The Disappointment of Cory Gardner

He had such potential. And unaffiliated Colorado voters had such hope.

Recent news of the Republican Party cutting funding and minimizing effort for the re-election campaign of Senator Cory Gardner indicates the GOP expects him to lose, and if he does it’s because character is non-negotiable.

Cory Gardner is an astute thinker, engaging campaigner, and capable legislator. At age forty-eight he was a prime example of Generation X politics with independent thinking unbeholden to institutional gatekeeping. Originally a Democrat, Gardner clearly had the background and open mind that is popular in Colorado where unaffiliated voters outnumber both parties. In 2016, Senator Gardner pledged to be a representative to the people of Colorado, and that requires a political independence from party politics he simply doesn’t have. 

And he failed the test. He failed to read the political climate. He failed to understand his home state. He failed to represent the people of Colorado, not just the Republican Party, the fourth district, and his hometown of Yuma.

And it really is all about character, not his but that of the man he failed to stand up to like he promised. The Republican Party is hurting, and it’s a result of capitulation to an arrogant blustering egomaniac who is the furthest thing from the party of Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. Sound moral and ethical character, a sense of decorum, a decent respect for appropriate public behavior, and a foundation of integrity toward the responsibility of governing, these are the qualities that honor the legacy of the Republican Party and the values of conservatism since the time of Eisenhower. To think that the party of Ike and the Gipper is now beholden to a man like Donald Trump is truly gut-wrenching. 

And Cory Gardner could have taken a stand. Like Senators Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Mitt Romney of Utah, and Jeff Flake of Arizona, the man from Yuma could have been a powerful countermeasure to the consistently embarrassing and often outrageous behavior of Donald Trump. Gardner could have been the blocker that a center-right nation hoped former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan of Wisconsin was going to be. Alas, a seemingly strong, smart, independent thinker like Paul Ryan is now out of politics, and it seems Cory Gardner will join him soon. And that is a real shame. Because all it took was a little guts, a little integrity, a little moxie, and a little faith that voters in Colorado wouldn’t object to him objecting to the unacceptable words and actions of the man who has tarnished the Grand Old Party and the mantle of conservatism for the past five years.

Gardner would like to have been a popular compassionate conservative like George W. Bush who was known best as “a guy you’d like to have a beer with.” And he may be that kind of person. The problem is his opponent John Hickenlooper is that guy too, and he has been since he was an independent businessman behind the bar at his own brewpub. And he remained that guy as a popular, moderate mayor in liberal Denver and a pro-business governor for the entire state. By contrast, Gardner failed to meet the challenge and the bar of leadership expected by moderate independents and those who are conservative but not Republican. And like most Republican politicians at risk for losing their seats, it’s his capitulation that is the problem. 

For the past twenty years on the Colorado political scene, Democrats have done a far better job of playing the moderate and appealing to all Coloradans, as opposed to just their party faithful and primary voters. From Bill Ritter to Ken Salazar to Michael Bennet to John Hickenlooper, they have led with a pragmatism, a statewide vision, and a leadership quality voters can trust. On the Republican side, Aurora mayor Mike Coffman is the GOP’s only elected official who has come close to listening to all voters and adapting to serve his entire community. Coffman was re-elected numerous times amidst a diverse and changing district, though he ultimately lost out to Jason Crow in 2018, likely because of the same capitulation to an increasingly disappointing Republican Party that forgot the values it holds most dearly. 

Gardner and the Republican Party were willing to sell their souls for the promise of court appointments and tax cuts, but they failed to realize the cost. If you are willing to sacrifice your values for a political deal, then people will realize you probably never actually held those values in the first place. Cory Gardner had two years to learn from Mike Coffman’s mistake. He had two years to stand up to Trump, to call out the behavior. He had two years to sternly, loudly tell the President his behavior does not represent the values of conservatism, the values of the Republican Party, and the values of the people of Colorado. But he said virtually nothing, and he no longer deserves the seat Coloradans entrusted to him.

Perhaps Yuma has a mayoral election coming up.

What Happened to the Conscience of a Conservative?

Dwight Eisenhower, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush:

Those names evoke character, integrity, ethics, conviction, respect, and a deep abiding faith in the American people and in the nearly 250-year-old American experiment in self government. These icons of political leadership are the mantle of the modern American conservatism which traces its roots back through Russell Kirk to the foundational ideas of Edmund Burke. The essence of this belief system, which is not an ideology or a political platform, is a faith and trust in stability, permanence, prudence, a moral/ethical order, and the institutions that establish and maintain the opportunity for individuals to live free and independent. These men and these ideas were, at least through the 1980s, the common thread of the Republican Party.

What has happened? And how was it even possible?

There is no logical, rational way to square the presence of Donald Trump in this tradition or the party. I cannot fathom how anyone can align that shell of a man with the names Eisenhower, Goldwater, Reagan, and Bush. From the time of Burke, sound moral and ethical character has been the standard and the non-negotiable quality of a conservative, prudent sometimes to a fault. Yet today we have news that the former White House Chief of Staff, John Kelly, an honorable and decorated military hero and honest man had this to say about the current President:  "The depths of his dishonesty is astounding. The dishonesty, the transactional nature of every relationship, though it's more pathetic than anything else. He is the most flawed person I have ever met in my life."

