‘AND AS MY OPPONENT WAS BABBLING . . .’

An ad for a brokerage in The Wall Street Journal featured this message: “Never mistake information for insight.”

Another way of putting that would be: Don’t confuse knowledge and wisdom.

Candidates for public office, regardless of party, make that mistake in almost every speech and campaign pitch, not to mention causing confusion.

Gullible voters, alas, are prone to fall for the scam.

One of the most successful practitioners was – is – William Jefferson Clinton, the man from Hope. His blarney was golden. [Has anyone noticed that nearly all of our recent presidents seem to have Irish ancestors? Someone on the Emerald Isle has a hereditary bent for tracing family trees back to nearly St. Paddy.] His encyclopedic mind could lay out strings of facts and factoids about acknowledged problems that would intrigue listeners, especially those writing for the news media. That ability made him the successful politician he was. Mrs. C is fated to use the same technique in her coming campaign to gain the same office Bill held for two terms. Remember, when he ran the first time, a campaign theme – though not official – was get two for one. She was purported to be the smartest woman on earth. She did parlay that reputation to garner a senate seat in a state in which she had not previously resided and as secretary of state.

John McCain was typical in his use of the same methods. In fact, the proper nouns in the preceding sentence could be left blank and then filled in with nearly any political name and be accurate.

Political party doesn’t matter.

Speeches laden with problem upon problem are so common that few are analyzed for content, especially in the popular press. Rather, campaigns are covered as races with progress reported in polling results and in changes therein.

Politicians and their handlers shun offering specific solutions, although opponents repeatedly point out that lack, because the “devil is in the details.” One can be attacked for propounding detailed solutions. Details can be nitpicked to good effect; no need to counter with one’s own details. The same danger lurks.

Border sealing is a good example in the debate on immigration legislation, which was campaign fodder for quite a few candidates. It is quite easy to agree the U.S.-Mexico border is long and porous. But sealing it, or whether it is tight enough, can be argued only with some fairly specific proposals. All of which can be retorted in myriad ways. Without getting into details, Mitt Romney suggested a partial solution to illegal immigration through self-deportation by aliens who might find pathways to citizenship too onerous. That got the candidate into heaps of trouble.

Serious politicians, whether in or running for office, should have enough integrity to offer their honest and detailed proposals for handling the problems and troubles that beset the jurisdiction they seek to help run, whether that is the country or merely a township. Such a course, admittedly, is much easier for the town selectman. But, voters should insist that opponents are as equally precise in their criticism. Voters are entitled to more than such attacks as in that old comedic line about the southern pol excoriating his opponent as “a known, practicing heterosexual.”

Modern politics being what they are, any move toward enlightened campaigning or helpful congressional debate may be but idealistic hoping. Speaking of idealism, our Founders were idealistic in their formulations for workable self-government. Despite today’s shortcomings, their genius survives.

A NATION DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CANNOT STAND

Unlike ancient Gaul, America is divided into more than three parts. There are many parts, all competing for special recognition. No need to name them for that would, under our present culture, lead to demands for apology, resignation, denunciation.

We are no longer a cohesive society. The inscription on the base of the Statue of Liberty that asks that this nation be given the refuge longing to be free had it right. America – our portion of the hemisphere – was intended to be something different from its colonial days: a place to exercise individual beliefs without governmental interference. True, many missteps were taken from the time of the Pilgrims through slavery and Prohibition and just plain ornery politicians. But the ideal of people of all stripes being able to compromise and live in harmony was an ideal that was – at least – pursued.

But divisions go beyond civics.

Cultural divides may be deeper and longer lasting.

Divisions occur in literature, technological conveniences, societal intimacies, and most important, age and gender. Every segment and sub-segment is represented somewhere, somehow. Whether it be a neighborhood, a club, a national organization, a lobby, a Website, a post office box, an attitude, those segments are in some way recognizable.

Nonetheless, because of this segmentation, the gulf between portions of our divided society grows and grows. Adhesion, unity, togetherness, nationhood is becoming more and more difficult to reclaim, as it seemed once to exist.

