Happy New Year and the Importance of Symbols and Myth

January 13, 2006

Richard J. Garfunkel

Like all thinking creatures that abound and inhabit this vast floating blue orb on its endless journey through time and space I am also a victim of the New Year’s myth of hope and renewal. As a part of this vast whole I do not remove myself from the symbols that abound around us, or our greater regional or worldwide community. We are brought up with an abundance of symbolism and myth. Whether it is the universal myths of religion, that most often is bolstered by faith, or the powerful symbols that we see every day that remind of us of greater forces beyond our control or even understanding. The symbols of the flag, the White House, the crucifix, the Christmas tree, the Menorah, the Star of David, the crescent, the sun, the Capitol, and endless others remind us always of the myth of power, justice, redemption and hope.

There is a story that I love to cite, that I learned, from a great mentor of mind many years ago. As a young fellow this lion of Irish-Catholic manhood told me of the Catholic priest and the rabbi who went to the fights. Right before the two pugilists went to shake hands and get instructions from the referee, one fighter genuflexed (crossed himself). The rabbi leaned over to his friend the priest, and asked, “Father what does that mean?” The priest looked squarely in the rabbi’s eye and said, ”Not a thing if he can’t fight!” I have always thought about that symbolic little story throughout the past 40+ years. Each time I have a tendency to indulge myself in the myth of symbolic hope, I whisper to myself, “Not a thing if he can’t fight!” In other words, all of the symbolism we drape ourselves in constantly is just a rationalization that begs the issue of reality. I am not sure whether it also begs the issue of truth. In one of the few interesting moments of a philosophy course in college that kept me awake, I do remember the professor, who was trying to make a point about a chair not being a chair; by the way I never thought it was not a chair, saying that there were no universal truths.

Of course that has always been a debatable subject amongst mostly the ecclesiastical folk who like to project the struggle of “good versus evil” as symbolic of what universal truths are all about. In the Jewish tradition it was articulated more as the “bitter and the sweet.” I assume there is also a “devil” personage in Judaism. According to our earliest “myth” in our western culture, the “devil” was in the body of the snake that tempted Eve and eventually drove those first humans from the fabled “Garden of Eden.”  Today even some of our “flat-earth” minded contemporaries seem to want to force us to accept “creation science” through the guise of the new term “intelligent design.” Maybe that “design” would include the offering of that fabled “apple” from the “tree of life” in the Garden of Eden. For me, it is easier to understand the juxtaposition of the “bitter and the sweet” and how those two feelings constantly play off each other. It is hard to appreciate one’s feeling or the other, without experiencing both extremes at one time or another. And of course, all of life lived, is a combination of both of those dynamics. Eventually the “bitter” catches up to everyone, in one form or another.

So here it is another New Year’s Day come and gone. But where was the Rose Parade or even the Rose Bowl? Times and the demands of sponsors have changed dramatically. Where in we used to wake up after a long night of reveling to the wondrous sights and sounds of the floral festooned floats of glorious Pasadena, this New Year’s reality is somewhat different. Not only is it not warm and sunny in Pasadena, but also the parade has been displaced from New Year’s Day and even the Rose Bowl has been moved and is days away on a Wednesday night.

Of course this is tradition and not myth or symbolism. But, all in all, one could wax emotionally about the lost world of our father’s fathers, and in a sense that pining is emotion misplaced. We all should live in the here and now, and do for ourselves what we feel is right and productive. In other words, doing right for “me” and those immediately around our tiny personal universe. As Hillel said, in the period before the Common Era, “If I am not for myself, who is for me? And when I am for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?”

Therefore, when the constant reminder of “symbols” from the media and the advertising world bombards me, I wonder what is the real message. Is this message that I should remember the story of Christmas, or more remotely what really happened on Chanukah? Or is this message, a re-enforcement regarding the obligation to be just to our fellow man/woman? So like all symbols that we live with, whether they are important or not important, they serve to remind us of the myths that abound and dominant our lives.

Is the myth of “good fellowship” and “goodwill to all men” just a cliché of the season to sell holiday cards with banal messages that no one really reads? Should we not practice what we preach year round?  Should we escape personally from the cycle of endless platitudes, which we toss around without any consideration of how empty they really are? My sense is that with all our trappings of “political correctness,” and faux concerns of fairness, that we have become truly a more crass society that is less tolerant, on an every day basis, to all that comes in our way. It is nothing new and quite obvious that we are in the midst of an era that is suffering from an epidemic of crudeness, bad manners, horrible speech and jealousy. The engine of Madison Avenue feeds this mindless worship of celebrity and material, and it will as long as that engine can churn out sales and thus revenue. .

I was taken by the recently completed United States Senate’s Judiciary Committees hearings on the appointment of Judge Samuel Alito to the highest court in the land. There were some remarkable juxtapositions to note. Here is one Samuel Alito, a not so obvious stealth candidate of the radical right. He comes across as a hard working conscientious judge, right out of “Andy Hardy Makes Good.” He comes from urban New Jersey, of middle class ethnic folk who certainly voted for FDR. He does well in school and makes his way twelve miles down the road to that bastion of F. Scott Fitzgerald privilege, Old Nassau, or better known as Princeton University. Of course Princeton was the most southern of all the old Ivies and it had a reputation of being rather snooty to foreigners of the Hebraic persuasion amongst a long list of others that included, Italians, Blacks, other non-WASPs. But of course, as it liberalized, more women and minorities were admitted in greater numbers. Ironically Mr. Judge Alito felt more comfortable with the “old school tie” types who were really representing the vestiges of the past. Since he got to the campus in the midst of the cultural rebellion that swept America in the mid 1970’s, he found himself uncomfortable with that new crop of the “rich and privileged” who ironically had some real social concerns, like the War in Vietnam, voting and civil rights for African-Americans, the poverty that infested the cities, and lastly, equality of opportunity for women. Of course young Mr. Alito reacted perfectly, he, unlike the old Tarryton cigarette commercial, switched rather then fought and joined the side that had excluded his ancestors from day one. What a paradox. But he knew where his “bread was buttered.”

