The Campaign: a Nightmare

01 Tuesday Nov 2016

Posted by michelinewalker in Election, The United States

Tags

a Nightmare, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Ignoramus, Narcissitic Personality Disorter, The FBI

Hillary Clinton Holds Town Hall In South Carolina Ahead Of Primary

Hillary Clinton in South Carolina (Photo credit: Google images)

A Nightmare

After months of investigation, mere days before the vote, and having failed to find dead bodies in Mrs Clinton‘s closet, the FBI chose to flex its muscles by undermining Mrs Clinton’s bid for the presidency of the United States. It appears that more emails have surfaced. We do not know what they contain but they have jeopardized the success of Mrs Clinton campaign and the security of the citizens of the United States. More importantly, they are putting the world at risk. No Mr Trump is not presidential material.

To be absolutely precise, the FBI, the American Federal Bureau of Investigation, may have sabotaged the 2016 American presidential elections. Are these new emails or emails waiting to be investigated? How can anyone know? The timing would suggest they were sitting in a file cabinet or were handed over at the worst moment. We have no way of knowing. The campaign was a circus and it has turned into what seems a nightmare.

At any rate, witch-hunting has begun. There were rumours suggesting connivance between Mr Trump and Russia. This matter was dealt with promptly. We have been told that their is no connivance between Mr Trump and Russia.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/harry-reid-james-b-comey-clinton-inquiry

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/clinton-demands-answers-on-fbi-directors-email-disclosure/

Witch-Hunt by Lucy Gaylor-Lindholm, 2010

Mistaken Identity

Not only does the FBI investigation seem a witch-hunt, but the nominee who is in serious trouble is Mr Trump, not Mrs Clinton. Therefore, it may be a case of mistaken identity.

How can anyone forget that

“Trump’s trouble began on October 7, when The Washington Post released a video in which Trump boasts of sexually assaulting women. “You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful [women]—I just start kissing them,” Trump said. “It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything.” He added, “Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.” The video produced a wave of revulsion, and many Republicans denounced him, with some withdrawing support.”
The Atlantic

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/donald-trump-scandals/474726/

Sexual assaults are a statutory offence in several countries and damning in the United States, with the possible exception of Mr Trump. The facts that emerged on 7 October 2016 caused many Republicans to distance themselves from Mr Trump. But the FBI did not promptly lift the cloud of suspicion that could lead to Mrs Clinton’s defeat. It could be that the FBI chose to ignore that a known sexual predator was still an official nominee to the presidency of the United States, drowning in an ocean of unsubstantiated suspicion the better qualified candidate. I doubt that Mrs Clinton would have run for office if there were serious improprieties in her conduct.

An Ignoramus

Former General and Secretary of State Colin Powell has credibility. He stated that he would vote for Mrs Clinton because she is an experienced political figure, not a frivolous comment. Mr Trump is new to politics and knows so little about the various dossiers the President of the United States must be familiar with that one wonders why the Republican Party chose him as their nominee to the presidency. They perhaps expected that Mr Trump would present a clear and coherent platform, but he didn’t.

For instance, he gathered a group of women who were ready to say that former President Bill Clinton was a womanizer. Mr Trump should have known that former President Bill Clinton’s indiscretions have nothing to do with Mrs Clinton’s ability to play her role as President of the United States in a competent manner and it so happens that in the current race to the presidency, Mrs Clinton is the competent nominee, not Mr Trump. Mr Trump did not know that forcing oneself on a woman was objectionable and perhaps a crime. It is a crime in many countries.

Besides, Mr Trump planned attack on former President Bill Clinton was a “trumpism.” It was yet again avoidance of a discussion of the many issues facing his nation, such as immigration, gun-control, the crisis in the Middle East, matters Presidents of the United States deal with. Given the years she has devoted to serving the people of the United, Mrs Clinton is familiar with these issues, which, as noted above, makes her the competent nominee. Mr Trump’s campaign was no more than a distasteful sideshow and sadly “bombastic” (Paul Krugman, NYT).

The article below, by Paul Krugman, dates back to May 2016, but it has not lost its significance. To read the article, please click on its title.