Our oldest people can remember the ‘20s, although probably not that well. Someone born in 1920 is now in his or her 94^th year. Centenarians probably number more than at any time since Biblical, but still they are not that numerous. Real life experience is remembered for the most part only from the ‘30s. The boom years of the “Roaring Twenties” were about their Prohibition and booze-running excesses that divided people into wets and drys, the God-fearing and flappers, law-breakers and peace loving. The Depression brought widespread unemployment, with numerous hoboes roaming the country looking for work. It was a land of vast contrasts --- men with jobs and those on breadlines, baseball and sit-down strikes, movies and dance marathons, skating rinks and dust bowls.

Youngsters knew at least something about those things from morning and evening newspapers, radio, magazines, Movietone news. Those were the same sources for their elders. Not everyone had access to those sources, but enough did, even if not directly. Anyone that could not afford the ten cents a week needed for home delivery of a paper, could stand outside the local newspaper building and read chalked boards with the latest headlines. Word got around, even to the underemployed and unemployed.

Regardless of age or financial status, everyone read, listened to or saw the same media (a word not used in this sense then) outlets. Cities of several hundred thousand usually had at least two or three AM and PM papers and sometimes shoppers, distributed free. Weekly magazines like the Saturday Evening Post were eagerly awaited for their variety of articles, commentary, news photos and fiction. Movies were seen either in the big and fancy downtown theaters with uniformed ushers or in the neighborhood movie house with free china one night a week to draw in customers. AM radio stations – three in most big towns, one each for CBS, NBC and the Red or Blue Network – programmed similarly: music from “hillbilly” to popular band and orchestra to classical to opera, drama from serious stories to comedy to “soap operas,” sports coverage from the ball park or college stadium to re-created reports based on Western Union blurbs for each inning or quarter, plus disc jockey shows. And, of course, there were libraries. Network programs were mostly produced live, including music, and unseen announcers wore tuxedos at night so as to be properly dressed.

Father, mother, children gathered around the radio and listened carefully through static to Sunday night comedy, drama, or to championship boxing matches, Fireside Chats. Radio and movies were big. [People went to movies when they wished, not timing their arrival to starting times. A common phrase, when getting up to leave, was, “This is where I came in.”]

So was all of this good? Not necessarily. These news and entertainment providers, however artful, did tend to unify their audiences. Readers and listeners enjoyed the same things, yet were discriminating enough to disagree on the content. The adhesion these various forms of news and entertainment brought was valuable to society. Some families might be broken, sure that happened, but the idea of families was not disparaged. Home brew might be passed around in a growler at family gatherings, but drunks were not created that way. Bootlegging might bring some hooch into a neighborhood celebration; crime was not glorified. People dressed in their good clothes, not only to go to church but to downtown shopping and to movies. Dating was the norm among young people, usually arranged ahead of time with boys calling on girls and waiting with her parents before she arrived in the living room. Of course there were some cases of pre-marital births, but such occurrences were considered shameful, not broadcast as acceptable behavior.

Class distinctions existed but without the overtness of English life. Formal clothing, such as striped trousers and morning coats and Ascots with top hats were seen on occasion; ladies wore gloves. Working men who did not do hard labor wore suits and ties to the job; leisure clothes were merely old clothing. Children did not wear scaled down adult clothing. For boys, moving up to long pants from knickers was cause for celebration. Higher education tended to stratify society, but not entirely. Recognition of generations was practiced, with young people being taught and expected to be respectful “to their elders.” Polite behavior was encouraged and practiced fairly uniformly. Bad language was pretty much confined to men and boys in their own gatherings and avoided in mixed company, and at home.

Were things better then and to be copied now? An obvious question; still no real direct answer possible.

Real social evils existed then, especially in race relations. There were unspeakable injustices such as lynching. Segregation went beyond mere choice (as sometimes happens now, unfortunately). It was lawful.

World War II and post-war conditions and the GI Bill probably lumped together probably hastened change in societal behavior. Those young people who grew up before and during the war were the actors in the change.

Society is courser now than then. No doubt about that. But it cannot all be blamed on the younger, post-wars generations. Not all can be blamed on technology and its adoption and adaption by entrepreneurs selling it to younger people eager to try it and be creative with it.

