Rabbi Pruzansky's Blog

     I couldn’t write last week. I was too busy repairing my Jewish space laser. In fact, I was so busy I missed the monthly Zoom meeting of the Elders of Zion. So it goes…

     With the impeachment show trial pending this week, it is important to reiterate one fundamental point. What happened at the Capitol on January 6 was criminal, despicable hooliganism, something intolerable in a civil society. What it was decidedly not was an insurrection or a coup attempt.

     What happened in Myanmar was a coup. (We can only hope the new leaders revert to the name Burma.) The disgraceful attack on the Capitol was vandalism by assorted aggrieved groups. Real insurrection does not involve smiling geeks in body paint, horns and furs, taking selfies and carting off sundry memorabilia. Real insurrection involves the military seizing the head of state and the apparatus of government and declaring itself the new sovereign power. Myanmar was an insurrection; the Capitol riot was a chaotic, pointless, tragic clown show with no discernible goal and only negative achievements for all concerned.

      The strategist Edward Luttwak, who literally wrote the book on this subject (“Coup d’État: A Practical Handbook”) dismissed the notion of this riot as an insurrection, indeed as anything more than angry people venting. And perhaps because that is what American citizens have become accustomed to in the past year, some even garnering much political support for their violent outbursts. Insurrections require committed revolutionaries seizing critical targets, television stations, closing roads and access points, arresting the existing leaders, having defined political goals and leaders, and a plan beyond the initial seizure. The Capitol riots had almost none of that; the seizure of the Wisconsin state capitol building in 2011 that lasted months had more elements but even that wasn’t an insurrection.

     Indeed, one of the crucial elements of an insurrection – the recruitment of the military to secure the gains of the insurrectionists – was completely absent in the Capitol riots.

     Let’s get real. If one wanted to plan an insurrection against the American government – and no one should – the rebels would want to seize the White House, not the Congress.  Thus, as far as I can recall, movies that depict the (temporary) conquest of America always start with the takeover of the White House. Feel free to correct me, but in Superman II, Independence Day, White House Down, Olympus has Fallen, and probably others, it was the White House that was targeted by the invaders, not the Congress. It was the US President who was ordered to “kneel before Zod!” – not the Speaker of the House.

     I have always loved the Capitol, to me one of the most majestic buildings in the world and a staple of Washington’s skyline that can be seen from the ground miles away and from the air even further away. I have been there many times and am always moved by the experience. But Congress is not the symbol of American democracy as much as it is the symbol of American dysfunction. That is why rule by presidential fiat, known as executive orders, has become the primary method of governance in America. That is an unhealthy reality, but reality nonetheless. Congress is a disturbing side show to the real power bases in America. To Congress they come, they get rich, they exempt themselves from laws that bind others, they cling passionately to their positions – but members of Congress do not represent American democracy.

     Of three branches of the American government, the legislative branch is the only one that could be fairly described as broken, chaotic and at this point superfluous. If indeed it would be taken over by a gang of rebels, the average American would not feel its absence.  It is actually quite appropriate that when the Capitol was invaded, Congress was busy with a purely ceremonial and inconsequential activity. The impeachment trial (when removal from office is no longer a possibility) is another demonstration of the uselessness of Congress. The symbol of American democracy? Hardly.

     Congress hasn’t declared a war in eighty years. The Senate confirms presidential appointments – a rubber stamp when the White House and Senate are controlled by the same party, an irritant when the government is divided. Congress’ role in passing budgets and allocating spending has become a joke, recklessly printing money, running up astronomical Greece-like deficits, and showering this funny money on their favored patrons and voting blocs. The whining Congressmen give themselves too much credit in thinking that the vandalism against their place of business was an attack on America. This is what it was – besides the criminal vandalism: an outcry from common citizens against a failed enterprise, one they no longer trust (and with good reason) and one they no longer value. For all their sanctimony, the approval rating for Congress currently hovers around 25%, dramatically increased from the previous month’s 15% rating that itself was just slightly higher than the popularity of the Corona virus.