Kelly's words are terribly sad, but not surprising, given what we have witnessed since Donald Trump announced his candidacy in true media info-tainer style back in 2015. At that time, I heard from many trusted conservatives who brushed off the media attention with comments like "he's not a serious man." But the campaign became quite serious, and he has done serious damage to the country and a political party in four brutally long years. Even now as men like Senator Ben Sasse begin to heed and parrot the warnings of Mitt Romney and Jeff Flake and George Will and David Frum and Evan McMullin, it's too late to forget what we've seen, to forgive what the Republican Party has allowed.

And yet, still, I struggle to understand how people can look back to the legacy of Ike and the Gipper and somehow still stand silent like Colorado Senator Cory Gardner, or worse acquiesce to acceptance or outright praise and even endorsement of a truly harmful egomaniac. Basically, what has happened is capitulation. It's been a selling out of values and ideals in exchange for legislative and governmental policy gifts. And that makes me rather sad because the "Conscience of a Conservative" rests upon firm moral conviction, and those beliefs are sacrosanct and non-negotiable. Those beliefs have no wiggle room and no latitude for the abrasive, aggressive, inappropriate, unethical, and embarrassing words, behaviors, and actions of Donald Trump.

For someone who grew up in the Reagan era and worked on his first political campaign for a pious and ethical man named George H.W. Bush, the reluctant acceptance and ultimate embrace by the GOP of Trumpian politics is simply beyond the pale. Decorum and manners and "decent respect to the opinions of mankind" should be the bar and standard for our behavior and even our politics, and that's why I am saddened by attacks on the career of Joe Biden. It's one thing to challenge and criticize a candidate's positions and votes, but I cannot fathom Ronald Reagan or the elder Bush tearing down a person's forty-year career just to win an election. Yet that's what I see in commentary and social media, and it's simply a reflection of a political party that has allowed itself to become as mean and contemptuous as its current President.

And, that's what it means to be a Republican, but not a conservative. For, whatever anyone wants to call that man's beliefs and behaviors, they are not conservative. And anyone who passively accepts, or worse condones and endorses his behavior and his continued power and influence is quite simply not conservative, not in the tradition that dates back to Burke. Thus, even if voters, legislators, and commentators seek to justify their capitulation based on party platform and legislative agendas, that is no excuse for remaining silent. To not assertively and regularly call out and condemn the outrageous and embarrassing behaviors of the President is to, in fact, embrace his actions as acceptable. And they're not. Republicans could have accepted the policy achievements while still daily challenging, scolding, distancing, isolating, and condemning every transgression, every insult, every slight, every evasion, every obfuscation, every inappropriate and unethical word. That is what character and integrity require; that is what the conscience of a conservative expects and demands.

And, so I ask now and will continue to ponder for those who are moderate, independent, and/or conservative but not Republican, "What happened to the conscience of a conservative?" And when will the Republican Party be a welcome place for conservatives who have a conscience? When will people who claim to be conservatives and who claim to be the legacy of Goldwater and Reagan finally say, "Enough." Character and manners matter, perhaps more than anything else if we hope to maintain a civil society. To that end, the only answer to a man like Donald Trump, and any future candidate who seeks to follow the politics of chaos and disruption, is "No."

Scalia, SCOTUS, Originalism, & Politics

In regards to the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett and her "qualifications" for the role, there are really only two considerations for me: a candidate who is a qualified jurist and the Senate understanding its role to advise and consent. With those two conditions, the public circus around the issue should end hopefully soon with Barrett's appointment to the Court. Granted, I am traditionalist who stands on precedent, and to that end I would have preferred two things to happen: one, for the Senate to delay the hearings until after the January inauguration of the next president, and two, for the nominee to be a bit older and have more years of experience on the Bench. Alas, neither is to be, and that's OK. However, the public discussions of Barrett's judicial philosophy and the influence of Antonin Scalia on her thinking has many people talking about Scalia and his legacy which will be nothing less than profound. 

Antonin Scalia is undoubtedly an intellectual giant in terms of judicial philosophy, and his professed belief in Constitutional originalism will have every bit as significant an effect on the Court as the years of Warren Berger did. However, with the discussion of originalism raging on Twitter and talk-media, I have a a few qualifying thoughts. Specifically, Scalia's position is valid and relevant and really quite thoughtful, if not brilliant. There is much to like and believe about it, at least as much as there is about the Berger Court's work in the idea of the "living Constitution." In all honesty and fairness, Berger can also be considered an originalist, if not at least a textualist (likely influencing Scalia's philosophy), and whose work could accurately be described as "living originalism." That said, my concern and criticism of the Scalia impact is based on the ideas that in numerous cases Scalia was not, in fact, the originalist he claimed to be, that he did quite literally legislate from the Bench in ways he and others have criticized others, and that his beliefs in no way put the Court and its rulings above politics but actually were quite political and in reality politicized the Court as much as Berger and much more than others like Holmes.

