Skepticart

Boy, am I fed-up with way too many organizations and individuals. Let me tell you why.

As our planet seems to be enveloped in hate, incompetence, complacency and violence, too few of us seem concerned about doing something to deal with these problems. For most of my life, when such concerns arose, there was rapid involvement by groups and individuals eager to do their part. But, today, greed and selfishness have taken over. Even my “former”(?) hero, Bruce Springsteen, has let me down. He’s charging upwards of $5,000 per ticket for his newest tour, beginning in February 2023. Chutzpah is too nice a word for that behavior. If only that was the most immediate problem. Donald Trump and his band of traitors are still around. Yet, a serious and aggressive response to their behavior is still missing from too many quarters. The seemingly endless war on Ukraine remains deadlocked in misery and grief, Americans and cities are locked in death and destructive behavior, and the climate is more and more out of control. I will halt my list of calamities there; otherwise, I might have to look for a new planet to escape to. So, what are we going to do about this global mess?

Let’s begin with American cities. Not so long ago, mayors, county executives, and other city administrators, were shouting from the rooftops about reduced crime levels in their respective jurisdictions. Today, they are hiding in shame, afraid to do what is necessary to stem the violence. Afraid of being called racist, or weak, etc. they have seemingly given up, letting police take the blame for policies they themselves devised. Calling themselves “Progressive” and/or enlightened, they have allowed crime, homelessness, and neglect to fester, eating away at livability and decent behavior. Anyone visited San Francisco lately and come away impressed?

By the way, isn’t it in fact racist for public officials to allow so many of their inner-city citizenry to be attacked and slain without a significant response because these politicians are are afraid of being singled-out for overly aggressive behavior towards particular identifiable groups within their jurisdictions?

As for most of the Republican Party, shame, betrayal, cowardice and stupidity, are some of the adjectives that fit. Lincoln would probably have most of them tried as insurrectionists. Such individuals care little about their own country. For them, what’s important is increasing their personal power and/or wealth. They see the pictures on the screen, read newspapers and participate in social media. They come away blind to poverty, disease, homelessness, etc. They witness and applaud destructive leaders, political sycophants, narcissists, and truly evil people. Unfortunately, most of them actually know better.

Historically, I can take you back to almost any time period and describe where the behavior described above leads: fascism and the end of democracy. This holds true for the Roman Empire, Italy under Mussolini, Hitler, and Donald Trump’s plans for an America he again will attempt to lead. Some of you may applaud the latter, but all of us—and especially our children—will be caught up in the hatred and violence, and anarchy Trump’s America will breed. You want to take a chance on any of that?

Forceful action, political involvement, and a compassionate, unselfish spirit, are all required if America is to survive this alarming emergence of Trumpist fascism and criminal behavior. Fear is pervading this country and it will not fade until we act to destroy the pernicious seeds already sown within us. Our past is not spotless. Racism is imbued amongst us and is destroying the decency that remains. It won’t get better until we are all fed-up enough to act responsibly.

Joe Biden is a wartime President. By that I mean he is presently involved in supplying arms to, and supporting, Ukraine–both economically and politically–in its battle against Russia. He is also peripherally involved in the Middle East and Africa, where the United States is assisting “friends” in their ongoing conflicts. But, we must take this designation one step further; here at home, terrorism, a rise in crime, political violence, mass shootings, et al, are tearing at the social fabric of the country. In many respects, these domestic battles are proving more difficult to win than their foreign counterparts.

So why, with so much at stake in his attempt to secure economic, social and political stability, the President’s poll numbers remain low and his communication exchange with the American public muddled? The easiest answer is that “normal” political opposition (i.e. the Republicans), has been catalyzed by a Trump-led group of thugs and seditionists who seek their own power rather than maintain the security of the American people. Let’s look at gun control as a primary example of how this process is operating.

