch a lot of TV or not, you can’t begin to understand America since World War II unless you study the damn thing. Of course, with screens in virtually every residence and public place these days, it’s almost impossible, unless you’re blind, to avoid watching TV these days.

 

From what used to be a sort of successor to the family hearth, it’s now in so many places that it recalls Big Brother, in Nineteen Eight-Four, blaring, most irritatingly, in most doctors’ waiting rooms.

 

Mr. Thomson warns, “we are not in charge” of our relations with TV because “technology is less our tool than something that makes tools of us,” to sell products and people, including politicians.  Consider our current, TV-created leader, whom Mr. Thomson calls “an inspired mercurial handler of TV’’ who goes “from The Apprentice to being the apprentice’s sorcerer in one blithe insult.’’

 

 

xxx

 

Gary Sasse, who for years ran the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council and who now runs the  Hassenfeld Institute  for Public Leadership at Bryant University, tweeted a good question the other day: “If taxpayers pay for a new stadium, how much equity would taxpayers be given in the PawSox {Pawtucket Red Sox}? ‘’

 

Or, he might ask, will the risk be socialized and the reward privatized? That’s what often happens in public-private projects.

 

xxx

 

The decline of cod, presumably New England’s most famous fish, is a prime example of why we need government oversight of certain species. In the “tragedy of the commons,’’ fishermen will almost always take the short view and maximize profits by taking out of the sea as many fish as they can as fast as they can.

 

For years fishermen have complained that federal rules aimed at preserving cod  stocks through fishing bans or tight limits on catches are based on faulty science and conflict with fishermen’s (anecdotally based) observations. Well, that science was pretty damn good but Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, in response to complaints from the industry, much of which is based in Gloucester, ordered the state to do its own survey.

 

The chief finding: Cod populations have been plunging in the Gulf of Maine, with stocks down about 80 percent from a decade ago. For political reasons, Mr. Baker would have preferred a more upbeat report that avoided offending a local industry as he goes into a re-election campaign next year.

 

The fish are disappearing, partly from overfishing and, probably, partly from global warming. (Consumers can help by not ordering cod.)

 

The fact is that there are times when only government can save species. Consider the role of  the Feds, under President Theodore Roosevelt, in stopping what seemed to be the imminent extinction of the American bison (aka buffalo) by trophy and meat hunters.

 

xxx

 

People of a certain age will remember the toll booths on Interstate 95 in Connecticut, a stretch we used to call the Connecticut Turnpike. To impatient drivers the booths seemed to come every few hundred yards and must have been a major source of state employment. (Older drivers will also remember the soft bump-bump-bump as they rode over the Nutmeg State’s concrete roads,  once favored in the state over asphalt.)

 

For various reasons, the tolls and the manned booths where they were collected were removed in 1988. That speeded up traffic for a while but because the very existence of roads spawns cars and that stretch of 95 is close to what became in the ‘90s the boom town of New York City, and its extension in downtown Stamford, the congestion has gotten worse and worse.

 

Meanwhile, in large part because of Republican anti-tax mania, the federal gasoline tax has not been raised for 24 years and cars have been more fuel-efficient. Thus there’s been less and less money to fix the roads.

 

And so Connecticut officials are considering bringing back the tolls, albeit this time, of course, the money would be collected automatically through the wonder (and Orwellian nightmare) of electronics. The state would presumably use at least some of that money to help fix up its roads. It’s too bad  that the Feds have been so unhelpful in helping to maintain the Interstate Highway System, on which construction started in the Eisenhower administration.  And the Trump White House has talked (in its usual incoherent way) about shoving more of the financial obligations of public infrastructure back to the states.

 

My old friend Philip K. Howard, chairman of Common Good, the public-policy reform organization, wrote recently:

“Where can infrastructure funding come from? One obvious source is the gasoline tax, which hasn't increased in 24 years. Raising the gasoline tax by 25 cents would raise over $40 billion per year, and fund most needed highway and transit projects. This could be supplemented by a "carbon tax" on other fossil fuels. Another funding source would be tax revenue from repatriated offshore corporate earnings.

“New fees and taxes come out of our pockets, of course. But kicking the can down the road will cost us far more. An hour stuck in a traffic jam is multiple times more expensive than an extra 25 cents on each gallon of gasoline. Deferring maintenance is generally economically disastrous — increasing costs by a factor of 10, as occurred when the cables and girders of Williamsburg Bridge had to be replaced due to decades of neglect.

“Doesn't Congress have a responsibility to do what's right here? Our parents and great-grandparents paid for the infrastructure that we now use. A great city, a great country, can't thrive with decrepit roads, rails and pipes.

“Every time you're in a traffic jam — starting, say, this afternoon — think about Congress. It created a paralytic regulatory structure that prevents fixing infrastructure. Now it also refuses to help pay for it. Only Congress can cut these bureaucratic knots, raise funds, and get America moving again.’’

By the way, a study of taxes of the 35 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (mostly highly developed nations) shows that overall (federal, state and local) tax revenue as a percentage of gross domestic product ranked the United States as 31st. Denmark was ranked first.

xxx

 

America’s metro areas, most of which vote Democratic and many of which are very prosperous, subsidize the nation’s rural areas, which vote Republican and tend to have more poverty (except for some in such heavily government-subsidized  sectors as agribusiness) and health and social pathologies. Anti-poverty programs disproportionately favor Red States, not the “welfare queens’’ and illegal immigrants in such Blue State cities as New York and Los Angeles.

 

As the Trump administration, in its relentless efforts to comfort its mostly very affluent senior members by cutting income and other taxes for the rich, tries to shrink programs to help the poor, concentrated in the Red States, it will be interesting to see what Trump’s fanatical fans in those states do.

 

Ivanka Trump
Meanwhile, you have to be impressed by the confident brazenness of the Trump family and administration in seeking ways to make money off the fact that their leader, an outrageous crook, is in the White House. The administration is rife with egregious conflicts of interest, some involving the Trump Organization.

 

Near the center are Mr. Trump’s daughter Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, who learned the joys of  self-dealing and nepotism from their fathers.  Mr. Kushner’s father, like Donald Trump, is a real estate man. But Charles Kushner is also a convicted felon. In 2005, he was convicted of illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion and witness tampering, and served time in federal prison. After his release he resumed his career in real estate. 

 

But the elder Mr. Kushner has been a devoted father. Consider his $2.5 million donation to Harvard before his son was admitted despite a not very impressive secondary-school record. Now young Jared is being asked by his father-in-law to, among other minor chores, “reinvent ‘’government to make it more businesslike. (Whose business is the model?) For some sense of how this might work out, read Elizabeth Spiers’s piece about how Jared ran the New York Observer:  

 

Such families know how to get things done!

 

I have long wondered why the Republicans in Washington have tended to be much more ruthless than the Democrats. I think that one reason is that more Republicans than Democrats see government service, if it must be tolerated at all, as just another way to make money and to have power for the sake of power. Of course there are many Democratic crooks (as there many crooks in all walks of life) but a review of recent history shows Republicans the winners in the rapaciousness sweepstakes. The Democrats are relative wimps.

 

xxx

 

It was instructive to hear President Trump fawning over Egyptian dictator Abdel Fattah el-Sisi a few weeks after treating German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, leaders of two close and democratic allies, so rudely.
 


The 50 Greatest Living Rhode Islanders

Enjoy this post? Share it with others.