Some key moments in Scalia's non-originalist legislating are, of course, the Citizen United case on campaign finance, the Heller case on the second amendment and private ownership of firearms, and finally the unprecedented and quite inappropriate meddling of the Court in the 2000 election Florida recount. I simply cannot find a justifiable originalist argument for the belief the corporations are people and that money equals speech. Corporate personhood could never have been fathomed at the time of the Constitution's drafting in the manner that it exists today, and it was in no way intended to be included in the Constitution's "We the People ..." If Scalia bases his beliefs that the document should be applied with its "public meaning," then he would never have supported corporations retaining the same personal rights as an individual voter and taxpayer, and he would never have confirmed freedom of speech rights on monetary gifts. In fact, in light of today's absurd money machine fueling political campaigns an originalist would be more likely to equate campaign "donations" as nothing short of legalized bribery.

As far as Heller goes, I'm still waiting for a Republican (and I say that by distinguishing conservatives from the political party) to explain how Scalia's clear political victory was an originalist position. Both Justices John Paul Stevens (and Steven Breyer) and Antonin Scalia crafted "originalist positions," and I can't fathom how Scalia's is "more originalist" or better originalist than Stevens' or Breyer's. The textual reference to "a well-regulated militia" and the correlation to "the security of the state" is so clearly the foundation of the rights and subsequently so far removed from private home handgun ownership that it's tough to see how Scalia could circumvent it, how he could claim an originalist view, and how Republicans and the NRA can reconcile that as anything other than a political and legislative application of a living Constitution. Additionally, the case was decided 5-4 between two "originalist arguments," so how can that be anything but political when the Court was so clearly divided along the political leanings that both parties have aligned to the justices. Impartial, objective, and unbiased readers of the case? Hardly seems accurate, does it? Finally, the Florida recount was pure politics, plain and simple. 

So, while I have a genuine appreciation for Scalia and the ideas of originalism/textualism, I remain disappointed by the actual politics behind the curtain of Scalia's impact and intention. And that doesn't mean that I oppose Barrett's nomination, or Scalia's for that matter. Again, the bar is qualified jurist, and they both meet that standard. It's the politics and the disrespect for the tradition and the institution that is most troubling. I've grown weary of it, and it's one of the few things that leaves me less than hopeful about the continued promise of the United States.

"Checking into the hospital" -- not a luxury most of us have

As I would say of anyone who has is facing a serious and potentially life-threatening medical issue, I wish all the best and a speedy recovery to former governor Chris Christie as he battles Covid-19. 

Christie tested positive this week, having become infected amidst the outbreak at the White House, which has been linked to the Supreme Court nomination announcement, an event during which most attendees including Christie ignored CDC guidelines as they intermingled in a large group with few masks and little social distancing. Following his public revelation of a positive Covid test, Christie then announced that in "consultation with his doctors" out of caution because he has asthma (not mentioning being obese) he would "check himself into the hospital."

That phrasing struck me as odd. It sounds like he's just spending the weekend at the Four Seasons. 

Hospitalization is a very serious decision, especially in the midst of a pandemic that has killed a million people worldwide. In all my experience and understanding, hospitals are not places you simply "check into" like you've booked an appointment at a spa. And, even if they were a place you could just get a room any time you'd like, most people do not have the resources or the access to 24-hour attention to their health, just out of precautions. Oh, that the health care system were so accommodating. In fact, immediate access to health care is the wish and desire of millions of people. For most of us, that option is prohibitive on multiple levels. And even for people hospitalized, it would seem Christie is receiving unusual access to care. Reports indicate the hospital has started him on the anti-viral drug remdesivir "as a precaution." Yet, all news reports indicate the drug is reserved for only the most serious Covid cases that aren't responding to regular treatments. So why is Chris Christie given access to this drug unnecessarily at a time when most people suffering from Covid don't get it, and when some people who are symptomatic are still struggling to even receive a test, much less have access to immediate high level hospital care?

That question, of course, brings up another:  Is Christie's explanation that his symptoms are mild and the hospitalization is cautionary an accurate portrayal of his situation? Or is he far sicker than he indicates? If that is true, then Christie or his office needs to clarify the decision of his doctors. As stories continue to surface of people being denied tests, denied hospitalization, and denied their right to life, the disparity in care is a troubling side effect of the nation's poor pandemic response. If some Americans are suffering and dying from limited access to health care while Chris Christie is receiving the drug remdesivir simply as a precaution while his condition is not actually at the serious level, the public needs to know, and the governor and the system need to be held accountable for the inconsistency.

The news of Christie's hospitalization and extensive special treatment is simply another example of problems in the American health care system, and the rather crass attitude of far too many contemporary Republicans on the subject. Of course, I don't fault anyone who pursues and is able to receive the best medical care they can. But I am suspicious and critical of anyone who would actively inhibit changes to a health care system in order to limit any expansion or funding of the very access they demand and receive as a matter of privilege. As an asthmatic, like Gov Christie, I am deeply concerned and at risk for complications from respiratory illnesses. Unlike Christie, I am sure, I have a high-deductible health insurance plan which comes with the added burden of a $12,000 deductible. As a public employee (like Christie was for many years), I do not have the resources to pay $12K out-of-pocket "as a precaution." And that's why I am bothered by the word choices of former Governor-turned-corporate-lobbyist Chris Christie in relation to his hospitalization for Covid.

