Translate

Wednesday, July 10, 2024

On Books and Expanding the Powers of the Mind: Adam and Michele Rifkin's "Last Train to Fortune," by Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D. July 10, 2024

Friends, 

I'm thrilled to share a story of personal good fortune that supports the promotion of an incredible education-themed film featuring the legendary Malcolm McDowell, which is currently being considered for multiple film festivals.

The film celebrates the power of books and empowerment as a counter to the misguided anti-intellectual book ban movement prevalent today. Enjoy!

-Angela Valenzuela


On Books and Expanding the Powers of the Mind: Adam and Michele Rifkin's 
"Last Train to Fortune"

by

Angela Valenzuela, Ph.D.
University of Texas at Austin
July 10, 2024

James Paxton & Malcolm McDowell. Photo credit: Greg Gorman

It’s not every day that one gets asked by a Hollywood filmmaker—in this case, Adam Rifkin—to write a story about a film herecently directed, based on a screenplay written by his mother, former English teacher, Michele Rifkin, in 1986. Nor is it common to be asked to write a “story” instead of a film review about an epic, education-themed Western movie, namely, Last Train to Fortune (LTTF), produced by Brad Wyman, best known for “Monster” (2003), which won Charlize Theron an Oscar. 

The unexpected request was from Strategic Communications director, Daniel Delson, writing on behalf of Adam Rifkin. Its sense of urgency and care caught my attention.

As book bans are all over the national news, I’m writing to offer an interview with Hollywood director Adam Rifkin and legendary actor Malcolm McDowell to discuss their yet-to-be-released film, LAST TRAIN TO FORTUNE (LTTF) – not for a film review – for a story about this issue. At a time when books are being banned across the country, kids are addicted to TikTok, and education itself is under attack, LTTF serves as a wakeup call to audiences that knowledge sets us free, and that books are an enduring symbol of that freedom – a theme that couldn’t be more relevant than it is right now. (May 9, 2024)


Adam Rifkin. Photo credit: Greg Gorman

The message went on to describe the film’s setting which was the post-Civil War Old West of the early 1870s. The movie features the talented young actor James Paxton as the gunslinger, Jedidiah Dooley, and the legendary Malcolm McDowell as Cecil Caldecott Peachtree, an affable, book-bosomed, bibliophile and English teacher from London who suddenly finds himself incongruously positioned as a strange person in a new and vast land embarked on securing his new teaching position in a remote, little town invitingly named “Fortune.”

Malcolm McDowell.
Photo credit: Greg Gorman

Daniel also mentioned actresses Bernadette Peters, Mary Steenburgen, and the exciting young talent, Laura Marano. Together with gunfights, saloon brawls, and horse chases, the film promises to be a crowd-pleaser for all ages. Adam and Michele Rifkin’s LTTF is also destined to rank highly among other inspiring, education-themed films such as Stand and Deliver (1988), Dead Poets Society (1989), Precious Knowledge (2011), and Radical (2023). Besides being a Western movie, what distinguishes it from others is that it comes with its own promise of fortune in a reading list of Western canonical texts comprised primarily of English authors. The film should ignite discussions in academia and the public about the foundational relevance of a liberal arts education.

Daniel further divulged that Malcolm McDowell “happens to give one of the finest performances of his storied career.” I viewed this as no small feat, considering his career-defining, award-winning roles in the movies, “If…” (1973), and “A Clockwork Orange” (1971). My interest was piqued. But what story do I tell? I decided to trust the process given the positive premise in the story. I viewed the film multiple times by myself and with family members and interviewed Adam, Michele, James, and Malcolm, interacting regularly with Daniel by email throughout.

It has been an exceptional experience connecting with wonderful people and getting the winding, behind-the-scenes story about moving from screenplay to film that was 38 years in the making. This degree of access breaks down the mystique surrounding the filmmaking process, portraying actors and filmmakers as genuine human beings with their own challenges, victories, and struggles. 

I found the timeliness of their film to the current context of book bans and the current attack on public education to be intriguing and uncanny. What impressed me, even more, was their sincere desire to insert themselves through the film into this critical juncture in our nation’s history, offering a fresh, viable, and redemptive story. It advances a worthy cause for the enduring and liberating knowledge that elevates the human condition. James emphasized this point in our conversation, "It's not often that we get the chance to make a movie like this, one that is positive and makes a difference in the world.”

Books and knowledge do set us free and book bans are abhorrent. Well-funded schools and resource-rich classrooms are a must and great teachers are necessary, and competent teaching should not be a luxury but part and parcel of what a great education can and should be. Not that all educators need to rise to Cecil’s stratospheric level of the consummate “pedagogue,” but rather that they are intentionally cultivated, mentored, and liberated, as teachers, within caring institutional structures to impart their craft. James affirmed this by calling the film “a love letter to teachers.”

