Historical Figures Series: The Remarkable Career of Hubert Humphrey Part 1

 

 

There are many political figures in the 20^th century who I respect. There are fewer that I admire. But of all the men who ran have made failed runs for President in the twentieth century – and with the exception of perhaps two or three others since the founding of the Republic – there is only one who I outright worship.

From his debut on the national scene in 1948 to his death nearly thirty years later, Hubert Humphrey was one of the most respected, popular and beloved Senators on either side of the aisle. Today he is remembered almost entirely for his career as LBJ’s Vice President and being one of the biggest apologists for the Vietnam War, a fact that almost certainly destroyed his chance for the Presidency in 1968. This is horribly unfair to Humphrey who was from the start of his career a man of true principles and perhaps the greatest representative of liberal causes practically from the beginning of his career. He was far ahead of the curve of either political party on civil rights when there was no political gain in doing so and his refusal to compromise on so many issues ended up hindering his political ambitions throughout his career.

He freely admitted that he made many sacrifices in his career with the sole goal of being President of the United States. But unlike most politicians, the power of the office was only one consideration. He genuinely believed that he could do good for America in his office and had an idealism that had rarely been equaled before and almost never since. There is an argument that after his defeat in 1968, the Democratic Party – perhaps either one – has ever put forth a candidate with either the credentials or the potential to be a truly great President. The fact that he never achieved his goals is truly a tragedy for the nation, particularly considering that most of what stood in his way was not his fault.

This series of articles will deal with the career of Hubert Humphrey, the battles he waged in the Senate on behalf of Civil rights, his many campaigns for higher office both before and after his failed run in 1968, and how his timing was both well ahead of the country and then suddenly too late for it.

I should mention upfront that of all the political figures in the twentieth century who have not become President that I am incredibly well-versed on Humphrey’s career. I have read multiple biographies of Humphrey’s life, studied his political ambitions in The Making of the President Series by Theodore White and for the purposes of much of these articles Robert Mann’s exceptional The Walls of Jericho, a history that studies the struggle for Civil Rights through the lives and political careers of Humphrey, LBJ and Richard Russell. Much of what I am about to write in at least the first two articles will come from this source material.

 

Hubert Humphrey was born in the small prairie town of Wallace, South Dakota on May 27, 1911. The second of the four children of Hubert Senior (known in South Dakota as H.H.) and Christine, the family moved to the slightly larger town of Doland, so that his father could open a drug store and ice cream parlor. H.H. was an intellectual and a huge talker – trends that he would pass down to his son. H.H. had converted from the GOP to the Democrats upon hearing the legendary ‘Cross of Gold speech’ from Willian Jennings Bryan –  beliefs that his wife never embraced but his son would. He also instilled in his son the values of charity, hard work and social justice. His popularity would eventually lead to H.H. becoming alderman and eventually the Mayor of Doland.

Hubert would enroll in the University of Minnesota in 1929 but would be forced to drop out in 1930 when the Depression caused the failure of the Humphrey family business. He abandoned college to work as a pharmacist and quickly became impressed with FDR’s New Deal.

In 1932, Hubert would meet college student Muriel Buck. After an extended courtship they would wed in 1936 and she would be his greatest supporter for the rest of his life, as much of a political figure as he was.

Visiting his sister in D.C. in 1935, he began to believe in his father’s dream of public service. As a result, he eventually had to tell his father that he would not return to South Dakota to run his father’s new store to seek a higher education and eventually public office of his own. At that time, H.H was serving in the South Dakota legislature and had ambitions of higher office. However, he was willing to sacrifice his political ambitions for his sons – a decision that America is almost certainly richer for.

In June of 1939, Humphrey finally managed to graduate with a degree in Political Science from the University of Minnesota. With sights on a post graduate degree, he accepting a teaching position at LSU in 1940. It is safe to say that experience had perhaps the greatest effect on Humphrey’s views on the world.

Humphrey had never been to the South, but within a few months he became aware not only of the evils of segregation in the South, but also the prejudice in the North. As he put in later this gave ‘flesh and blood commitment to what before had been only an abstract concept of human rights.”

After earning his master’s degree – and a reputation for verbosity that he would never escape (though he really never tried that hard) – he returned to Minnesota a year later. There he took on what was his first full-time job as the WPA’s head of the worker’s education service. Within a year he was the regional director of the War Manpower Association and made his first foray to politics when he ran for Mayor of Minneapolis in 1942. He narrowly lost the election but had no intention of that being the end of his career – even then, he was always ambitious and looking towards the next election.

He spent the next two years playing a critical role in the union between the often feuding but kindred Democratic and Farm-Labor parties, eventually becoming the leader of what would be known in Minnesota as the DFL. In 1994, he attended his first Democratic National Convention as a delegate and would later run Minnesota’s Roosevelt-Truman campaign. (Minnesota went for FDR that year.) The next year he ran again for mayor of Minneapolis and this time won.

Much of his time as Mayor was directed towards reducing the severe crime problem in the city but the Mayor had few official duties. Humphrey would rely on his personality and boundless energy to aid the government. After winning reelection, one of his key measures was to reform the city’s official and unofficial discrimination against minorities. This would lead to the nation’s first ever Fair Employment Practices Commission, which opened doors not only to African Americans, but also Jews and Native Americans.

Eventually he would join fellow national liberal leaders to form the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA). At their first national convention in 1947, he made a powerful and passionate call for action on Civil Rights, something that the Democratic Party, still heavily dominated by the South, refused to do. The next year the Minnesota Democrats nominated him as their candidate for Senate.

The 1948 Democratic Convention in Philadelphia was a gloomy affair. Everyone was certain that the incumbent Harry Truman was doomed for defeat in November against the Republican Thomas Dewey. (Dewey will earn his own series someday.) Well before the convention began there had been a movement to have Truman removed from the head of the ticket with Dwight Eisenhower who had refused. Truman was facing a revolt from both the left and right wing of his party. Henry Wallace, who Truman had replaced as Vice President in 1944, was running as the candidate of the New Progressive Party, a very far left wing that opposed the administration’s policies towards the Soviet Union’s rise in Eastern Europe. On the right wing, a movement known as the Dixiecrats was rising in the South, infuriated by the growing position on civil rights. Members of the Southern States delegation were planning a walkout during the convention.

One Southern Democrat had no plans to join the walkout, despite his sympathy with the Dixiecrats views. Richard Russell had represented Georgia in the Senate since 1932 and while he did not agree with the direction the party was turning, party unity was always at the forefront of his mind. He agreed to have his name placed in nomination for President as a measure of defiance at the convention: he would receive 263 votes. During the nominations for Vice President, an obscure Alabama delegate named George Wallace would place his name in nomination. He would be asked to head the Dixiecrat Presidential ticket but would turn them down.

Russell was one of the most prominent pro-segregation voices in the Senate in 1948 and was as racist as many of them. But unlike so many of the other adamant segregationists in elected office, Russell would eventually come to realize that he was fighting a losing battle, one that was merely delaying the inevitable. Like many of the Southern Democrats Russell had the potential to be a great President, but his unyielding behavior on the most important domestic issue of the 20^th century would make him unacceptable to the party.

This would be the first time that Russell and Humphrey would be at center stage on the national landscape and as would almost always be the case, they would be at complete loggerheads. Humphrey was determined to challenge the Democratic platforms basically innocuous position on civil rights.

Humphrey faced an impossible choice. If the challenge he was planning failed, he would be a national laughingstock. But if it succeeded, the South would walk out, the party would lose votes from the South and he would be a scapegoat for the defeat in November. After receiving the support of both his father and his wife – both of whom told him it was the right thing to do – he decided to speak in favor of the amendment.

