Posted on by rjonakait

Minerals and Sea Lanes and NATO, Too

Dear Trump supporters:

Six months ago you knew you were going to vote for the former president. You had concerns about the border and inflation. However, I am curious where Greenland was on your list of issues. My hunch is, if you are being honest, nowhere. The largest island was not on the political radar then. We knew little about Greenland. Of course, I had heard of the almost mythological Greenlanders, Erik the Red and Lief Erikson, but that was about it until a Borgen season heavily featured Greenland. (I probably should do some explaining about that Danish TV series to my conservative friends because I assume you are not aware of it. Perhaps as Trump tries to bully Denmark, the show will be an item of interest again.) Borgen got me to read Stephen R. Brown’s White Eskimo: Knud Rasmussen’s Fearless Journey into the Heart of the Arctic about that amazing explorer. But I was not aware this campaign season that my presidential vote should consider the future of Greenland. In his seemingly endless election rallies, I did not hear Trump mention Greenland. Yes, he did talk about Greenland in 2019, which provoked much mockery, but then his mind wandered, and he did not refer to the island again. Although nothing has happened since November to change the importance of it, Trump, quiet about Greenland while seeking votes, seems now obsessed with it.

One could ask why, but I have different question for you, Trump follower. Where is Greenland now on your list of concerns? Why is it there at all? The obvious answer is because Trump has said Greenland is crucial to the security and wellbeing of America. You, however, are not woke. No one tells you what to think. You make up your own mind. Other than Trump has spoken, what information has he or anyone else given to make Greenland important to you?

You might answer that your understanding now is that melting ice in Greenland will soon make mining possible for rare and valuable minerals and perhaps there are fossil fuels. In addition, melting ice in Greenland’s environs will open new sea lanes that will be important to the United States.

My questions increase. I assume that you, dear Trump acolyte, do not believe in climate change. After all, Trump has called it a hoax. Why then do you believe that the ice will continue to melt on and around Greenland? By what Trump has said, the melting could stop in an instant because there is no such thing as global warming. Apparently, Trump and you simultaneously believe that there is no climate change but that the climate will inevitably warm. Perhaps you feel that these dual thoughts mean Trump and you have top notch intellects, relying on what F. Scott Fitzgerald said in a 1936 short story: “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” Of course, what is ignored about this oft-quoted platitude is that F. Scott said the mind must continue to function, which implies that it was working before. And, of course, what is even more ignored is that Fitzgerald, not a philosopher or psychologist, wrote this unlikely “truism” in a piece of fiction. But I digress.

Another question: Although you don’t believe in climate change but believe it will continue, how do you feel about free enterprise, free markets, capitalism, and small government? I’m guessing you’re in favor of those things. But I ask you, is there anything stopping American companies from contracting for mining rights in Greenland without America’s having to possess the island? Companies get these rights all the time and all around the world. It is part of free enterprise. Why are Greenland’s precious minerals different? When you voted for Trump were you voting for a regime where American taxpayers pay billions, maybe trillions — which is what it would cost for America to buy and maintain Greenland — for the benefit of a few corporations?

Of course, six months ago, Trump minions pronounced concerns about the national debt. Where has this worry gone? Is there a source of money to buy and maintain Greenland other than through more debt? But, of course, just as it was with Trump last time around, deficits and the debt only matter when conservatives don’t control the government, not when they do.

If new sea lanes open as more non-climate-change warming continues, shipping could be easier and, therefore, cheaper. America should have free and fair access to these routes. What information does Trump have that we won’t have that access without owning Greenland? How does purchasing or seizing Greenland assure that? China may wish to be an arctic power, but Russia is the country that has the most at stake in the new sea lanes. Is Trump worried about what Putin is about to do up north? Wait. I thought the two were buddies. When Trump ends the Ukraine war, surely he and Putin can continue to amicably settle the question of arctic access for all. On the other hand, if those sea lanes need to be protected, do we really need all of Greenland? Why not rely on our military base there (which I have not heard Trump mention)? Gosh, I hope Greenland isn’t so mad at us that we can’t negotiate for a new base there. Finally, isn’t it cheaper to rent a room than buy the whole hotel? Trump might actually have some expertise on that topic.

Trump acolytes, I have a related question. Trump has railed against NATO. He has hinted that he would withdraw from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization if other NATO countries don’t pony up more money. Will he pull out? This is crucially important. You can correct me if I don’t understand this, but I thought that NATO countries are not obligated to respond if one NATO country, say Turkey, attacks another, say Greece. On the other hand, NATO must act if a country outside NATO attacks a NATO country. If, for example, Russia invades Lithuania, NATO must defend the Baltic nation. Greenland is covered by NATO, I believe. If the United States is part of NATO and takes military action against Greenland, the rest of NATO can sit it out. But if Trump successfully withdraws America from the organization, NATO, comprising more than thirty countries, several with nuclear capabilities, would be obligated to respond to hostile U.S. military forces in Greenland.