So here we are today, and what have we found, Judge Alito comports himself with judicial aplomb and dignity, has made the right connections, gets friendly with everyone and comes across as a harmless, dedicated honest broker of the law. In fact he gets all sorts of his colleagues on the bench to support him. Some are old-timers and Democrats, some are Black, some are Jewish, and some are women. In fact, some are Jewish women Democrats. How neat! Isn’t it perfect symbolism that youngish, but rumpled Judge Alioto, with his weeping wife, and his understated demeanor, has been able to have his handlers parade down to Washington all of these diverse folk to defend this paragon of a small town boy makes good. Do they really know or care what he really represents? Do they understand what change his elevation will wrought? Obviously they do not, or do not really care. Maybe it is better to know the new Justice of the Supreme Court and really not worry what he change he will bring. He’s on for life! These good folk may have later regrets about their actions. But for now he’s the access to fame and the history books. “I knew Judge Alito when he was just a mere boy!”

Again, it’s a new year, and symbolism and myth are on display front and center. Here is the symbolism, that Judge Alito is really a good guy rebelling against the limousine liberals of Palmer Square. Here is the myth that Judge Alito is for the little guy! There is no greater myth. When the opposition started to really look at his record, what did his words and actions really state? Case after case, position after position; reflect that Judge Alioto never really supports the average “Joe.” If anything his words and actions belie that myth to the nth degree. The Judge supports the corporation almost every time over the poor slob, he believes and fights for Presidential primacy over the other branches of government. He, on the other hand, is for state’s rights and against the reforms of the previous High Court. He blurs the meaning of the “Establishment Clause.”  He is against a women’s right of “choice.” When one analyses his votes regarding the “right of appeal” against the rulings of lower courts it is inevitable that he is a “hanging” Judge. So on the core issues of 21^st Century America; re-apportionment, or one-person, one vote, state’s rights, the “Establishment Clause,” women’s rights, the Imperial Presidency, and the right of the individual against the state or the corporation Judge Alito is the next Judge Scalia or Judge Thomas.

It is really funny that many of the supporters of the women’s right’s struggle and the surviving lawyers of the Civil Rights era are at the hearings warning us about Judge Alito, but it seems few are listening. Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, and Lindsay Graham of South Carolina are part of the new generation of Republican Southern “statesmen” who ooze with charm as they praise these old veterans from the struggles of the past. Why not? The rightwing has finally got us right back where they had us all in 1937. It took 70 years, and we are right at the threshold of the great “clock re-wind.” How hilarious is it to hear these heirs of Stennis, Eastland, Talmadge, Russell, and Bilbo praise the recently departed Rosa Parks. How amazing is it to witness this modern “kabuki” dance play itself out.

It is a New Year and its only real meaning, for most, is the need to sort last year’s income tax receipts, and the symbolism of the same old “passion play” of the season. Though this year we were caught up with who could out “Merry Christmas” each other. It seems that the “inclusiveness” of “Happy Holidays” is just another blow against the fragile psyche of the evangelicals who fear that Christianity is on the wane. It seems too many folk are golfing, or taking junkets to Atlantic City or Las Vegas, or are living together, or swearing or are divorcing or cheating. It seems that Hollywood, and all of its vulgarity, represent the “Devil Incarnate” and the poor “family value” folk are left wandering in the desert. Maybe it will take Pat Robertson or Pat Buchanan or Judge Alito and his new court coalition to get us back believing in the myth so we really understand the symbolism.

Richard J. Garfunkel

Statement to the County Board of Legislators

December 27, 2005

Good Morning and Best Wishes to all of you in the coming year.

With regards to your consideration of raises reflective of your actions last week, I have a few suggestions for your considerations.

A)    The issues of raises should not be taken up after an election and in the last waning days of the session and term. With this action you are relying on the votes of lame-duck members. Also, for sure, new members should not be allowed to get this raise, and in fact, old members should not be allowed to get any raise until the end of the coming term. In other words this body should not be allowed to vote itself new raises. You ran for this current two-year term with the knowledge and proviso regarding the compensation it offered in the job description.

B)     By raising your salary to an amount that is commensurate with a % of the private sector, you should therefore be prevented by law from accepting any earned income from other employment or activities. Please take into consideration that this body is by definition non-profit, and non-profits pay lass salaries then are paid in the private sector. If you chose this option this raise would go into effect in January of 2008 with cost of living increases of 2.5% in each year after, unless amended by a future legislature. With regards to amending the 2.5% increases, the Board should do it two years hence or be allowed to increase it before the election of 2008 with the proviso that it will have a predetermined cap.

C)    If this body refuses to exclude the right to earn outside income, I recommend that you institute a 6% raise. In this way you would have been able to retroactively increase your salaries for 3% for each of the two years starting in January 2006. This raise would go into effect in year 2008, along with an annual cost of living increase of 2.5% each year until 2010 and beyond. If this current Board wishes to amend the current 2.5 % increases, which would mirror the current rate of inflation, an increase should be recommended and voted on before the election of November 2007. In this way the public maybe be in better position to judge the efficacy of the increase, reflective of inflation. Please understand the 2.5% floor increase would always remain in affect.

In conclusion a majority of you have full-time jobs and through these positions you receive, benefits that include 401Ks, profit-sharing plans, and health benefits. In no way should a full-time employee take benefits from the public sector, which is offered to you from the private sector. It is patently wrong that you should be saving money for you company or yourself and billing the citizens of Westchester County. This is a position of choice and not necessity. You are first a public servant here. With regards to a person that is retired, or chooses to work full-time here, that is your decision. Therefore a retiree should not have health benefits paid once on Medicare. If a person chooses to give up their other positions and work here full-time, please remember you are voluntarily putting in extra hours and should not be compensated for non-funded overtime. If you do not have other health insurance you should be allowed to join the County group plan and be held to whatever rules that an average worker is bound by.