The speech that Humphrey gave in support of the minority amendment is one of the great speeches in the history of American politics. Reading from his speech word for word, the emotion in his voice began to build arguing that there could be ‘no hedging, no watering down” before he reached the full flower of his power in one of the great speeches  in twentieth century history:

“My friends, to those who say that we are rushing this issue of civil rights, I say we are 172 years too late! To those who say that this civil rights program is an infringement on states’ rights, I say this, that the time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states’ rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights…This is the issue of the Twentieth Century, people of all kinds, and these people are looking to America for leadership and they are looking to America for precepts and examples!...Let us forget the evil patience and the blindness of the past…Now is the time to recall those on that path for American freedom!”

 

(The speech in its entirety can be found on YouTube as the Philadelphia convention was the first broadcast on national TV.)

Humphrey’s speech galvanized the moribund convention. He was interrupted twenty times during the eight speech and the ovation lasted nearly as long – incredible for a speech from a practically unknown mayor from Minnesota. As many as seventy million people may have seen or heard Humphrey’s speech.

The effect was immediate. The states’ rights platform was overwhelmingly crushed and the stronger language by Humphrey narrowly prevailed. The South had been the deciding vote on civil rights for over half a century; on what was their textbook issue they had, in the words of a former Georgia Senator, not merely been defeated but overwhelmingly humiliated.

The walkout that had been feared did happen -  the Alabama delegation and half that of Mississippi did walk out of the convention. But the day belonged to Hubert Humphrey.

There were many factors that led to Truman’s upset victory that November. But one of the critical ones was not only fact that the so called Dixiecrat defection was not nearly as severe as had been thought at the time – they would carry four states and 39 electoral votes for Strom Thurmond – but the civil rights plank would help add African-American voters in the north to the Democratic coalition.

Another factor was almost certain several strong Democrats  Senators and Governors on many states. They included Robert Kerr of Oklahoma, Estes Kefauver of Tennessee, Paul Douglas of Illinois, – and Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota.

Texas had also been a strong factor in Truman’s win, but it was hard to argue that the man running for election to the Senate had been a key factor in the victory. Lyndon Johnson had finished Election day behind his opponent in the Texas runoff by less than 400 votes. In what would be one of the most consequential cases of election fraud in American history, Johnson supporters in two Texas counties manufactured the votes of more than 200 citizens. The amended results – combined with ‘corrections’ in other counties would give him a margin of 87 votes over Coker Stevenson. Stevenson fought a massive challenge but ‘Landslide Lyndon’ as he would be sarcastically dubbed, managed to prevail.

For the next sixteen years the careers of Johnson, Russell and Humphrey would clash over the issue of civil rights again and again. Johnson’s relation towards both men ended up responsible for some of the greatest legislative actions of the 20^th century – as well as one of the greatest foreign disasters of all time.

In my next article I will deal with Humphrey’s early years in the Senate and his first attempts to put himself forward as a national candidate.

Barry's Final Act Begins.

 

 

The more I think about it perhaps the real reason I rejected Barry’s initially was because I never understood the appeal of Stefan. Bill Hader was always an interesting SNL cast member, but his trademark Weekend Update character never gelled for me. I never understood how people could love a character who spoke in such breathless tones intercut with being on the verge of dissolving into laughter.

It did not help matters the initial set-up for Barry ­– a contract killer who decides to stop his day job to take an acting class – sounded far too much like the set up of a network television series rather than anything HBO would do. Not even the presence of such towering legends as Henry Winkler and Stephen Root convinced me it would work. Then after Hader and Winkler took Emmys for Season 1, I reluctantly got on board. And have since been on the wildest ride in the history of television.

Historically I never been fond of dramedies. Much of this has been due to my experience with Showtime, which had a habit of creating series that had a brilliant set up and cast, started like gangbusters and then became so dark over their runs they forgot to be entertaining. Nurse Jackie, House of Lies, The Big C, all of them started out strong and eventually deteriorated to the point that no matter how they ended, I could barely care. I had already gone down a similar path with Veep and I think the only ones many on Netflix didn’t deteriorate was because the writers made sure to end them before they could. But Barry is the exception that proves the rule. Not because it hasn’t gotten darker with each successive season – it really has -but because the more Hader and his wonderful go further in Barry’s race towards the inevitable,  they have made the comedy less important to the series as we see just how fully damaged Barry Berkman is. This could easily have fallen apart – Barry is, in his own way, just as much a White Male Antihero as we have seen at Ozark and the Roy family – but as the series has gone on, it has become increasingly clear that Barry is so badly damaged that he doesn’t have an understanding of reality the way so many of them do. So many times we see him talk to Gene and Sally in what appear to be child-like terms as if he can’t comprehend reality the way a functioning adult does. He may speak of terms of needing a purpose or forgiveness, but he has no more comprehension of that then a five-year old does quantum physics.

Perhaps we should not be stunned that the opening of the final season, Barry uses his one phone call to reach Gene. He has just been arrested for the murder of Janice, the detective he killed to protect his identity and attempted to kill her father. One of the last scenes showed Gene there. Barry’s call to Gene is that of a child: “Mr. Cousineau, are you mad at me?” he begins in a sad, pleading voice as someone who can’t understand why the man who he tried to kill, locked in a trunk and then threatened to kill his family would be upset with him. Gene listened to him plead and then says simply: “Barry, I got you” and hangs up. You would pity Barry if you didn’t know him.

The repercussions are already being felt, most painfully when it comes to Sally. The incredible Sarah Goldberg is remarkable in the season premiere as she returns to her home town, trying to flee the murder of her abusive ex-husband that she ended up committing when he attacked her in the season finale. We meet her parents and we get a very clear picture of how Sally ended up the way she did. Her mother seems more interesting in her fast food order than her daughter’s realization she’s dating a hit man. Her father can’t seem to comprehend why his daughter’s man or what her show is like. And in a scene that would be the all-time leader in horrible family situations, her mother can’t even work up the barest minimum of sympathy or interest in her daughter and is perfectly willing to blame her for her lot in life. We totally get why she flees her home town the next day.

The thing about Sally is that in a way she has been fooling herself her whole life. During the second season of Barry, she spent much of her time working on a scene about a struggle she’d had with her husband that cause her to walk out on him. Eventually we learned it was a lie and she did the real scene which more people like. But in the Season 2 finale, faced both with a distracted Barry and an impressed agent, she chose to do the lie.

In Season 3 she seemed to realize her dream. She finally got her own drama series that was on a streamer. She continued to ignore the warning signs with Barry that her assistant clearly saw. On the night of her greatest triumph, she dumped Barry more because he wasn’t there for her than because she saw the danger. Then in a scene that was right out of Hollywood, her show was cancelled because the algorithm told them so. She had a mental break down in an elevator when one of her friends betrayed her and was among to do mind games on the studio boss when her husband came in determined to kill her. When Sally comes to see Gene and demands to know why he didn’t tell her how dangerous Barry was, the very self-absorbed Gene (I’ll get back to him in a minute) asks her simply how she lived with him for a year and had no clue. Sally closes her mouth because her first act upon returning to LA was to go to lockup and see Barry – to protect herself to be sure, but her last words to him were: “I feel safe with you.”  Sally has spent her life drawn to abusive and violent men. She is a victim, as she says, but in her own way, she’s as good a liar as Barry is – to the world and to herself.

Considering everything Gene went through during Season 3 – and considering how much of what we saw of him genuinely seemed redemptive – you’d think he’d have learned by now. But no. He spends all of the first two episodes of Season 4 convincing a writer from Vanity Fair to learn about him for the sole purpose of being able to toot his own horn in a one-man show. Now to be fair, nothing he tells this reporter is entirely a lie – everything that he says happened – but Gene has apparently decided to use this trauma to promote himself. The fact that Barry killed Janice is now in his rearview mirror, all he cares about is becoming the star he thinks he is. There really isn’t anything Henry Winkler does that can surprise me anymore.

