"Reluctance"

Reluctance

By Robert Frost

Out through the fields and the woods

   And over the walls I have wended;

I have climbed the hills of view

   And looked at the world, and descended;

I have come by the highway home,

   And lo, it is ended.

The leaves are all dead on the ground,

   Save those that the oak is keeping

To ravel them one by one

   And let them go scraping and creeping

Out over the crusted snow,

   When others are sleeping.

And the dead leaves lie huddled and still,

   No longer blown hither and thither;

The last lone aster is gone;

   The flowers of the witch hazel wither;

The heart is still aching to seek,

   But the feet question ‘Whither?’

Ah, when to the heart of man

   Was it ever less than a treason

To go with the drift of things,

   To yield with a grace to reason,

And bow and accept the end

   Of a love or a season?

Here in Central Minnesota we have already had a taste of winter; some of our leaves were frozen to the ground when they were picked up.  We know how this ends: fall gives way to winter just as summer gave way to fall.  “And lo, it is ended.”  But we are reluctant to accept it.  “The heart is still aching to seek, /But the feet question ‘Whither?’”

            …when to the heart of man

                        Was it ever less than a treason

            To go with the drift of things…

                        And bow and accept the end…”

Frost explicitly references the end “Of a love or a season,” but we know he also means we are reluctant to accept death, the ultimate end, as well as the loss of a love or the coming of winter.

What is striking is the way that reluctance, in this case, goes against, not only nature (at the end of a season), but also reason:

            Ah, when to the heart of man

                        Was it ever a treason

            To go with the drift of things,

                        To yield a grace to reason,

            And bow and accept the end…

Endings are, not only natural, but also inevitable, and resistance goes against reason.  However, it would be treasonous to expect “the heart of man” to “accept the end.”  Human “nature,” it seems goes against the external nature of the seasons, as well as its own power of reason. Head and heart are in conflict as we struggle to accept the inevitable.

Who among us has not experienced that struggle? Who among us cannot identify with that reluctance to accept the inevitable end?

At this time of Thanksgiving, as we celebrate all that we have to be grateful for, let us forgive ourselves our reluctance to accept the inevitable endings.  And may our gratitude for new beginnings never cease!

Nineteen Eighty-Four

This dystopian novel by George Orwell was first published in 1949. I read it in the 1960s and taught it to first-year college students in 1984. Last night I saw a dramatic performance adapted for the stage by Michael Gene Sullivan.

In the 60s, those of us who were active in the Vietnam War protests battled the barrage of government propaganda, disinformation, and misinformation regarding the origin of the war, the need for the war, and the progress of the war.  Orwell’s concepts of Newspeak, Doublethink, and even Thoughtcrime (Vietnam protesters were labeled unpatriotic and subversive for opposing the War) seemed to apply. FBI surveillance of Vietnam protesters seemed to mirror the watchful eye of Big Brother through the widespread use of government cameras to keep citizens in line with the Party.

When I taught the book in 1984, it seemed far-fetched.  And since then, we’ve grown accustomed to the prolific use of surveillance cameras by law enforcement and private citizens alike to deter crime. 

With the Trump presidency, Nineteen Eighty-Four has become relevant again. And the stage play was frankly terrifying, as the comparisons were unmistakable.  Instead of Newspeak and Doublethink, we have “fake news” and conspiracy theories, bolstered by doctored photos/videos and the deliberate spread of propaganda, not only by elected leaders and their staffs, but also by private citizens on social media, not to mention other countries. 

As in the original novel we now have blatant disregard for facts, science, rational thought, and the direct experience of our eyes and ears.  Trump and others publicly deny they said something that is right there on unedited video or audio transcript for all to see and read. 

In Nineteen Eighty-Four the Thought Police enforce conformity to the Party line with the use of torture.  In the stage version Winston Smith is subjected to increasing levels of electric shock until he finally agrees that two-plus-two is five and that he loves Big Brother.  That is scary enough.  What is particularly scary today is how many of our fellow citizens are willing participants in the campaigns of propaganda, misinformation, and disinformation to which we are all subjected.  Too many of us are uncritically willing to believe what we want to hear or think we know rather than to take the time and exercise the discipline it takes to at least come close to the truth.

Today the government and the Party do not need Thought Police and electric shock because they have partisan loyalists and sycophants whose eyes and ears are closed as they open their mouths to readily ingest toxic, false messages and then turn around and spew those messages out to their own followers on social media.

George Orwell envisioned a citizenry of helpless victims subjected to Big Brother’s totalitarian power; he did not envision a citizenry of willing participants fully cooperating in their own manipulation and delusion.

What I am grateful for in the scary times we live in is (1) an educational system that is hopefully teaching critical thinking and evaluation of sources for reliability, (2) freedom of the press that allows for competing points of view, even as some media outlets toe the Party line and help spread false information, and (3) freedom of speech that allows those who value facts, evidence, and reason to counter the propaganda, misinformation, and disinformation, even as it also enables the false narratives.  Unlike the fictional world of Nineteen Eighty-Four, we have the right and the power of dissent. 

So let us use that right and that power to educate others, as best we can, in reliable methods of research and responsible methods of determining truth; to analyze our own sources of information for reliability and discipline our own thinking to rely on facts, evidence, and reason; and to raise our voices to counter those who would misinform, mislead, and manipulate. 

 

 The stage for the play was a hall of mirrors.  You can see the reflection of the audience. Look in the mirror, America!