To conclude, I truly wish all the best and restored health to Chris Christie. In addition to his feeling better, it's my hope this experience also leads him to revise his views and actions on health care in the United States.

Congress Should Live Together, But Not In Dorms

The partisanship in the United States is hurting our communities and our common identity as neighbors. Our political leaders, often in conjunction with the info-tainer side of media, are complicit in, if not outright responsible for, this divisive atmosphere. In response to an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Senator Ben Sasse, I have a proposal for how our congressional leaders can help us heal, and it was featured in Merion West Magazine. Click on the link for the full piece; below is the intro:

Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska recently launched a fascinating critique of the dysfunctional state of the Senate with his op-ed in the Wall Street Journal calling for among other things the abolition of the 17th Amendment. In his proposal to “Make the Senate Great Again” by eliminating the direct election of senators, he suggested various reforms to return a sense of collegiality and debate to the esteemed legislative body. Perhaps the most compelling idea focuses on the need for senators to have legitimate bi-partisan cross-the-aisle relationships to promote real collegiality. Specifically, Senator Sasse believes senators need to live together in order to work together. The suggestion is not only brilliant, but knowing Americans will never give up electing their representatives, the idea of senators living in a single community may be the most feasible aspect of his proposal.

Edward Hopper's Early Paintings & defining America

 A stir rippled through the art world this week on news of an exciting discovery about the works of Edward Hopper. British graduate student Louis Shadwick, who is researching his doctorate on Hopper, has concluded three of Hopper's earliest works are far from original and are, in fact, copies of other artists' work. Shadwick was researching early influences on Hopper, but with the eye of a real art sleuth has instead learned that Hopper learned his craft by copying others, perhaps even following instructions from an amateur painter's magazine. While it is not at all unusual for young painters and art students of this time to learn by copying, or reproducing, previous works, it is rather unprecedented to learn this of Edward Hopper, who has long been considered a true American original.

Even as I'm only recently getting into art as an interest and passion, Hopper's iconic Night Hawks has long been a favorite painting of mine, with its stark image of three individuals "alone in their thoughts" at a late night diner. It is an eerie and poignant image of Americana for me, and I've always been intrigued by Hopper's mesmerizing portrait of stoicism and individuality. So, while I was intrigued by the story of Shadwick's discovery, I was equally fascinated by the insightful commentary in the New York Times by art critic Blake Gopnik.

Noting that copying paintings was common before the "freedom of modern art," Gopnik is intrigued by Shadwick's wondering about the "Americaness" that Hopper lived in and was influenced by. It's a concept we have long grappled with as a country and an identity, and I've long been interested in the artistic portrayals of the "lone American." From the frontier hero of James Fenimore Cooper's Natty Bumpo Leatherstocking tales to Huck on the raft "lighting out for the territories" and Holden longing to protect innocence from the phoniness of the world, the rugged individualism necessary to carve out a living amidst a wilderness is part of the American story. And, the concept of innocence and individual integrity identified by RWB Lewis as "The American Adam" has been our myth and our legend. It's Gatsby reaching out to the green light, and it's a contemporary America wondering if we "can't all just get along."

If even Hopper is not, in fact, quintessentially American, then what is this national idea we seek to identify and define ourselves by. In the past decade or so, it has become a conflict to determine, in Gopnik's words "does it need to be made great again or does it need to face up to its failures?" These are serious questions, the kind which customers in late night diner might be pondering. And we've been thinking about it for at least as long as early American writer Michel-Guillaume Jean de Crevecouer asked "What then is this American, this new man?" 

Indeed.

Fouls: That's Why Lebron can never be the GOAT

 Lebron has fouled out of NBA games a total of eight times in his sixteen year career. Anyone who watched the recent conference championship against the Denver Nuggets knows that should have been impossible with the way Lebron plays, pushing off and running over any opponent around him. He has done this for years with near impunity. Sir Charles Barkley knows, and he was the only voice on the NBA on TNT team who was willing to call it out.

"That's a charge. Come on, man. That's a charge," Charles pointed out during clips, all to the eye rolls of Shaq. Of course, Shaq was able to push his way around the lane to a Hall of Fame career; so he's not going to accept the complaints. But Kenny and Ernie should have agreed because it's just so blatant. And I am the first one to dismiss anyone who says "the refs cost us the game." I literally don't believe it. But as Charles conceded, in the last two games "the refereeing was terrible."

The fouls are why I just can't ever really cheer for or appreciate or acknowledge Lebron the way he deserves. I just don't really like him as a player. And it's why I'll never concede to him being "the greatest basketball player of all time." No way. And that's a shame. Lebron is better than this kind of behavior. He not only pushes off almost every time down the lane, but he is, pardon me, such a prima donna that he complains all the time about the fouls he didn't get. That's just kind of disappointing. 