Conclusion

Please do keep in mind that, if elected, Mr Trump intends to build a wall separating the Unites States and Mexico. It would prevent Mexicans from entering the United States. He has also stated that, if he elected to the presidency, he would not allow Muslims into the United States. In his opinion, all Muslims are terrorists. Moreover, this sexual predator has threatened to jail women who have undergone an abortion. Finally, as our colleague B. Ashley has written, he suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder (see Wikipedia). Mr Trump’s behaviour is “characterized by an exaggerated feelings of self-importance,” or grandiosity. If a man states that he should be proclaimed President of the United States, by-passing an election, not only is he assaulting democracy, but his perception of reality could be that of an absolute monarch. All humans exhibit a degree of narcissism. We think we are important, but not the point of claiming we should be the president of a country, except as an obvious joke. That would be called a sense of self-entitlement.

After posting my last article, I realized that it lacked a conclusion, or final sentence about democracy. In a democracy, people have the right to choose their president, but they also have to live with the consequences of their choice. Mr Trump does not know poverty. He can afford the best care, the best medication, luxurious dwellings, meals in the finest restaurants and lives in a tower he owns.

If elected to the presidency, will he be able to see that others are homeless, hungry, unable to feed their children or to pay a doctor’s fees? Mrs Clinton can see the needs of others, but although she is an experienced politician, which is an advantage, she has spent decades in Washington. Some people think a change is, by definition, for the better.

Video from France, in English
http://www.lemonde.fr/videos/#ufqurl

RELATED ARTICLES

A Democracy. A Right to Vote (30 October 2016)
DECODING THE DONALD PHENOMENON – Call it what you want. There is an explanation for his behavior: twoifbycharmwordpress.wordpress.com
November 8, mere days from now (27 October 2016)
Mr Trump & “trumpisms” (22 October 2016)
Mr Trump as President? It’s still no! (15 October 2016)

A Democracy: the Right to Vote

30 Sunday Oct 2016

Posted by michelinewalker in Election, United States

≈ Comments Off on A Democracy: the Right to Vote

Tags

democracy, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Narcissitic Personality Disorder, Narcissus, the Donald phenomenon

A Street in New York, on a November Day

Our colleague twoifbycharmwordpress.wordpress.com has written several articles on Mr Trump.

I can sense a personality disorder, but it is difficult for me to give it a name. I am not a psychologist, nor am I a psychiatrist. However, our colleague B. Ashley has studied the “Donald phenomenon” methodically and has sought the help of experts. Therefore, she may be able to provide information that go beyond my “trumpism,” which consists in concealing one’s platform or in not having a platform to begin with. It would seem that what ails Mr Trump is Narcissistic Personality Disorder (Wikipedia). There can be no doubt that his behaviour is “characterized by a exaggerated feelings of self-importance,” or grandiosity.

Voter take into account the nominee’s platform. But they also choose the nominee considering the manner in which he or she behaves. Mr Trump has behaved as though he owned the presidency. Mr Trump has avoided presenting a serious and coherent platform, a process I have called “trumpism.” He has also exhibited a sense of entitlement, which is consistent with narcissistic behaviour.

Cancelling the Election? Never!

Mr Trump had stated he would not accept the result of the election unless he were elected. But he has moved a step closer to imposing himself on the American electorate. The moment he heard that more emails had been found that could harm Mrs Clinton, he boldly proposed that the election be cancelled. He was the President of the United States by default, so to speak.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37805525

On the one hand, Mr Trump displayed feelings of grandiosity, and, on the other hand, he forgot a simple and well-known rule, which is that one is innocent until proven guilty. However, particularly egregious is the implication that one can rise to the presidency of the United States dispensing with an election. That would be an assault on democracy. It is the behaviour or dictators.

It could be that Mr Trump is afraid the FBI, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, will not find information that would disqualify Mrs Clinton and that he felt he should quickly seize this heaven-sent opportunity. Not only would Mr Trump have risen to the presidency having avoided a serious discussion of the many issues at hand, thereby flaunting “exaggerated feelings of self-importance,” but, more importantly, Mr Trump would have circumvented the election to which campaigns lead, which I do not think is possible.

Mrs Clinton has asked, unambiguously, that all information FBI investigators extract from the latest emails they are in possession of be made available to the electorate as soon as possible, if appropriate. This request is reasonable. But it is not reasonable to expect being proclaimed President of the United States by-passing an election. If the FBI finds serious and arguably true improprieties in the emails they are examining, I should think the need for an election would not be eliminated. Americans would still have to choose between nominees.