      You can like or dislike particular presidents, agree or disagree with the policies of Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush and all the others. You can like or dislike particular Supreme Court justices or decisions. But no one can credibly argue that the executive and judicial branches of the American government do not function. They do function. They are consequential. The legislative does not function and is not consequential (except to harm people’s lives through their intrusiveness), and would be the last place to initiate a coup d’État, insurrection, revolt, rebellion, or whatever they wish to call it.

     Congress does represent America as much as it emblemizes America’s current and continuing decay. Of course, there is a Democrat political interest in exacerbating the attack, bad as it was, and using it as a predicate not only to frivolously impeach an ex-President but also to preclude any investigation into the 2020 election. That is a great tactic that is likely to succeed, to the detriment of the American political process. What will not work as effectively is their attempt to label the Republican Party the party of insurrection, an unstated goal of the current impeachment farce, although it will worsen the polarization that is tearing apart American society.

     Intelligent and reasonable people should see through that.  Perhaps, since Congress has much time and not much to do, it should next impeach Woodrow Wilson. Wait – he was a Democrat. Well, then they should finally impeach Nixon and Reagan. After all, many legal scholars will solemnly intone that the Constitution is deliberately ambiguous on whether or not an impeached party must be alive to be tried.

      In the haste to judgment, vitiating all sorts of due process and fairness concerns, one fact about the horrific attack on the Capitol stands out. For all the shrill comparisons to the Arab terror of 9/11, it is odd, isn’t it, how little we know about the attack, even though we think we know a lot.

     For example, how was Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick killed and by whom? No arrests have been made – a stunning situation, one month after the attack, and given the high priority always afforded to the death of law enforcement personnel.  Apparently authorities have backtracked from the initial accusation that he was hit by a fire extinguisher. (The autopsy revealed no blunt trauma to the head.) What if his death was unrelated to the Capitol invasion? Well, that would undermine the Democrat narrative.

     If so, the only person actually killed that day was Ashli Babbitt, which begs these obvious questions:  How was Ashli Babbitt killed? Why was she shot and who shot her? Why is the shooting officer’s name being kept secret? Every time an unarmed person has been shot in the last few years, we know the shooter’s name immediately, along with his social media history. How is it that now we know nothing about this officer? Imagine if George Floyd had been killed and the officer’s name withheld for a month, or longer. But why was she shot in cold blood? That too might undermine the narrative.

     And of the other three people who died (apparently, some did not even enter the Capitol building), one died of a stroke, one of a heart attack, and another of unknown causes. Unknown causes? Surely causes can be found, and if unfortunately people died due to medical conditions unrelated to their visit to Washington, why are they being counted among the victims of January 6? Not everyone who died on September 11, 2001 in New York City died as a result of the Arab terrorist attack.

       Freedom suffers from an incurious media, as does truth and justice. The narrative being offered is false, misleading, hyper-partisan, and shrill, and suppressing any investigation into the events (what role did Antifa play in the Capitol riots?) does a huge disservice to the country, even as it serves the interests of the political class.

      You don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to ask questions and demand answers. But answers will not be forthcoming in the current climate of fear, repression, and anger and – what is so typical – the perennial jockeying for the next election.

      Let’s all denounce violence, vandalism, and hooliganism of all sorts, and prosecute criminals to the fullest extent of the law. But let’s not pretend this riot was something other than a riot. A permanent peace cannot be built on a foundation of falsehoods.

     Here is a lesson for Americans: Donald Trump  came to drain the swamp and in the end the swamp drained him. His diagnosis was as correct as his cure was ineffectual. Notwithstanding Trump’s self-inflicted wounds that led to his defeat,* the primary organisms that constitute the swamp rose up, used all their nefarious powers, betrayed their professions and sometimes their oaths, and triumphed. And America is the great loser for it. Those two organisms are the media-intelligence complex that makes or breaks people.