I shared with Daniel, Adam, and Michele that it was interesting that they had chosen me to write about the film. After all, I am both an English major and a policy advocate in Texas, calling for the inclusion of Ethnic Studies history and literature in state curriculum. 

The canon of Western literature is indeed the fortune or treasure to which we are all entitled. “All too frequently, as racial and ethnic minorities, we are denied access to this curriculum. Or we’re given a reduced version of it,” I shared. “The book with the hole in it,” I told a smiling James. 

This experience led me to reflect on the timeless nature of human experiences, blending suffering with triumphs and at times, salvation, from our self-sabotaging paths toward self-destruction, a theme taken up by the movie. Abiding truths such as the principles of freedom and the equal worth of all people remind us of our shared values and the continuous struggle to uphold them throughout history.

The Ethnic Studies cause of which I am a part nevertheless questions public school curriculum standards that already privilege this canonical knowledge at the expense of the histories and great works of literature of still underrepresented groups. My thoughts, however, were only partially formed during our initial conversations so I did not fully elaborate further. Plus, I was more in a research, data-gathering mode. What nevertheless emerged was a built-up tension to which Fareed Zakaria in his New York Times best-selling text, In Defense of a Liberal Education (2015), gives voice. 

Zakaria acknowledges the need for a core curriculum based on time-honored knowledge while also questioning how to incorporate new truths for the sake of humanity. Ultimately, the nagging tension that I felt between the film’s love of the canon, which I share, and the need to continuously “perfect the union” was not just intellectually, but relationally, resolved in my final interview with Malcolm.  

However, first, the plot after which I discuss the interviews, within which I discuss my own story that is pertinent to the aforementioned core tension in liberal education (Zakaria, 2015).

Plot. The LTTF is centered on an endearing, highly educated British school teacher named Cecil Caldecott Peachtree who finds himself in a fix when he misses the last train to Fortune where he is expected to serve in the new school term as its one-room-schoolhouse teacher. Stranded with his luggage in the middle of nowhere and dreading the idea that he will have to wait two days for the next train to arrive, a disconcerted Cecil instinctually sits down to read Homer’s Odyssey. Meanwhile, a gunslinger named “Dooley” silently walks up to him and shoots a gaping hole in his precious book.  

Malcolm McDowell
Photo credit: Greg Gorman

Cecil is shocked by this near-death experience and is especially disturbed when Dooley ransacks his suitcase full of book classics and takes one of his most precious belongings, a gold pocket watch that his father had given him. The timeless piece malfunctions throughout the film with its quirky cover unexpectedly flipping open throughout the movie, as if it were a muse, seamlessly bridging the gap between past, present, and future. It subliminally reminds Cecil, with its engraved quote from the ancient Greek philosopher and former slave, Epictetus, of his time-sensitive duty:  “Only the educated are free.” Cecil’s watch symbolically connects the ancient past with Fortune’s promising potential to be a wellspring for the creative impulse, bridging time and inspiring future generations.

Upon seeing that Cecil has nothing else of value but “stupid books,” to which the desperate and comical Cecil takes umbrage—he cleverly cajoles Dooley into taking him on his horse to Fortune. In exchange, Dooley can expect Cecil’s first-month salary upon arrival. Here is where Cecil’s and Dooley’s own odyssey begins. Both ride on Dooley’s horse, share one blanket, and slog Cecil’s books in saddlebags and later, in their only blanket, on their rugged, treacherous journey to Fortune.

Interviews. I accepted Daniel’s offer to interview Adam’s lovely mother, Michele, a teacher of many years who devoted her life to nurturing young minds. Adam commented on how he and his mother are already close, but how the movie brought them closer. “Getting to direct my mother’s words was a thrill, as well as getting to work with all these wonderful actors. It was exciting.” “What an exceptionally unique gift,” I thought, for this accomplished filmmaker and actor to fulfill his mother’s dream of bringing this film to fruition despite a series of fits and starts, including the difficulties of funding independent films, as Malcolm had later shared.

From Adam and James, I learned of how James’ father whom he dearly loved passed away, impacting plans they originally had of him playing Dooley. Adam and his growing team, including Bernadette Peters and producer Brad Wyman decided that James could take his father’s place in the film considering that he was back home from New York University where he had been studying theater and acting. 

I asked James what he thought the goal of the movie was and he said it was getting kids off TikTok and social media and for them to read books. I expressed that the texts featured in the movie aren’t just any books, but representative of the English literary canon. “Why should any young person want to read them?” I asked, in all sincerity. He responded by expressing his love of classical literature which he sees as “philosophy,” that elevates the imagination and makes us better human beings. When he said this, I reflected on a similar comment Adam had made, “We hope students will come out of the movie and pick up a book and read.”