Obviously the cost of government is both necessary and an ongoing burden to the taxpayer. Unfortunately, its need for greater tax increases, are putting greater and greater burdens on our fixed and lower income residents. Private homes do not generate income for its owners. If property taxes, that include onerous school tax increases continue to rise above the rate of inflation, and the ability of a vast amount of our homeowners to raise their compensation continues to be limited, the middle class will be forced to move. As a result will have more gentrification and a greater divide between rich and poor. It is up to you people to be a guardian of the public welfare and needs. Therefore I hope that you will set a strong example of being sensibly frugal and penurious with your selves, and therefore be more able to run this county in a more fiscally secure way.

King Kong, the Jewish Heritage Museum and E. Houston Street

Richard J. Garfunkel

December 26, 2005

Well Christmas and Hanukkah came into town not with the melodious sounds of Bing Crosby crooning Irving Berlin’s standard but more like Gene Kelly’s romp through puddles in Singing in the Rain. Of course to some wags in the newsrooms this was the first time these two gift-giving Holidays coincided since either 1997 or 1959. Of course Christmas seemed to come earlier this year. At one time holiday decorations would wait until Thanksgiving to be festooned from every stanchion and light pole. But this year, despite the high cost of electricity, the holiday seemed to take life not long after Halloween. Unfortunately the criticality regarding the profligacy that accompanies the holiday season was jeopardized by the ill-timed and abortive transit strike. The fiasco that threatened to quash New York’s merriment ended as abruptly as it started this the union head, Roger “I Get No Respect” Toussaint, shot himself in the driver’s pedal foot. With a sudden declaration that the executive board voted for the transit men/women to go back to work, all of the workers did, but with the unhappy reality that their Christmas stockings would be quite a bit lighter.

In the meantime my daughter Dana came to the Tarrytown with three friends from Boston. Of course they were here to see the big town all decked out with boughs of holly and attend the annual Jewish single’s fandango called the “Matzo Ball.” For all which that event is made up to be, it could be more accurately re-named the “Matzo Farfel!”

So the day after the “Ball” was over, on Christmas Day we all went to see King Kong III. Of course expecting huge lines and a madhouse at the theater we bought our tickets on line. But, lo and behold, despite the deluge, the lot was not crowded, the multiplex was not jammed and the line for the latest chapter of “Kong Meets the Blond” was sparse. Of course all of you remember the original, King Kong Merion C. Cooper’s epic masterpiece, which we just finished watching tonight on Turner Classic Movies. The current edition is much more loyal to that version and it is not a “tongue and cheek” updated, “politically correct” statement on the environment and fossil fuel. But of course, in retrospect, maybe the Charles Grodin, Jeff Bridges, and Jessica Lange romp around the ill-fated twin towers had a more significant message then “it was beauty that killed the beast!”

Naomi Watts looks a good deal like Fay Wray, who starred in the 1933 classic, and recently died in 2004 at the ripe old age of 97. Vina Fay Wray, who was born in Alberta, Canada, moved to Arizona with her large family and then on to Los Angeles. She entered films at the tender age of 13 and in 1926 she was chosen as one of 13 starlets picked to “make good” by the Western Association of Motion Picture Advertisers. Along with Janet Gaynor, winner of the first Academy Award for Seventh Heaven (and other works), and Mary Astor the co-star with Humphrey Bogart in the Maltese Falcon, Fay Wray hit pay dirt playing Ann Darrow in the first King Kong. The action and special effects in Kong III are quite remarkable, so if you go, be prepared to hold on to your seats and enjoy the ride.

After the excitement of King Kong, a large Chinese meal and the continuing and unrelenting rain we made our way back down route 9a to Tarrytown and a warm evening of Bond movies on Spike TV’s 8 days of James Bond.

Today was no different when it came to the weather. We made plans to drive downtown to the Jewish Heritage Museum on Battery Place. The traffic was light, and by the time we reached lower Manhattan the rains had abated. The Museum is directly south of the famously expensive Stuyvesant High School and the American Express Building. It is a relatively quiet area on a holiday afternoon and it sits right on the Hudson facing both Jersey City and the Statue of Liberty. Again, there were no crowds and the museum was pretty much all to ourselves. Its main focus is the story of the rise of anti-Semitism in Germany and the ensuing Holocaust promulgated by Nazi forces and their Fascist allies. But there is much on Jewish cultural life in Europe and the Americas during the period 1880-1930 that preceded the Holocaust, and of course, the end of the war victory and liberation along with re-birth of Judaism. What also impressed me was the new section devoted to the American Jewish contribution to the War effort. Over 550,000 Jews served in World War II, a higher percentage of individuals than any other ethnic or religious group. Over 11,000 Jewish servicemen and women gave their lives for their country and 55,000 received decorations. There were many pictures of World War II veterans adorning the walls. Most were of average Americans citizens doing their duty, but two stood out to me, former mayor Ed Koch, a sergeant in the US Army in Europe, and Robert Morgenthau, the long-time District Attorney of Manhattan County and the son of Henry Morgenthau, Jr., who was an officer in the United States Navy and one of the museum’s founders.

There is a lot to see there and a great deal to learn and re-learn. On one hand, we always must re-visit the struggle to preserve our own freedom to be ourselves, and on the other hand, we must not forget the contribution free men and women made to save the world from the dark night of Nazi tyranny.

