We're Not the Country We Think We Are
Or even the country we once thought we were
I’m behind schedule this week after a busier-than-usual work schedule and an all-day airline trip from Florida to New Mexico. I guess we should accustom ourselves to delayed flights and multiple gate changes as the new norm in air travel.
I had begun a piece for this week touching on several topics worthy of discussion. But the travel delay meant it wasn’t completed by last evening. As a result, I opted to watch the initial TV hearing of the House Select Committee on the events of January 6. I’m adding my initial takeaways to what I’d already written.
The visceral symbolism of the heads of the committee being a black man from rural Mississippi and a white woman whose background includes both a political pedigree and substantial wealth was striking. Bennie Thompson and Liz Cheney, each articulate and earnest in outlining the committee’s findings, represented the aspirational idea of America.
The first-hand account of the violence of the mob by U.S. Capitol Police Officer Caroline Edwards struck several different emotional chords: her bravery and dedication to duty; her horror at witnessing the injuries suffered by her fellow officers. Perhaps the existential question we will need to answer in the future is whether there will be more Officer Edwards in our nation than Proud Boys and Oath Keepers.
The short video excerps from the depositions of former Attorney General William Barr, Trump campaign aide Jason Miller, Ivanka Trump, and Jared Kushner were compelling: Barr stated he regarded Trump’s claims of election fraud as “bullshit”; Ivanka Trump testified that she accepted Barr’s conclusions. Jared Kushner, in dismissing the threat of [White House Counsel) Pat Cippilone and his staff to resign if Donald Trump continued to claim the election was “stolen” as “whining”, displayed his complete lack of character.
In the days following January 6, Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa) and other members of Congress sought pardons from Trump. An admission of guilt, perhaps?
There will be 5 more hearings. It is uncertain whether any minds will be changed, but the committee will have placed on the record- and in the history of the Republic- the details of a coup led by a sitting President to prevent the peaceful transfer of power.
1942
I’ve been thinking for some time of writing a piece about 1942, a year that in many ways is representative of what America once was able to accomplish with a committed citizenry and effective political leadership. I will offer more thoughts about that singular year in the future but I would be remiss if I did not point out that last weekend marked 80 years since the Battle of Midway (June 4-6). Six months after the Japanese dealt a severe blow to the United States Navy with the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, the US turned the tables and scored a decisive victory in the battle for Midway, a small American-held island in the Central Pacific. American success was a combination of skill, boldness, and courage: skill because Navy cryptographers had broken Japanese codes and were aware of Japanese plans to seize the small island to use as a forward operating base; boldness because US commanders decided to put their smaller number of aircraft carriers at risk to take the opportunity of surprising the unsuspecting Japanese; and courage on the part of the airmen who flew into danger despite the odds against them. Midway was a naval battle in which the opposing fleets never came into direct contact. Instead, it was fought over thousands of square miles of the Pacific Ocean by carrier-based warplanes, each side trying to eliminate the others’ aircraft carriers. Luck played a role, too, as decisions made on both sides by admirals, squadron leaders, and individual pilots ultimately decided the outcome. The losses suffered by the Japanese would hinder their naval capabilities for the remainder of the war.
If you read about those early months of 1942, you’d learn that fear and hopelessness were gripping a nation just emerging from the Great Depression. We might consider that a striking parallel to the mindset of the country now as we deal with the lingering pandemic and inflation. After Pearl Harbor, the Japanese Navy rampaged across the Pacific and Indian Oceans and the Japanese seized territory from South Asia to the Central Pacific. They brushed aside colonial powers (the British, the Dutch, and the French). At the same time, Nazi Germany, having occupied most of Western Europe, invaded its erstwhile ally, the Soviet Union. In North Africa, the British were locked in back-and-forth fighting with the Germans. The United States was not prepared to fight a full-scale war in both the Pacific and Europe- it would take time to mobilize and train troops and put manufacturing on a wartime footing. Businesses ceased producing consumer items as factories switched over to making war matériel. The civilian population would have to deal with the rationing of goods, and businesses with price controls.
1942 was the year that began with the darkest of days. For the Allies (US, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union), there had been no thought of going on the offensive against the Japanese until Germany was defeated in the West. One sunny day in June in the skies over the Pacific changed that.
Gun Violence
In 1997, in an appropriations bill in the House, the “Dickey Amendment” (named for its sponsor, Republican Rep. Jay Dickey of Arkansas) was tacked on. The language of the amendment specified that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control." While it did not explicitly prevent the CDC from studying gun violence as “a public health crisis”, the amendment removed from the CDC’s budget the exact amount of money the agency had spent on such research the prior year. The result was chilling as CDC bureaucrats were unwilling to buck Congress’ will for fear of further retaliation.
I bring this up because the current bipartisan effort led by Senators. Chris Murphy (D-CT) and John Cornyn R-TX) appears to be headed towards an inconsequential outcome. Raising the age to purchase AR-15-style weapons from 18-years-old to 21 is already off the table. NPR reported earlier this week that negotiations had come down to:
…a slim set of proposals to address school safety and set standards for safe gun storage while providing some federal support for mental health programs and incentives for states to create so-called red flag laws to remove guns from potentially dangerous owners. The talks also included some possible expansions to federal background checks for younger people seeking to buy guns.
Suggestion: Restore funding for the CDC to resume studying gun violence. This would be a first step that would provide data going forward to inform lawmakers on the best actions to be taken. As a research project, it would not provide fuel to the culture wars in the same way “gun control” does. In the words of Sgt. Joe Friday, we would get “just the facts”.
168 newsletters are emailed on an unscheduled basis at least once a week. Newsletters are also posted to www.1hundredsixty8.substack.com. Visit the site to view archived newsletters.
If you would like to support my efforts here, please consider becoming a paying subscriber for $5.00 per month.
If you don’t wish to become a regular subscriber, please consider making a contribution from time to time by leaving a tip. Click below:
Aside from your comments- which are encouraged- if you would like to submit a piece of your own for 168, please email me at nicrosato2@gmail.com.