I do not know what protocol would be used in this worst-case scenario, but I doubt that an election can be avoided. Elections are central to the “rule of the commoners,” the concept that underlies the notion of democracy. (See Democracy, Wikipedia.) A democracy is not a perfect form of government, but it is the best we have. Americans must vote.

Mr Trump has tarnished his image. A nominee to the presidency should know:

that sexual assaults are unacceptable;
that a defeated nominee must accept defeat because the United States is a democracy;
that one does not attack members of one’s party. Colin Powell is a retired General and a former Secretary of State. His support was essential;
and that one has to be voted into office. Nominees are not divinely ordained, which would explain why Mr Trump has circumvented a serious discussion of the issues. He is “chosen.”

Let us also remember:

that his attitude towards Mexicans and Muslims is unacceptable;
and that il n’est pas sortable. He does not have the polite manners that allow one to take him out. He will shame the United States.

Conclusion

To conclude, I will write that if Mr Trump is elected to the presidency of the United States, Americans will have to face with the consequences of their decision, and so will the world. The United States is a democracy.

Narcissus-Caravaggio (1594-96) edited

Caravaggio (Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons)

Narcissus

WordPress has specialists. What a group! B. Ashley researched “Narcissistic Personality Disorder.” I thank her.

In the area of Greek mythology, Aquileana is our expert. Narcissus is an important figure in Greek mythology, so Aquileana has told his story. Please note that Aquileana has not expressed her view on Mr Trump. Her area is Greek mythology and related Roman mythology. The following link leads to her post on Narcissus.

https://aquileana.wordpress.com/tag/narcissus/

But I will attempt to summarize Narcissus'(story, using Wikipedia and Britannica.

Narcissus was the son of the river-god Cephissus and the nymph Liriope. He was a beautiful youth who “disdained those who loved him” (the nymph Echo loved him and so did Ameinias). Nemesis, “the goddess who enacted retribution against those who succumb to hubris (arrogance before the gods),” was able to attract Narcissus, the son of the river-god, to a river and once he saw the reflection of his face, he could not stop looking at it. “Narcissus lost his will to live. He stared at this reflection until he died.”

However, “[t]he Greek traveler and geographer Pausanias, in Description of Greece, Book IX, said it was more likely that Narcissus, to console himself for the death of his beloved twin sister, his exact counterpart, sat gazing into the spring to recall her features.”[1]

The story of Narcissus is told in Ovid‘s Metamorphoses, Book III. The flower named after Narcissus, the narcissus, is best known as the daffodil or jonquil. The jonquil grew where Narcissus died.[2]

The term narcissism has several meanings, which include grandiosity and egocentrism. Narcissists focus on themselves and themselves alone. For instance, Napoleon had himself crowned Emperor. But this practice has no room in a democracy.

Kind regards to everyone. ♥

____________________

[1] “Narcissus”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2016. Web. 30 oct.. 2016
<https://www.britannica.com/topic/Narcissus-Greek-mythology>.

[2] loc. cit.

November 8, mere days from now

27 Thursday Oct 2016

Posted by michelinewalker in Election, The United States

≈ 10 Comments

Tags

Andrew Wyeth, Donald Trump, Gerrald F. Seib, Hillary Clinton, The Social Contract, trumpism

Independence Day by Andrew Wyeth (Google images)

A Strange Campaign

The current presidential campaign in the United States differs from previous campaigns, such as the 2008 campaign. In 2008, issues were discussed, which has not been the case in this campaign. Mrs Clinton is a veteran politician, so voters know, to a large extent, what they will be dealing with, if she is elected to the presidency. But Mr Trump is not a politician and is not familiar with the numerous issues. He therefore avoids discussing issues.

I have written about his “trumpisms,” which is a dismissive discourse. My best example of a “trumpism” is the failed discussion on gun control. It ended when Mr Trump said “take her [Mrs Clinton’s] guards away from her and watch,” or something to that effect. Mr Trump managed not to address gun control by straying not only from the general to the particular, which could be relevant, but from the general to the personal, quite a gap. The personal is not irrelevant in choosing a president, but in a debate, it is seldom mentioned.