Americans, especially after the twin mass shootings in Buffalo, New York and Uvalde, Texas, are significantly in favor of laws designed to control mass killing by guns. Whether banning certain weapons, or impeding access to them, Americans from all walks of life want government to do something. Yet, at least for the moment, the violence goes on. Yes, there is a Second Amendment to the Constitution that regulates general legalities regarding weaponry. Thankfully, nowhere in its content is an individual granted the right to acquire AR15’s and other mass-casualty weapons of war. The Gun Lobby remains effective, but what about the right of the rest of us to insist that we–and especially our children–are not slaughtered by some 18 year-old hate-infused psychopath who is legally able to acquire these weapons? Greed and power are behind much of the lobby’s control, but we must reduce its potency. How?

First, political will and the passage of necessary laws are at the heart of a solution. Such legislation must remove the political and economic benefits accruing to those who sell such destructive weaponry. In turn, there must be found a better means to filter out those whose mental state demonstrates an inability to safely possess weapons-of-war.

In a war, Presidents need allies, especially bi-partisan ones. Unfortunately, one of our political parties has gone off the deep end. Extremism and cowardice, along with an overweening pursuit of power, now defines the Republican Party. But, the Democrats, too, are led by some who want to make political points at the cost of legislative accomplishment. Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic Majority leader, on both gun-control and abortion, recently pursued extreme legislation that was designed to make the Republicans look bad and accomplish nothing. Such grandstanding must stop. Please, Leader Schumer, learn from some of your predecessors, especially Lyndon Johnson and Harry Reid. They both had records of bi-partisan accomplishment. We are in trouble and need leadership, courage and talent. Otherwise, get ready for a new age of Trump and his cohorts. “Now is the time for all good” (people) “to come to the aid of their party.”

President Bill Clinton argued that abortion in the United States should be “safe, legal and rare.” A master of devising and implementing centrist policies, his preferred domestic policy recommendations on abortion should be re-examined and reaffirmed at this time of massive extremist exposition regarding major social issues. In such policy areas as same-sex marriage, LGBTQ matters, drug policy, immigration, et al, the battle lines are being drawn in ways that are so mean and divisive that dangerous polarization is infusing American life.

I am Pro-Choice. I respect the views of many in the so-called Pro-Life camp. But, these descriptive titles have become so broad that they are almost worthless by definition. Who isn’t for life? Who does not support the right to choose a variety of social, political and economic opportunities that come before us? Thus, with such wide definitional parameters, extremists within the differing categories have sought to adopt benign terms for their malignant policies and tactics. How can anyone say they value Life by being anti-abortion, yet care little about nurturing a child in a safe and sane direction? I ask the same sort of rhetorical question to those who call themselves pro-Choice, yet also neglect the societal consequences of not supporting appropriate policies that would allow children to grow-up in a healthy and well-educated environment.

Particular damage on all sides stems from those who are single-issue voters and ideologues. On immigration, for example, the concern for those seeking refuge in the United States is noteworthy, but the cost of too many people overwhelming the system can have dangerous, unintended consequences. If scenes of panic and mistreatment at the border lead to unthinking support for entry, think about what happens when voters go to the polls and elect those who do not want anyone of color allowed into the United States: the border will become closed to these individuals for the foreseeable future and the do-gooders have themselves to blame. Remember, sometimes patience and moderation will lead to better outcomes. Immediate gratification to those who say they are supportive of “open borders,” does not then become productive for those who are really moderate on the issue. Otherwise, fewer admissions, more tragedy and less humane policies overall, can be the result.

My call is for moderation and, maybe more importantly, the use of considered judgment when we make public decisions, especially those choices of a political nature. Let’s go back to the abortion issue for some final thoughts.