Finally, Trump has indicated that if Denmark does not allow the Trump brand to be put on Greenland, he will impose heavy tariffs on that country. You might think, Fine. But there must be somewhere some Trump supporters who no longer want to be overweight. How do you feel about the tariffs when you learn that Denmark is the sole supplier to the U.S. of Ozempic?

Oh, Greenland. Your sea lanes and minerals. U.S. taxpayer money spent to aid corporations with an interest in those sea lanes and minerals. Increased deficits and debt for America. Possibly World War III. And even more expensive Ozempic. Oh, this could be interesting.

Posted on by rjonakait · 1 Comment

We Stand on Guard for Thee

John F. Kennedy speaking to the Canadian Parliament in 1961:

Geography has made us neighbors. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies. Those whom nature hath so joined together, let no man put asunder.

Born and raised in Wisconsin, I grew up closer to Canada than most Americans. As a result, I may have given Canada more thought than most U.S. citizens. And that means almost none. (Brief, simple quiz: How many Canadian provinces are there? Name them. How about the territories? Advanced placement: Name three of the governors, if that is the right term, of the provinces.) But our minority-vote-getting president-elect has elevated Canada in the national consciousness. Making Canada a U.S. state at first seemed a harmless bit of whimsy, but he keeps harping on it. Prominent Canadians have rejected the idea in colorful ways. But now that my attention has been directed to our northern neighbor, I am hoping that they will consider becoming part of the U.S. It is intriguing how they might change this country.

Canada’s population would entitle it to more than fifty seats in the House of Representatives. The size of the House has been capped at 435 since 1929. That number was temporarily increased to 437 in 1959 after Hawaii and Alaska became states, but it returned to 435 after the 1960 census. If that pattern were followed, the House size would temporarily increase and settle back to 435 after the next census.

Now. If Canada were to become a state and the House size remains the same, that would mean that fifty existing House seats would have to be eliminated. Perhaps Trump thinks Canada can become a state solely through presidential fiat, but in the past, it was clear that the Constitution required both houses of Congress and a presidential signature to create a new state. It is hard to picture the House voting for anything that would eliminate fifty existing House districts. That probably dooms Canadian statehood. But I assure you that if I could oversee which fifty would disappear, I would be an enthusiastic supporter of Canadian statehood.

The effect on the Senate would be less dramatic, but I say to Canada, Why not bargain, eh? Instead of joining the U.S. as one state, insist that each province come in as a separate state. (We can figure out what to do with the territories later.) That would be not two, but twenty additional members of the upper House. (Yes, there are ten Canadian provinces.)

And then there is the electoral college. Even if Canada joined the U.S. as a single state, it would still be the largest bloc of electoral votes, about a tenth of the total.

Canadians, if they used their power wisely, could control the House. If they could come in as ten states, they could probably control the Senate. And their influence in the electoral college would be immense. In other words, Canadians could control the North American continent from Key West to Hudson Bay (and perhaps Greenland, too.)

I see some benefits to that. Canada has stricter gun laws than the U.S. With Canadians as the power brokers, we could have them here. The government pays directly for much of Canadian healthcare. We could have that here. Canada has no criminal restrictions on abortion, and abortion is widely available throughout the country. We could have that here. And perhaps those snappy Royal Canadian Mountie uniforms could become standard in the U.S. The world, in my opinion, would be better with more Dudley Do-Rights.

There are a couple of things, however, that might be dealbreakers for Canadian statehood and a couple of other things I am not sure about. We would have to do something about Canada’s connections with British royalty. I know that there are many Americans who are inexplicably besotted with that royalty, but real Americans don’t want anything to do with a monarchy (even if some misguided Americans want Trump to be a monarch). While there might be some division on British royalty, there should be no debate on jettisoning the Canadian national anthem; it’s even worse than ours.

There is more to consider. Canadian statehood would probably increase the already large Canadian cultural influences on the rest of America. Do we really want more Canadian singers, comedians, and wrestlers than we have now? Can we have Canadian statehood without more Justin Biebers? On the other hand, I loved the Red Green show. Our economy as well as our culture will be affected. Certainly, Canadian companies will have a freer rein in the lower forty-eight than now. Would the wider availability of Tim Horton maple donuts and controversial Montreal bagels be a good thing, or would RFK ban those sugary treats and empty carbohydrates?

But even though there may be some undesirable consequences, better gun control, a different healthcare system, and abortion availability make Canada statehood worth it, and that is so even if I must hear “eh” more often. Please, Canada, don’t close the door to U.S. statehood. You have the potential to remake the United States into a better place. Please stand on guard for me.

Posted on by rjonakait

Snippets

After the New Orleans New Year attack, Trump wrote that this confirmed that our country was unsafe because criminals were crossing the border. A Fox News host said that the country would soon be safer after Trump closed the border. Marjorie Taylor Greene suggested the same. This was said even though the terrorist, an Army veteran, was an American citizen born and raised and living in Texas. Perhaps what Trump and the others were really suggesting is that we close the border between Texas and the rest of the country. This might not make the United States safer, but it would make me feel better.