      Chuck Schumer said one true thing almost four years ago. He offered that Trump was “really dumb” for challenging the intelligence community (that means mainly FBI and CIA) because “they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.” Oh, and did they ever!

      Isn’t it fascinating that President Biden has spoken to several world leaders in the last week – and no one listening saw fit to leak anything? It stands to reason that a certain point, Biden will say something to a world leader that will be newsworthy. (It might be enlightening to hear if he talks coherently, engages in conversation, or simply reads from a text in front of him written by others.) When he says something newsworthy, perhaps even a tad controversial like entertaining a change in US policy or committing to something that Biden does not want publicized, and the details of that conversation are leaked, what do think the reaction would be?

      Here is an educated guess. During the Trump era, the leaker was lionized as a hero whistleblower, protected like an etrog, and celebrated throughout the swamp. It happened almost a half-dozen times. In the Biden administration, such a leaker would be fired, vilified, tarred, feathered, and prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned as a traitor and a dire threat to national security. The same pertains to the loquacious and hypocritical opposition politicians who left the Oval Office and ran directly to the media to reveal the private conversations that took place there. That was the past . Today, if that happened, and the off color language was shared with the mainstream media, the media would not print it, the politician would never be invited back, he would be ostracized and pilloried, with the ultimate goal to end his career posthaste.

      There are dozens of examples of the way in which the intelligence community betrayed their oaths, and fabricated evidence or testimony, and all to take down a president they, for whatever reason, despised. Odd, isn’t it, that during the transition, Biden officials met indirectly with Iran and directly with Canadian authorities to discuss matters of interest – and yet no one raised the evil specter of the Logan Act! Heavens! Nor did the FBI launch a perjury trap investigation of any Biden official questioning their activities during the transition, fishing for information, and seeking to muddy the waters. Well, they tried to get Trump and eventually they did, but at great cost to their credibility and efficiency. For all their so-called vaunted reputation for excellence, the intelligence agencies seemed to know little about the attack on the Capitol on January 6, which reflects poorly on their competence.

     These two organisms (the media-intelligence complex) work together, as an essential tool of the intelligence swamp is feeding damaging information to friendly reporters who then publish it under the rubric of “intelligence sources have revealed…” It doesn’t matter whether the information is true or not because the purpose is not news but character assassination. The anonymous personal attack has become the staple of modern journalism – and no one will ever ascertain the veracity of the information or the identity of the leaker. It is so prevalent that former FBI Director Jim Comey (billed by the media – probably his media source – as “DC’s Boy Scout,” which doesn’t say much for the Boy Scouts) shamelessly admitted leaking classified information to a friend who gave it to a reporter who published it, with, of course, no consequences for anybody. He didn’t even try to hide it once it was uncovered but pretended that, of course, this is normal, we leak all the time.

      Even worse than the sleaze in the intelligence division of the swamp is the corruption and collapse of the free media in America. It is a waste of the First Amendment, as the mainstream media perceived itself as a tool of the resistance under Trump and as the official government press organ under Biden. I remember Watergate quite well, but bear with this analogy.

      There was a little over a year between the burglary at the DNC headquarters in the Watergate building and the damaging testimony before Congress of Nixon’s counsel John Dean – a year and eight days to be precise. Imagine if during that entire year, after the burglary that had involved one member of President Nixon’s re-election campaign team but no evidence had surfaced of presidential involvement, the Washington Post – a Nixon ally (play with me) – just published day after day the single trope that “there is no evidence of any White House connection…” Every time a Democrat raised the issue, the Post slapped him down writing that “this claim is false. There is no evidence of a White House connection.” Imagine if Democrats who suggested an investigation were banned from having their voices heard, their megaphones were cut off, the media stopped interviewing them and they were derided as kooks. And all because, for a year, there was “no evidence of any White House connection.”