In the last few weeks, Republican-controlled state legislatures have gone off the deep end. Oklahoma, for example, has passed legislation that gives more rights to a rapist than a thirteen-year old child who was attacked. Should the victim become pregnant, their new laws will not permit an abortion under any circumstances. If the rapist was a relative, the same policy applies. This is unjust, immoral, and downright crazy. Yet, at the opposite end of the political aisle, Democrats in Congress recently had an opportunity to bring sanity and fairness to the abortion debate by drafting national legislation (with significant Republican support), that would simply codify Roe vs. Wade prior to a likely extreme Supreme Court decision on the subject. Instead, Democratic Majority Leader Schumer pushed a bill that was as extreme as possible in permitting abortion in almost any circumstance, regardless of its sure defeat in the Senate. This kind of political extremism (stupidity?) is malpractice. A politically popular and salutary bill is purposefully avoided in order to make some counterproductive political points. What kind of sense does that make?

Pragmatism and compromise must be the operative code for our legislative process—at least at the federal level–or we will be in even more turmoil and decay. Spread the message! Help!

In 1944, Raphael Lemkin, a Polish Jewish lawyer, provided the world with a new word, “Genocide,” defined as “the destruction of a nation or ethnic group.”

Expanding his definition, Lemkin noted that “Genocide is directed against the national group as an entity, and that actions involved are directed against individuals, not in their individual capacity, but as members of the national group.” With Lemkin’s persistent efforts, in December of 1948 the newly-created United Nations adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.” Today, in light of Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine, the pragmatic value of this Convention is being tested by many countries and their leaders, including those who disgrace themselves by their failure to publicly denounce the crimes being conducted upon the Ukrainian people. Of particular note and concern are two countries that would, seemingly, be the first to speak out–the Vatican and Israel.

In terms of the former, a stain on the historical relationship between Catholics and Jews has been brought to the fore by current events. Pope Pius the XII, during the entire course of World War II, failed to denounce by name and/or excommunicate Nazi leader, Adolf Hitler, for Germany’s crimes against humanity. Today, under Pope Francis, much of the world has been urging the Catholic leader to take a different direction and speak out and take action against Vladimir Putin, and other Russian leaders, for their Genocidal behavior. Unfortunately, a so-far static approach by the Vatican will, sadly, produce more ill-will between the Papacy and the rest of the world.

Israel’s conduct towards the Russian government and its leaders is also morally puzzling and deplorable. The country proudly calls herself the Jewish State. Created out of the ashes of the Holocaust, no people nor nation should better understand what Genocide means and the importance of labeling its perpetrators as murderers. Putin is guilty of crimes against humanity and should be publicly ostracized, shunned, and ultimately brought to justice for those crimes. Israelis–and the Jewish people–need no one to point that out. Yet, for fear of securing Putin’s wrath and losing his political support, Putin’s actions are ignored by those who should denounce them loudest. Arguing that to correctly label Putin as a Genocidal murderer would endanger Israel’s national security, can be readily used by any nation as a reason for inaction. Coming from the Jewish nation it is a moral and ethical tragedy.

Naftali Bennett, Israel’s Prime Minister, describes himself as a religious man, one whose behavior in other regards, is often laudable. But, applause must be muted for this outrage upon victims of Genocide. The former Russian Jewish dissident and current Israeli political leader, Natan Sharansky, is right: there must be no forgiveness of Putin’s crimes. Committing Genocide is never forgivable. Otherwise, the world’s silence will only result in more murder and terror directed against a particularized “nation or ethnic group.” Lord, help us all.

Shortly after Harry Truman’s ascension to the Presidency, in April 1945, he named Dean Acheson to be his Under-Secretary of State. Four years later, at the height of the Cold War, Acheson became Secretary. No individual was more central to, and responsible for, the creation of structures and policies that set the course of American foreign relations from 1945 to the present day.

In October, 1962, the United States and the Soviet Union came close to conflict; this crisis resulted in the establishment of implicit boundaries for waging nuclear confrontation. Not since then has the parameters for the use of nukes become so widely discussed and analyzed. What brought this about was, of course, Russia’s brutal invasion of the Ukraine on February 24th. Largely due to Russia’s continuing failure to defeat Ukraine on the battlefield with conventional weapons, world leaders are forced to contemplate a scenario in which Russia may grasp at a nuclear option to force the Ukranians to accede to their demands. In fact, we may be “present” at the creation of a modified foreign policy paradigm in which nuclear arms has become an acceptable predicate for purposeful inclusion in both tactical and strategic foreign/defense policymaking.