I was surprised that the New Orleans terrorist was flying an ISIS flag. Trump destroyed that organization in 2019. Or at least that is what he said.

The Washington, D.C., homicide rate, which increased while Trump was president, has been decreasing.

His death brings to mind some Jimmy Carter trivia as well as a story about his mother. This is drawn from Jonathan Alter, His Very Best: Jimmy Carter, A Life (2020). Because he was a veteran, Carter qualified for and lived in a new government housing complex shortly after leaving the Navy. He thus became the only president to have lived in public housing.

Carter is the last president not to have golfed while in office.

It was loudly proclaimed that the Carters did not lie. A reporter asked Jimmy’s mother about this, and Lillian Carter conceded that the family told white lies. When the reporter asked for an example, Miss Lillian replied, “Remember how when you walked in here, I told you how sweet and pretty you were?”

“Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.” Walter Lippman.

I had a dream I was in hell; I was trapped in a corner at an endless cocktail party by a birder.

Given our divided country, I like to recall the words of some political and historical observers: “Conservatives are but people who learned to love the new order forced upon them by radicals.” And: “Radicals: Those who advance and consolidate a position for the conservatives to advance a little later.”

Posted on by rjonakait

Books 2024

Two years ago, I wrote about my reading habits, which include listing all the books I have read in a year. (See “My Book List” of January 2 and 4, 2023.) I continue to keep such a list; it’s a good thing I keep it because I remember few of the books I finish. What I wrote previously still applies: “I do wonder why I read. I read few books closely. I remember well only a few of the books I finish. I do get some fodder for this blog from my reading. It produces the ‘First Sentences’ I occasionally post. Sometimes the reading gives me an idea for a post or a quotation to use. But I don’t read as if I am researching for the blog or anything else. I read because I read.” Henry Grabar’s Paved Paradise: How Parking Explains the World typifies much about my reading. I remember that the book has a lot of fascinating information and insights, but I can’t now tell you what they are. As I read over this year’s list, however, I realize that a few still stick in my mind. These include:

Bob Dylan’s The Philosophy of Modern Song. Dylan’s musings about popular songs are often surprising and set me in search of many he wrote about. Thank you, YouTube.

Patrick Bringley’s All the Beauty in the World: The Metropolitan Museum of Art and Me. Bringley left his job with the New Yorker after the untimely death of his brother and became a guard for ten years at the Met. He writes movingly about grief and art.

Rupert Holmes’s Murder Your Employer: McMasters Guide to Homicide. A clever book. I would say it was Harry Potter-ish, but since I have not read any of the Harry Potter books, I’m guessing.

Vanessa Walters’s The Nigerwife, a striking mystery with a setting that opened a new world to me.

Rashid Khalidi, The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine: A History of Settler Colonialism and Resistance, 1917-2017. This is essential reading for making any sense out of the Mideast. It was the selection of two different book groups I attended.

Chris Van Tulleken’s Ultra-Processed People: The Science Behind Food that Isn’t Food. This convinced me that I should not eat ultra-processed foods. And someday perhaps I won’t.

Abraham Riesman, RingMaster: Vince McMahon and the Unmaking of America. Is Trump’s best friend really Vince McMahon?

A.J. Jacobs, The Year of Living Constitutionally: One Man’s Humble Quest to Follow the Constitution’s Original Meaning. Amusing and insightful about our founding document and how we now often mistakenly regard it.

Walter R. Brooks, Freddy and the Perilous Adventure (illustrated by Kurt Wiese). I still enjoy the sly wit of Freddy the Pig books.

Christopher Morley, Parnassus on Wheels. An old-fashioned delight from the beginning of the twentieth century.

Ta-Nehisi Coates, The Message. Coates always makes me think and makes me check my assumptions.

Percival Everett’s James. At times this retelling of Huckleberry Finn took my breath away.

Posted on by rjonakait

Snippets

A student at the Abundant Life Christian School shot and killed another student and a teacher and wounded others. And I thought, If only we had prayer and Bible study in the classroom, this would not happen. Oh, wait a minute; this was a Christian school.

Where is Elon Musk? Trump suggests that the government will study any connection between vaccines and autism. Such research has been done many, many times with the same result (i.e., there is no connection). This is a clear waste of taxpayer money. However, I don’t expect Elon or Vivek to speak out against this reckless spending.

I used to play a lot of tennis, but those days are over.  Friends urge me to play pickleball, but I have not. The name pickleball is silly. The game is sillier. And you can tell the game was invented by some old-fashioned men. You can’t set foot in one part of the court. They named it the kitchen.

There are movements again to get rid of daylight savings time, although proposals differ. Some want to return to God’s time when at noon the sun is overhead. Others want to have permanent daylight savings time without the twice-yearly shift. (No more Spring forward, Fall back.)  But what we should really remember is what a wise person said: “The best way to save daylight is to use it.”