     Instead, what journalists did was go out and find the evidence, look for sources, and leave no stone unturned (even occasionally fabricating along the way). They were not content to hear from the White House “there is no evidence,” or that “the alleged criminals have been arrested and their matter is being adjudicated, and so further comment is inappropriate. And by the way, there is no story here.” No, they went out to find the story. That was journalism then.

     An honest, objective person might think that if there are allegations of election fraud, real journalists might actually send reporters to investigate, interview the people who claim to have driven trucks of ballots to far flung locations, inquire why third party observers were unlawfully barred from observing the vote counting in numerous places, hear the stories of individuals who went to the polls and were told they had already voted, ask why counting facilities were closed for several hours overnight after election day (to all but a few workers) and get a cogent explanation why suitcases were being brought into counting facilities during those off hours and why other facilities covered up their windows so outside viewers could not see.

      This is not to say that there was enough fraud to overturn the election – who knows? But it is to wonder how it is that the American media was so spectacularly incurious about the major news story of 2020. Instead, this incurious media kept parroting the official line, all saying “there is no widespread evidence of fraud,” as if they were all singing from the same hymnal. Or, “there was no evidence of fraud that would overturn the election.” Or, “the courts have unanimously concluded there is no proof of anything .”

      Well, by those standards, the courts in 1972 uncovered no evidence of presidential wrongdoing, nor “widespread evidence of dirty tricks,” nor “evidence of anything that would change the election.” Somehow, and for some strange reason, the media was much more inquisitive then, and they went in search of the evidence. Not so here.

     Furthermore, take the Hunter Biden “nothing to see here” media response. There was a time when an honest media would have lapped up such a story of obvious “pay for play” corruption involving the highest levels of government – and during an election campaign in which the same parties were running for high office. Instead, we again heard the “no evidence of any wrongdoing,” “no investigation has reported anything criminal,” and, the best, “that story has been debunked.” How could it have been debunked – it was never bunked in the first place? Again, it was the spectacularly incurious American media that ignored this story in order to remain partisans, faithful denizens of the swamp.

      For sure, there are dozens of other examples, not least of them the weekly drumbeat over the summer of some negative book comment against Trump, what some anonymous scandalmonger claimed Trump said about soldiers or someone about something. None of this was real journalism but just partisan prattling.

      Instead, the suddenly docile American press corps allowed Biden to run a stealth campaign, acquiescing in his avoidance of the media and any free and open verbal exchange.  Everything was choreographed. It was obvious that during the limited times he engaged the media, the questioners and the questions were known to him in advance, and the written answers were in front of him. I am hard pressed to conclude that anything has changed even now that Biden is president. Biden’s health and mental acuity were never investigated or even challenged, something unprecedented in recent American history. It is equally obvious the media is covering for him now as well, fawning over every decision, ignoring his gaffes and noticeable maladies.

      The media do not cover the swamp. They are the swamp. And with the drive underway to suppress all alternate viewpoints or any focused challenged to the Biden administration, a free press has become an oxymoron. They are free to hate Trump, and free to love Biden, but the press historically had a role as the watchdog of government. They are no longer watchdogs but have gone from being attack dogs against Trump to being lap dogs for Biden.

Hunter Biden, whatever he did, will get away with it. The FBI and Justice miscreants – Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, Strzok, Page, and the others – whatever they did, the alleged lying and the leaking, the plotting and the coup attempt (a real coup), will get away with it. Expect nothing from the Durham investigation. That is how the swamp covers its tracks. It will someday disappear of its own accord, the media will avert its gaze, and the public will never know.

      That is dangerous for many reasons, but primarily because the swamp successfully protected itself and prevailed. Its victory thus deepened the divide between DC and the people, at least many of them. That polarization, blamed on Trump but fed and nurtured by the press for two decades now, long before Trump, will not engender happy outcomes. The future then is less freedom, more suppression, more polarization, and governance by anonymous aides to an enfeebled president, all with their own agendas.