Malcolm McDowell & James Paxton
Photo credit: Greg Gorman

James shared how pleasurable it was to work with Malcolm, who became his real-life mentor as a result of the movie. 


Malcolm was generous, offering helpful pointers and suggestions throughout the filming process. James further expressed loving the opportunity to ride horses and the very idea of making a Western, saying, “Who doesn’t like a Western?” The whole experience was nothing short of thrilling. “Plus, he said, it’s not just any film. It’s one that means something positive for these times.” This brought to mind Adam’s response to one of my questions in an email where he says,


CECIL is passionate about books and reading and tries to inspire DOOLEY, a fearsome though illiterate gunslinger, who is CECIL’S reluctant guide across the plains, that literature and education offer windows into countless other worlds and important new ideas. Additionally, how an education is the perfect tool to open new opportunities for DOOLEY, who is currently on a path of self-destruction. DOOLEY couldn’t be less interested and thus, their opposing viewpoints on the topic not only create tension between the two men, but their relationship is a microcosm for the larger debate involving the importance of education versus the current anti-intellectualism sentiment. (Rifkin, May 27, 2024)

James then shifted to Dooley’s relationship with Cecil in the film where Dooley came to see an erudite Cecil as his mentor who could have given up on Dooley for his untamed, gun-toting bravado and penchant for violence. Instead, Cecil’s fascinating presence and spellbinding charm matched by his love of books, wins over an incredulous Dooley with his learned wisdom that “the pen is mightier than the sword,” meaning in Dooley’s case, his gun.

Elaborating further, what Paxton loved most about the relationship between Cecil and Dooley was the former’s unwavering nonjudgmental expressions of care toward Dooley, who he so deeply wanted to impress with his great books of literature that helped form the Western literary canon, as it is known today. I couldn’t help but connect to my own research on authentic caring as a dynamic that motivates the achievement of Mexican-origin youth (Valenzuela, 1999). That is, when teachers and students are in meaningful, caring relationships, children and youth thrive. Gun-slinging cowboys are no different.

Malcolm McDowell, James Paxton, & Producer
Brad Wyman. Photo credit: Greg Gorman

I reveled in Cecil’s effervescent aliveness about Homer’s “Odyssey,” Jonathan Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travels,” Charles Dickens’ “Oliver Twist,” Herman Melville’s “Moby Dick,” Henry David Thoreau’s “Walden,” Jane Austen’s, “Pride and Prejudice,” and Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar,” marshaled throughout the film with well-chosen quotes that whimsically punctuated the dust, blood, and beauty of the American Southwest.

By the time I spoke with Malcolm McDowell in my last interview, I was prepared to articulate the apprehensiveness that arose for me in my initial understanding of LTTF. Our conversation was fast and furious as he only had a few minutes to talk. I told him that I loved the film and was enthralled by his performance and that I wished the film great success. 

I explained that I am an English major, a university professor, and a leader in the Ethnic Studies movement in Texas and how I, among many others, have been advocating for greater inclusion of the history and literature of U.S. minorities in Texas’ state curriculum. “Wonderful,” he responded. “As an English major,” I continued, “I read almost all of the texts that Cecil mentioned and loved reading the classics.” I asked him why Miguel de Cervantes, author of Don Quijote and a contemporary of William Shakespeare, didn’t make it into the movie. “There are many books that unfortunately didn’t make it in,” he said. “Only so many could fit into Peachtree’s suitcase.” 

I moved on to a point of convergence when Malcolm expressed an appreciation of Charles Dickens’ writings, considering him one of the greatest English writers of all time. Referring to “The Selected Works of Charles Dickens,” another book that Cecil Peachtree had to shed along the way, he mentioned, A Tale of Two Cities. What Malcolm didn’t know is that Charles Dickens hits all kinds of buttons for me. I quipped, “I can hardly even think of A Tale of Two Cities without wanting to cry.”

My deep connection to Charles Dickens bubbled up emphatically. I knew that our time was limited, and I wanted Malcolm and, by extension, Adam, Michele, and James, to understand my analysis in light of my own experience, having grown up as a Mexican girl from West Texas:

I was tracked and teachers held very low expectations of me. None expected me to go to college. A teacher, Mrs. Eli, however, changed my life. Other students and I accidentally ended up in her eleventh-grade honors, English classroom. She tried to get her teaching assignment changed on the first day of class as this was a mistake. She complained to the principal but to no avail. She returned unhappily to our classroom and said, “Well, I’m not going to teach you any differently than I teach my honors students!"