Granted, there is ample evidence for the NBA refs' "superstar treatment." We know all the times a star is in the late stages with three or four on him, and a foul happens, and the stripes know to look for the closest non-star to tag with the foul. It's an unwritten rule. Heck, Michael Jordan fouled out only ten times in his career - four of them in his first season. And Luc Longley picked up a lot of fouls that Michael committed. And, really no one will dispute MJ fouled Byron Russell on that iconic last shot of his career. 

But Lebron James? Oh, my. I have never seen it taken to this level. And his being 6 foot 8 and 250 pounds is a, pardon me, big part of it. Lebron is a great basketball player who, in my mind, has tarnished his legacy with really sloppy play that doesn't really require much talent. It just takes size and a reputation as untouchable. 

Just ask Jamal Murray:

y

29 and 0!

 “29 and 0!”

The voice came booming through the doorway into the teacher lounge.

“29 and 0!” came the voice again, even louder.

It was early in the fall of my first year teaching high school, and I was sitting with a colleague in the computer area of the English-Social Studies offices during our planning period. The voice came from Tom, a veteran history and government teacher who was also the head baseball coach and a bit of a legend around town for his gruff but engaging presence, as well as his state championships.

When Tom ambled through the door, shifted his eyes toward us and repeated it a third time, my colleague Jane inquired. What was he talking about? It was September, so we were a long way from the high school baseball season, and Tom didn’t coach anything else. And the St. Louis Cardinals were obviously far too deep into the season to have that record.

“Uh, what, Tom?” Jane ventured cautiously. “What are you yelling about? What’s 29 and O?”

Tom, the high school’s lovable curmudgeon, glanced sideways at us with a suspicious scowl that melted into a mischievous grin.

“I’ve been teaching American history for twenty-nine years,” he growled. “I’ve taught the Revolutionary War twenty-nine times.” He paused for effect. “America has never lost! We’re 29 and 0!”

And with a wink and a nod, he strolled on through the lounge toward his desk, as Jane laughed and I marveled. Talk about bringing history to life. That was a lesson I could latch on to.

Tom was the sort of teacher who would mesmerize or more likely scare his students into engagement, or perhaps submission, with a mixture of bluster and rapport. His teaching style was old-school traditional lectures with lots of notes if you could keep up, but it was rarely boring. I’d occasionally walk by his room and glance in on a sea of transfixed faces, all staring intently toward the front of the room where Tom stood leaning against his podium, lecturing on history, or more likely telling ‘Nam stories and putting his own coach’s spin on every issue from the Battle of Bunker Hill to the constitutionality of Medicare.

Now, I won’t say Tom was the greatest educator his students ever had, or that all his ideas about teaching were techniques I’d emulate or recommend. But if engagement is the key to classroom instruction, or at least the lecture model, he certainly had that aspect nailed down. On the other hand, his approach to grading papers probably wasn’t the best way to assess learning. He was notorious for claiming he “graded” their research papers via the stair method. You know, where the teacher stands at the top of the stairs and tosses the whole stack: the papers that make it all the way down get an “A.” The rest are rated progressively lower based on how far up the stairs they landed. 

I never actually believed he assessed students that way; Tom was the inveterate prankster and garrulous spinner of tall tales. But the spirit of “29 and O” remains a vivid moment in my early training as a teacher, and it’s an approach we should all take note of. Teach history like it’s brand new. Teach everything like it’s an amazing discovery waiting to happen. Teach all stories, novels, and plays like the protagonist’s journey and the ending is always uncertain and forever new. Teach every math and science problem like it’s a grand mystery depending upon the young inquiring minds to resolve. Teach like the world is alive.

The coach as history teacher can certainly be a tired stereotype, and I won’t argue the persistent belief that for some teachers, their extracurricular assignment and game plans are always more important than their lesson plans. But I’ve come to appreciate some of the coach’s mantras that guide my classroom the same way they lead players on the field.

“Hey, they need you today,” another coach and long time colleague would often tell me as we passed in the hallway. “Bring your ‘A game. They need your best.” And, just like a good coach always can, he regularly hyped me up before I headed into the classroom. It was game on, and the team was depending on me. 

“Don’t get stale,” I’d tell myself. They need you. Last year, we were 29 and O. This year we’re going for 30.

The Emmys, Ozark, & Marty Byrde -- When will the awards committees show the respect?

As the 2019 Emmy Awards approached, Marty Byrde and I were anxious. He was wondering just how powerful and cunningly cold his wife Wendy really is after she decides they’re not running and will stay in Missouri as Ozark heads into season three. And, I wondered if viewers and critics would wake up to the brilliance of Jason Bateman’s controlled, calculating portrayal of the anti-hero and the potential for Ozark to break new ground in the act of breaking bad. Batemen’s performance as Marty Byrde in the anti-hero archetype had the potential to move beyond the most memorable predecessors including Tony Soprano, Don Draper, and especially Walter White. Sadly, we only get one more season to learn just how far this unassuming Chicago accountant will go. Alas, back in the Emmy season of 2019 two things were certain: Ozark would be once again overlooked by too many viewers and the awards ceremonies, and the third season would be even more mind blowing than the second. So now that the producers have announced the fourth season as the last for the Byrde clan in southern Missouri, and now that the 2020 Emmy awards have come and gone with little recognition for Ozark, outside of the much deserved Best Actress nod for Julie Garner’s portrayal of Ruth, I want to share a few thoughts on what is so brilliant about this show. 