After our adventure of coming to grips with the past, we headed over to Katz’s Delicatessen on East Houston Street. Our guests from Boston had never visited this classic gastronomic landmark that has been serving New Yorkers since 1888. Besides gaining recent notoriety in Harry Met Sally, Katz’s Deli famous for the often-quoted line, “send a salami to your boy in the Army,” has been host to numerous Presidents and foreign dignitaries. Of course adorning the walls near us were pictures of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Mikhail Gorbachov, and of course Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I am not sure whether FDR ever got down to Katz’s Deli, but right nearby is a beautiful park named after his wonderful mother Sara Delano, who contributed time and money to the East Side Settlement houses.

Of course our group had the obligatory half-sour and sour pickles, matzo ball soup, corned beef and pastrami sandwiches, and French fries that were washed down by Dr. Brown’s black cherry and cream soda. Even at 3:00pm in the afternoon, Katz’s was very crowded. Finally after an hour of gorging we were able to finally stand up and crawl our way out to the car. We drove the gals up to Madison and 51^st Street where they were able to walk over to the stores and see the holiday festooned windows and we headed back to Tarrytown and an evening with Fay Wray.

Champagne, Oysters and the Harvard Club

December 13, 2005

Richard J. Garfunkel

Not far west on 44^th Street, just past Brooks Brothers and J.Press stands that bastion of the Cambridge Ivy League in New York, the stately Harvard Club. The Harvard Club was founded in 1865 by a small group of alumni who were interested in perpetuating the Harvard spirit in New York. Eventually within the year there were about 98 members who met regularly at the Delmonico’s restaurant and other locations. By the early 1890s with 600 members, a permanent location was picked out 44th Street where a block of stables existed.

At number 27 West 44^th Street, with the gift of a design by the celebrated architect Charles McKim, who himself was a club member; the Georgian-facade style club arose in 1894. Today it is a landmark (designated in 1967) and it’s interior is festooned with artifacts from the 1850’s which chronicle Harvard’s illustrious past.

It was a cold late afternoon as I parked in the packed Tarrytown RR Station area. It was much easier to take the rails into the city, at this time of the year, then to fight rush hour traffic. So it was on to the 4:47pm Hudson Line train. It pulled into the station, which sits in the shadow of the Tappan Zee Bridge, right on time. I put my heavy British warmer onto the rack with my brown broad-brimmed western hat from Sedona, and sat down with my half-read book by Jerry Lewis, Dean and Me, (A Love Story). We made excellent time and before long I was walking out into the frigid but windless air of Vanderbilt Avenue near 43^rd Street. I walked briskly up to 44^th Street and West to Fifth. Lo and behold at the corner was Linda who met me at Fifth. I would have been a minute or so earlier, but I had stopped to gawk at the jackets in J. Press. Wow! There wasn’t a jacket under $500 and some of the pants were over $250. I’ll never give away some of my better clothes again. She had walked down from 55^th Street and we were to meet a Barnard colleague at 6:00pm.

Of course we waited and waited, and during those few minutes I scouted around looking for a portrait of FDR that I seen many years before. Linda and I had been to dinner there as guests of my brother-in-law Charles Hale, a graduate of the business school and my sister Kaaren. The club’s entrance was different then and I was later told it had been expanded quite a bit. As I recalled there was an oil painting of FDR in an undistinguished place near the stairway to the restrooms. Of course that was way back in the early 1970’s when Nixon was president. In my search I was gratified to see it on the main wall of the restaurant in a much more prominent place. The Harvard Club has all of its university presidents honored along with other famous alumni like FDR, JFK and Theodore Roosevelt. 

When her friend did not show up we checked our coats and went back to the incredible Harvard Hall room that featured a huge Christmas tree, five bourses with different champagnes, and beds of ice covered by oysters. Besides those goodies there were veggies and cheese platters galore. Before long we found her friend, who had missed the train from Larchmont and had driven instead, No wonder she was late. Along with us there were 277 others. The party was sold out to capacity and everyone who registered came to the event. In other words it was crowded and the food was consumed as if a swarm of locust had landed.

We had fun, met some interesting people, took some pictures and generally enjoyed the happening. Upon returning from taking a picture of the World War II Memorial Bronze, which listed the men of Harvard that gave their lives in the war, (President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Class of 1904 and his sixth cousin Theodore Roosevelt Jr., class of 1909 were listed) I saw Linda talking to this dark-skinned man with a colorful Sephardic-style kipa on his head. Well I quickly found out that he was one Dr. Ephraim Isaac, president of the Yemenite Jewish Federation of America, and he was the Director of the Institute of Semitic Studies in Princeton, NJ. Of course our long and great friends Lynne and John Weiner had taken part in operation Magic Carpet, in 1949, which had eventually evacuated 48,818 Yemenite Jews, with the help of Alaska Air Lines (believe it or not) and their chief pilot Robert Maguire. Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurian called Bob Maguire, who died in June of 2005, at the age of 94, the “Irish Moses”. He had directed almost all of the 430 flights and was so well regarded that Leon Uris based a character on him in his prize-winning novel Exodus. Dr. Isaac was very excited to hear that our friends had the only films of that effort. Lynne, a reporter by training was a young wife of World War II veteran, John Weiner, Captain USA (retired) from Livingston Manor, NY. Lynne, who was the daughter of the famous psychiatrist Philip Lehrman, and had sat on the laps of both Sigmund Freud and George Gershwin (try to beat that) had brought her 16” mm movie camera with her to Israel, and they hopped a ride with Bob Maguire to Yemen. We promised to inform the Weiners of Dr. Isaac’s interest in their film, and of course, Lynne, who has written a book about her exploits, wants to find new venues for her work. Therefore my next assignment is to get them together!

So as we talked, on and on, the Champagne was quaffed, the oysters slurped, the canapés were gobbled and a good time was had by all.  By 8:30pm we decided to catch the 8:48 pm from Grand Central, and we hustled out into the bone-chilling night air of 44^th Street. Next stop Tarrytown! 