No, the norms of behavior and societal restraints have evolved into something much different than those in the ‘20s and ‘30s and ‘40s, and even early ‘50s. A turn occurred slowly from principles and mores that had existed for a great number of generations. Those guiding norms originated in Europe and found their way here, being adapted to a more democratic society, but nevertheless persisting, even through the rough and tumble of movement from the east to the wildness of the west.

In recent decades, American society’s segmentation has worked to the detriment of those unifying norms of behavior. Could it be that entrepreneurs, acting in a perfectly acceptable manner, trying to maximize profits have Balkanized the populace by taking advantage of differing tastes of its age levels? This concentration on demographics has divided Americans into targeted markets for goods and services that deepen separation. Look at kids sitting next to each other, texting and not conversing but communicating with thumbs tapping out speed-spell words, acronyms, and misspelled words. Social and communication skills are waning¸ bringing more individualism, endangering true friendships and dulling job qualifications.

Only persuasion can change our situation. But who is to persuade whom about what?

Politicians in Washington can’t even agree to disagree. Complete demonization becomes both tactic and goal in partisan encounters for victories. Political scientists collect data but define few principles. Philosophers (modern ones, anyway) wring hands but few bells. Theologians hail but fail to sell brotherly love based on divine worship.

Too many people overemphasize their individual rights, denying or ignoring those of a cohesive society. Selfish acts too often trump co-operative acts. How then to persuade the selfish to share and consider helpful ideas. It is something like the story portraying hell as full of food and starving inmates; they sit at tables laden with tasty viands, but each has a spoon with a broom-length handle. Selfishness prevents cooperation that could bring full bellies for all.

Some commentators see a profound difference between individualism and individuality. The former is freedom without responsibility; the latter freedom while seeking social good. Libertine versus liberty-loving.

Some leader – better leaders – needs to emerge who can show that common principles exist that unite Americans while still permitting division on the best ways to retrieve then maintain those sound convictions. Those principles, some at least, are questioned. Politically correct speech is infiltrating our society, especially in universities. By its very nature, PC attacks freedom of speech, one of the tenets labeled a right in the First Amendment. The attack goes beyond individual speech and hits political discourse – exactly why that right was recognized by the amendment’s authors -- when tax bureaucrats can discriminate handing out exemptions to groups organized around ideas. The right to practice religion is endangered when other bureaucrats can require action contrary to conscience. The right to criticize government is narrowed when some news organizations are intimidated by government’s lawyers. When those fundamental rights are threatened and other news organizations ignore their duty to ferret out the offenders.

Leaders must be among us who can point the country toward common beliefs and doctrines that could foster unity of purpose, recognition that the Constitution is a plan and not a roadblock.

Or, maybe our American society is now so fragmented that any semblance of cohesion is improbable. Seers of the past warned that democracy contained seeds of its own destruction. Can that be proved wrong? Our grandchildren may the generation to find out.

A house divided cannot stand.

Lincoln made that point famous in his 1858 speech accepting his party’s nomination for the U.S. Senate. He was speaking about a country “half slave and half free.”

Jesus said it first when he was accused of driving out demons by the power of Beelzebul. “Every kingdom divided against itself will be laid waste, and no town or house divided against itself will stand.”

WAS IT THAT LONG AGO?

George Wallace as governor tried 50 years ago June 11 to block the doors of the University of Alabama to two black students. Because of National Guard troops, they were admitted to classes. That night, President John Kennedy hailed what had happened, and the drive for civil rights for African Americans was well underway.

Less than a year later, I was sent by the Milwaukee Journal to write about Wallace and his candidacy for president.

Editors of the newspaper in Huntsville, where I started my trek to Montgomery, warned that I should be aware that state police know I was in the state and driving a rental car. That seemed a little far-fetched, but later on . . .

Not all my memories are sharp, and I don’t have my stories written then at hand now. But some are quite clear, one being my interview with former governor “Big Jim” Folsom. (In his Christmas message of 1949, Gov. Folsom said, “As long as the Negroes are held down by deprivation and lack of opportunity, the other poor people will be held down also alongside them.”) Big Jim, whose son also became Alabama governor, wouldn’t permit me to take notes of our interview. But when I got to the car afterward, I immediately began writing what I could recall. One quote was actually verbatim: “George (Wallace) won’t go to funerals, ‘cause he can’t be the corpse.” His drawl was filled with sardonic disapproval of his fellow Democrat. My editor cut that quote.