Well, a day or so ago, Mr Trump was threatening to sue the women who confirmed he was a sexual predator. That is another “trumpism.” While Mr Trump threatens these women loudly, real issues are not being discussed, which tells the story of Mr Trump’s campaign. However, should Mr Trump be elected to the presidency and sue the women he assaulted, their testimonial could damn him. He could be impeached. It would be in Mr Trump’s best interest not to carry this discussion an inch further.

He won’t. But issues are not on his mind. Having threatened to sue the women who confirmed he was a sexual predator, Mr Trump is now attacking his Party, the GOP or Republican Party.

As a result, Mrs Clinton is inviting endorsements from Republicans. The colleagues who nominated Mr Trump are distancing themselves. For example, Colin Powell has said he would vote for Mrs Clinton.

Mrs Clinton is familiar with every dossier the President of the United States will have to deal with, and she can tell right from wrong. Mr Powell “spoke about his [Mr Trump’s] inexperience, he spoke about the messages that he’s sending out every day to his supporters, which really paints our country in a negative light across the globe with all our allies.” (The New York Times)

As I was meditating on this drôle de campagne, this strange campaign, a campaign during which few issues have been addressed, I was reminded of French encyclopédiste Denis Diderot‘s (1713 – 1784) Paradoxe sur le comédien, The Paradox of the Actor. In Le Paradoxe sur le comédien, written between 1773 and 1777, Denis Diderot suggests that a good actor does not feel the emotions he displays. He is in full possession of himself, which allows him to play the same role convincingly day after day. (See The Paradox of the Actor, Wikipedia.)

Nominees do play a role. In fact, we all play roles and even “dress” the part: the office, lunch with a dear friend, an evening at the opera, relaxing, etc. As for nominees to the role of President of the United States, their role is to tell the people—it’s all about the people—what they intend to do for them. They are in fact negotiating a social contract: taxation, employment, education, immigration, the Middle East, gun control, the environment, health care and other social programmes, etc. Good leaders build the future and, as the saying goes, the road to the future is always under construction.

If Mr Trump intends to slash into the Affordable Health Care Act, now is the time, or the campaign was the time, to discuss it. Health care must be affordable.

The polls surprised me. I didn’t think Mr Trump would be able to gather as much support among the United States’ electorate as he did. He was a newcomer to Washington and therefore a mostly unknown quantity whose education had not prepared for the position of President of the United States. But he had supporters. Mr Seid, quoted below (italics), may have the answer “populist… .” Could the medium be the message? (See The Medium is the message, Wikipedia.) Truth be told, if the polls now place Mrs Clinton ahead of Mr Trump, it has not been, until now, because of a sneaky conspiracy or ruinous revelations from the best of hackers. So far, Mr Trump is the one who has built himself and undone himself, and he may not be able to walk back a bad performance.

Trumpism

I should note that the Wall Street Journal‘s Gerald F. Seib also used the term “Trumpism” in an article published on 8 August 2016 entitled “Separating Donald Trump From Trumpism.” No, I did not borrow the term “trumpism” from Mr Seib. I borrowed it from my mother tongue, French. “Se tromper” means to make a mistake, to be mistaken, and “tromper” means to deceive, to be unfaithful to, to fool. Moreover, an elephant has a trompe.

I have given “trumpism” a meaning that is not consistent, or not entirely consistent, with Mr Seib’s who writes that there is Mr Trump and

[t]hen there is Trumpism—the mixture of attitudes and positions that catapulted its namesake to the Republican nomination in the first place. Trumpism is a populist mix of anger at the status quo, skepticism about the virtues of free trade and immigration, doubts about the need for U.S. intervention abroad, fondness for law and order and a dose of nationalism. “Americanization, not globalization, will be our new credo,” Mr. Trump put it in a speech in Detroit on Monday.
“Separating Donald Trump From Trumpism.”

We are days away from the American election. Everything could change. But I doubt it will.