With Pakistan, India, Israel, France, Great Britain, and China, joining the United States and Russia as nuclear powers, it is remarkable that it has taken this long for tactical nuclear diplomacy to become so central to the international dealings of nations. Remember, North Korea, Iran, Egypt, Brazil, and Saudi Arabia, are each waiting for an opportunity to become a member of the nuclear club. The relevant question then becomes, “How to deter or, if that fails, deal with, their use?” The Ukrainian crisis should leave decision-makers little choice but to seriously develop anew, a strategy for dealing with this existential matter.

As policymakers, academics, et al contemplate mass destruction, the conventional use of force must remain as the primary tool for ending this present conflict and applying what we learn now to avoid similar crises. “No first use of Nukes” must, of course, remain in the forefront of the policies of America and its allies. But, in situations like the present one in Ukraine, the key question remains as to how to respond when a nation uses them in a tactical situation. (If they are used strategically, we are in the worst kind of existential situation; a topic for another day.) That we even have to think about this, and the failure to deter–at any level–occurs, should scare us all. Yet, madmen like Hitler, and now Putin, don’t scare easily. The midst of war may not be the best time to debate such matters, but we have no choice given the stakes involved. So I return to Dean Acheson. A careful reading of his memoir, PRESENT AT THE CREATION, provides a wide range of answers as he and his colleagues dealt with one threat after another in the midst of the Soviet Union’s new-found ability to deploy nuclear weaponry.

For those seeking to explore what happened from Hiroshima to the end of the Korean War, read the book. The essential lesson I draw that may be useful in today’s environment is this: “Mutual Assured Destruction” remains the only useful operating deterrent at the strategic level. Tactically, Ukraine has brought us to the necessity for being “Present at the Creation” of a new set of policies that, above all, mandates no appeasement of the aggressor, and a clear and public understanding of what’s at stake as the existential precipice is approached. Be it the establishment of an international-type police force with teeth, and/or a United Nations with the ability to swiftly act in a crisis (which probably means a Security Council absent a Member State’s veto power), the international system can only be secure if we rapidly act to repair it. Everyone’s life, literally, is at stake.

Earlier this month, the media spent an abundance of time focusing on the first anniversary of the January 6th 2021 insurrection instigated by President Donald Trump and his cohort of loyalists and know-nothings. They did not succeed then in stopping democracy from functioning, but remain steadfast in their efforts. Meanwhile, the response of Democratic Party leadership is to investigate, contemplate, and analyze what happened. They remain relatively static in their actions.

In November, Congressional elections take place. Instead of fighting tooth-and-nail to keep control of both Houses of Congress, Democrats are already bemoaning their expected loss of the House and difficulties in keeping control of the Senate. In turn, the Republicans are manipulating the political process—at local, state and federal levels—to maintain and advance their authority.

Just a short time ago, some Democrats (including the much respected Stacey Abrams), publicly boycotted the President’s speech detailing his administration’s attempts to secure passage of new voting rights protections in Congress. When asked why they were absent, non-attendees were either silent or stated that the President was offering too little, too late.

Democratic Party activists are correct. Neither Republican obstructionists nor Democratic opportunists are easily, if ever, going to support Biden’s proposals on voting protections. It is time to “fight like hell” on this issue. Pretend you’re battling Vladimir Putin. It is time to declare a “Battle Cry for Freedom.”

How? Meetings with friend and foe alike can only obtain so much. Strategic use of the media is a necessary tool to make sure the American people remain educated about the issues and the stakes involved. But, a more forceful approach is needed.

Mr. President, please re-read (I’m sure you’ve read these books before), Robert Caro’s magisterial series on Lyndon Johnson (LBJ). No President (well, maybe FDR), knew better how to accomplish his goals than LBJ. The Great Society, Voting Rights, Medicare, etc., were rammed thru an obstructionist Congress by Johnson and his allies. Now it’s your turn. Sanctions and threats, general and personal, need to be drawn from the bargaining toolbox in order to secure victory. Republicans as well as recalcitrant Democrats need to be objects of your opprobrium. Ten months before the congressional elections are the perfect time to demonstrate to friend and foe alike the power of the Presidency—especially the power.