Especially during the holiday season, we should remember what Jerry Seinfeld has said: Nothing in life is “fun for the whole family.”

Over the last few decades Republicans have been responsible for most of the drama surrounding government shutdowns. I learned from C.W. Goodyear’s President Garfield: From Radical to Unifier (2023) that the first government shutdown was caused by Democrats. It was under President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1879. The Congressional term expired without passing sufficient funding for the government. Democrats attached riders, that is, unrelated provisions, to appropriations legislation to curb federal poll watching in the South. Hayes vetoed these bills. Goodyear writes, “Never before had a House majority deprived the government of funding in an attempt to extort a policy change.” Eventually the Democrats backed down and the government resumed. There was no mention of a debt ceiling.

Perhaps showing my age, I had no idea who Andrew McCarthy was, but I plucked his book Walking with Sam: A Father, a Son, and Five Hundred Miles Across Spain off the Barrett Friendly Library shelves. The book about hiking the Camino de Santiago touched me. It is a reflection on love, a father and son, fame, faded fame, ham, eggs, lots of pizza, blisters, physical and other pains, and…well, love. It made me reflect on much in my life.

After the House ethics report on Matt Gaetz, I wonder if Woody Allen’s line is still true: “The most expensive sex is free sex.”

Posted on by rjonakait

Greenland Redux

The last time around, Trump showed a fascination with Greenland. He wanted to buy it. Well, not personally. Once again forgetting pledges on deficits, he wanted our tax dollars to pay for it. To me at least, it was never clear why. Now, as the countdown to his next term continues, he again indicates, without giving reasons, that we should own Greenland. Whether he is serious may depend on what Elon has to say, but Trump’s comments sent me back to a post of mine in 2019 about Greenland. I have reposted it below.

President Trump wants to buy Greenland. My first reaction: I was surprised that he would want to buy white people. But then I did some reading, and I learned that Greenland’s population is 88% Greenlandic Inuit, with 12% Danes and other Europeans. Maybe that eight-to-one ratio explains the acquisition mania.

On the other hand, I never thought that Trump would think desirable a place that does not have forests to decimate and is not dependent on coal or other fossil fuels. In what seems ironic, Greenland is one of the greenest places on the planet. According to one source, seventy percent of its power comes from renewable sources, mostly from hydropower. But perhaps this is an attraction for Trump. He can fulfill his promise to bring back jobs to the West Virginia coal fields by “ordering” the Greenlanders under some national security rationale to use coal. I can see the slogan as Trump supporters wear tee shirts proclaiming, “Make Greenland Sooty (Again).”

I wondered how Greenlanders have reacted to the proposed purchase by a world leader who does not believe in climate change. Greenland is ground zero for global warming. An ice sheet covers four-fifths of the island; it weighs so much that it has depressed the central part of the island making it almost a thousand feet below sea level. The glaciers have been experiencing increased run-offs contributing to the rise of sea levels. Does a lessened ice mass also mean that the land will rise?

Perhaps, however, the Greenlanders favor global warming. It would not be surprising. Greenland’s capital and largest city, with a population of more than 17,000 (Quick! What is it?), Nuuk, averages high temperatures below freezing for more than half the year. I assume, however, that the tourist agencies point out that the temperatures in July regularly reach a relatively balmy fifty degrees Fahrenheit. A few degrees warmer and perhaps the residents will be able to break out bikinis and speedos. During the summer, the sun rises at 3:00 A.M. and sets at midnight, so there is a lot of daylight for any unrestrained outdoor frivolity. Of course, during the winters, the sun is above the horizon for only four hours, but those long nights perhaps call out for other appropriate activities.  

If Trump does buy Greenland, you would think he ought to make at least one visit, even though that is unlikely since he does not own a hotel there and won’t be able to bill the American taxpayers for his stay. But perhaps those long nights appeal to him for all the dark hour tweets he can unleash. I may not have anticipated that Trump would float the purchase idea, but surely no one should have been startled that he showed the usual pique when those nasty Danish threw ice water on the idea. Canceling a scheduled trip to Denmark seems par for his course, but, of course, he does not own a golf course in Denmark and does not apparently have a way to bill us taxpayers and increase his revenues by a Copenhagen visit.

It was expected that conservative pundits would weigh in and maintain that Trump was again showing his genius. Too often the difference between these commentators and a rubber stamp is that the latter leaves an impression, but I was surprised that Trump-is-always-right sycophants have cited climate change—yes, climate change!–as a reason why the U.S. should purchase Greenland. An article on the Fox News website states, “But what makes Greenland particularly valuable to the United States is global warming. The unavoidable receding of Arctic sea ice will open a new sea route in the Arctic that can be used for both commercial and military vessels.” What especially struck me about this contention was the use of the term unavoidable. Global warming is happening, the writer to my surprise wrote, but his position is that it is inevitable. Increasing temperatures can’t be helped, apparently. I guess the writer believes that it is God’s will, so we should just go with it and seize opportunities. If we can keep the warming going and the ice diminishing and the seas rising, new sea routes will open allowing ships to go where they have not gone before. So, stop being so negative about climate change (which Trump says is not happening) and revel in new sea lanes.