Franklin Roosevelt and the Nazi Threat

From: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Champion of Freedom

By Conrad Black-

Comments by RJ Garfunkel

“Roosevelt had recognized from the earliest moments of the Third Reich that Western democracy could not coexist with it. He came to believe, by early 1939 at the latest, that the United States would be required to be the indispensable force to rid the world of Nazism and it would emerge not only as a post isolationist country bat as the pre imminent nation on earth. Supreme political artist as he was, he cannot have failed, by the beginning of 1939, to have glimpsed this destiny that would carry his country to heights no nation had ever occupied and himself to a position in American history, rivaled, if at all, only by Washington and Lincoln.

British historian D.C. Watts wrote ‘His personality was overpoweringly regal; his advisors constituted a court rather than a cabinet. His closest supporters complained that he deliberately concealed the processes of his mind, and that he never talked frankly, even with the people who were loyal to him. He displayed to them a mass of conflicting characteristics, not so much ill balanced as constantly shifting in balance*

            *In consistent in his inconsistencies, cold and distant behind the warmth of personality with which he could overwhelm even the most hardened visitor, listening always to some private voice whose tones we can recognize but never overhear, and whose advice we can imagine but never verify, his protean, almost chameleon like changes, his hesitancies, his willingness to leave initiative to others, the freedom with which he abused others for not acting with the strength he was not prepared to display himself, all this is difficult to reconcile with the reputation he has enjoyed as the great leader of the democracies. And yet a great leader he certainly was.

Like an agile predator, he knew when to emerge, reveal his design, and execute it. And once determined to lead opinion and implement a policy, he was unflappable, devious, utterly determined, an unusually inspiring. Now, in early 1939, his course, though indiscernible to others, was clear to him. It could be summarized in six points.

First, he had to complete the conquest of the Depression by arming America.

Second, he would arrange a virtual draft to a third term as the candidate of peace through strength.

Third, he would complete the acquisition of an overwhelming level of military might.

Fourth, and assuming a new world war was already in progress, he would engineer righteous hostilities with Germany and the lesser dictatorships, ensuring that the dictators would be seen as the aggressors.

The fifth stage would be winning the war and leading the world to a post imperial Pax Americana, in which, sixth, Woodrow Wilson’s goals of safety for democracy and international legality would be established in some sort of American-led international organization.

Nothing less can explain Roosevelt’s conduct from Munich on. No other American leader has ever conceived an immensely ambitious plan for making over the world.

Hans Dieckhoff, the German ambassador in Washington up into late 1938, recognized that Roosevelt had a ‘pathological hatred’ of Hitler, and was ‘Hitler’s most dangerous opponent,’ The President had persuaded the ‘credulous and mentally dull American people’ that Germany was ‘America’s enemy number one.’ The observant chargee Hans Thomsen headed the Embassy after the withdrawal of Dieckhoff. Thomsen constantly warned the Wilhelmstrasse and the Reichsfuerher himself that Roosevelt sought the ‘annihilation of Nazi Germany and the nullification of the New Order in Europe.’ Thomsen also predicted that Roosevelt would, in the event of war, try ‘creating the conditions for, and a skillful timing of, the entry in to war on their side (Germany’s enemies’) side.’ He cleverly foresaw that ‘Roosevelt will not neglect the possibility that as Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces he has the power to issue orders which in the course of execution might lead to the creation of a state of war. In the face of this Congress is powerless.’ Thomsen told Berlin that Roosevelt has ‘pathological hatred’ of Hitler and Mussolini, and even predicted that Roosevelt, in furtherance of his goals, might seek a third term as president.

The duel between Roosevelt and Hitler would become increasingly elaborate, like a primeval war dance, until the two mortal enemies came to grips with each other.”

Comments by Richard J. Garfunkel:

I selected these passages from Lord Black’s marvelous book on Franklin Delano Roosevelt because I felt it summed up quite well the complexity of his character, his underlying goals that were well masked, and his determination to find a way to lead the world in eliminating the scourge of Hitlerism.

Many have tried to capture the elusive personality of the great man. James MacGregor Burns in his seminal histories of FDR, The Lion and the Fox, and the Soldier of Freedom, attempted to capture the essence of his underlying strategy of both weathering and conquering the Depression and bringing a lethargic, isolationist America into the mindset of becoming the Arsenal of Democracy. America always had been a haven for escapists that were able to runaway from the political, social and religious ravages of the Old World. America had always been able, in a simpler time, able to rely on two vast oceans to protect it from foreign threats. But be that as it may, the threat to the stability of Europe, the specter of war and its possible impact on the Americas started to emerge with the rise of dictators across Europe. As a result of the First World War, old empires and dynasties had crashed and new states in this post royal age emerged with fragile semi-democratic governments. The struggles of nationhood, along with the onset of the worldwide Depression brought in a new age of strongman rule. Eventually the model of the corporate or fascist state that had emerged in Italy with Mussolini started to be replicated throughout Eastern Europe. Some were amalgams of various peoples like Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, and others were more homogenous states like Hungary and Bulgaria that were carved from old empires. But whether they were fascist, or semi-fascist or Kingdoms that struggled to keep its warring and contentious minorities separated they were all vulnerable to the greater desires and objectives or the larger totalitarian states, Germany and the Soviet Union.

Franklin Roosevelt, like few other western leaders, was able to see the threat of this trend. He attempted, against great odds, to craft a position contrary to the conventional Western trend of know-nothingness. That thinking set the stage for his famous, but ill-fated speech in Chicago. In Roosevelt’s famous “Quarantine Speech” of October 5,1937, the President said:

            ‘The epidemic of world lawlessness is spreading. When an epidemic of physical disease starts to spread, the community approves and joins in a quarantine of the patients in order to protect the health of the community against the spread of the disease.”