The man who spent season 3 trying to destroy Barry naturally ended up in the same prison in him. The nowhere near as clever as he thinks he is Monroe Fuches tries to cut a deal with the Feds to try and save his ass. His utterly half-assed attempt fails the minute Barry admits that he truly made a mistake and that all of this was his fault. The season premiere ends with him tearing off his wire and embraces Barry. He instantly tries to get the two of them out of prison in the second episode, and the two seem to be bonding over his acting workshop. But of course Fuches rambles to much and tells Barry what he tried to do and Barry immediately turns the tables on him.

Fuches’ teary-eyed phone call to Noho Hank at the end of the second episode would be moving – had we not been getting flashes of Barry’s past in the second episode. Perhaps we should not be shocked that Fuches has known Barry since his childhood, has almost certainly been manipulating him his whole life. It looks like Barry was a lonely child and Fuches may have been that father figure he was looking for. (I expect more revelations in future episodes).

But the thing about Barry is that he is genuinely clueless. One of those flashbacks ends with an aged him and Sally dancing at a wedding. When he makes that same deal with the Feds, he makes it very clear that he wants to take someone with him. The idea that Sally, whose life he has essentially helped destroy, would not go with him never enters his childlike, traumatized mind.

And he’s going to be dealing with another problem. Noho Hank and Cristobal have escaped from the clutches of the Brazilian mansion they were both held prisoners in. Hank, who has managed to seem detached from everything involving crime, is now reeling with PTSD of his own. (At one point he awakes from a dream with him handcuffed to a radiator and Barry is across from him, similarly chained.)

Hank and Cristobal could clearly be fine if they stayed off the grid. But of course, a business opportunity comes along (it is literally built on sand) and in one of the few genuinely hysterical moments in the two episodes they have a meeting of gangs that is basically a motivational speakers session at ‘the Dave’s and the Buster’s.” Hank is initially determined to break Barry out of prison, despite the dangers. At one point, he tells Cristobal: “I think I understand him now.” Before he elaborates, Fuches calls and tells him that Barry is talking to the feds. With a self-determination we’ve never seen to him, he walks back to Cristobal and says: “We have to kill Barry.”

Hader’s decision to end Barry after four seasons is absolutely the right call. So many of the best dramedies – I’m thinking of Nurse Jackie and Weeds in particular – collapsed because they were kept on the air well past their expiration date to increasingly diminishing returns. Hader may have made that decision in the midst of the pandemic, but I have to give him credit for following through. I couldn’t see how the show could have gone on much longer than a fourth season even before Season 3 ended. It now looks like he’s set everything up perfectly.

Along with Atlanta, Barry is one of those comedy series that have completely transcended the genre. You don’t question reality as constantly as you did in Season 3 and 4 but Hader (who has written and directed the majority of the entire series) takes you into just a surreal world. Atlanta was governed by the African-American experience; Barry is grounded in trauma, and both can be as genuinely horrifying and hysterical to watch in the world’s they inhabit.

I expect the series finale to be more concrete than it was with Atlanta. I don’t expect the end for Barry to be a happy one. I saw a comparison to this show to Breaking Bad online, and its not without merit. Like Walter White, Barry Berkman passed the point of redemption long ago (like with Walter, it was with the death of someone he considered a threat who someone vital to him loved) and he’s capable of far more violence than Walter White was. He may not be nearly as clever as Heisenberg, but he’s left nearly as high a body count (and in the penultimate episode of Season 3, we actually saw just how massive it was.) I don’t think Barry deserves a happy ending any more than Walter White did. The only question is how many more people will die before it does end.

Many people will mourn Succession when it comes to an end in a few weeks. It is likely that same week the series finale of Barry will air. While I have more respect for the latter series than I did a week ago, I will still mourn the loss of Barry far more. Bill Hader has created one of the most extraordinary series in the 21^st century – one that reaches the gold standards that even the best shows of HBO have provided us over the period. I have been told that halfway through the final season there will be a major twist that upends the remainder. A trial? Witness protection? A reality show? A made-for-TV movie? A flashforward showing a Dateline version of this very story a decade after the fact? All of these seem very valid possibilities in the world that Hader and Alec Berg have created for us. And honestly, I don’t think I will care or be disappointed no matter how Hader chooses to end his masterpiece -  hell, if he were to do it with a cut to black or showing Barry in an ad for Coke, I think I’d be fine with that too.

The cast and crew of Barry have justifiably earned a lot of awards over the last three seasons – Hader has two Emmys for acting, Winkler for Supporting acting and they have dominated many of the Critics awards over the year. It is a certainty they will dominate the Emmy nominations for their final season (hopefully Goldberg, Anthony Carrigan and Stephen Root will be rewarded as they walk out the door) though admittedly the odds of any of them triumphing again are slim with such powerhouses as Abbott Elementary and Ted Lasso, series that are equally brilliant but the polar opposite of Barry in tone both the characters and situations. Hader himself will not care and neither will I. He has created one of the great masterpieces of television that has defied all genre. He will no doubt go on to create other series, much like I expect Donald Glover will now. Or perhaps he won’t – Hader’s always had his own views of how much success he can handle. Either way, he will have left us with Barry and if that is his sole entry in the world of Peak TV, I’m completely fine with that.

My score: 5 stars.

Emmy Nomination Watch Phase 2, Part 1: The Peabody Award Nominations

 

 

At the end of February the first phase of the prelude to the Emmy nominations and awards came to an end with the presentation of the SAG awards. Focused entirely on series released in 2022, we received a certain indication as to how the Emmy nominations might go.

There was a universal agreement when it came to comedy: Abbott Elementary won every Best Comedy prize in sight, from the Golden Globes to the Critics Choice to the SAG Awards. The clear frontrunner for Best Actor in a Comedy is Jeremy Allan White for The Bear while Quinta Brunson has an early lead for Best Actress in a Comedy with her greatest rival Jean Smart ineligible due to Hacks not airing its third season until the end of the eligibility. It is harder to define the supporting awards though Tyler James Williams and Sheryl Lee Ralph have an early advantage.

There is no consensus when it comes to the Drama awards. The Golden Globes chose House of the Dragon, The Critics Choice Awards Better Call Saul and the SAG awards chose The White Lotus which ended up winning Best Limited Series from the Golden Globes. Bob Odenkirk has taken one Best Actor prize; another has been won by Kevin Costner for Yellowstone but the recent controversy over his appearances in future seasons may diminish his chances. Jennifer Coolidge is the leader in Best Supporting Actress for The White Lotus but with Succession not a factor that remains to be seen.

Now we enter the second phase leading up to the Emmy nominations in July with the Peabody Awards which gave their nominations this past week. While the awards themselves are rarely a bellwether for the eventual winner of the Emmys, in recent years they have offered insight into some of the series that the Emmys might very well end up considering this year. Several of their choices are certain to be nominated while others, based on other awards, may have moved up in the estimations. Admittedly, some of the nominated series are shows that will be ineligible regardless but there are enough nominated series that might give us insight as to what might guide the Emmy judges. Bearing that mind, let’s take a lot at this years nominees.

 

Certain Emmy Nominees

No one would dispute that Abbott Elementary will dominate the nominations this fall; the only question is whether it will defeat Ted Lasso which will certainly be it’s biggest rival. Better Call Saul is also a lock for Best Drama nominations. Equally certain to be part of the discussion for Best Limited Series is The Patient, the exceptional psychological thriller with Steve Carell and Domhnall Gleason as its leads. With The White Lotus competing for Best Drama, it is likely to be a serious contender.