What the writer did not make clear, however, is why the new ship routes, if they occur, mean that it is essential that we own Greenland. Aren’t there many sea lanes around the world important to us where we do not own the adjacent land? Why is this different?

This writer also said, as did others who find a way to support Trump after he makes a pronouncement no matter what it is, that Greenland has valuable minerals that should not fall into China’s hands. Why, then, don’t we try to buy the mineral rights? Indeed, those of us who believe in free enterprise and fair trade should expect American corporations to see the opportunity and seek to get all this valuable stuff. These Trump-is-amazing writers don’t explain this apparent failure of American capitalism. Where is their faith in free enterprise without government intervention? Isn’t that the point of cutting governmental regulations, which they support?

One of those in the Trump-is-brilliant camp is Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton. He recently published an op-ed piece in the New York Times. (Why is that when conservatives want to be taken as deep thinkers they so often publish in the “failing” Times? Mitch McConnell also placed an op-ed article with the “enemy of the people” the previous week. His piece was one about the importance of filibusters for our constitutional government glossing over that he had removed those all-important filibusters for Supreme Court nominees.) Cotton contended that the Greenlanders should welcome coming under American sovereignty. Denmark now subsidizes Greenland to the tune of at least $650 million dollars annually. America has more money than does the Danish government, so we can do even better for the Greenlanders, Cotton maintained. The Senator surprised me. He wants to commit to a new and expensive welfare program. He opposes entitlement programs for American citizens, but he wants to open the floodgates for those who are now foreigners. Is this the new conservatism? What do Cotton and the others feel about increased federal support for Puerto Rico? Or have I underestimated Trump? Were his remarks merely an opening salvo, and his real goal is to swap Puerto Rico for Greenland? The Art of the Deal may be more subtle than I ever thought.

I wonder, if in stating that America can increase governmental moneys in Greenland, whether Cotton has examined where the Danish subsidies go. Health care in Greenland is paid for by the government, and Danish subsidies support that. Cotton, who adamantly opposes the Affordable Care Act, expects America to expand single-payer medical services in the new possession. And here I thought that Trump supporters believed in America first!

Does Cotton realize that part of the healthcare in Greenland is for abortion on demand? Greenland now has one of the highest abortion rates in the world. In fact, abortions have exceeded live births in recent years. (Remember those long nights.) He supports the laws that prevent the federal government from paying anything for abortions in the United States no matter how poor the woman or how the pregnancy—think rape and incest–occurred, but Cotton wants to increase funding for this medical procedure in Greenland. (I am told that when residents of Greenland’s capital Nuuk do want a baby, they say, “Let’s have a little Nuukie.”) And perhaps Cotton should also examine how education is funded in Greenland.

Cotton is a hardliner about our immigration system, concerned that Mexicans and Central Americans are lured here by all the goodies they can get out of our government. Shouldn’t he and other conservatives then be concerned that when we increase the freebies to Greenlanders, illegal immigration will uncontrollably increase there as refugees see Greenland as a new land of welfare opportunity? Perhaps Cotton, who supports Trump’s border wall, is already planning to build a wall around Greenland to stop illegal immigration that he must think will inevitably occur. Perhaps Cotton ought to give at least an estimate as to how much federal money he thinks we will spend over there.

I also wonder if Cotton and the other Trump-is-marvelous crowd have thought about the status of those who would fall under American sovereignty. If we own Greenland, will we provide a path to American citizenship for those who live there, or will they automatically be citizens? Will they have an unfettered right to permanent residence in the United States? If so, how long does one have to be a Greenlander for that right? Puerto Ricans are American citizens and can come and go to the United States whenever they wish. Guam, which we own, is similar. Those born on Guam are American citizens who can move to the rest of America. (For reasons I don’t understand while Guamanians have birthright citizenship, those born in American Samoa do not.) If Greenland is to be treated like Guam, aren’t conservatives concerned that refugees will flock to Greenland and have ice-floe babies who will be American citizens who can freely emigrate to America? I am guessing that before conservatives grapple with such questions, they will have to ascertain whether Greenlanders lean Democratic or Republican. And perhaps even more important: Will there be a path to statehood for Greenland? Just because they have fewer than 60,000 people doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have two Senators and three electoral votes, just as long as they vote Republican.

We have acquired much territory through purchase in our history. As far as I know, we never sought to find out whether the people who already lived on those lands desired a new sovereign. In essence, they were treated like Russian serfs. You buy the land, you buy the people on the land. Should we who proclaim democracy and government of “we the people” continue such a feudal practice? Will there be some sort of plebiscite; will the leaders of Greenland be consulted? (I have no idea who the chief griot of Greenland is, but I am confident neither does our president.)