If it had not been for Ms. Eli, I wouldn’t have fallen in love with literature and sought my own fortune through education. I read the Romantic poets, Yeats, Keats, Wordsworth, Thoreau, and Shakespeare’s Hamlet and Macbeth. The only term paper that I ever wrote in high school was in her class and it was on Charles Dickens. This assignment took me to my local university library and made the idea of going to college tangible (see Valenzuela, 2011). I even got certified to teach English at the secondary level, while minoring in Spanish. 

Malcolm responded with “ohs” and “ahs” as I spoke which I took to mean that he was impressed or perhaps surprised that a college professor who teaches education policy today originated from this kind of background. He felt like a kindred spirit who, like me, couldn't have enjoyed the conversation more.

Malcolm shared with me his experiences attending public schools in England and how public schools are different there, a topic I would have loved to pursue had we had more time. It factored curiously into his award-winning movie, “If…” (1967) which I recently watched, and that we both agreed shared some similarities to LTTF as critiques of public education, albeit only at the highest level on the larger purposes of education. I learned that it was the film that catapulted Malcolm to fame.

With my schooling experiences and this conversation on education behind us, I then spoke frankly to him about how some viewing audiences might critique the film as defending or pushing a specific curriculum and how it was important to anticipate this. “And not just any curriculum,” I shared, “but a Eurocentric, culturally chauvinist one that aligns with and reinscribes the values and preferences of the colonial settlers seeking to bring ‘civilization’ to the frontier.”

Malcolm readily acknowledged that history is overflowing with grisly tales of unspeakable violence and cruelty, but that Cecil Peachtree is different. “Yes,” I agreed and shared with him that the insight I bring will be helpful as this movie opens to diverse audiences, many of whom feel distant and alienated from the Western literary canon. 

Malcolm McDowell and Mary Steenburgen
Photo credit: Greg Gorman
I conveyed how our schooling experiences combined with our struggles as racial and ethnic minorities for inclusion in state curriculum “teach us” repeatedly that our knowledge production and literary achievements are inferior when nothing could be further from the truth. “My question is whether the movie is pushing a curriculum or is it centered primarily around the idea that education is about expanding the imagination and encouraging young people to think skillfully and dream?” With Zakaria’s (2015) book in mind, I further shared with Malcolm that I am highlighting a central tension in liberal education to which the film directly speaks.

This process of writing “a story” or “my story” helped me to realize that my protests are primarily against a “hard,” as opposed to a “soft,” attachment to the Western literary canon, with “hard” meaning to the exclusion of all other literary traditions. “We have over 50 years of literary and knowledge production as Mexican Americans, yet we face tremendous challenges in getting represented in state curriculum despite the great diversity of youth in our state.” But for a lack of time, I would have said how this stance is itself the embodiment of cultural chauvinism and ongoing colonialism—even as I sensed that Malcolm grasped my critique based on my earlier reference to colonial settlers. In contrast, a “soft” attachment, would be inclusive of other histories and works of literature.

I flatly insisted on my interpretation of LTTF as a soft approach, citing the exquisite campfire scene where flickering flames cast dancing silhouettes on a radiant Cecil who tenderly conveys to Dooley his life’s purpose and calling to be a teacher as follows:

You see, the purpose of teaching-it isn’t just to force students to memorize facts and dates. It’s to inspire. To unlock that little door hidden deep within us all that gives us permission to dream. To dream of a better life for ourselves and a better future for all.

“Malcolm,” I excitedly said. “This soft version is an argument for Ethnic Studies.” The core idea is one of giving us all permission to dream, to expand the powers of the mind, and to empower all our youth, as opposed to advancing a special curriculum.” I was suggesting that it’s not an either/or proposition, but rather a both/and one, together with a lifelong commitment to wrestle with this tension. “It’s a healthy one,” I concluded. Our conversation ended on this high note of enjoying and celebrating our literary and intellectual traditions, albeit in an inclusive, expansive manner.

Zakaria (2015) confesses that he has eased up over time with respect to this central tension. A liberal education is less about the “furniture” of the mind about which we need to be concerned, but rather about expanding its powers as noted in the “Yale Report of 1828” that grapples with the possibilities of a liberal, as opposed to a as opposed to a more instrumental curriculum designed for specific professional work. Zakaria offers the following telling statement from the 1828 debate—one of the most influential documents in the history of American education—over the perpetual tension between the purposes of education: 

The primary object of a Collegiate education, is to lay the foundation of a superior education. Its ultimate end is to teach the art of fixing the attention, directing the train of thought, analyzing a subject proposed for investigation, following with accurate discrimination the course of argument, balancing nicely the evidence presented to the judgment, awakening, elevating, and controlling the imagination, arranging with skill the treasures which memory gathers, and of arousing and growing the powers of genius. (cited in Zakaria, 2015, p. 52)

Cecil’s muse, qua watch, offers viewers the film’s final word when it pops open and reminds us of Epictetus’ complete statement that provides wisdom for the ages and a fitting way to conclude:

We must not believe the many, who say that only free people ought to be educated, but we should rather believe the philosophers who say that only the educated are free. 