 

Likely Contenders

The fourth season of Atlanta was nominated and is a strong possibility to be considered at least for Donald Glover and some of the supporting cast. Where it can earn a Best Comedy nomination remains to be seen among a very strong category.

Andor did very well in the early phases of the awards, getting nominations for Best Drama from the Critics Choice and acting nods for Diego Luna. It remains to be seen if its natural strength and themes can prevail over the far bigger hit The Mandalorian which has been nominated for Best Drama its first two seasons.

Reservation Dogs has been a critical favorite for years and received multiple nominations from the Broadcast Critics this past December. The question remains whether it has enough momentum to prevail over the bigger commercial hit produced by Taika Waititi What We Do In the Shadows.  

 

Long Shots

Bad Sisters has received immense critical acclaim and has received nominations for Best Drama from the Critics Choice awards, but it is fighting it out in a crowded field whether it competes as a comedy or a drama.

The nomination for Somebody Somewhere is one that I am very happy about because it was one of my favorite quiet comedies of 2022. Though nominated for last year, its season premiere is next Saturday. Could this put it over the top?

 

No Real Chance

Netflix’s Mo is worshipped by Critics and has a good pedigree but has no chance among many of the Netflix series out there. Sort of is practically unheard of. Los Espookys is hysterical but its cancelation almost certain doomed its chances.

Pachinko and Severance are ineligible this year, and the other nominees Bob’s Burgers and Documentary Now! Will compete in other categories not related to the Emmys.

 

It is an interesting collection of nominees as the Peabodys often present. I will report on the winners after the May 9^th ceremony to see if anything meaningful will be decided.

The MTV Movie and TV awards have given their nominations earlier this week. Since Euphoria isn’t eligible, I’m more interested then I was last year. I’ll report on that later this week.

 

Lost Rewatch on VHS: Everybody Hates Hurley

  

In what will become a pattern for almost every episode centered around Hurley, Everybody Hates Hurley spends much of its run playing as a comedy around the neuroses of the series most beloved character. Looking deeper, one fundamentally there’s more beneath the surface, and in retrospect there may be something deeper to the opening dream.

While Hurley is devouring everything in sight in the hatch, he drink a carton of milk which closer inspection (and that’s what Lost is all about) has a picture of Walt on the side under the label ‘Missing’ something that Hurley has no way of knowing. When Jin appears in his dream, his injuries are basically the same as they are on the other side of the island. Were the writers giving us an early hint as to Hurley’s deeper connection to the island? Food for thought.

Jack, for reasons that really make you question his leadership, has put Hurley in charge of inventorying the pantry and figuring how to make it last. Hurley clearly doesn’t want the job and his flashback clearly illustrates why.

Hurley’s flashback takes place in the immediate aftermath of his lottery win, and we see between his win and his first media conference, there were clear doubts. Through his flashbacks, we do see that he was a normal guy, who worked at a Mr. Cluck’s Chicken restaurant with his best friend Johnny, spent his spare time in a record store crushing on the girl who worked there, and never could find the nerve to stand up to his tool of a boss. (His awful boss, Randy, turns out to be the same awful boss who tormented Locke at his job. We learned that one of Hurley’s assets was a box factory in Tustin and this officially confirms that it was the same one Locke worked at. There is more to it than that as we’ll see.) After he won the lotto, he went to work same as always and found the nerve to stand up to Randy and ask Starla out on a date. But all of his bravado was essentially akin to the dying man who thinks nothing matters anymore; he wanted to do everything he could because instinctually he know once he was a millionaire, everything would change irrevocably. As he makes clear in his rant to Rose near the end of the episode and based on the look of utter betrayal on Johnny’s face, that is exactly what happened, and we’ll actually get confirmation of that in Season 3.

It is fitting that Hurley chooses to confide in Rose, whose no-nonsense approach is clearly one that most people cotton to. Jack was able to confide in her and Charlie was able to find peace after his near death experience. In one of the rarities for too many TV series even in Peak TV, Rose is one of the most fully written non-recurring characters on Lost, Her utter calm in the face of everything that is going on around her is something that no one else on the island seems to possess: she clearly has the same basic faith that Locke does (and they have a stronger link than that, as we shall see later this season) but unlike every other character who has some forth of faith, it doesn’t seem to put off the most rational ones. When Jack sees Rose in the hatch, his initial reaction of hostility is mitigated in a way it clearly wasn’t with Locke or Desmond the previous episode.

Rose will be a sea of calm through the entire series, capable of being rational even in the face of madness. She senses Hurley’s distress early on and tries to calm him down, telling him the honest truth that he’s the only person on the island everybody likes. When Hurley cracks under the stress of his past and decides that he wants to blow up the pantry, Rose stands firm in demanding an answer. We never know if Hurley confides in her about his lottery win and the immediate aftermath, but I’m inclined to believe that he did. Rose is the kind of person you trust your secrets with and who never judges. Hurley comes across her doing laundry and wonders why she doesn’t ask him where he’s been. She tells him its his business and that it won’t get the laundry done quicker. Unlike with Charlie, he then immediately tells the truth not only because he needs help but because he wants to help her. When Jack tells her not to tell anyone about the hatch, her answer is: “I wouldn’t know where to begin.” And honestly we warm to her because she still isn’t pressing.

Both Jack and Locke are dealing with the repercussion of what they have found. Jack has gone to Sayid and the two of them are now trying to found out, logically, what the Swan actually is. Sayid still isn’t asking questions but taking a practical approach: he looks for a way through and then under. His explanation of a geo-thermal electric power source is the most rational we’ve heard yet. When Jack asks him whether he thinks the button serves a purpose, he doesn’t answer directly but his response about Chernobyl makes it very clear that he’s not ruling anything out. That Jack chooses not to take Sayid’s advice seriously going forward shows that he is more focused on proving Locke wrong than admitting he might be right.

Locke in the meantime is confronted by Charlie. Charlie will have signs of spitefulness throughout Season 2, but when he confronts Locke it’s hard to argue with his attitude. Locke, clearly because of his friendship with Charlie, tells him everything that happened, admits he tried to track Desmond but couldn’t find him, and then decides to charm his friend by telling him ‘there’s a record player.’ He seems warmer and more certain in his scenes with Charlie as well as when Hurley tells him he wants to be taken off  the job. But you can’t miss the doubt when he says about having to convince people to push a button or about having jobs he didn’t like doing.

On the beach, Claire discovers the first tangible proof that something happened to the raft when she finds the bottle that held the messages. In a scene that is an outlier for the series, only women are involved in the decision not to tell anybody about the bottle and to decide what to do with it: Shannon and Claire come to Sun and say that she should be the one who makes the decision. At the time, it was wondered about putting the pressure of the decision on the wife of one of the passengers of the raft. I’m convinced she was the only qualified person to make a decision: she had more personally at stake than anyone else on the beach when the raft left, and her decision would carry more weight.

Of course, we know what happened to the passengers of the raft and on the other side of the island we learn the truth: the people who captured her were ‘The Tailies’ as they will called by the writers and in the episode we get a crash course in them. Unlike with the rest of the survivors, we don’t have to learn a lot of names because there are so few. How we learn this is a shock on its own: talking about the survivors, Libby tells Michael that 23 survived. Then they get to the bunker and there are only five left. Michael forgets about Walt and asks: “I thought you said that there were 23 of you.” Libby says simply: “There were” and the horror on the faces of Michael and Sawyer means at this point they are speculating as madly as everyone at home.

Naturally, they’re also clearly reeling from the fact that the Tailies also have a hatch. Considering they left before Jack dropped the news on the camp, this may be an even bigger shock than the fact that there are survivors from the tail section. Its clear that this at least confirms the theories that the six stations mentioned in the Swan Orientation film were on the island but we’re not sure what this station is for. (We will learn but not for a couple of seasons.) At this point we’re still trying to get a handle on the nature of the Tailies.