The Fox News writer points out, however, that we have bought lands before—including the Louisiana purchase, the Gadsden Purchase, Florida, and Alaska, and he concludes that Trump could simply buy Greenland. Hold on–it has never been that simple. We do have a Constitution, and the consent of Congress or the Senate has been necessary for those purchases. We may say that President Jefferson and Secretary of State Monroe made the Louisiana Purchase, but in fact Congress ratified and authorized the funds for it. The Gadsden Purchase and the acquisitions of Florida, Alaska, and other lands came via treaties together with the authorization of the funds from Congress. A treaty, of course, requires not just the consent of the Senate, but consent by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. Do you really think that is going to happen? Or does Trump have another trick up his sleeve that he will maintain justifies him in his mind to take unilateral action and do another end run around our Constitution—that document that conservatives proclaim to love so dearly?

Posted on by rjonakait

Panama Redux

The Republicans almost produced a government shutdown again and may have merely postponed it for a few months. As a result, the Speaker of the House may be out in the cold in several weeks and the GOP may then show its fractures even more clearly. While this brouhaha was going on, Trump was talking about seizing the Panama Canal. This all brings to mind my previous post about the Panama Canal treaties, which I have reproduced below.

Knowledgeable people find the roots of the Republican Party’s current dysfunction in the hyperpartisanship practiced by Newt Gingrich when he became Speaker of the House in 1995. Others find tentacles spreading from the Tea Party movement, which emerged in 2009 and brought conspiracy theories into mainstream politics. But seeds were planted twenty years earlier with the now largely forgotten battle over the Panama Canal treaties. In his book, Drawing the Line at the Big Ditch: The Panama Canal Treaties and the Rise of the Right (2008), Adam Clymer explains how the fight over the Panama Canal Treaties helped fuel the rise of the modern Right.

Both treaties were signed in 1977. One treaty gave the United States the right to use force to assure that the canal would remain open to ships of all nations. The second treaty gave Panama control over the canal starting in 2000.

In order to take effect, the treaties not only had to be signed by the leaders of Panama and the United States. They also had to be ratified by appropriate bodies within those countries. After Panama did so in a plebiscite, a political battle ensued in the United States Senate over their ratifications. According to Clymer, this led to the emergence of Richard Viguerie, a founder of modern conservatism, the use of direct-mail marketing, and the rise of single-issue PACs designed to raise money and defeat moderate Republicans.

Although it was President Jimmy Carter who signed the pacts, the negotiations had started under President Nixon. The treaties were thought desirable because they gave America the right to assure the canal’s neutrality, and they removed a flashpoint for much of Latin America, and Panama in particular, by giving Panama control over the canal. Those supporting the treaties maintained that they would increase the security of the canal by helping to remove the threats of guerrilla attacks, which were almost impossible for America and Panama to prevent. 

The treaties were backed by prominent conservatives, including Henry Kissinger and William Buckley, but they were also attacked by other conservatives in near-hysterical terms. Opponents maintained that this was a surrender of American sovereignty, and furthermore, the military leader of Panama was pro-Communist. Marxists would control the canal and Panama, and the harm to the U.S. as a result would be disastrous.

What is surprising to a modern surveyor of the political scene is that some Senators supported the treaty simply because they thought it was the right thing to do even though they knew that their ratification votes would harm them politically. The single-issue PACs targeted some of these Senators, and, through direct-mail marketing (enter Richard Viguerie), inflamed a cadre of voters. Republicans who supported the treaties were defeated in primaries when they stood for reelection. Their overall record did not matter. Their vote on this one issue doomed their political careers. On the other hand, Ronald Reagan opposed the Treaty, and some, including Bill Buckley, maintained that the treaty controversy helped elect Reagan president.

This issue is now largely forgotten even though its aftermath continues to affect the United States. A lesson from the controversy has been absorbed, even if that lesson’s source is not remembered. Republican politicians now fear that if they don’t toe some single-issue lines, a portion of conservatives will target them and defeat them in the primaries. The result is that the politicians cannot develop nuanced positions; compromises are verboten. Instead, the “wrong” stance on individual issues can result in a primary defeat even if the politician accepts the conservative line on other matters. If I don’t completely accept the NRA’s positions, I may be defeated in the primary. If I adopt a moderate stance on abortion, I may be defeated in the primaries. If I have concerns about tax cuts, I may be, in today’s terms, “primaried.” And so on. The result is a lockstep, hard-right conservatism. Back in 1978, some conservative Senators studied a complex situation and decided that a ratification vote for the Panama Canal treaties was in the best interests of the country. What is remembered is not that their position was right, but that some lost their political careers as a result.

History, of course, has shown the proponents to be correct. The Canal functions just fine. Panama is not a hotbed of anti-American Communism. Those who were wrong, however, did not pay a price for their belief; they continued in office. And most of us have forgotten the debate.

In what now seems impossible, Democrats and Republicans joined together to ratify the treaties. Fifty-two Democrats and sixteen Republicans voted for ratification, while ten Democrats and twenty-two Republicans voted against. We have seen little of such bipartisanship since the Panama Canal treaties. On the other hand, since that 1977 controversy we have seen many conservatives benefit even when proved wrong.