Russia is a nuclear enemy. The Republicans, Joe Manchin, et al, are not. The future of the country is at stake. There are few better able to protect our democracy than you. Remember, it was before the Nazi regime took power (democratically, I might add), in 1933, that they could have been stopped by relatively peaceful means. Historical analogies are appropriate. I am happy to be proven wrong.

American Catholics share political structures from both their secular and religious worlds. Protestants, Muslims and Jews do as well. The multiplicity and relative success of such groups have often led to to the formation of American-based structures that lobby on behalf of various countries and international organizations. For example, a new organization was recently established that lobbied Americans of Ethiopian descent to support Glenn Youngkin as Governor of Virginia. The group’s name: “The American-Ethiopian Public Affairs Committee.”

Most similar entities employ the word “America” in their titles as a way to presumably stress their support for, and identification with, the United States as the key focus of their objectives. Certainly, this argument has been instrumental in the success of AIPAC, “The American-Israel Public Affairs Committee,” over the last seventy plus years. Its stated purpose is to lobby in support of a “strong” American-Israeli relationship that strengthens the national interests of both countries. But, when clashes arise between their respective elites, the trouble begins. Too often, American interests are not first and foremost.

As a political scientist, I often encounter those who object to policies that Israel favors, but the United States opposes. The Iran Nuclear Agreement, supported by President Obama, but resisted by the Trump administration, is such an example. When support for the agreement was expressed on the premise that it strengthens American security, not weakens it, AIPAC and its local members et al, publicly contended how harmful it would be to Israel. American security was often missing from their concerns. This is an ongoing problem with too many individuals and organizations: a favored country or group’s interests take precedence over concerns that America may be weakened. Yet, it remains my strongest belief that if we diminish American security, we also harm the interests of our friends and allies. Nowhere does this consideration operate more than with the American-Israeli relationship. Just this week, it was revealed that security officials in Israel admitted that their country’s political leadership was wrong to oppose the Iran nuclear deal. They contend that their country has become less safe now that a ceiling was removed on Iran’s ability to enrich uranium, the crucial ingredient in a nuclear weapon. Netanyahu and Trump put political standing ahead of their country’s respective security, and military force has now become a more likely tool to stave off Iran’s nuclear objectives.

Regularly, policymakers and advocates provide no coherent reason(s) for supporting the positions they adopt. American interests are missing from the equation. They insist that yes, America might possibly be “slightly” harmed by certain policies; for them, what’s important is the narrow economic and/or policies advocated by their favored country, or ethnic and or religious entity.

Examples of such behavior in the domestic arena are obvious: the opposition of the oil industry towards reducing the effects of carbon emissions on the climate, is perhaps the most egregious instance of supporting profits over individual health. This attitude readily plays out in the halls of Congress. The Republican Party and its “know-nothings” demonstrate, on an almost daily basis, that its members are more concerned with their political standing and survival than they are with the national interests of the United States. It is time to call them out at every opportunity, or this country will continue on its slide towards further decay in its values and the strength of its democracy.

One of my favorite record albums is The White Album by the Beatles. It was also that of mass murderer Charles Manson’s. For him, though, one song was of particular interest, Helter Skelter. When Manson was asked its meaning, “confusion” was the simple reply, a response based upon a desire to sow havoc that would eventually lead to race war(s) and global conflict.

Helter Skelter became, in 1969, the generally understood motive for Manson and his “family’s” killing spree in Southern California, a spree that would result in the brutal deaths of between 35-40 individuals, including the actress Sharon Tate and her unborn child. Manson sought to create enough fear from the murders so as to eventually evoke the aforementioned purposeful and unprovoked killings. Manson was the definition of evil.