This was delivered almost two years before the outbreak of the Second World War and it brought almost universal condemnation by a vast number of America’s editorial pages. It stimulated cries from the isolationist right for his impeachment and American Liberty Lobbyists and other xenophobic groups criticized it as warmongering. His remarks and their reaction reflected his future uphill battle in alerting America to the threat from overseas, the difficulty of repealing or working around the Neutrality Act, and the challenge of re-arming the country and building up its preparedness. It was another difficult lesson that FDR learned in his difficult second term. He had always said that a leader must be careful not to get so far ahead of his constituency so that when he looks back he can see none of his followers. FDR learned that harsh lesson with the Federal Court Re-Organization Plan, known as the Court Packing, and his attempt to intervene in Democratic Primaries before the 1938 mid-term elections. His attempt to rid the party of its right wing Neanderthals in both the north and south backfired badly.

As we all know too well, the 20^th century and its age of invention brought the world much closer together. The malevolent forces, that had always been out there, and for a long time were insurmountable distances away, started to encroach on the Western Hemisphere. Roosevelt understood more then anyone that it would take great personal skills to keep this country armed, unified and motivated in order to protect and defend not only itself, but also, its friends, fellow democracies, and allies from being overwhelmed.

Of course his deception, and seemingly subtle and not so subtle half-truths masked his plan to arm America, help our allies and keep his political friends and enemies guessing.

As it was said by James MacGregor Burns, “while he never formalized his highly personal methods of political administration, and indeed ignored all abstract formulations of administrative problems, he probably was well aware of the justification of his methods in terms of his need to keep control of his establishment. Certainly he hid not embrace unorthodox managerial techniques out of ignorance of orthodox ones.”

Basically much of the criticism of FDR’s style of management came from people who misunderstood the complexity of the political world that he was dealing with. Harold Smith, who became budget director in 1939, had difficulty with FDR as an administrator. At first he was disconcerted, along with many of subordinates over what he and others saw as erratic methods. Years later, as the size and immensity of the job Roosevelt faced, fell into a more focused view and retrospective, Smith told Robert Sherwood that Roosevelt “may have been one of history’s greatest administrative geniuses, ‘He was a real artist in government,’ Smith had concluded.

Of course on the other hand, FDR engendered much frustration over his methodology with the closest of his associates. As the world hurtled toward international fratricide in the last year of peace in 1939, Harold Ickes, one of his most loyal soldiers (The father of Clinton advisor Harold Ickes Jr., who, lived from1874-1952, was Secretary of the Interior from 1933-46 and was cum laude from the 2^nd graduating class from the University of Chicago, was an independent progressive that supported Republicans and others but was drawn to Theodore Roosevelt in 1912. He remained closely aligned with the Progressive movement through the 1920’s, but grew frustrated at trying to “progressivise” Republicans and eventually headed up the Western Independent Republican Committee for Roosevelt in 1932.), who was known as “Honest Harold,” blurted to FDR’s face, “You are a wonderful person but you are one of the most difficult men to work with that I ever known!” FDR answered, “Because I get too hard at times?” Ickes answered, “No, you never get too hard but you won’t talk frankly even with the people who are loyal to you and of whose loyalty you are fully convinced. You keep your cards close up against your belly…” If the President would confide in his advisers, Ickes went on, their advice would prevent him from making mistakes. Roosevelt took the criticism with good humor- but did not change his methods. (The Lion and the Fox, James MacGregor Burns)

Of course this reflects part of FDR’s strength and weaknesses. FDR was able to depend on a coterie of extremely loyal and discreet people were part of his inner circle and team. But he was always quite cautious about revealing his intentions or complete plans. Maybe he was innately distrustful. He was brought up as an only child and kept his thoughts to himself. He was not a complainer and at an early age he had a broken tooth and an exposed root and refused to tell his mother. Though vulnerable throughout his life to numerous attacks of poor health, his strength of mind and body always helped him to rebound quickly. When after years of being around adults, (he did not go to Groton until he was 14 years old), he came in contact with his own peers in school and made a great effort to ingratiate himself. Quite often, as part of the hurly-burley of youthful expressiveness, his classmates rebuffed him. Many of his fellow classmates had already established friendships years before young Franklin entered Groton. It seemed that his difficulty with his peers extended to college, and it was there he was blackballed in his attempt to get into the exclusive eating club Porcellian. But he did get along with young fellows at school. He had sensitivity towards them as a young man and many appreciated that concern. One younger boy at Groton, Sumner Welles, adored FDR and later on he became his valued Under Secretary of State. FDR had a stubborn “Dutch” streak as he liked to say, and he established early on in his social; and political career a strong sense of secrecy. Even his engagement to the young Eleanor Roosevelt was kept secret for a year. He did not confide in people normally and if he did it was “off the record,” a political idiom that he coined. Throughout his career FDR had a penchant for secrecy and veiled his true purposes with guile, duplicity, and charm. Many left his office convinced that they had “captured” his ear. But of course he had a tendency to say to his guest the he “understood,” their positions. Most assumed that he had them with the impression that he “agreed” with them, but in fact Roosevelt was saying that he understood their positions.

To be continued… rjg

December 8, 2005

Letter to the Editor

The current road show of both the President and his Secretary of State that has taken him to the Naval Academy and the Council of Foreign Relations, and Ms. Rice to Kiev, and to Germany to speak to the new German Chancellor Angela Merkel is a cynical effort to obfuscate the real issue of their continuing failures at home and abroad. Even though Ms. Rice has attempted to shift international concerns about human rights abuses to the chastising of the Russian government, and Mr. Bush, in his own inimical fashion, has tried to convince us that we have “turned the corner” in Iraq, the truth is quite different. Whether we are not “stuck” in the tar baby morass that Iraq has become or whether we can shift the subject of our own nefarious tactics regarding prisoners to the subject of protest groups in Russia begs the issue. No matter how many trips abroad, and empty speeches that preach to the choir promising the classic “light at the end of the tunnel,” the truth is that this administration has basically been a failure of mismanagement, incompetence and forthrightness. It has supported itself with lies, have-truths and chicanery right from the beginning. From their record of planting phony news stories, to their linkage of terrorists with the Baathists, to their lies about Iraqi WMDs, to relying upon nefarious Iraqi double dealers, the record is clear. As Lincoln said, “It is true that you can fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.”  The continued failure by the Bush Gang to manipulate the news has not lessened worldwide terror, it has not made us safer, and it has cost too many American lives and treasure by ill thought out adventurism. Hopefully the American people will rise up in righteous indignation come 2006 and start the process of long-needed change.