There were a few other stops to pick up background. One was an evening at the Hartselle home of novelist and freelance journalist William Bradford Huie, who covered the civil rights in the south.

Upon arriving in the capitol in Montgomery, I found the governor’s office locked. A state trooper opened the door, and greeted me by name. That triggered the warning given in Huntsville. I don’t remember having made an appointment.

Ushered into the governor’s spacious office, I was directed to a long bench along a paneled wall. From there I watched Wallace as he signed what seemed to be state contracts handed him by an attractive aide.

“Do we know this guy?” Wallace asked repeatedly before signing. Graft? Who knows? There was no way of getting a source.

Leaving Montgomery I drove to the capitol, stopping at the curb long enough to try to catch a glance of the Confederate battle flag, said to fly below the Stars and Stripes. But, to my everlasting regret, I couldn’t see it and I was late for my flight to Atlanta.

Starting my series as I sat in a fortuitous but un-bought first-class seat, I wanted to write about that banner high above the statehouse. Instead, the piece began something like: George Wallace, wrapping himself in the Confederate flag, has begun a quest for the White House.

Much to my chagrin, Wallace kept bringing up my name in speeches as he campaigned in Wisconsin’s presidential primary that spring. He thought I had treated him fairly in my three-part series.

AN ORANGE KANGEROO FROM DENMARK

Call him Andy. He and some other senior golfers were sitting around the clubhouse after their weekly embarrassment on the golf course. Somehow the blather developed to a point where Andy asked how good someone was at math.

Now Andy is a persuasive sort of guy. A political operative in Washington, he runs a small consulting­-lobbying firm. His background is legislator from a tough-politics New England state, hired hand and volunteer in presidential campaigns in flyover states, and a sometime sub-cabinet appointee. He knows his way around the corridors of the federal government. He is no shrinking violet.

One or two guys bite on the math query. Turns out it is more about arithmetic, but that’s a pol for you. It all goes something like this:

Take a number. Don’t tell me. Divide that by two. Add the first number. Got it? Multiply by two. Divide by four. Now multiply by ten. Okay? You now have fifty. Right?

Only one guy by now had played along. But fifty was the number in his head. His reaction was astonishment.

Andy, of course, was gloating.

“Magic?” he asks, seemingly wanting that reaction, and ready to pounce on it. “There is no magic.” Or words to that effect, for there was no stenographer there, and no cell phones recording.

“Good trick,” allowed the astonished one. “Great trick. How ‘ja do it?”

No answer, of course, but rather another trick. It started the same way, with a series of taking a number and performing a series of arithmetical calculations. Then, a switcheroo.

Now convert that number to the corresponding letter in the alphabet; one for A, and so on. Okay? Now take that letter and think of a country in Europe that begins with that letter. Now take the last letter and make that the first letter of an animal.

There was another question with the answer supplying the animal with a color.

Got it?

“Yeah.”

Orange kangaroo from Denmark.

“Damn! How ‘ja do that? That’s absolutely great. Can’t believe it. Come on, how do you do that?”

An octogenarian flabbergasted by a fast-talking politician is not a pretty sight to behold. Except to the pol.

But how did he do it? For someone gullible enough to fall for such nonsense, the answer would have to be intriguing. For someone who likes crossword puzzles, Sudoku, word games and mind-benders, the answer may not come immediately yet it would be completely understandable.

Answers must derive from some math formula that always comes up with the same number. The trickster asking the trickee to multiply by 10 will always add up to fifty, five being the constant answer. Using the multiplier will disguise the trick if the victim asks for another go-round. Or, the trickster can use the added feature of asking the trickee to convert to letters. After that, mental suggestion takes over.

Ah, eureka moment!

Consult the internet and its encyclopedic sources. Sure ‘nough, there are tricks called alphametric, cryptarithm and similar names. High school algebra, says one source, can provide formulas to account for such tricks as befell the clubhouse victims. Those tricks do depend upon the same number as an answer, every time.

Our Web searcher gave up before finding proof of the suggestive nature of the trick he fell for. One does have to admit that “orange kangaroo from Denmark” is one hellava punch line.