Commentators at the time, and still today, when trying to identify relatively recent individuals who share Manson’s taste for violence and evil, usually cite Adolf Hitler as the most appropriate example. Both men were hypnotic in their respective capacities to lead, and had few, if any, inhibitions when it came to promoting murder and mass slaughter. Manson certainly never had Hitler’s wide-ranging opportunities to successfully order the killing of millions. But, anyone doubting Manson’s willingness to do so, makes a dangerous mistake.

Is there another person (or persons), presently operating in the public arena with the malevolence and ability to to advocate (and perhaps act), in a similar manner to Germany’s former leader and California’s mass killer? I believe so.

If you follow the growing body of literature on the subject of Donald Trump, it becomes evident that he possesses an evil personality. Worse, he was (and could be again), in a position of authority that could inflict his malevolent designs on all of us.

Recently, it was revealed that General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, believed that President Donald Trump was so dangerous it required his alerting the Chinese government that the United States was not intending to attack their country. Yes, tensions had increased, but no military response was in the planning. Milley, though, had been working with Trump for years and knew he could not take any chances given the nuclear environment we were in, with millions of lives at stake and an unstable President at the helm.

Although the incident described above may be an extreme example of Trumpian potentiality, his entire life has been filled with malevolent attitudes and actions: misogyny, racism, fraud, and violent threats being only a few of the most obvious. Reputable psychiatrists and therapists describe the ex-president as militantly narcissistic, paranoid, psychotic, etc. No-one, viewing him fairly, should doubt the implications of this kind of behavior. What are we gong to do about it? Hopefully, at the minimum, not re-elect him.

The protective barriers that help to maintain American democracy have been shattered by Trump. With Hitler, although he was voted into office legally, his ability to persuade the electorate of his righteousness and the need for horrific acts on behalf of Germany, are exactly the kinds of problems we may face from an unchecked Trump. If, for example, Muslims and Hispanics now become the “new Jews,” (i.e. the “enemies”), we are in severe trouble.

In the end, it is up to us to strengthen those political, social, and economic institutions that protect the country. The alternative, wherein Trump and his band of evil-doers topple the safety-barriers, would probably foretell the end of American democracy. Think about it!

Usually, when people are threatened, they attempt to remove themselves from the danger. I used to believe that this trait is hardwired in us. I guess I was wrong. Individuals face death, horrendous sickness and, if they survive, life-time illness should they contract Covid-19. Of course, thanks to science, vaccines are now available to prevent people from being stricken with Covid. So, one would imagine, Americans, and almost everyone else, are eager to secure the vaccine. That’s how it went with the Salk/Sabine vaccines to prevent polio, and so many others. In fact, in most cases, by school-age individuals are inoculated by law with a laundry-list of vaccines. Failure to have your child protected, in a majority of school-districts, results in an inability to attend school.

Given the above information, why are so many ignoring science and refusing to obtain vaccines, potentially resulting in their own, and/or their loved ones, death or illness? Self-preservation, compassion for others, and selflessness, usually enter into the decision-making behind securing shots. Yet, millions in this country who are eligible for the Covid vaccine are both passively and forcefully resisting securing vaccines. Yes, there exists a vast, self-enriching media stream filled with promoters, buffoons, and phonies citing false data and distorting truths about the vaccine. And people, unfortunately, listen to these shysters. But one expects, amongst an educated American public, the opposite reaction. Yet, for millions, that is not what is happening.

As a Political Scientist, I was often asked why people voted for Trump. Greed, racism and ignorance were the reasons I cited. Only the latter—ignorance—seems to me relevant as a primary cause for the failure of so many to be vaccinated. Yes, some people are lazy, some are truly afraid of injections, and a small number are medically ineligible. But, millions don’t fit any of these categories. They are, to put it simply, unintelligent, dunces. Obviously, they lack common sense. In many cases, there are outside factors involved. For example, some medical professionals, as well as publicity seeking opportunists like Robert Kennedy Jr., are identifiable charlatans. Some use medical degrees, others play on their “celebrity,” as they seek to persuade people to make obscene, sometimes fatal, choices. There are even those who rely upon family and/or friends for their deadly advice. And, often the political and media persona who rely on vaccine-skeptic notoriety, do so to advance their careers.

