something about Nathanael West's novella, "A Cool Million"

With A Cool Million, Nathanael West mocks and perverts the Horatio Alger myth. The novella unravels the sad story of Lemuel Pitkin, a poor 17-year-old kid from rural New England. When creditors threaten to foreclose on his family home, young Pitkin seeks the advice of the local banker, Shagpoke Whipple, an opportunistic former president of the United States. At Whipple's urging, Pitkin heads out into the world to make his way. But the world thoroughly abuses and victimizes Pitkin: he is robbed, arrested, and beaten; he loses limbs and teeth; even his naive sweetheart is raped and prostituted. Pitkin learns nothing for his trouble and soon dies a humiliated failure. As if that was not enough, Pitkin's death is exploited by Shagpoke Whipple in his political comeback as head of the National Revolutionary Party.

Whipple, embarking on his second act, attributes his initial downfall to conspiring outsiders:

I blame Wall Street and the Jewish international bankers. They loaded me up with a lot of European and South American bonds, then they forced me to the wall. It was Wall Street working hand in hand with the Communists that caused my downfall. The bankers broke me, and the Communists circulated lying rumors about my bank in Doc Slack's barber shop. I was the victim of an un-American conspiracy.

At his nationalist rallies, Whipple evokes Pitkin's story to stoke popular fear and animosity toward immigrants, intellectuals, international capitalists, and political opponents.
 
With this conclusion, West suggests that belief in the Horatio Alger myth inevitably leads to a second myth that explains the failure of the first. The second myth, the Lemuel Pitkin myth, reinforces in the minds of the struggling, embittered white population the idea that they have been cheated out of the American dream by un-American and international forces. The two myths inform a reactionary movement of hostility, fear, and dangerous nationalism.


Note: Can a perception of the past serve as a vision for the future?

another opinion

This week USA Today published an opinion by the Heritage Foundation's John Malcolm supporting the presidential authority behind Executive Order 13769 ("Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States"), the so-called "travel ban." President Trump may have the authority, but Malcolm's argument in support is flawed. He writes, "Presidential authority to protect our homeland should not be second-guessed by courts based on some hidden intent divined from tweets and statements made by surrogates in the heat of a presidential campaign." First, Malcolm's attempt to attribute to surrogates Trump's Muslim ban campaign rhetoric is wrong. In December 2015, during the campaign, candidate Trump said at a rally, “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.” Second, and worse still, Malcolm tries to nullify the intent behind campaign promises. Of course candidates make false promises, but we still have to pretend the promises are true.


Notes:

• At issue is the scope of presidential power over the border. The Supreme Court has allowed parts of President Trump's travel ban to go into effect and will hear oral arguments on the case this fall.
• The "he did not mean it" argument was once part of the legal defense.
• Every previous President made an empty promise.

Source: "Travel ban is president's authority," USA Today, July 5, 2017

Stuff about an article on Newt Gingrich

Plodding further along the media-worn path of horse race campaign coverage, the Time magazine article "Gingrich Could Draw GOP Ire on Immigration" hones in on Gingrich and how his stance on immigration may affect his ranking:

The firebrand former House speaker broke with what has become a reflexive Republican hard line on immigration, calling for "humane" treatment for otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants who have been in the United States for decades, establishing deep family and community ties.

"Firebrand" qualifies as an odd characterization given that Gingrich is thoroughly establishment, old guard, and a while out of the game. Nevertheless, the article never explains how Gingrich's position contrasts with his opponents and their "hard line". The closest comparison comes more than halfway throughout the piece:

But Romney has been tough on illegal immigration while running for president. He said Tuesday night that what Gingrich was proposing would act as a magnet for foreigners to enter the country illegally.

"Tougher" goes undefined. Also undefined are the immigrants. But this quote from a Gingrich supporter holds a clue:

"With me, personally, I fall right in line with him," said Columbia, S.C., Gingrich supporter Allen Olson, a former tea party official. "It's utterly impossible to round up 12 million people and ship them off.

Yep. Mexicans. When Conservatives and media discuss immigration, usually they mean Mexicans. This is understood, but rarely if ever said. The Conservative stance on Mexican immigrants goes unexamined here in this piece as it does elsewhere. The Conservative response to Gingrich, however, does not:

The response was swift. Some conservatives asserted he had wounded his candidacy, perhaps fatally.

That Gingrich's "humane" position should so offend a large segment of voters merits some examination here. The reporter might ask, Why? What are the reasons? Are those reasons valid? Instead of diving into the meaning and merits of this debated issue, the piece cynically treats the position as mere political maneuvering:

And far from a stumble, Tuesday night's remarks seemed a calculated tactic to draw a contrast with Romney, whom he now sees as his chief rival to the party nomination and who has had his own trouble with conservatives ...

This article also includes the obligatory nod to Gingrich's presupposed intelligence in this quote, courtesy of Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss:

"He's one of the smartest politicians out there, and don't think he hasn't thought this through."

Gingrich's intellect has long been an object of admiration in his media coverage.