The comparisons to Breaking Bad are inevitable and appropriate, and Granted, some critics argue Ozark is simply re-treading ground in an uninteresting way. Astute critics would note that Marty Byrde is a superior anti-hero if only because Walter White never really was one. When did Marty break bad? Or has he yet? The brilliance is that after three seasons, we still can’t be certain just who this guy is. Bateman plays the role of Marty Bird with such precision and control that viewers simply never know what he is thinking. It’s a complicated point. In psychological discussions of the banality of evil, the Columbine killers offer an important dichotomy: one was a true sociopath, the other a depressed and vulnerable kid who was manipulated into committing unspeakable evil. While the prison and the shock studies described in the article may have falsely implied that anyone can become evil, the difference is that the participants weren’t inclined toward evil until the situation presented itself … and afterwards they did not pursue the inflicting of pain. But the truly evil would keep doing it regardless. Eric Harris was always going to hurt people; Dylan Klebold may never have had he not met Harris. Thus, in comparing two recent portrayals of criminal anti-heroes, I will assert this: Walter White was always going to hurt people; Marty Bird could just have easily lived a milquetoast life of a suburban accountant. That’s what makes him an anti-hero. However, other viewers are attuned to just how deftly Bateman and the writers have reimagined the anti-hero trope, presenting Marty’s heroic qualities in a twist on the descent into evil. In fact, Marty Byrde is perhaps the purest of the anti-heroes for his actions always seem reactive yet prescient in an accidental way.

In Chuck Klosterman’s book of essays X: a Highly Specific, Defiantly Incomplete History of the 21st Century, he makes an informed argument for the greatness of Bryan Cranston’s portrayal of the anti-hero in Walter White. The conceit of that show and the praise showered upon it was found in the title -- viewers were fascinated by how a seemingly good man, a teacher even, could so incredibly and viciously “break bad.” For Klosterman the brilliance was how the evil resulted from a choice, a point at which he decided to become bad, despite his partner and former student’s contemptuous assurances that “you can’t just break bad.” In reality, over the seasons, we realized Jessie was correct while Chuck Klosterman (and far too many other writers) is wrong. Walter White didn’t break bad because he was always evil, or at least a real ass. And unlike anti-heroes like Tony Soprano, there was simply nothing likeable about him. While Breaking Bad was undoubtedly a compelling show about a man giving in to the dark side that lived within him, Walter White was always more of a villain than an anti-hero. But Marty Byrde? Now, that is an incredibly intriguing and complex character for whom the distinction still isn’t clear. That’s the brilliance of Ozark that takes it far beyond anything Breaking Bad accomplished, other than being a popular and well-produced show.

And, in looking at portrayals of evil and ideas of the anti-hero, I haven’t even begun to unpack the incredibly complex and superbly acted female roles. How easy it is, still, for society to overlook the women. At least for Ozark Julie Garner’s role is valued and acknowledged. And as a character, Ruth is another anti-hero in the way Jesse was on Breaking Bad. Different circumstances create a different situation, and the willingness of Ozark’s writers and producers to try anything is another layer of the show’s brilliance. The hillbillies are a more complex trope than we might imagine or give credit for. It’s worth noting the portrayals of violence and their intentions. Jacob Snell was not truly evil, though he’d do horrible things to survive. His wife Darlene, by contrast, is not only truly evil but also down right batshit crazy.

And, of course, if we’re going to look into female characters as anti-heroes and villains, then we must note how Wendy is a far more compelling character than Skyler, Carmela, or Betty could ever have been in their respective shows. As Ozark seems intent on flipping the narrative in a twisted moment of gender equity, Wendy may be the most sinister of characters, especially now that we know how far she might go to protect the family. Her background as a potential political operative in Chicago indicates a moral vacuousness that an accountant like Marty could never have. The power, cunning, and will of Helen, Wendy, Ruth, and even Darlene are additional layers of complexity that go far beyond so many other shows. Laura Linney’s performance is, like Bateman, sadly under-appreciated, and the writing has given her great vehicle as she has risen to Lady Macbeth status in the role of powerful women -- the question becomes will she fall into madness. Or is she already there? Marty is truly an anti-hero, whereas Wendy may be just downright ruthless. If that’s the case, then future seasons of Ozark may find Marty with an even more serious threat than the FBI, the Snells, or the Cartell. It may be his own wife.

Sadly, we only have one more season to find out. And even after I appreciate the brilliant and sure to be stunning conclusion of the series, I will look forward to the Emmys in 2021 with hope that the show will finally garner the full appreciation it deserves.