Love to everyone. ♥

Big Room by Andrew Wyeth, 1988 (Google images)

Andrew Wyeth “I paint my life”
music: “Cavatina” by Pat Halling

German Shepherd by Andrew Wyeth (Google images)

More on Dragons and less on Swords

08 Wednesday Feb 2012

Posted by michelinewalker in Myths

≈ 42 Comments

Tags

dragons, good foreign policy, Hillary Clinton, Jacques de Voragine, Jesus fed a multitude, miracles, Piers Morgan, President Obama, scapegoating, St George

* Chinese Dragons

Myths are needed

It appears that we require mythical creatures, such as the dragon, because of their function as symbols or metaphors. It also appears myths, such as the story of “St George and the Dragon,” are more powerful because they are narratives. They have a context. Certain mythicals animals are the embodiment of a story, which is the case with the phoenix. The phoenix rises from his own ashes. So the phoenix is a both a symbol and a story.

However, in itself or himself, our mythical dragon does not tell much. The meaning he has is the meaning we tag on him. So, given that in the Western World and Middle-Eastern countries he symbolizes evil, we seldom isolate him. Evil is perpetrated onto someone as in the story of “St George and the Dragon.” However, we can redeem the evil dragon by turning him into a protector, but, again, he would have to protect someone or something.

From St George to George the dragon-slayer

Consequently, although St George is no longer a saint, it may be unwise to dismiss him altogether. Formerly a saint, George is now mythic. He is the mythic dragon-slayer and we require dragon-slayers even if the new George does not get on his horse, take off his sword and slay dragons.

St George’s Requests

However, we can remember that after saving the king’s daughter, George made requests, one of which was never to forget the poor, which is Christian thinking but also transcultural thinking.

Yesterday, as I was browsing the pages of Northrop Frye’s Words with Power, these words slimply leaped up the page:

Then again, Christ is constantly associated with the miraculous provision of food. Miracle of feeding large multitudes with very small amounts of food are recorded in all four Gospels, sometimes more than once, and such miracles are explicitly antitypes of the provision of manna in the wilderness (John 6:49-51).

Dragons

Dragons still dwell among us. A few days ago, in a televised interview, a candidate for the leadership of the Republican party stated that health-care reforms were not constitutional. If Barack Obama were not President of the United States, a Nobel Laureate, admired all over the world, and ably assisted by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the world would have laughed or stood in horror as it listened to a metaphorical dragon.

Just how can a candidate to the leadership of the political party, express such complete disregard for the welfare of the nation and think he is qualified for the job he is seeking? Before the presidency of Abraham Lincoln, slavery was not looked upon as morally reprehensible, but times have changed.

The former slave is now on the same footing as his former owner, which means that we can no longer oppose social programs as they are consistent with the notion of equality, as is paying one’s fair share of taxes.

Many of my blogs are about fairly tales and mythic creatures, but as mentioned above, they re-present in our imagination what does exist palpably or what should exist. They are born of a need to compensate for an imperfect world.

Scapegoating and Obstructionism: it’s official

Journalists have now used the words scapegoat and obstructionism in connection with the manner in which Congress operates and treats President Obama. Certain members are short of faults, so they try to create faults that they can impute to President Obama and his administration. But they have showed they were robotic naysayers by saying ‘no’ when it was in their best interest and that of the party to say “yes.” Just imagine the phone calls and the e-mails the naysayers received from the more enlightened members of the Republican party.

A Swordless George

But, George may have to use his pen and write words with power: metaphors, symbols, etc. to defeat inequality. He cannot use his sword. The horrific attacks of 9/11 were a prelude to great distress and to a financial disaster, so swords must be put away as the US rebuilds.

US: Foreign Policy

However, there are happy pages to this chapter. President Obama did as he said he would do. He listened and asked members of his administration to listen. The picture of President Obama having a polite discussion with President Karzai of Afghanistan is etched in my mind. That is how real Christians treat others.

I am therefore confident that, like the phœnix, the United States will rise from the ashes of war and it comforts me to think that as commander-in-chief the President is looking after the veterans.

The world must fight terrorism, but they must do as did the Navy Seals. The Navy Seals did kill Bin Laden, which is what they had to do. But George, as in Washington, may prefer to fight inequality, prejudice, anti-tax extremism, the death-penalty, etc. Wars kill, maim and cost a fortune.

I still think that the humanists went a little too far in their rejection of Jacques de Voragine’s Légende dorée or Golden Legend. We still need miracles. By the way, The Golden Legend, i.e. the text, is now online. Click on The Golden Legend or Légende dorée.