The Republican party has been on a forty-year path to its present dysfunction.

Posted on by rjonakait

I Am my Own Ancestor

The Jonakait family has not been particularly interested in family history. When I reported that a grade school classmate bragged that Abe Lincoln was somewhere in his background, my father responded, “And if he looked hard enough, he would also find a horse thief in the family tree.” My mother told me that when she was asked to fill out a form as a schoolgirl about her ethnicity, her father replied, “It’s none of their damn business. Just tell them your family is New England Yankee.”

Although none of my immediate family has studied our ancestry, one of my mother’s seven (or eight?) sisters produced an extensive family tree. My mother’s maiden name was Dewey and the tree placed its roots back to 1600 England. My maternal grandmother, who died long before I was born, was a Clement, whose roots went back to ancient England and Holland. The chart claimed that the progenitor Deweys came to America on the third or fourth boat after the Mayflower. That amused me. The passengers on the Mayflower are well documented as they might be for the next boat. I am not sure, however, that passenger manifests exist for later vessels. Who can prove you wrong if you claim the family came over in the late 1600s?

It is clear, however, that this side of my family is WASP. The tree-forming aunt did not appreciate it when I said, “You mean we are white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant and came to America before 1700. And yet we are all poor. Is this something to be proud of? What does that say about our stock? Certainly we have no excuses for our lack of wealth.”

Another part of the family tree did interest me. A nineteenth century branch noted that a female ancestor lived in upstate New York and was named Freelove Dewey. I wonder how that played out for her.

I know little about my father’s parents, even though they lived in the flat above us on Tenth Street. I never discussed anything with my grandparents about their lives. I am confident, however, that my grandmother was born in what was then Germany but is now Poland. She came to this country when she was 16-18, I think. I never heard mention of any siblings or of her parents. I assume the teenager came alone, a trip in my youth I did not think much about. I know that she strongly disliked Germany, and although my father went to a Lutheran school, she also had disdain for the church.

My paternal grandfather was born in Pennsylvania to what I was told was a German immigrant family, but perhaps it was a Lithuanian family since the part of Pennsylvania where he was born had many Lithuanian immigrants. My grandfather’s family, legend has it, moved back to Germany, but my grandfather stayed in America. I have no idea how he ended up in Wisconsin or how he met my grandmother. I don’t know what he might have done before, but he I know that he worked in the Kohler Company factory for 35 years.

I have often been asked the derivation of the Jonakait name. Most times I answer that it is a corrupted Lithuanian name. Those who know better than I say that it has Lithuanian roots but is no longer Lithuanian. Those names almost invariably end in “as” or “us.” It is clear, however, that the name was changed before anyone came to the U.S. My theory: At one time Lithuania bordered what was then East Prussia in Germany. I think a Lithuanian family moved to East Prussia and the name became modified to become less Lithuanian and more German. I think of my father’s roots as German, not only because of the altered name. Lithuania is a Catholic country that had a significant Jewish population. East Prussia was Lutheran, and my grandfather identified as Lutheran. I believe he spoke Lithuanian, although I never heard it, but I know he spoke German with his friends and his wife. My father spoke some German, but no Lithuanian. I also think of Jonakait as German because when I have googled the name, I have found a few with the name or close to the name in Germany, almost always in eastern Germany, and none in Lithuania.

One thing is clear: there are few of us Jonakaits. Some are sprinkled around the country with slightly altered spellings—Jonakeit, Jonekait, etc.—but not many. Outside of my immediate family, I never met another Jonakait.

This lack of ancestral knowledge does not bother me. Even though I know that it can’t be entirely true, I want to think that I am my own creation. However, part of who I am surely came from my parents, and then part of who my parents were, surely came from their parents. So ancestry must make some difference. There is some truth in the Chinese proverb, “To forget one’s ancestors is to be a book without a source, a tree without a root.” It must be, however, the further you go back in the ancestral tree, the less influence today and the more irrelevance. I want to be judged on what I think and do, not on who my great grandparents were or weren’t. As Russian General Mikhail Skobeleff supposedly said, “I make little account of genealogical trees. Mere family never made a man great. Thought and deed, not pedigree, are the passports to enduring fate.” (He clearly didn’t live in 19th century England.) Andoche Junot, another general, this time Napoleonic French, when asked about his ancestry, put it more succinctly, “I know nothing about it. I am my own ancestor.”

But perhaps my true driving force on this topic was stated by a modern sage in a tweet: “I will never understand people’s fascination with their ancestry; isn’t knowing your current family bad enough?”

Posted on by rjonakait

First Sentences

“Three Lives & Company is a 650-square-foot bookshop on a corner in New York City’s West Village.” Evan Friss, The Bookshop: A History of the American Bookstore.

“I wonder if there isn’t a lot of bunkum in higher education?” Christopher Morley, Parnassus on Wheels.