-Epictetus, The Discourses (1998)



References


Films.


Anderson, Lindsay, director. If.... Performances by Malcolm McDowell, David Sherwin, and Christine Noonan, Paramount Pictures, 1968.

Kubrick, Stanley, director. A Clockwork Orange. Warner Brothers, 1971.

Menéndez, Ramón, director. Stand and Deliver. Warner Bros, 1988.

Palos, Ari Luis, and Eren Isabel McGinnis, directors. Precious Knowledge. Dos Vatos Productions, 2011.

Weir, Peter, director. Dead Poets Society. Touchstone Pictures, 1989.

Zalla, Christopher, director. Radical. 3Pas Studios, Epic Magazine, the Lift, 2023.



Texts.


Cervantes, Miguel. Don quixote. Simon and Schuster, 2016.

Epictetus. The Discourses. Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.

Valenzuela, Angela. Subtractive schooling: US-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. State University of New York Press, 1999.

Valenzuela, Angela. "How a Teacher Turned a ‘B’ Track Class into Honors." Faces of Learning: 50 Powerful Stories of Defining Moments in Education, edited by Sam Chaltain, Jossey-Bass, 2011.

Zakaria, Fareed. In defense of a liberal education. WW Norton & Company, 2015.



Malcolm McDowell and Mary Steenburgen
Photo credit: Greg Gorman


 

Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership, the Conservative Promise—PowerPoint for Discussion Groups and the College Classroom

Friends,

I got an idea from a friend yesterday evening regarding a discussion group that people in her community are going to have on Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership, the Conservative Promise. This gave me the idea to post a downloadable PowerPoint I put together for this very purpose. I invite university professors to also make use of it this fall in their classrooms. The second download button is a reading list titled, "Critical Readings for Understanding the Political Formations Currently at Play in Texas and National Politics." It's a good supplement for the college classroom. Be aware, as well, that world leaders are reading what Project 2025 for their countries. For example, read this special report from Sunday's issue of Politico Magazine titled, "The world wasn't ready for Trump in 2016. It's not making that mistake this time." 

As a 922-page document, it's a lot to plow through so to make it consumable, I highly recommend folks reading a cogent analysis of it in the June 2024 issue of The Nation that you can download and read here [pdf], beginning on page 25. It's titled, "The Plot Against America"

My PowerPoint—that you should feel free to share liberally, aligns with the June 2024 issue and only adds a few extra slides. One has gotten some news where Republican National Committee (RNC) co-chair Lara Trump says that another four years of a Trump administration will mean "scorched earth" policy, linking to an April 19, 2024 piece in the New York Magazine. Another is on Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI), as that is a particular interest of mine. 

Here is the Table of Contents with the sections written by credible political scientists, authors, and researchers.

1) "The Conservative Promise," by Kim Phillips-Fein; 

2) "The Executive," by Chris Lehmann; 

3) "Democracy: The Great Dismantling," by John Nichols;

4) "Justice: A Legal Heist" by Ellie Mystal; 

5) Housing: America's Landlord," by Sasha Abramsky; 

6) "Healthcare: Bad Medicine," by Joan Walsh; 

7) "Climate: License to Drill, Drill, Drill," by Bill McKibben; 

8) "Immigration: Deport, Detain, Deny," by Gaby del Valle; 

9) "China: A New Exclusion Act," by Jake Werner; and 

10) "The Pentagon: Masters of War," by William Hartung.

The titles alone, are alarming.

Suppose you have a group of 5 people. In that case, you can divvy up responsibilities with each person taking on 2 sections apiece of "The Plot Against America in The Nation," alongside the actual document—that could use another round of edits, by the way. My PowerPoint also provides links to both documents.

Trump appears to want to distance himself from Project 2025, but don't believe him. For example, consider this July 8, 2024 piece in the Washington Post by Philip Bump that says otherwise: The impossibility of separating Trump from Project 2025. Bump says that Trump's staff will play a key role in making sure that this agenda gets implemented. And remember, Trump isn't known to be a reader so this agenda would align conveniently with a presidency that looks like it's doing "something,"—not the least of which is a dismantling of government—without him personally having to work very hard to fulfill the mandate.

I hope this facilitates matters for folks as concerned as me who want to have conversations around this destructive agenda that will only benefit the extremist Billionaire class—that I actually think will hurt them in the end which is a conversation for another time.

We must do everything we can to resist the Trump agenda that is primarily for the top 1 percent. The solution, of course, is to vote, vote, vote! 