Round Dragon

Beethoven: Two Piano Pieces, Ginluca Cascioli (piano)

(please click on title to hear music)

_________________________

[i] Northrop Frye, Words With Power, Being a Second Study of “The Bible and Literature” (Viking, the Penguin Group, 1990), p. 287.

An Obama-Clinton ticket

13 Tuesday Dec 2011

Posted by michelinewalker in Uncategorized

≈ 8 Comments

Tags

Hillary Clinton, Marschal McLuhan, President Obama, Republican campaign, Republican psyche

The White House

Yes, that may be ideal. But to those who say that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would have made a better president than President Obama, I would advise further reflection.

First, Madame Clinton, as Secretary of States, has been away from the claws of the now Republican-dominated Congress.

Second, anti-tax extremists would fight taxation, no matter who is President.

Third, the majority of Republicans live in States where their ancestors had slaves do the work in an inexpensive manner. It would therefore be perfectly reasonable to assume that, deep in their psyche, there may remain a false sense of entitlement, which could help explain why so many are anti-tax extremists and oppose what they call “big government.”

Fourth, financially, matters would have been the same. When former President Bush realized that the US was no longer solvent, the Democrats came to the rescue. This is the story of TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program). As President, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would have inherited the burdensome debt left by President Bush.

Fifth, we must into account the interaction between the electorate and a president. In this respect, matters become complicated. According to the theory of communication, what ‘A’ says is usually different, to a lesser or greater extent, than what ‘B’ hears because ‘B’ has expectations that may distort the message. In other words, between ‘A’ and ‘B,’ noise may interfere.

Finally, as Marshall McLuhan put it, the “medium is the message.”

It could be that the naysayers who are currently obstructing proper stewardship of the nation may have been more lenient had Madame Clinton been President, but I doubt it. Given that the main issue is taxation, or, according to Republican orthodoxy, making sure the poor and the middle-class pay the bulk of the bill, the presidency would not have been easier on Madame Clinton than on President Obama. The problem is with the electorate, not with the incumbent.

These robotic Republican naysayers are simply preventing the President from helping his people so they, the Republicans, can say that President Obama has not helped his people. They have nothing to pin on the President, whose presidency has so far been flawless. They must therefore be very “creative.” If this is their way of conducting a campaign, shame on them! Doesn’t this remind you of Nixonian games and Reagan‘s Willie Horton ads?

My best opinion would therefore be that no one can say that current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would have been a better president than President Clinton. Both are intellectually superior to former President Bush, which is a criticism not so much of the former President, as of the electorate.

But Hillary Clinton has been and remains an extraordinary Secretary of State. Moreover, she and President Obama work well together and both care for the people. Had it not been for the work she did years ago to bring health-care reforms, I believe there would have been greater opposition to President Obama’s effort and accomplishments in this regard.

So an Obama-Clinton ticket would be just fine.

Holiday music

(click to hear music)

* * *

December 13, 2011

“Que sais-je ?”

21 Wednesday Sep 2011

Posted by michelinewalker in Uncategorized

≈ 13 Comments

Tags

brotherhood, commonality, Hillary Clinton, Montaigne, peace, President Hamid Karzai, President Obama, WordPress

Yesterday, I saw a video that led me to think that there just may be greater acceptance of other cultures and, especially, of the Middle East.

The video showed President Obama speaking with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan. I saw two men who were speaking calmly and with civility. Could this be the work of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Perhaps, but there just may be more.

Many soldiers died in Afghanistan during the last few years, some of whom were Canadian soldiers. There are unhappy memories and I feel genuine sorrow for those who have lost a loved one.

Moreover, as a woman, I rather enjoy being able to show my face. But it could be that women whose faces are hidden and whose husbands have many wives are nevertheless happy. “Que sais-je ?” (What do I know?) These are the words of Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592).

Unfortunately, one cannot roll back history, but one can make today the first day of the rest of one’s life. We have that option.

In other words, I felt a sense of relief viewing these two Presidents speaking humbly with one another and then shake hands.

Let us hope for greater brotherhood among human beings. Cultures may differ, but we are all human beings. There is therefore a profound level of commonality between all of us.