Mueller Report

The much-touted Mueller Report (Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election) was publicly released on April 18.  One of my friends read it and blogged on it right away (https://linnposts.com/2019/04/25/the-mueller-report-and-the-fate-of-the-nation/).  He probably read it a lot more carefully than I did.  It took me longer to get to the report and it took me longer to get through it; I skipped the footnotes and skimmed some sections.  However, I read enough to have formed some conclusions.

First, note the title refers to the “Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election,” and that is the main focus.  However, Mueller was charged with pursuing other criminal activity that arose in the course of the investigation.  Thus, the entire second volume is devoted to possible obstruction of justice by President Trump.   

Volume One amounts to 199 pages; Volume II, 182 pages.  There are lots of redactions, so the actual number of pages to read is somewhat less.  The redactions often leave one guessing as to what we don’t know yet, but there is enough information to substantiate the main claims in the Report.

 As has been widely reported Mueller found multiple attempts by Russian officials to interfere in the election (1) by a social media campaign designed to sow division in the electorate and favor the Trump candidacy, and (2) by contacting Trump campaign workers to offer negative information, or “dirt,” on Hillary Clinton.  Some of those Russian officials were indicted.  As we know, Mueller did not find (enough) evidence of criminal conspiracy by the Trump campaign and Russia to issue an indictment on those grounds. 

The Office of Special counsel “determined that the contacts between Campaign officials and Russia-linked individuals either did not involve the commission of a federal crime or, in the case of campaign-finance offenses, that our evidence was not sufficient to obtain and sustain a criminal conviction. At the same time, the Office concluded that the Principles of Federal Prosecution supported charging certain individuals connected to the Campaign with making false statements or otherwise obstructing this investigation or parallel congressional investigations.” (V.I, p. 174) 

The Report makes clear that they could not conclude that no conspiracy occurred but rather that, while evidence of conspiracy existed, it did not rise to a strict enough legal level or it was not sufficient to charge anyone in court. 

At one point the report states that because certain campaign officials made false statements (lied), or took the Fifth Amendment, or deleted records, the Office was unable to paint a complete picture of campaign contacts with Russian officials:

“Accordingly, while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report.” (V.I, p. 10)

My biggest take-away from Volume I is, if there was no criminal conspiracy, coordination, or “collusion,” why did so many Trump campaign officials lie, take the Fifth, or delete records?  What were they covering up? Even Trump has suggested that when someone takes the Fifth, they must be guilty: https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-immunity-pleading-fifth-amendment-michael-flynn-2017-5   

Though the Office was unable to charge anyone with conspiracy or violations of federal campaign laws, it did charge certain Trump campaign officials with lying and obstructing justice:

“The Office determined that certain individuals associated with the Campaign lied to investigators about Campaign contacts with Russia and have taken other actions to interfere with the investigation…the Office therefore charged some U.S. persons connected to the Campaign with false statements and obstruction offenses. “ (V. I, p. 191)

Also, given the wealth of documented evidence of Russian interference, why is our government not doing more to prevent it from happening in future elections?  It is astounding that we seem to be accepting this practice as the status quo.

Volume II of the Report, as has been widely reported, did not conclude that Trump was guilty of obstruction of justice, but it also did not exonerate him: 

“Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” (V. II, p. 8) 

Furthermore, “The President' s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests. Comey did not end the investigation of Flynn, which ultimately resulted in Flynn's prosecution and conviction for lying to the FBI. McGahn did not tell the Acting Attorney General that the Special Counsel must be removed but was instead prepared to resign over the President's order. Lewandowski and Dearborn did not deliver the President's message to Sessions that he should confine the Russia investigation to future election meddling only. And McGahn refused to recede from his recollections about events surrounding the President's direction to have the Special Counsel removed, despite the President's multiple demands that he do so.” (V. II, p. 158) 

My main take-away from Volume II is that there are grounds for impeachment.  Whether that is a politically expedient course for the Democrats to pursue is questionable, but there is little doubt in my mind, based on the multiple, documented cases in the Report of Presidential attempts to impede or obstruct the investigation of his campaign that impeachment would be the Constitutionally appropriate action to take. 

Those who know me know that I identify as a progressive and vote Democratic (in most cases).  If you question my reading of the Mueller report as politically biased, I refer you to, perhaps, a more neutral summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mueller_Report

Or, read the full report here:  https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2C51tCRpU0u7Bq3AJ6reyjl7tSO8JLhtRSST9EcW_olAc-9ArlZ5Adb7I
 
Finally, I was surprised when I told people that I was reading the Mueller Report, how often I was met with silence.  Was it that people did not want to get into a political conversation?  Did my conservative friends (I have a few) fear we would get into an argument? Or were they aware of how damaging the report is to their conservative hero, Donald Trump?  Did my liberal friends feel like they’d heard enough about it, and were possibly sick of the whole thing?  Are they just exhausted and disgusted by the lack of outrage and action in response to the findings?  I don’t know, but I found it striking how little interest folks took in discussing it.  Perhaps they felt they had already heard enough about it.  

Regardless, it is troubling how dismissive, even “ho, hum,” some folks seem to be about what, to my mind, are shocking revelations about our current administration that are well documented and well established in the Report.  In addition to my deep concern about the corruption, incompetence, deception, dysfunction, and outright ignorance of our current administration, I am deeply worried that, as an electorate, we may have become inured to the lowest standards of ethics, intelligence, and general quality of performance. 

Perhaps a lot of folks are just holding their fire until the next election.  We can only hope.

-->