I welcome any friendly suggestions or feedback. I encourage you to post to these below. 

Happy to perform my civic duty today. 🙂

-Angela Valenzuela

References

Bump, P. (2024, July 8). The impossibility of separating Trump from Project 2025, Washington Posthttps://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/08/trump-project-2025-policy-staff/

Chait, J. (2024, April 3) Lara Trump Threatens ‘Four Years of Scorched Earth’ If Trump Retakes Power: Sounds like a fun time for America, New York Magazine, https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/lara-trump-four-years-of-scorched-earth-if-trump-wins.html

Dans, P. & Groves, S. (2023). Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership, the Conservative Promise, Heritage Foundation. https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf

McLeary, P., Schiltz, C., Bolzen, S., Barigazzi, J.& Fritz, P. (2024, July 7). Special Report. The world wasn't ready for Trump in 2016. It's not making that mistake this time, Politico Magazine, https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/07/nato-prepare-trump-2024-00165522

The Nation. (2024, June). Special Issue. The Plot Against America, The Nation, https://www.thenation.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/nation202406_r2.pdf?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New%20Issue%20Alert:%20June%202024%20-%206.4.2024&utm_term=Active_Subscribers

Valenzuela, A. (2024, July 10). Critical Readings for Understanding the Political Formations Currently at Play in Texas and National Politics [downloadable below].


 


Angela Valenzuela's downloadable reading list titled, "Critical Readings for Understanding the Political Formations Currently at Play in Texas and National Politics."



Tuesday, July 09, 2024

Biden's Age Means Wisdom, but Ageism is a Force to Contend With, Salon.com

Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett with Inside Texas Politics
Friends,

Read this in tandem with listening to Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett's interview in Inside Texas Politics.

Inside Texas Politics | Full interview with Texas Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett


The brilliant Congresswoman represents Texas' 30th congressional district that covers large parts of Dallas, Texas.

I like how she speaks to the democratic party's fear of its own shadow and how she reminds us that it's not just Biden running for office, but that it's a ticket. Post-debate responses were disproportionate. Ageism is definitely an issue. It surely factored into Biden raising over $33 million for his campaign right after the debate when pundits were more critical toward Biden than Trump who is so terribly flawed not just as a candidate, but as a human being.

The larger issue, of course, is whether we as a nation want to pivot toward not simply conservative politics, but rather toward the extremism embodied in both Trump and Project 2025—the mandate by the Heritage Foundation for a new Trump administration that every U.S. citizen would do well to read. And don't just read it, but share it with everyone you know to see if what they call for aligns with their values.

Considering it's close to a 900-page document, I encourage you to read a great synopsis by various writers in the June 2024 issue of 
 The Nation. I downloaded it as a PDF document that perhaps you can read here [pdf] without having to subscribe to it. I hope the download works. If not, it's worth subscribing to The Nation to be able to read it and other timely articles.

Clearly, a new Trump administration and a 
Project 2025 mandate are an existential threat for democracy and the world. Read, for instance, in Politico Magazine, "The world wasn't ready for Trump in 2016. It's not making that mistake this time." In this July 7, 2024 special report, we learn, for example, that Turkish officials are reading the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 to get a sense of what is in store for Syria.

It's interesting to consider how the recent British and French elections speak to our own context. I appreciate this textured, careful analysis of those elections written by Zack Beauchamp in the July 8, 2024 issue of Vox as reflected in the title, "The real lesson for America in the French and British elections: The European elections tell us little about Biden's chances—but a lot about his choices."

European voters are not necessarily saying with their vote that they endorse the status quo. What they're saying is that they do not want authoritarianism. Most Americans, I am confident, don't want it either. We want democracy instead. 

Democracy is never won and done. Every generation must re-discover it for themselves. However, this must absolutely show up at the ballot box in the November election. It is not one to sit out. Plan your vote and begin planning now. If you're in Texas, begin doing so by going to Vote Texas.

-Angela Valenzuela



There is one big reason why Joe Biden refuses to step aside
Presidents and other politicians used to resign or retire for the good of the country. What's changed?


By MATTHEW ROZSA Staff Writer | Salon | June 30, 2024

President Joe Biden is running against a man with 34 felony convictions, two impeachments and a historically bungled attempt to manage a pandemic. Even worse, former President Donald Trump is the only president to ever refuse to accept the results of an election if he lost, a petulant and politically perilous practice in which Trump has indulged since before he became president.