      A neighbor of mine here in Israel, diehard Trump supporter (but not an American citizen), said to me the other day that he has come around and would now be willing to vote for Biden. To which I responded, “Good. I think the polls are still open in Pennsylvania.”

     All the shenanigans aside, why did Trump lose?* For sure, the pandemic hurt his standing but I am unconvinced that he would have sailed to victory even without the physical and economic devastation of the Corona virus. His core group of zealous supporters, some of whom are deranged, was always offset by an equal number of zealous enemies, some of whom are deranged. It was always to be a battle over relatively few independent votes.

      It is remarkable that he came close to winning a second time even with the pandemic. Even that is not as remarkable as this lingering irony. Given his policy achievements, it is a mystery how he lost* in 2020, but given his personality, it is a mystery how he won in 2016. His administration truly was a space flight away from the norms of the presidency, the bromides of political science and the predictabilities of democratic governance. And for the most part, he was right in almost every policy initiative, and even ones that the chattering classes frowned on (tariffs, for example) were worth a try given the absence of any alternative (save for politicians enriching themselves, their families and cronies through deals with dictators).

      It would be worthwhile on another occasion to reminisce about all the successes – but why did he lose?* There were three points during the campaign when a defeat, to me, became a real possibility.

       The first was in late March, early April, when Trump insisted on appearing on television every day with nothing particularly important or edifying to say. It was as if the entertainer had to fill sixty minutes or so of airtime, and so just filled them. It precipitated endless squabbles with a hostile, tendentious press corps. Trump loved it, the press loved it, but the people grew tired of it.

     It lent itself to repeated, willful distortions. No, he never told people to ingest bleach. He merely asked a layman’s question – why can’t the active ingredient be converted to a non-poisonous use? Hey, why not?! But the media pounced. Whatever he said became fodder for vehement opposition. This will yet emerge (just wait a year or two) although it is already being discussed: Hydroxychloroquine and the accompanying medications in its cocktail were ridiculed, condemned and prohibited for use simply because Trump touted it. Yet, I personally know a half dozen people who would be dead – i.e., dead, not alive and kicking – if they had not been administered Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc and Azithromycin. I personally know doctors who administered it to their patients and took it themselves. You can put all those “studies” in the circular file. An irrational hatred of all things Trump cost lives.

     Nevertheless, and despite his efforts at being a cheerleader and putting a good spin on things, day after day it became clear that he had no plan, his aides had no plan, Fauci and the all the agencies had no plan, the mask is no plan, no country or world leader has a plan even today (even President Biden just conceded he has no plan and it is all going to get worse) and so the daily briefings became exercises in futility and vacuity. It was a bad, un-presidential look. You can’t tell people that things are great when their eyes tell them that things are not great. (It is as ridiculous as citing “science” that boys can be girls and girls can be boys. Such “science” will be followed off a societal cliff to moral oblivion.)

      Those daily briefings were a terrible political miscalculation, and when they abruptly stopped, it only proved how harmful they were. It was the first chink in the presidential armor.

     That would be followed by another blunder that was as foolish as it probably was intentional. The logical assumption in politics is that a candidate secures his base and then reaches beyond his base to obtain a winning majority. Not only did Trump not reach out beyond his base but he also seemed to relish antagonizing anyone who was not already committed to him. He threw away the potential votes of people who did not like him personally but supported his programs and policies. He forced those people to vote for the opposition, as he made the toxicity of his personality more potent than the appeal of his programs.

     It would have been easy for him to give speech after speech saying something along the lines of, “you know, I can be brash, I can be impulsive, sometimes I punch below my weight class at silly targets. I talk too much, I tweet too much, I don’t always say the right or proper thing. I am a New Yorker! But you know I have your back. I only care about you. I have no other interest but the welfare of America and the prosperity and good fortune of all Americans. If you re-elect me, I’ll try to be a little better mannered, but I can’t promise that. What I can promise, just like I did in 2016, is that I will work hard to fulfill every campaign promise I make to you and every position I hold today I will work to implement. And together we will keep America great.” That’s a speech to appeal to outsiders, not the rambling campaign rallies that drew his already adoring admirers. Big mistake.