At this point our attention is driven to Ana Lucia and Eko. Michelle Rodriguez never gets the credit she deserves for her work as Ana Lucia, playing someone clearly driven to heights of paranoia, easily enraged and unwilling to trust anybody but herself. We shall learn far more of her backstory than most of the castaways, but at this point it’s pretty clear that she has become the de facto leader of her survivors and her leadership is that more of a crazed fanatic. Eko, the African man who speaks softly but carries a big stick, is clearly the only person she confides in but its obvious that goes one way only. Eko seems subdued in a way that none of the other Tailies are, but it’s clear he’s capable of violence when he needs to be.

But of course the big revelation comes in the last minute when one of the survivors, a man in his fifties, walks up to Michael and asks with barely with a mix of despair and longing if there’s a woman named Rose among the survivors. The look of shock that appears on their face (and I’m pretty sure its on Jin’s too) is as clear as it is on the audience, and even the ornery Sawyer is willing to tell this man what he needs to hear. We don’t need him to tell us his name is Bernard, in all honesty were probably too busy choking back tears.

The final scene of the episode is profoundly moving because it is another rare occasion where the entire camp looks utterly happy and at peace. Hurley is passing out food to everybody, everyone is eating their treats with delight, Charlie hugs his friend, and everyone is smiling at Hurley – even Jack and Locke look utterly cheerful. (Come to think of it, the last time we saw something like this was when the camp was watching Jack about to sink a putt at a golf event Hurley had organized. I guess everybody does love Hurley.) And the last scene of the episode, fittingly, shows Rose touching her wedding ring before putting her candy bar away, no doubt planning to share it with Bernard when she sees him again. Since now the audience knows that such a reunion is inevitable, it is moving because we now see at least one character’s faith has been proven 

Historical Figures Series The Presidential Campaigns of George Wallace, Part 4: 1976 Ended Wallace's Political Life - But Not His Legacy

 

 

In August of 1974 Richard Nixon had resigned and Gerald Ford was President. The long term ramifications would be felt for decades but in the short-term, many assumptions were made, several of which would be considered faulty.

One of such person who has an assumption was a man named Richard Viguerie. Viguerie had been a right-wing fundraiser for decades and in 1974, he had raised more than $1.4 million for Wallace’s 1974 campaign for governor. With the help of a man named Howard Philips, they founded what was known as the Conservative Caucus. In the aftermath of Watergate, many men such as Viguerie believed that the Republican party as they knew it was dead and that there only hope was a brand new third party. Their intention in the lead-up to the 1976 Presidential campaign was to hold a convention following the Democratic Convention that July and possibly select a Presidential candidate. George Wallace was the man that they had in mind. (He was their second choice, but we’ll be dealing with both in this article and eventually his own series.)

Viguerie was a dedicated fundraiser and while new campaign finance laws were making it very difficult for other prospective candidate to raise money the way they had, Wallace’s campaign was having no trouble. Through his efforts, mostly involving direct mail, he built a special ‘Wallace list’ that would eventually add up to around 600,000 names that would produce nearly seven million dollars. Furthermore because most of the contributions he received were well below the $1000 maximum allowed by newly formed campaign finance laws, and indeed many were below the $250 amount to qualify for federal matching funds, Wallace was flush with cash well before he announced his campaign for President.

More impressively, the Wallace campaign was taking dead-aim at the delegate selection process at the Democratic convention. Mickey Griffin, Wallace’s representative on the executive committee on the DNC, gleefully anticipated the primaries in April of 1975, referring to it as ‘schedule luck’ thinking that Wallace might not just serve as spoiler, but maybe even the eventual nominee.

This was not misplaced optimism. The 1976 Democratic Primary schedule had been expanded to thirty states as well as the District of Columbia. Five of those states were Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi – all  states that Wallace had carried in 1968. Furthermore, between March and May were a host of states Wallace had either won or finished second in -  Florida, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, Tennessee, Maryland and Michigan.

And its worth noting that the rest of the country and the rapidly expanding Democratic field of Presidential candidates all believed that Wallace was a genuine threat. At the end of March of 1975, 22 percent of all polled Democrats believed that Wallace would be the Democratic nominee.

Only one Democratic candidacy operated under the belief that Wallace was done as a political force. But no one was taking Jimmy Carter seriously. By that point he had already declared his run for the Presidency, but that same poll had him listed at 2%. And indeed the only people who seemed to consider him at all only saw him as someone who could counteract George Wallace.

In the summer of 1975, two influential Florida Democrats began visiting Democrats who had either declared to run for the nomination or were about too. Mike Abrams and Sergio Bendixen were two twenty-ish former McGovern campaigners would visit Birch Bayh, Fred Harris, Henry Jackson and Congressman Mo Udall of Arizona. Their message was simple: they wanted all of them to stay out of the Florida primary and let it come down to a two man race between Carter and Wallace.

They knew Wallace was a clear threat to the Democratic Party’s future and could not be the nominee. More importantly, they saw Carter as harmless with no real chance at becoming President.

The only person to tell them to take a hike was Henry Jackson. Udall agreed to it fundamentally because he could not see the party nominating Jimmy Carter. He would later say that was his biggest mistake of the campaign.

Much has been written about how Jimmy Carter’s campaign in Iowa essentially transformed the political landscape forever. Generally forgotten is that Carter did not win the caucuses in the sense we considered. Officially, the plurality of the vote went to an uncommitted slate of delegates – Carter finished second with 27%. Rather it was the fact that this literally unknown candidate had managed to do so well over so many established candidates that the media focused on, and that helped propel Carter forward.

There were in fact four other caucuses scheduled before the New Hampshire Primary on February 25^th and his track record up to that point wasn’t particularly extraordinary. Wallace would swamp him in Mississippi, getting nearly 45 % of the vote to Carter’s 14%, he would manage a victory over the moribund Sargent Shriver’s campaign in Maine, and emerge with what amounted to a tie with Fred Harris in Oklahoma, which the media cared more about because it showcased Harris’ weakness in his home state than Carter’s strength.

By the time Carter had managed to win the New Hampshire primary, he was slowly becoming a phenomena. However, between then and the Florida primary came the Massachusetts primary. And while the outcome could have destroyed Carter’s candidacy, ironically Wallace’s impulses would lay the groundwork for his own defeat – and Carter’s eventual victory.

Wallace’s campaign staff had wanted him to start his campaign in Florida where had trounced the field four years earlier. Wallace was on the ballot there but his campaign hadn’t wanted to contest it – he’d been flattened there four years earlier. Wallace thought he could make mischief with the issues of busing that had become a major flashpoint in Boston. He paid a visit there in what would be his first endeavor in national politics since his shooting.

Charles Snider, his campaign manager, admitted it was a bold move and if he could’ve won, it might have reactivated his campaign.

Starting on New Year’s 1976, Wallace was making trips to the state. In the early weeks he drew large crowds, particularly around Boston and Springfield. But as Jules Witcover wrote “while the words and the music were the same…there was a distinct and glaring difference this time around. George Wallace himself. In the past he had…come into an arena liked a robed prizefighter eager for the opening bell; now his very entrance reminded the audience immediately of his incapacity. Going to a Wallace rally was (now) half-like going…to a sideshow at a traveling circus, and people being the way they are, quite a few admitted they were there out of curiosity.”

It also did not help matters for Wallace that the other candidates in the race were more focused in bringing down Carter than they were him, and while Carter was still deflecting, he was certain he would emerge victorious in the end.