An observer might be forgiven for assuming that, as former Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz told Salon in 2019, the American people would never stand for a president who behaves like Trump. Instead, prior to the first Trump-Biden debate, the current president trailed behind in poll after poll after poll. Even the most optimistic projections gave Biden at best a 50/50 shot of winning — and that was before a debate in which he mumbled, meandered and stared slacked-jawed and vacantly into space. As an 81-year-old man who is by far America's oldest president, Biden had an obligation to dispel concerns about his age. Instead he proved that he either genuinely is too old to be president or was inexcusably incompetent in his preparation.
Advertisement:

Given the self-evident disaster that will ensue for democracy if Trump is reelected (as well as the planet, once you factor in Trump's denial of climate change), it still behooves Trump's opponents to do whatever it takes to make sure he loses in November. For that to occur, however, one of two things must happen: Either Biden needs to slay the pride in his soul that chooses self-glorification over patriotism, or Americans need to overcome the ageism that makes so many of them recoil at Biden's obvious advancing years. Neither appears likely to happen — and to understand what ails American politics today, it is useful to examine why.

Related
Biden is now America's first octogenarian president. Here's what that means

The former problem — Biden's stubborn insistence on seeking another term despite his weaknesses as a candidate — is part of a troubling pattern. The contours of recent American history are being shaped by the egos that drive powerful leaders to refuse to retire when their time has come. Look at Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, to take a handful of the most conspicuous examples. Our courts are much more conservative, and women's reproductive rights are significantly more restricted, as a result of those politicians' unwillingness to relinquish power. While humans have always been a power-hungry species, the craving has become demonstrably more insatiable in recent years... especially when it comes to presidential politics.

"George Washington set an important precedent for the nation by retiring after two terms so that he wouldn't die in office like a king."

No incumbent president has refused to seek another term in more than half a century since Lyndon Johnson humbly stepped aside in 1968 after his poor showing in the primaries exposed his weaknesses as a candidate. Later Jimmy Carter sought a second term in 1980, despite clear indicators he would lose, and George H. W. Bush made the same choice in 1992. Prior to then, however, it was not uncommon for incumbents who were exhausted, unpopular or both to simply refrain from seeking another term. This list includes John Tyler in 1844, James Polk in 1848, James Buchanan in 1860, Andrew Johnson in 1868, Rutherford Hayes in 1880, Calvin Coolidge in 1928, Harry Truman in 1952 and Johnson in 1968. All decided for various reasons to not seek another term despite being technically eligible candidates (i.e., they were legally allowed to run again and would not have exceeded a total of eight years in office if they had won). Only three incumbents in American history have ever sought their party's renomination and been outright rebuffed: Millard Fillmore in 1852 and Franklin Pierce in 1856 (both elections shortly before the Civil War), and Chester Arthur in 1884 (who was almost renominated despite struggling with a fatal illness, Bright's disease). By contrast, eleven incumbent presidents have sought reelection and lost, more than one-third of them in the last half-century: John Adams in 1800, John Q. Adams in 1828, Martin Van Buren in 1840, Grover Cleveland in 1888, Benjamin Harrison in 1892, William Taft in 1912, Herbert Hoover in 1932, Gerald Ford in 1976, Carter in 1980, Bush in 1992 and Trump in 2020.

This pattern of presidential selfishness even extends to impeachments. Of the three presidents to be impeached in modern history (four if you count Richard Nixon, who would have been impeached had he not resigned first), only one (Nixon) resigned in order to spare America the ordeal of a prolonged trial. The next two presidents to be impeached, Bill Clinton and Trump, stayed in office regardless of the consequences for America. America even had a Supreme Court judge, Abe Fortas, resign because of a financial scandal rather than allow it to impugn the reputation of the court, a concern that does not seem to beset today's allegedly corrupt judges Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

Why? What has changed since the 1970s?

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

The answer is semi-psychological. While it is difficult for people who toil at miserable jobs to appreciate, individuals who sincerely enjoy their work do not want to quit for a simple reason: their specific employment is pleasurable to them. In an April article from Fortune, journalist Alicia Adamczyk profiled baby boomers who refuse to leave their jobs because they enjoy working and fear the sense of purposelessness and boredom that often accompanies retirement. A recent Pew poll found the number of Americans who choose to work past the age of 65 has quadrupled since the 1980s. While there is an important caveat to this research — it applies only to Baby Boomers even though some modern politicians (like Biden and McConnell) are actually older than Boomers — it nevertheless sheds light on one reason why Biden won't step aside from seeking a second term when so many of his predecessors did so. He likes the job of president and does not want to give it up.

"Yes, those in positions of power generally (but not always) want to stay in power," said Dr. S. Jay Olshansky, a sociologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago who specializes in demographics and gerontology. "President George Washington did not follow this apparent rule – he intentionally gave up power for the good of the country. The question about power does not just apply to political power – it can apply to any position, and it's more about being important, and needed, and valued, than it is about power. As such, this is a reason many people don't want to retire."

"Ageism is real. But today’s 70 is yesterday’s 50, thanks to modern medicine."