It is my most sincere wish that humans will now work with one another and avoid conflicts.

* * *

September 21, 2011

La Fontaine’s “Les Grenouilles qui demandent un roi” (The Frogs who Desired a King)

18 Thursday Aug 2011

Posted by michelinewalker in Fables

≈ 52 Comments

Tags

CNN's Don Lemon, Ecclesiastes, Europe gasping for air, frogs and hardline Republicans, Hillary Clinton, Jean de La Fontaine, La Fontaine's Les Grenouilles qui demandent un roi (The Frogs Who Desired a King, Michele Bachmann, Ramsay Wood, United States, Vanitas

“Les Grenouilles qui demandent un roi”

“Le Chêne et le Roseau” is an exquisite fable, containing many lessons, one of which is the Vanitas vanitatum, omnia vanitas (Vanity of vanities; all is vanity, Ecclesiastes 1:2) that permeates French seventeenth-century literature. We all die, even kings. Death is the equalizer.

More timely, however, is a fable entitled “The Frogs w ho desired a King” (book three, number IV of La Fontaine’s first volume of Fables [1668]).

“Les Grenouilles qui demandent un roi” tells the story of “silly and frightened” frogs who live in a democracy, but, tired of democracy, ask Jupiter for a monarch. Jupiter acquiesces. From the skies descends a peace-loving king who makes a huge noise as he lands. This king is a beam (un soliveau) often represented as a log.

Frightened by the din, the frogs go into hiding, only to return slowly to look at the king. The peace-loving king is a beau, which is not very kingly. The frogs start jumping on the beam-king, which the king tolerates as Jupiter grumbles. The beam-king is a kindly monarch, but he does not move.

Dissatisfied, the people go back to Jupiter to ask for a king who moves. So Jupiter sends them a crane who starts eating them up. In Æsop’s version of this fable, the crame is a stork.

Our silly frogs complain, and Jupiter tells them, first, that they should have kept their government (a democracy), second, that they should have been pleased to be sent a gentleman-king, the beam-king, and, third, to settle for the king they have for fear of encountering a worse one, La Fontaine’s celui-ci (this one) pointing to the voracious crane.

The Moral

One of the morals of this fable is the eternal “Leave well enough alone,” but we are also reading a “Beware-of-your-wishes-as-they-may-come-true” narrative. I would therefore suggest that my neighbours to the south take a good look at their duly-elected President and count their blessings. President Obama’s first gesture when he came into office was to save an economy that is no longer confined to the United States. Furthermore, as the US borrowed a huge amount of money to pay a debt incurred by the previous administration, President Obama set about providing the citizens of his country with social programs, beginning with health care. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had not succeeded in allowing the US to take this gigantic step toward nationhood, but she had traced a path. I salute her and thank her on behalf of her nation.

Then came July 2011! America could not default on its debt and the Republicans knew it, but the Tea Party, Michele Bachmann’s turf, and hardline Republicans were so slow in coming up with a relatively acceptable plan that the US lost its triple-A credit rating and left Europeans gasping for air. What on earth was Congress doing?

However and fortunately, because the rest of the world knows the US has an extraordinary President, the consequences were not catastrophic. President Obama’s administration has credibility and America has great minds, people who, unlike Bachmann’s campaign aids, would not push CNN’s Don Lemon into a golf cart as he attempted to chronicle Bachmann’s campaign at the Iowa’s State Fair, in Des Moines.

Who are these pompous people? Could they be heirs to the “gent fort sotte et fort peureuse” (people so silly and so afraid) of La Fontaine’s fable, ready to throw stones mindlessly?

P.S. By the way, Ramsay Wood has continued to translate of The Tales of Kalila and Dimna (tales told by Dr Bidpai), the Arabic version of Vishnu Sharma’s Panchatantra. I own and cherish a 2000 paperback edition of the first volume of the Tales of Kalila and Dimna, published in 1986 by Inner Traditions (Rochester, Vermont). Ramsay Wood writes in a manner that makes the reader think Wood himself wrote Kalila and Dimna, and the stories sound as young as the morning dew. The first volume of Ramsay Wood’s translation of Kalila and Dimna has a brilliant and informative introduction by Doris Lessing. (See my post on “Le Chêne et le Roseau”).