March 2^nd was a disappointing day for both Carter and Wallace, though in honesty Wallace could walk away with a more positive look at things. Henry Jackson, a most conservative Senator had ended up the winner in Massachusetts with 23% of the vote. Mo Udall finished second with 18%, Wallace a close third with 17% and Carter was a distant fourth with 14%. Wallace took away from this the fact that ‘he carried Boston.” Carter had nothing to cheer about. He had managed to win over Shriver in Vermont, but the media paid no attention to that. Carter had been certain that he would win in Massachusetts; the fact that he had been beaten so badly – and that they had fallen behind Wallace as well, now made a victory in Florida essential for the Carter campaign. They knew that the political elites viewed him with skepticism at best (many would never think highly of even after he was elected President, and if Wallace beat him in Florida his campaign would almost certainly disintegrate.

By this point, Udall and Jackson were the only serious candidates left on the ballot in Florida besides Wallace and Carter. Udall kept his promise and did not actively campaign, even though his strong finish did indicate he might have had a chance. “Clearly I could have pulled enough votes away from Carter to give Wallace the win.”

By this point, however, the Wallace campaign no longer had the power it did in Florida. In 1972, Wallace had campaigned on the slogan: “Send Them A Message.” Carter turned this on its ear in Florida when he told them that Southerners had a real chance not only to do that, but to ‘send them a President.”

Wallace himself had been slow to realize how much of a setback his condition would be to his cause. His first Florida rally was half empty, and he began to hold rallies in smaller halls than usual. He tried to campaign on a heavier schedule, but the media continued to play him as a brittle man.

Carter’s margin of victory in Florida was very small on primary day: he managed just 34% to Wallace’s 31% while Jackson had managed 24%. But he had still popped the Wallace bubble in the South, and Wallace knew it.

The next primary was Illinois but Snider had told him even he was campaigning there that he had to go to North Carolina on March 23^rd. There was no optimism there as Witcover reported during an Illinois conversation:

Snider: “You’re going to lose North Carolina, too.”

Wallace: “Well, why leave here and go on.”

Snider: “To minimize the loss in North Carolina.”

Wallace: “You don’t think we can pull it out in North Carolina?”

Snider: “Governor, if you’ve got any chance at all, you’d have to go now, like right now.”

Wallace knew the writing was on the wall. In an appearance on ABC that week, he said he would finish out his commitments this year and then his political career would be over. Wallace did not quit the campaign even after he lost in North Carolina – he would even win the Alabama primary a month later – but it was more out of a determination not to quit than any chance of winning.

Indeed on the day of Carter defeating Wallace resoundingly in North Carolina, the media was more focused on the Republican Primary than the Democratic one. Ronald Reagan had been challenging Gerald Ford for the Presidential nomination, but his once promising campaign was in free fall. In the first five primaries of the schedule, he had not defeated Ford once and he had been humiliated in Illinois, his birthplace. Now in North Carolina, he managed to defeat Ford with 52 percent of the vote. Reagan’s moribund campaign had been given life again – and the demise of Wallace as a force would put him back in control.

The Reagan campaign eventually decided to bypass several Northern states – including big delegate hauls New York and Pennsylvania – in favor of the Texas primary on May 1^st. This was the first time Texas had ever held a presidential primary and like many of the primaries of the era, it was essentially a crossover primary where members of either party could vote for whatever candidate they like.

Prior to the Conservative Caucus being formed, Richard Viguerie had mentioned George Wallace as one of two men he might consider a worthy nominee for that caucus’ nomination. His first choice had been Ronald Reagan. After Wallace’s defeat by Jimmy Carter in Florida, thousands of Wallace voters had been cut adrift – and the Reagan campaign immediately went to lure them in.

This has never been a secret of the Reagan campaign. In fact, Reagan campaigned in Wallace country reciting his old themes. A Wallaceite voter was recruited by a Reagan media man saying that he had been a conservative Democrat all his life who had been going to vote for Wallace but because Reagan could be nominated, he was going to vote in the Republican primary. Aides passed out fliers that had caricatures of an elephant saying: “I’m for Reagan” and a donkey adding: “Me too!”

The result was record turnout for a Republican statewide primary which lead to Reagan taking all 96 delegates at state and putting him back into contention for the nomination. It was probably not a coincidence that three nights later Reagan swept all 85 delegates at state in the Alabama and Georgia primaries as well as a near sweep in Indiana, a state Wallace had historically done well.

Paradoxically the Wallace vote would end up being one of the factors that turned the campaign around for Gerald Ford. Four years earlier,  Wallace had received nearly 50 percent of the vote in the primary there and Michigan was, like Texas, a crossover primary. Would the Democrats that had voted for Wallace in record numbers four years earlier turn out for Reagan now? Reagan himself certainly thought so and the Ford campaign knew that if this were the case and Ford were to lose his home state, his campaign would collapse. In the end, while thousands of Democrats did crossover and vote for Reagan, far more thousands of Republicans who had voted for Wallace four years earlier, came out for Gerald Ford who won by a nearly two-to-one margin over Reagan. As a result (Ford also won the Maryland primary, which Reagan didn’t contest) Ford would begin to mount a comeback of his own. I intend to write another series on Reagan, suffice to say, Ford would eventually manage to win the nomination in large part because the crossover primaries – which had been as valuable for Reagan in 1976 as they had been for Wallace throughout his career – were over and he did far poorer in Republican only primaries.

Wallace’s political life was over after the Democratic Convention – but the effects of his presence were still not fully felt electorally. That November Carter, who started the summer campaign with a thirty-three percent lead over Ford in the polls, would narrowly end up beating him by little more than two percent of the vote. With the exception of Virginia, he would be the last Democratic President to win election to the White House by sweeping the South. Four years later, Ronald Reagan won election to the white house in a landslide. The only Southern states Carter would carry were West Virginia and Georgia. Not even Bill Clinton would be able win the White House with a clean sweep of Dixie; the South has been almost uniformly Republican with only a few purple states ever since.

Conservative pundit George Will has famously been on record by saying that Barry Goldwater actually won the Presidency in 1964 “it just took sixteen years to count the votes.” His argument has essentially been based in the idea that Reagan essentially modeled his run on Goldwater’s methods and build on his carrying the Southern states that Goldwater won. What else that might imply he never states.

In a vague sense Will is correct. What he will never mention – and certainly none of the conservative media ever will – is that the main reason that it took so long to ‘count the votes’ was because of the shadow of George Wallace

. In 1972, Richard Nixon had his biggest margins of victory in many of the Southern states that Wallace had carried but because Nixon had won 49 states, few paid any mind to it. When Carter had swept Dixie four years later, Nixon’s sweep of the South was basically considered an aberration. Reagan’s landslide four years later might be seen as a victory of conservative principles – but those principles had been essentially blocked by the figure of Wallace, standing in the doorway.

Lost Rewatch: Orientation

 

Early in this episode Kate realizes that the hatch has to have a front door. Desmond tells her exactly where it is and is pretty obvious when we see it. In her first volume of Finding Lost, Nikki asks why Locke didn’t find this door considering its size. This is a question that seems relevant considering that when it comes to the other Dharma stations that we will find throughout the series, almost all of them have doors that are far easier to locate and most are far more obvious then the Swan’s were at the time.

The obvious reason is, of course, if Locke looked for the door in a normal method he’d have thought it easily and there would have been no tension for half a season and certainly far less significance to the season finale. (From here on out, the business of locating the opening to these stations will be a matter of a few minutes at most as the writers aren’t go to do the same trick twice.) But I think that there’s actually something far subtler that the writers are saying about Locke’s character in general with this, and that has to do with his narrowness of vision.