Olshansky added, "As long as they can do their job and do it well, and most important of all, they enjoy what they do, they don't want to give it up. Have you ever heard of PIPs? Previously Important People – these are folks that often regret retiring because they lose their personal value post retirement, which is often defined by one's job or position. Some enjoy being a PIP."

There is more to this than psychology, however. Just as Washington famously warned that a demagogue might refuse to relinquish power after losing an election (which did not happen until Trump lost to Biden in 2020), so too did the founding fathers in general worry about politicians choosing to act like royalty. They specifically worried that politicians would view their vocation as a long-term career and ultimately lose touch with the people they are meant to serve.

"George Washington set an important precedent for the nation by retiring after two terms so that he wouldn't die in office like a king," Dr. Jonathan W. White, a professor of American studies at Christopher Newport University, told Salon. "Other founding documents also capture a sense of hostility toward what we would today call career politicians. In the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), for example, George Mason wrote that political leaders should 'be reduced to a private station, [and] return into that body from which they were originally taken' so that they can feel 'the burthens of the people' and be 'restrained from oppression.' In other words, Founders like Mason worried that career politicians would lose touch with what it was like to be an ordinary citizen, so they wanted politicians to have to leave office at fixed times."

White added, "The Anti-Federalists feared that politicians would lose touch with the people."

It is not always a bad thing for politicians to stay in office past the point when their health would seem to make doing so advisable. Harold Holzer, the Jonathan F. Fanton Director of the Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute at Hunter College, brought up Franklin Roosevelt's unprecedented (and to this day solitary) fourth presidential campaign in 1944. In that year, Roosevelt sought an additional term even though he knew that he had high blood pressure and came from a long line of men who died early from strokes.

"As an example of people staying perhaps too long—but all for the good: FDR ran for a fourth White House term in 1944 when he knew, or should have known, he could never survive the entire term," Holzer said. "He picked a good vice president [Harry Truman]. And he believed only he could bring the war to a successful conclusion. I think he was right, even though he was a very old 62."

By contrast to non-elderly presidents struggling with serious health maladies — another famous example is Woodrow Wilson, who clung to power for the last year-and-a-half of his second term despite having suffered an incapacitating stroke — there are also political leaders who can serve but are wrongly disparaged due to ageism.

"Ageism is rearing its ugly head as news stories appear repeatedly with stereotypes of politicians acting in ways that the writers view as associated with decrepitude and decline," Olshansky said. "Most younger people have yet to experience the importance of wisdom that comes with the passage of time, and they may use stereotypes of older people to define everyone that reaches older ages. Many of the most valued members of our society are those that have developed the wisdom and experience that comes with the passage of time."

Olshansky also told Salon that, when he speaks to young students in their early 20s, they almost all say there is nothing desirable about growing older. These prejudices no doubt fuel the perception among many that Biden is simply too old for the job.

"The reason they give is that they associate growing older only with loss, decline, decay, and decrepitude," Olshansky said. "They can't see the many advantages of age because they haven't experienced it yet. If you ask older individuals if they would like to go back in time to their early years, most say they wouldn't mind occupying their younger bodies, but the thought of being insecure, with little life experience, emotional insecurities, an unsettled love life, no job, little or no money, etc. etc., is very unappealing. Older individuals should be thought of as one of society's most precious resources that should be nurtured and valued, not discarded. Younger people should aspire to get there healthy rather than fearing extended survival."

While Olshansky's observations are valid, they do not cancel out the practical concerns about Biden's candidacy. Even if Americans are being prejudiced rather than rational in deeming Biden too old to serve, a strong case can be made that one does not try to force millions to abandon their prejudices — however unfair — when the consequence of them failing to do so is the rise of fascism.

Scores of Democratic pundits are making the case that Biden should drop out. In my opinion, Joe Biden should do what Woodrow Wilson should have done in 1919: Resign. His vice president, Kamala Harris, will automatically become his heir apparent (thus sparing the Democrats a potentially volatile succession scramble). If Americans react to Thursday's debate by simply breaking down the logistics of replacing Biden, however, they will miss a much more important observation.

Long after the 2024 election is part of the history books, America will still face leaders who refuse to retire even when doing so is in the best interest of their nation. If we want to avoid more scenarios like the Trump-Biden debate, we must acknowledge the toxic aspects of our collective psyche that got us there in the first place.


Read more about this topicTrump's love letters to MAGA: Campaign emails forge a cult bond
Trump is conditioning MAGA for the next stage
Trump's pre-debate bluster is a bluff

By MATTHEW ROZSA

Matthew Rozsa is a staff writer at Salon. He received a Master's Degree in History from Rutgers-Newark in 2012 and was awarded a science journalism fellowship from the Metcalf Institute in 2022.