Wait on SCOTUS for the sake of the "United" States

 I wish this could have waited a week. Ruth Bader Ginsburg deserved at least that much. On the passing of this iconic American, the better angels of our nature should have allowed us the simple restraint to not talk about and fret about and begin shouting about her replacement on the Supreme Court. The basic virtues of honor, respect, and decency should have led us to mourn and to reflect on the life and legacy of woman who means so much to so many. Alas, we couldn't do that as a nation, and it didn't take long for the Senate Majority Leader to indicate his intention to fill the court vacancy without delay, an action that was disappointing and inconsistent at best. Yet here we are.

All eyes are on Senators Susan Collins (Maine), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Mitt Romney (Utah), Cory Gardner (Colorado) ... and I will throw in there Ben Sasse (Nebraska). It's not worth mentioning the other two pivotal senators who are nothing less than shallowly hypocritical.

And, so here in Colorado, it's important to note that Senator Cory Gardner is correct in that it his right and his responsibility to "advise and consent" to presidential nominees to the courts. While his statement is tainted by his previous position with regard to "the Biden Rule" on the nomination of Merrick Garland by President Obama, he is within his right to do so because, to use Obama's words to Republicans in 2013, "I won. Deal with it." And it's worth noting that this politicization of Supreme Court nominees didn't really start with the Republicans blocking Garland or planning to reverse their principles and install RBG's replacement. It goes back to the nomination of Robert Bork in 1987, a qualified jurist who was unjustly blocked from a position he should have been appointed to because of ideological opposition from a Democratically-controlled Senate. 

Politics and party platforms and ideologies and predictions about how a jurist will rule on some hypothetical court case in the future should not be part of the discussion of a court nomination. The Constitutional guidance is simple:  advise and consent. Robert Bork and Merrick Garland and Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh were all qualified jurists who should have been appointed to the Supreme Court. Only two were. And that is the problem I am calling upon Senators Gardner, Sasse, and Grassley to help repair. The political angst and animosity in the country is not good for our union, and it's heading in the wrong direction. Nominating and installing a new Supreme Court justice prior to the inauguration in January would be harmful to our fragile unity. And so, I am asking these men to do what is best for the country, not for their party or their own office. 

Truly, I would like to see a true Constitutional change to the Supreme Court in the ending of lifetime appointments. The country will be better off if we can remove the immense, disproportionate, and unseemly political significance of The Court. It would be better if justices were simply appointed to single ten or fifteen year terms and then done. And whenever the vacancy comes up, the president nominates and the Senate confirms based on one simple criteria: a qualified jurist. De-politicizing the Court would be a way to avoid what will be the obvious and even politically necessary response from the Democrats the next time they control the White House and Senate (which could be in January):  They will end the filibuster and add three or even four additional judges to the Court. 

That would be an outrageous but somewhat understandable response if Senate Republicans force their hand. Optimally, it would be three seats to create a even numbered court; for ties would perhaps lead the court toward greater political neutrality.

Regardless, none of this should happen. For the sake of the country, let the first and foremost conservative value of prudence rule the day. Let's wait, together, until after the election.

The Burkean-Kirkean Conservative : Why George Will & Rick Tyler are Still Right

Many years ago after I published my first piece of commentary for the Denver Post about why my young children did not watch movies like Shrek, a close friend remarked to his wife, "For a liberal Democrat, that sounds pretty conservative ..." I just shook my head and kept my thoughts to myself, simply glad he read and enjoyed the piece. For in reality, I was neither a progressive (which is what he really meant) nor a Democrat at that time. On the other hand, while my belief system hadn't changed, I also hadn't been a Republican for more than a decade. Living in Colorado, I was like the majority of voters, unaffiliated and independent and regularly voting for members of both political parties. Though I'd grown up in a Republican household, I felt about the GOP (and the Democrats as well) the same way Ronald Reagan did early in his political rise when he left the Democrats, opining "I didn't leave my party; my party left me."

And, in the political and ideological boondoggle that is contemporary America in 2020, I am happy to see the publication of two important books on the belief system of conservatism, works that will hopefully bring people to more fruitful and less decisive discussion of what they believe and why. I recently finished George Will's The Conservative Sensibility and now I am just beginning and truly enjoying Rick Tyler's Still Right: and Immigrant-Loving, Hybrid-Driving, Composting American Makes the Case for Conservatism. These works are about the belief system, not stances on legislation and political positions that build party platforms. And the mistaking of platforms for beliefs is what leads old friends of Facebook to pejoratively throw the term liberal when I opine that mail-in balloting is safe effective and has been in practice in Colorado for years. Again, I'm just left shaking my head wondering where in the writings of Edmund Burke or Russell Kirk is a view on mail ballots at issue. 