Calling vaccine-deniers dunces is almost a joke, implying a level of feeling sorry for them they don’t deserve. Rather, with so many needlessly dying because of their stupidity, the time has come for national mandates along the lines of those recently presented by President Biden. Travel/work restrictions, quarantines, containment, and public shaming are all available tools to impose on the unvaccinated.

Our founding documents entitle the American people to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Those who deny us these rights should be restrained. To curb these willful, disease spreaders should be lawful and is only common sense.

I was recently listening to a song from 1965, Barry McGuire’s Eve of Destruction. The war in Vietnam was being waged, and the Cuban Missile Crisis was just three years in the past. Thinking back on that time period, we would not expect McGuire’s song to be timely to the world in 2021. Yet it is. Scarily so. What I am going to do is relate the words of this classic song and then provide some appropriate commentary.

Eve of Destruction

The Eastern World, it is explodin’. Violence flarin’, bullets loadin’. You’re old enough to kill but not for votin’. You don’t believe in war, but what’s that gun you’re totin’. And even the Jordan River has bodies floatin’. (Paragraph 1)

But you tell me over and over again my friend. Ah, you don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction. (Paragraph 2)

Don’t you understand what I’m trying to say? Can’t you feel the fear that I’m feeling today? If the button is pushed, there’s no running away. There’ll be no one to save with the world in a grave. Take a look around you boy, it’s bound to scare you, boy. (Paragraph 3)

But you tell me over and over again, my friend. Ah you don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction. (Paragraph 4)

Yeah, my blood’s so mad, feels like coagulatin’. I’m sittin’ here just contemplatin’. I can’t twist the truth, it knows no regulation. Handful of Senators don’t pass legislation. (Paragraph 5)

And marches alone can’t bring integration. When human respect is disintegratin’. This whole crazy world is just too frustratin’. (Paragraph 6)

And you tell me over and over again my friend. Ah, you don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction. (Paragraph 7)

Think of all the hate there is in Red China. Then take a look around to Selma, Alabama. Ah, you may leave here for four days in space. But when you return, it’s the same old place. The poundin’ of the drums, the pride and disgrace. You can bury your dead but don’t forget to leave a trace. Hate your next door neighbor but don’t forget to say grace. And you tell me over and over and over again my friend. You don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction. You don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction.(Paragraph 8)

Now some commentary: In terms of the first paragraph, Asia is still “exploding” as is the Middle East. From Afghanistan to Israel, violence is a regular occurrence. In paragraph 5, the song stresses “truth” and “Senators” that don’t pass legislation. Well, the absence of truth-telling during the last few years is readily evident and the Senate has become almost a vestigial organ in terms of doing any substantive work. The next section (6), highlights the failure to achieve full “integration.” Today, progress, but surely not enough. The final paragraph also refers to “hate,” race relations, and hypocrisy, especially regarding religion. In many ways, today’s America witnesses Christian fundamentalism at its worst, and extremism among Jews, Christians, and Muslims, too often masquerading as “God’s will.” In sum, Barry McGuire’s rendition of a mid-sixties America on the brink of moral and political decay, bears too many similarities to America and the world in 2021 for anyone to feel comfortable.

If the song was written today, I would expect that it would focus on a deadly, pervasive strain in American culture—selfishness. The most incompetent, dangerous, and selfish of American Presidents, Donald Trump, has left echoes of this trait in our selective response to the Covid crisis. Despite the fact that vaccines save lives, millions of Americans remain in denial and refuse to be vaccinated. The spread of the disease to innocents is what I am most concerned about. Vax deniers, in order to protect everyone else, should perhaps gather together and let it all play out. They will likely then not be around to knowingly harm others. Anyone want to write a new song about this newest “Eve of Destruction” that too many are facing?