When Locke gets a goal in mind, he will focus his energy on it at the expense of all else: Boone kept saying that the rest of the survivors needed to know about this and Locke kept holding him off saying vague terms like, “They’re not ready.” He clearly used the arrival of the Others as an excuse so that he could find a way to get inside, ignored the death of Arzt via dynamite despite Jack’s warning and then ignored when Hurley was screaming at him that this was a bad idea. Locke was going to get into the hatch and nothing else mattered. The fact that he spent weeks first unearthing and then trying everything else to open it without even bothering to look for a front door should not come as a shock to the viewer. Locke can never see the forest for the trees, in this case quite literally.

In a sense that pertains to the hatch itself. Locke has been so focused on the idea that finding and opening it was their destiny that one wonders if at any point even considered the reality of what was inside. When Hurley asked him what was in it (and in his own way, had a far more accurate picture than anyone else) John just smiled and said: “Hope.” Which admittedly sounds nice, but at some point he was going to come head to head with reality. Now he’s finally inside the hatch, he's had a gun to his head, told to enter six numbers into a computer, is basically threatened with death if Jack doesn’t lower his gun (something Jack never does, which I can’t imagine Locke takes very well) a computer is blown open and a frantic Desmond now says simply: “We’re all going to die!” John is like the dog who caught the bus, and in fact basically shouts out the punchline to that joke, but there’s nothing funny about it: “What am I supposed to do now?!”

Jack, for all his views of science, has the exact same narrowness of vision that Locke does, only its directed in the opposite direction. Locke hears Desmond’s explanation for how he got here and what he was supposed to do (which in a very truncated way will be proven accurate) and while he questions the idea of it, he at least is willing to entertain the possibility. Jack’s narrowness is pure denial. He refuses to accept anything Desmond tells him as even close to real, even when Desmond acknowledges he has a similar lack of doubt every time he has pushed the button. Like Locke, he isn’t certain that anything will happen but he doesn’t want to be wrong when it does. Jack is infuriated at what he has sees as completely blind faith, but its worth nothing that when Desmond takes off, he abandons Locke to chase after Desmond.

What Jack refuses to admit is that Desmond’s mere presence is a greater crisis to his rationality than anything in the Swan. He can shout at Locke about destiny until he’s blue in the face, argue that nothing is going to happen when the timer goes off, yell that the film is nothing more than a scare tactic. What he can not pretend is that a man who he ran into in LA at a critical moment in his life years ago is somehow on the same island with him. When Locke points out that Desmond recognizing him is just as crazy as the button, Jack immediately shuts up because it’s a question he can’t answer. When he runs after Desmond, it’s not clear what he intends to do but when Desmond confronts with him a reality he absolutely can not deny, he breaks down in a way we just haven’t seen he chased his dead father through the jungle. There are obviously far more important questions to demand of Desmond, but Jack is in no position to ask them and he just lets Desmond go. (The viewer would be forgiven for thinking we will never see him again. We don’t know yet the extent of just how important Desmond is to everything that will follow.)

We’re still not sure why Jack is so utterly determined not to believe (though based on what Desmond intuits, it probably has something to do with Sarah) but we’re beginning to get a sense of why John has too. The flashback that we see takes place two years after the first one, and Locke is still getting over the betrayal of his father. He manages to find love in Helen in his flashback, but he still can not get over that betrayal. The scene with Cooper is understandably horrible not just because confirms that John’s father has no use for him now that he has his kidney, but even after hearing that and being told by Cooper not to keep coming back, John still can’t let go. He tearfully admits as much to Helen in the final flashback and it is she who tells him that he needs to make ‘a leap of faith.’ The fact that he manages to walk away from Cooper’s complex this time would seem to indicate a happy ending. Even at this point the view is inclined to doubt that this will be the case.

Now Locke is trying his hardest to find something to believe in and for most of Season 2 that will be the hatch and the button. Because Season 2 will focus mostly around the Swan, Locke will be integral to the survivors in a way he will not be in future seasons because he’s trying to convince himself that this is his destiny. Because in addition to everything else the hatch is a sanctuary that the survivors have not had, almost every major character will spend extended time in the hatch and therefore in interaction with Locke. For that reason, most of the grievances that several of the characters justifiably had with John as recently as a few hours will essentially end up being buried as they try to unearth the mysteries within it.

It's worth noting that when Kate, Sayid and Hurley show up in the hatch after John’s alone, all of them more or less unify around a common goal and don’t bother to ask questions. Indeed Locke actually asks Sayid whether he wants an explanation and Sayid responds in the practical manner we’ve become fond of: he knows there’s a timer counting down and he doesn’t want to know what will happen when it reaches zero. He might not believe Locke’s explanation, but he’s spent enough time in the military to know that nothing good happens when a clock runs down.

Kate, who has more of a reason to be distrustful of John considering his treatment of her the previous episode, seems perfectly willing to forgive and forget when John asks her to get Sayid, she doesn’t hesitate and when she gets back she tries everything to help him. Hurley, understandably, is bothered – and when the code is being entered, he clearly wants them to talk about this – until Locke puts in the wrong last number. Even when Jack corrects him and gives the sixth number he never wanted to hear, he doesn’t put an argument. Maybe he thinks he’ll get an explanation, maybe he thinks that he doesn’t want any more bad luck, or maybe he’s figured he’s tried convincing both Jack and Locke about the numbers and neither wants to hear it.

And its worth noting when Locke demands Jack press the button and he refuses, Sayid and Kate immediately take John’s side over Jack’s. One wonders why Locke tries to focus his attention on them to do this instead of Jack, considering everything that’s happened in the last few episodes, never mind this one. This may be the fundamental difference in the conflict between the two: Locke may hate Jack but he still tries to reason with him because he that he has to convince him for the good of everybody. (As the series continues, this will be proven out.) Jack’s hatred at this point, however, is so deep that he completely refuses to listen even when his friends tell him its in everybody’s best interest to do so. The end of the episode shows John practically begging Jack to believe, and perhaps its that more than anything that persuades him. Or maybe there’s something petty in Jack who likes to see the man he saw as ‘a problem’ groveling to him.

While this is going on (or maybe it isn’t, the timeline starts getting screwy) the survivors from the raft have just run into ‘the Others’ and been thrown into a pit. It’s here we get the second major shake-up of Season 2 when another ‘prisoner’ is thrown in – and we recognize her. Ana Lucia is one of the most polarizing characters in all of Lost, mainly because for almost her entire time on the series, she comes across as entirely unsympathetic. Much of it is no doubt due to the deception she plays on the people on the raft who we have already grown to trust: Ana Lucia may not be an Other but given what’s happened already we’re not inclined to think highly of her. (This impression, sadly, will carry on well past the point we learn her backstory and learn just how badly broken she was even before she got on the plane.) I never understood the open hostility so many fans bore her, mainly because I was far more interested in the WTF? of it all. How did Ana Lucia get here? Who are the rest of the people she was with? What exactly happened to them? Unlike so many other mysteries on Lost, we’ll start getting answers on this almost immediately.

In the end Jack pushes the button and Locke stands over it, saying that he’ll take the first shift while Jack walks out, not saying a word. Locke has apparently won the struggle over the button. He doesn’t know yet that this is the only skirmish in the hatch that he will ever win. But he must sense it because the certainty and calmness that gripped him throughout Season 1 is never the same in Season 2. He has made his leap of faith, but we saw the doubt and hostility before that. Those two will war and for the first time in the series, doubt will be added on John almost every episode.

Censorship Series, Part 1: Banning Books From School Libraries Is Wrong - Because It Completely Disregards the Nature of the Average Student

 

Nearly twenty years ago in one of his HBO ‘comedy specials/diatribes,’ Bill Maher went on another one of those white male rage rants that he was infamous for even then. Another one of his key gripes the idea that ‘children are more important than people.”