Richard J. Garfunkel

Franklin Roosevelt and the Nazi Threat

From: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Champion of Freedom

By Conrad Black-

Comments by RJ Garfunkel

“Roosevelt had recognized from the earliest moments of the Third Reich that Western democracy could not coexist with it. He came to believe, by early 1939 at the latest, that the United States would be required to be the indispensable force to rid the world of Nazism and it would emerge not only as a post isolationist country bat as the pre imminent nation on earth. Supreme political artist as he was, he cannot have failed, by the beginning of 1939, to have glimpsed this destiny that would carry his country to heights no nation had ever occupied and himself to a position in American history, rivaled, if at all, only by Washington and Lincoln.

British historian D.C. Watts wrote ‘His personality was overpoweringly regal; his advisors constituted a court rather than a cabinet. His closest supporters complained that he deliberately concealed the processes of his mind, and that he never talked frankly, even with the people who were loyal to him. He displayed to them a mass of conflicting characteristics, not so much ill balanced as constantly shifting in balance*

            *In consistent in his inconsistencies, cold and distant behind the warmth of personality with which he could overwhelm even the most hardened visitor, listening always to some private voice whose tones we can recognize but never overhear, and whose advice we can imagine but never verify, his protean, almost chameleon like changes, his hesitancies, his willingness to leave initiative to others, the freedom with which he abused others for not acting with the strength he was not prepared to display himself, all this is difficult to reconcile with the reputation he has enjoyed as the great leader of the democracies. And yet a great leader he certainly was.

Like an agile predator, he knew when to emerge, reveal his design, and execute it. And once determined to lead opinion and implement a policy, he was unflappable, devious, utterly determined, an unusually inspiring. Now, in early 1939, his course, though indiscernible to others, was clear to him. It could be summarized in six points.

First, he had to complete the conquest of the Depression by arming America.

Second, he would arrange a virtual draft to a third term as the candidate of peace through strength.

Third, he would complete the acquisition of an overwhelming level of military might.

Fourth, and assuming a new world war was already in progress, he would engineer righteous hostilities with Germany and the lesser dictatorships, ensuring that the dictators would be seen as the aggressors.

The fifth stage would be winning the war and leading the world to a post imperial Pax Americana, in which, sixth, Woodrow Wilson’s goals of safety for democracy and international legality would be established in some sort of American-led international organization.

Nothing less can explain Roosevelt’s conduct from Munich on. No other American leader has ever conceived an immensely ambitious plan for making over the world.

Hans Dieckhoff, the German ambassador in Washington up into late 1938, recognized that Roosevelt had a ‘pathological hatred’ of Hitler, and was ‘Hitler’s most dangerous opponent,’ The President had persuaded the ‘credulous and mentally dull American people’ that Germany was ‘America’s enemy number one.’ The observant chargee Hans Thomsen headed the Embassy after the withdrawal of Dieckhoff. Thomsen constantly warned the Wilhelmstrasse and the Reichsfuerher himself that Roosevelt sought the ‘annihilation of Nazi Germany and the nullification of the New Order in Europe.’ Thomsen also predicted that Roosevelt would, in the event of war, try ‘creating the conditions for, and a skillful timing of, the entry in to war on their side (Germany’s enemies’) side.’ He cleverly foresaw that ‘Roosevelt will not neglect the possibility that as Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces he has the power to issue orders which in the course of execution might lead to the creation of a state of war. In the face of this Congress is powerless.’ Thomsen told Berlin that Roosevelt has ‘pathological hatred’ of Hitler and Mussolini, and even predicted that Roosevelt, in furtherance of his goals, might seek a third term as president.

The duel between Roosevelt and Hitler would become increasingly elaborate, like a primeval war dance, until the two mortal enemies came to grips with each other.”

Comments by Richard J. Garfunkel:

I selected these passages from Lord Black’s marvelous book on Franklin Delano Roosevelt because I felt it summed up quite well the complexity of his character, his underlying goals that were well masked, and his determination to find a way to lead the world in eliminating the scourge of Hitlerism.

Many have tried to capture the elusive personality of the great man. James MacGregor Burns in his seminal histories of FDR, The Lion and the Fox, and the Soldier of Freedom, attempted to capture the essence of his underlying strategy of both weathering and conquering the Depression and bringing a lethargic, isolationist America into the mindset of becoming the Arsenal of Democracy. America always had been a haven for escapists that were able to runaway from the political, social and religious ravages of the Old World. America had always been able, in a simpler time, able to rely on two vast oceans to protect it from foreign threats. But be that as it may, the threat to the stability of Europe, the specter of war and its possible impact on the Americas started to emerge with the rise of dictators across Europe. As a result of the First World War, old empires and dynasties had crashed and new states in this post royal age emerged with fragile semi-democratic governments. The struggles of nationhood, along with the onset of the worldwide Depression brought in a new age of strongman rule. Eventually the model of the corporate or fascist state that had emerged in Italy with Mussolini started to be replicated throughout Eastern Europe. Some were amalgams of various peoples like Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, and others were more homogenous states like Hungary and Bulgaria that were carved from old empires. But whether they were fascist, or semi-fascist or Kingdoms that struggled to keep its warring and contentious minorities separated they were all vulnerable to the greater desires and objectives or the larger totalitarian states, Germany and the Soviet Union.