     And that mistake was compounded by the astonishing failure of the first debate, which became a cringe-worthy verbal slugfest. Yes, I know Biden was rude (he started the interrupting, just like he constantly interrupted Paul Ryan in the 2012 VP debate; look it up). Biden was rude but his goal was simply to look coherent. Trump’s goal should have been to look, if not presidential, at least a little decorous, and in order to woo those people who liked what he did but not the way he did it or said it. Obviously, Trump’s case was not helped by a biased moderator; nonetheless, it was his responsibility to make his case to those wavering voters. Instead, he made the case for his opponent as an amiable, dotty alternative who would not be in the people’s faces all day, every day. (He would rather be in their pocketbooks, anyway.)

      Those three reasons doomed him – the daily corona virus briefings, the failure to reach out to his natural policy supporters, and the awful impression he made during the first debate. And with all that, he still almost won.*

     Trump should count at least one blessing that arose from his post-presidential conduct. He should be grateful that he was banned from Twitter. What an execrable institution, a tool for fools to vent foolish thoughts. It is the means by which mean people express their meanness. I assume Twitter makes its money through advertising, so a good place to start a boycott would be against Twitter’s advertisers. It has been a primary contributor to the decline of intelligent and polite social discourse. It is a proximate cause of the boiling anger ruffling American society, exacerbating differences, celebrating polarization, and keeping everyone on edge. And its CEO never seems to shave or wear a necktie. Enough!

     It is a shame, mostly for America, but also for Israel and the free world, that a winnable election was tossed away. Perhaps Joe Biden will come around, once he figures out when and how to salute the Marines or stops (bizarrely) commenting on their appearance.

      Those are three reasons for the election outcome over which Trump had control but did not exercise it. There is a fourth that he could not control that deserves its own space.

     It was almost inevitable that a Trump-hating media became focused on the absence of any reference to Joe Biden in the President’s farewell address. Truth be told, I thought it strange as well, even a little churlish, and it sent me – the curious type – to do the research. I found that it is actually not uncommon at all for little or no reference to be made by an outgoing President to the incoming one. Indeed, Trump’s sole reference to his successor – he referred to the next President as the “new administration” – was arguably the most expansive and flowery of all his predecessors. He said: “This week, we inaugurate a new administration and pray for its success in keeping America safe and prosperous. We extend our best wishes, and we also want them to have luck — a very important word.”

     Let’s compare Trump’s salutations with those of prior presidents as they left office and bid farewell to the nation.

     As it turns out, Jimmy Carter in his White House farewell speech in 1981 made no mention at all of Ronald Reagan, calling him just  “President-elect,” and Carter, like Trump, served one term and had to hand over power to the opponent who defeated him. But Dwight Eisenhower, turning the reins over to a Democratic president in 1961, who had beaten Ike’s own Vice-President (also a dubious election), made no explicit reference to John F. Kennedy, just terming him “the new president.” He wished JFK “God speed.” Carter wished the nameless successor “success” in addition to Godspeed (“speed” here meaning “prosper”).

     By contrast, Harry Truman in 1953 mentioned Ike five times, each time calling him “General Eisenhower.” That, too, represented the transference of power to the other party, as happened as well in 1969. In Lyndon Johnson’s farewell, LBJ mentioned Richard Nixon thrice and was quite extravagant in his wishes. In the context of a State of the Union address delivered in Congress, LBJ said:

 “President-elect Nixon, in the days ahead, is going to need your understanding, just as I did. And he is entitled to have it. I hope every Member will remember that the burdens he will bear as our President, will be borne for all of us. Each of us should try not to increase these burdens for the sake of narrow personal or partisan advantage.” He didn’t wish Nixon well.