“On the outskirts of Nashville, tucked between open pastures and suburban cul-de-sacs, stands a museum dedicated to the memory of Andrew Jackson.” Rebecca Nagle, By the Fire We Carry: The Generations-Long Fight for Justice on Native Land.

“So you have decided to commit a murder.” Rupert Holmes, Murder Your Employer: McMasters Guide to Homicide.

“Benjamin Franklin, forty-six years old in June 1752, strode into a field just north of the burgeoning village of Philadelphia.” Richard Munson, Ingenious: A Biography of Benjamin Franklin, Scientist.

“Neanderthals were prone to depression, he said.” Rachel Kushner, Creation Lake.

“When I was a very young man and became very successful in the movies very quickly, I harbored a notion that I had not earned my accomplishments, that I hadn’t done the requisite work, that it was all merely a fluke, that I didn’t deserve it.” Andrew McCarthy, Walking with Sam: A Father, a Son, and Five Hundred Miles Across Spain.

“As requested, they had all assembled in the Library before dinner.” Kate Atkinson, Death at the Sign of the Rook: A Jackson Brodie Book.

“It is predawn in Macon, Georgia, and at four o’clock, the city does not move.” Ilyon Woo, Master Slave Husband Wife.

“Alice and Emma, the two ducks, sat on the bank and watched the breeze crinkle the surface of the duck pond into a sort of blue and silver carpet.” Walter R. Brooks, Freddy and the Perilous Adventure (illustrated by Kurt Wiese).

“Florie’s Papa had sent a letter.” Jon Grinspan, The Age of Acrimony: How Americans Fought to Fix Their Democracy.

“No. Nup. That wouldn’t do. It reeked of PhD. This was meant to be read by normal people.” Geraldine Brooks, Horse.

“It is worse, much worse, than you think.” David Wallace-Wells, The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming. (Thanks to Steve Newman)

“I learned of Samuel’s death two days before Christmas while standing in the doorway of my mother’s new home.” Dinaw Mengestu, Someone Like Us.

“The House of the Vampire arrived in 1907, with a pinch of Bram Stoker’s Dracula, a dash of Swinburne, and a major crush on Oscar Wilde.” Rachel Maddow, Prequel: An American Fight Against Fascism.

Posted on by rjonakait

Snippets

The famous definition says insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. I have been experiencing a variation of that:

I had hoped when Trump lost in 2020 that he would fade away. My hopes were not fulfilled. I had hoped that when he won in 2024, his increased experience would mean that he would show more knowledge and spew out less, how shall I put it, hooey. My hopes were not fulfilled. I had hoped that his supporters would now recognize the hooey and say something about it or, at least, not be taken in by it. But, of course, that didn’t happen.

I was reminded of this when a conservative website attacked the “Meet the Press” host for being deceptive in her interview with Trump. The president-elect told Kristen Welker that he planned to get rid of birthright citizenship. She responded that the 14th Amendment says, “All persons born in the United States are citizens.” The right-wingers rightfully called Welker out on this because she did not cite the 14th Amendment language that gives birthright citizenship to people born here only if they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. The conservative complaint about Welker, however, did not complain about Trump. For years he has said that he plans to eliminate birthright citizenship, but he still does not seem to know what the 14th Amendment says (or anything in the Constitution for that matter). He responded to Welker’s statement with a simple “Yeah.” You might have thought that he would immediately correct Welker, but he did not. Instead, he went on to say that we are the only country with birthright citizenship. That is hooey. He then went further and said that “if somebody sets a foot, just a foot, one foot, you don’t need two, on our land, ‘Congratulations you are now a citizen of the United States of the United States of America.’” That is so many plops of hooey that it is knee high. But while Welker was called out, the conservatives did not call out the person who will be president and has and will take an oath to the Constitution. I don’t think that I am insane, but I did foolishly hope for different results and more sanity.

When I watch “Antiques Roadshow,” I find out that I am much like many of the objects brought for appraisal—I have “condition issues.”

She was visibly upset when she came into his office. The teacher assumed that she was reacting to the election results from the day before, but he still asked. She said that she had helped her parents vote. She explained that they were born in China, and because they spoke little English, she was allowed to aid her mother and father in the voting booth. Each had voted for Trump. She started to cry in the teacher’s office, and between sobs said that after leaving the polls, she asked how they could do that. Did they not know what Trump would do to them if he could? Her mother responded, “At least he’s not Black.” The parents had been urging their daughter to go to a college near their Philadelphia home. The high school student said that she was now determined to go as far away as possible.

The spouse regularly seeks bargains for gasoline. She will wait a long time in line idling at Costco to save a few cents a gallon. When driving, it is amazing how many prices she spots, eagle-eying servicing stations. To the delight of all traveling in her vehicle, she comments, often with a surprised tone, on at least 90 percent of them. (I do confess that I might do something similar.)

The childhood death rate started to increase in 2019 before the Covid pandemic began and while Trump was president. It increased 18 percent between 2019 and 2021, which was fueled by more gun and drug deaths. Predictions about what happens in the next Trump presidency?