Then, as now, I considered just another one of the personal grievances Maher puts forth that was consistent with his misanthropic, anti-family views that he has had for more than thirty years. However, like the proverbial broken clock, Maher was right about in regard to much of today’s activities. So much of our political discourse is revolved around doing ‘what is best for our children”. One of the current battles where this is being waged is in public schools and what books our children should be able to read.

This series, as the title has indicated, is about an opinion I have held essentially my whole life: any form of censorship, restriction of free speech, or freedom of expression is universally wrong and anyone who tries to do so is automatically my enemy. So I am opposed to the idea of restricting whatever our children should be able to read in public school and libraries.

That, however, is not the subject of this article. The point of this article is that no matter what side of the issue you are on, the loudest voices are at their core only interested in this to preserve their own agendas and their own values. Neither side has any interest in the children’s point of view at all, and the fact that this is subject to debate fundamentally illustrates the lack of comprehension of the average child’s mindset. This is something I am very aware of.

As you know doubt have reasoned by my columns, I have been a constant reader practically since the age of six. I was one of those students who was reading a book under his desk during school throughout my formative years. I would go to the school library every lunch period and free period well into my college years. The library and the book stores are practically shrines to me. And something that I became aware of very early on was how much of a rarity that was among children.

The reason I find this debate about which books children should read more of a political talking point than an actual issue is a simple one: Most children don’t want to read at all. I don’t mean the problems with literacy; I mean it’s something they’d rather not do given their options. This was true thirty years ago when you only had cable TV as a distraction; in an era where every child has a cell phone when they get into grade school, streaming services are everywhere, and everybody cares about how many followers that they have on Instagram, I believe it’s only gotten harder. Teaching a child to read is far easier than getting them to enjoy reading. It can be pushed by teacher or parents, but it fundamentally has to be something the child gets to on their own early and most of them are resistant to it.

Everyone gets up an arms when they see pictures of school libraries where the shelves are completely empty; I absolutely guarantee those photos are taken by teachers. I’m relatively certain that the average student in most school may go there for months, if not years, without even knowing what floor the library is on and if they do go there, it is only because their teacher told them that a book they need is on the shelves. Hell, I imagine the few students who went in there may have gone to study and barely noticed the shelves were empty.

And to be clear that’s recreational reading. Assigned reading: the average student will approach this as eagerly as they would dissecting a frog in biology. I almost think that if these ‘outraged parents’ really wanted to ensure that their children never read these books they find offensive, they should demand they be part of the curriculum. I guarantee you; these kids would look for summaries on Wikipedia and call it done. I speak from experience as someone who loves reading: throughout my entire life, it’s always been easier for me to read books of my own volition than ones that I’m supposed too. This is human nature, something that none of these parents seem to remember. Better still, upset parents: recommend these books to your children and say that you loved them growing up even if you’ve never read them (I’m going to get this in a moment.) They will throw them under the beds the second you leave the room.

Now I’m going to address every parent in the world, red state or blue state, every race, religion or gender. If you can take an honest look at just how messed up the world is today, and you truly think that the biggest danger to your children is them reading, say, Catcher in the Rye or The Perks of Being a Wallflower, then you’re beautiful. I truly want to meet you and wonder what world you live in. It isn’t the one your children live in, because to be clear none of this is about your children at all.

And by the way to those same parents: all these years I’ve misunderstood the secrets to the universe. All this time I thought that wisdom and knowledge were things learned in books or higher education or life experience. But apparently I’ve been wrong. When the quarterback knocks up the head cheerleader on prom night, you automatically know not just what is best for your child but all children.

Oh, and all of you smug blue staters out there who no doubt automatically think that of so many of the schools where these battles or happening, this obvious doesn’t assume that the cheerleader is a straight A-Student and that the quarterback was hoping to go to college on a scholarship but both had to drop out to raise their kid.

See, the thing that all children pick up on very young is that their parents don’t know everything. They will deflect your questions with things like: “Because I said so” or worse, “You’ll understand when you’re older.” At some point we learn our parents are not gods, merely mortals. And all parents understand at some level that they have to protect their children. The divide has always been “from what.” It also leaves out the fact that they are afraid. Of the world not being the same that they lived in when they were children, whether the children will be happy, and most importantly, how different their children will be when they grow up.

All parents know that they have relinquish control of their children at some point. I imagine that is what much of the fighting over education has always been: loss of control. So they fight against it. The problem is almost always manifests itself in horrible ways. The worst is actual abuse, emotional or physical. In this case, it is trying to control what their children learn. At a certain level, all parents see their children as extensions of themselves. And many do not like even the idea that their children will grow up with views that don’t reflect theirs.

To be clear this is wrong when done as one family, it’s horrible done as a group. Yet as horrific as it is, it is at least understandable and admirable than the counterreaction from so many on the left to this.

Because I’ve spent enough time on these websites to know that in most of the states where these outrages are going, the commentators are fundamentally detached from it. Most of them are ruby red states, and they have long since denounced all of the adults with them as gun-loving, Bible thumping, Fox News viewing idiots who aren’t worthy of their time, even every two or four years. In their mind, they keep elected all of the officials who are making the progressive agenda harder to get through. They don’t understand why they keep electing Republicans who will never vote in their economic interests and in the same breath, they will  crap on every cultural or social value they have as misguided and not see the irony.

They speak with haughtiness because they would never deign to visit these states, much less let their own children go to a public school there. In fact, I’m relatively sure that a hefty percentage of them, assuming they even have children, would not yet theirs go anywhere near a public school, even if it were in a ‘good neighborhood.’ This is another example in their minds as to how ‘out of touch’ these parents are because they won’t even let their schools put these books on shelves. That their own children would just as likely not go to the library anyway doesn’t enter their thinking at all.

For years, progressives have moaned about why politicians will always speak about children but never do anything to help them. You want to know why? Children don’t vote and they don’t have a lobby. They have no political or economic value. And for that reason they have become what amounts to props. And I should make it clear both sides are perfectly fine with that.

Yes, I know the left will hem and haw about much this banning of books hurts children but this is posturing. They have given up on the grownups in these states as lost. The only reason they care about these children is potential. In their minds, if the children receive the education of the values that they share, they will become good progressive Democrats, and when they are eighteen they will begin voting Democrat in their local elections to turn their state their blue. Better still, they will leave their horrid red state with their blind backwards parents and go to a nice safe blue state where they learn their liberals and push the evil Republicans out of existence.

The idea that any of these children might read these books, see these movies, get a good education and still come away with the values of their red state parents doesn’t even enter their thinking. Because, like the parents who are banning books in these states, they can’t understand why their children would not share their values. I have a feeling that these same parents would be more outraged if they came home and found their son watching Newsmax than pornography. Or if their daughter wanted to go to BYU instead of Sarah Lawrence. Or the first time they voted, registered as a Republican.

No one cares what children think. I know because in all of these school board meetings, the parents are doing all the talking. No media network will ever do a focus group of eleven year olds. But I also know that these so called ‘good people’ berating how these children are being deprived, would never deign to go down and ask what they think because they don’t care anymore than their parents. If they said they agreed with their parents, they would dismiss it with that old trope that has existed since time immemorial: “they’ll understand when they’re older.” Then they would just go home and rage against how utterly intolerant ‘these people’ are and not think twice.

They’ll rage against the governors and the school board officials and the angry parents who are keeping their children from getting the education they need. That these kids will almost certainly never go to the library of their own volition is not relevant. Some of these children might ask questions to the adults, might have points of view that their parents, the media and politicians on both sides mind find relevant.  They will end up being dismissed by everybody. Because they’re not adults and they have no rights. That some of them might actually be smarter than all of these people will not even be considered. That some of them might be savvier than both sides will not be entertained. Because for all these people, children are merely props. They may be ‘more important than people’ but their opinions aren’t.