     Richard Nixon had a singular farewell address that preceded his resignation but Gerald Ford (in 1977) mentioned Jimmy Carter just once, and almost cavalierly, combining his congratulations to Congress, especially its new members, “as I did President-elect Carter.” That’s it.

      In 1989, Ronald Reagan, in a beautifully reflective speech about America, noted towards the end of it that “if we’re to finish the job, Reagan’s regiments will have to become the Bush brigades. Soon he’ll be the chief, and he’ll need you every bit as much as I did.” That’s it. No other reference, and that was the friendliest transfer in the last 90 years.

     Certainly, both the Bush presidents were known for their graciousness and Southern manners. Nevertheless, George H.W. Bush, delivering his farewell address at West Point in 1993, also mentioned Bill Clinton somewhat offhandedly, remarking that ,“ I am proud to pass on to my successor, President-elect Clinton, a military second to none.” The focus was on the military – not on the newcomer who had defeated him.

     Eight years later, in 2001, Bill Clinton, in 2001, after the hotly contested election of 2000, became the first (and to date only) president to actually use his successor’s full name, “wishing our very best to the next president, George W. Bush.” George W. Bush in 2009 stated that “I join all Americans in offering best wishes to President-elect Obama.” But in none of these cases was anything else addressed directly to their predecessors; their focus was on their administration and their aspirations for America.

      In 2017, Barack Obama omitted what had become the customary good or best “wishes” merely noting – to a crowd in Chicago that was jeering – that “I committed to President-elect Trump that my administration would ensure the smoothest possible transition, just as President Bush did for me.” That was it. It is a shame that Obama neglected to mention to the FBI his desire for a smooth transition.

     In any event, the standard farewell address includes expressions of gratitude for members of one’s own administration, staff and family, with an account of successes, and usually a reflection about where America is and should be going. Most presidents listed at least some of what they perceived as their accomplishments; LBJ went further, and urged Nixon to adopt some of his policies. Trump’s three blessings to the new but unnamed administration exceed those of all his predecessors.

     Of course, President Trump broke with tradition in a number of ways, not the best look all in all. He is shunning the inauguration, which is not that shocking given the hostility towards him on Capitol Hill. The presence of former presidents does signal the peaceful transition of power and the stability of American democracy. It also attests to the great skill of politicians who can sit and smile at people they despise even as their eyes shoot daggers. Whether Trump honorably refuses to play the political hypocrite or is just a sore loser probably depends on your politics.

     On the other hand, it would have been proper to call Joe Biden or invite him to the White House for a meeting, anytime in the last two weeks, if not two months. This is not for practical reasons – the bureaucracies are cooperating and Trump never had control over the FBI so Biden need not fear that – but for reasons of decorum and good taste. It need not have been televised but it is appropriate to signify somehow a peaceful change in administrations. Alas it was not to be. In a week or two, none of this will matter but since at least part of Trump’s immediate future rests in Biden’s hands, it would have been worthwhile to meet discreetly and exchange thoughts about the future. About the past, they will never agree.

     None of the presidents in their speeches went overboard on graciousness. That is surprising, until we realize the anguish they must feel in going instantaneously from being the center of attention and the most powerful man in the free world to being a historical sideshow. That is certainly not meant as a rationalization, as graciousness in public life should be a minimum expectation of our leaders. But the content of these orations make it clear that for one last brief and shining moment, they want the spotlight all to themselves.

     Interestingly, the amicability of the transitions appears to be unrelated to the verbiage used toward one’s successor in these farewell addresses. As Trump himself noted, he is the first non-politician (or ex-general) ever elected to the presidency. He came with none of the feigned sincerity, the practiced smiles or the phony geniality that good politicians project. That was his strength as well a weakness, among other strengths and weaknesses that the years to come will surely chronicle.