Yet, when I mention Burke or talk about how I'm aligned with Kirk's conservative principals, which he outlined in The Conservative Mind, I generally get Hannity talking points in response. It's disheartening, to say the least, but it affirms my belief that these critics are Republican, but not conservative. Kirk was not interested in party agendas - he was interested in cultivation of the mind and spirit. It was not about marginal tax rates but about local communities and schools, traditions and institutions, and the value of culture through literature. These are ideas also discussed by George Will and Rick Tyler, and they are the conversations we should be having. While George Will never mentions Donald Trump in his book, Tyler talks quite directly about the man in the White House because the rise of Trump and his seemingly odd and inappropriate control of the GOP is wrong for the party and truly bad for the country. People like David Frum, David French, Rod Dreher, Ross Douthat, Andrew Sullivan, and David Brooks agree. These strong voices of conservatism know the damage that is being done to our national consciousness, and they are hoping to wake some people up.

Conservatism is the antithesis to the chaos, disruption, and instability that Donald Trump represents and cultivates. Conservatives believe in decorum and the very institutions that ground society and allow individual liberty to thrive. And so many of us are baffled by the support of him, even as we know that the divisiveness and tribalism that rules the day have left many voters feeling they have nowhere else to go. That's why we are "conservative but not Republican."

For some more reading on similar views, check out:

The Bohemian Burkean - NY Sun 

the Burkenstocked Burkean - National Review

The Crunch Conservative - NPR

Is the National Anthem Political? How About the Flag? What about Military Tributes?

Don't look now, but I think somebody spilled some politics in your sporting events.

As the year 2020 has exacerbated everything else, the issue of political views being represented during pro sporting events has taken a more prominent and visible position as the NBA returned to the courts following the tumultuous year of political protests related to the issues of police violence, race, and the Black Lives Matter movement. And George Brauchler doesn't like it. Brauchler, a prominent Denver-area Republican, is the DA for Arapahoe and surrounding counties of the metro area, and he penned an op-ed for the Denver Post asserting: "There Should be a No-Politics, No-Policy Zone Surrounding America's Stadiums and Arenas." 

Now, I will admit that there is a part of me that sometimes feels like "I just want to watch the game" -- and I've felt that way for nearly twenty years. And it hasn't just been about the politics; it's been every possible addition to the actual game, from the pomp and circumstance of coin flips and first pitches to the community-focused events like welcoming "such-and-such" charitable organization to the game. And, I know that is really crass and pathetic when I am actually anxious to be done listening to a local children's choir or hearing a tribute to truly selfless and life-changing volunteer because I just want to see some (fill in the blank: baseball, hockey, football, basketball, lacrosse, tennis, ... etc.). That conceded, I didn't really care for Brauchler's tone, insinuations, or to be honest, aloof ignorance of his argument. On Twitter, many people weighed in and criticized the argument based on issues of free speech and every extension of that, and Brauchler engaged with and countered all of them, mostly by saying "that's not my point" or "read the article."

But I had a different question: 

I asked whether along with his assertion of "no politics, no policy" zones at pro stadiums and events he was also advocating eliminating the playing of the national anthem, the displaying the American flag, and the staging of any and all events promoting and acknowledging the military and first responders such as police officers. Brauchler had no comment. There was no response and no engagement and no acknowledgment, despite his practice of answering every other comment and thread. So, I followed up a couple times, and even tried to engage other commenters and various local news sources. I'd like to know if he is willing to explain how kneeling during the playing of the national anthem is "political" but the playing of the anthem is not. Truly, I know he doesn't want it to be, and I agree that the entire purpose of the anthem is promoting a sense of unity and national pride and support for the freedoms on which the United States was founded and continues to thrive. That's the way it should be. 

But what if it's not? 

Truly, since early in the 2000s, pro sports organizations have increasingly politicized their events. And as the companies have gladly embraced the marketing of politics, and it has become more prominent and even expected, I've become increasingly uncomfortable with it because it just seems so gratuitous and exploitative. Too often it feels like pro sports organizations are not honoring the country, the flag, the anthem, the soldiers, but instead simply using them for a commercial agenda. It can feel so unseemly to watch organizations promote a sense of community around a national identity at the same time the fans are going to turn around a few seconds later and be quite awful to the opposing team's players and fans. Perhaps it really is just a pause in that rabid fandom to remember our common bonds, but it too often just seems a bunch of empty promises.

The problem for Brauchler, and the reason for his silence, is that my query is a political hand grenade. If he agrees then he risks being portrayed as unpatriotic, a political wasteland for today's Republicans. Yet if he disagrees, then he is nothing short of inconsistent and even hypocritical. But this is a truly interesting and engaging discussion that is a golden opportunity to connect and engage and discuss and hopefully learn to understand opposing views. I would have loved for anyone in the local news to set up a public forum where George Brauchler could sit down with local pro athletes like Von Miller and Justin Simmons of the Denver Broncos, and Jamal Murray of the Denver Nuggets, so they could have thoughtful and productive and perhaps even unifying discourse on an issue that is currently dividing the community. And, of course, this is all purely an academic or intellectual exercise, both for Brauchler's article and my follow-up question. There will no ending of the playing of the anthem, the displaying of the flag, and the staging of events honoring our heroes -- nor should there be. And, there will be no pro sports players accepting the expectation that they just "shut up and dribble." Players will continue to play their sports and speak out while standing up, or kneeling down, for their beliefs and values. 

Brauchler eventually did respond on Twitter. He wrote:  "I disagree."

Hmmmm ....