Franklin Roosevelt, like few other western leaders, was able to see the threat of this trend. He attempted, against great odds, to craft a position contrary to the conventional Western trend of know-nothingness. That thinking set the stage for his famous, but ill-fated speech in Chicago. In Roosevelt’s famous “Quarantine Speech” of October 5,1937, the President said:

            ‘The epidemic of world lawlessness is spreading. When an epidemic of physical disease starts to spread, the community approves and joins in a quarantine of the patients in order to protect the health of the community against the spread of the disease.”

This was delivered almost two years before the outbreak of the Second World War and it brought almost universal condemnation by a vast number of America’s editorial pages. It stimulated cries from the isolationist right for his impeachment and American Liberty Lobbyists and other xenophobic groups criticized it as warmongering. His remarks and their reaction reflected his future uphill battle in alerting America to the threat from overseas, the difficulty of repealing or working around the Neutrality Act, and the challenge of re-arming the country and building up its preparedness. It was another difficult lesson that FDR learned in his difficult second term. He had always said that a leader must be careful not to get so far ahead of his constituency so that when he looks back he can see none of his followers. FDR learned that harsh lesson with the Federal Court Re-Organization Plan, known as the Court Packing, and his attempt to intervene in Democratic Primaries before the 1938 mid-term elections. His attempt to rid the party of its right wing Neanderthals in both the north and south backfired badly.

As we all know too well, the 20^th century and its age of invention brought the world much closer together. The malevolent forces, that had always been out there, and for a long time were insurmountable distances away, started to encroach on the Western Hemisphere. Roosevelt understood more then anyone that it would take great personal skills to keep this country armed, unified and motivated in order to protect and defend not only itself, but also, its friends, fellow democracies, and allies from being overwhelmed.

Of course his deception, and seemingly subtle and not so subtle half-truths masked his plan to arm America, help our allies and keep his political friends and enemies guessing.

As it was said by James MacGregor Burns, “while he never formalized his highly personal methods of political administration, and indeed ignored all abstract formulations of administrative problems, he probably was well aware of the justification of his methods in terms of his need to keep control of his establishment. Certainly he hid not embrace unorthodox managerial techniques out of ignorance of orthodox ones.”

Basically much of the criticism of FDR’s style of management came from people who misunderstood the complexity of the political world that he was dealing with. Harold Smith, who became budget director in 1939, had difficulty with FDR as an administrator. At first he was disconcerted, along with many of subordinates over what he and others saw as erratic methods. Years later, as the size and immensity of the job Roosevelt faced, fell into a more focused view and retrospective, Smith told Robert Sherwood that Roosevelt “may have been one of history’s greatest administrative geniuses, ‘He was a real artist in government,’ Smith had concluded.

Of course on the other hand, FDR engendered much frustration over his methodology with the closest of his associates. As the world hurtled toward international fratricide in the last year of peace in 1939, Harold Ickes, one of his most loyal soldiers (The father of Clinton advisor Harold Ickes Jr., who, lived from1874-1952, was Secretary of the Interior from 1933-46 and was cum laude from the 2^nd graduating class from the University of Chicago, was an independent progressive that supported Republicans and others but was drawn to Theodore Roosevelt in 1912. He remained closely aligned with the Progressive movement through the 1920’s, but grew frustrated at trying to “progressivise” Republicans and eventually headed up the Western Independent Republican Committee for Roosevelt in 1932.), who was known as “Honest Harold,” blurted to FDR’s face, “You are a wonderful person but you are one of the most difficult men to work with that I ever known!” FDR answered, “Because I get too hard at times?” Ickes answered, “No, you never get too hard but you won’t talk frankly even with the people who are loyal to you and of whose loyalty you are fully convinced. You keep your cards close up against your belly…” If the President would confide in his advisers, Ickes went on, their advice would prevent him from making mistakes. Roosevelt took the criticism with good humor- but did not change his methods. (The Lion and the Fox, James MacGregor Burns)

Of course this reflects part of FDR’s strength and weaknesses. FDR was able to depend on a coterie of extremely loyal and discreet people were part of his inner circle and team. But he was always quite cautious about revealing his intentions or complete plans. Maybe he was innately distrustful. He was brought up as an only child and kept his thoughts to himself. He was not a complainer and at an early age he had a broken tooth and an exposed root and refused to tell his mother. Though vulnerable throughout his life to numerous attacks of poor health, his strength of mind and body always helped him to rebound quickly. When after years of being around adults, (he did not go to Groton until he was 14 years old), he came in contact with his own peers in school and made a great effort to ingratiate himself. Quite often, as part of the hurly-burley of youthful expressiveness, his classmates rebuffed him. Many of his fellow classmates had already established friendships years before young Franklin entered Groton. It seemed that his difficulty with his peers extended to college, and it was there he was blackballed in his attempt to get into the exclusive eating club Porcellian. But he did get along with young fellows at school. He had sensitivity towards them as a young man and many appreciated that concern. One younger boy at Groton, Sumner Welles, adored FDR and later on he became his valued Under Secretary of State. FDR had a stubborn “Dutch” streak as he liked to say, and he established early on in his social; and political career a strong sense of secrecy. Even his engagement to the young Eleanor Roosevelt was kept secret for a year. He did not confide in people normally and if he did it was “off the record,” a political idiom that he coined. Throughout his career FDR had a penchant for secrecy and veiled his true purposes with guile, duplicity, and charm. Many left his office convinced that they had “captured” his ear. But of course he had a tendency to say to his guest the he “understood,” their positions. Most assumed that he had them with the impression that he “agreed” with them, but in fact Roosevelt was saying that he understood their positions.

To be continued… rjg

What Do We Do About Iraq?

By

Richard J. Garfunkel

December 1, 2005

Hello and good morning to all of you. My name is Richard J. Garfunkel, and I will serve as the leader for this forum. I want first to thank Reva Greenberg, from Westchester County’s Office of the Aging and VOCAL, who invited me to partake in this endeavor and to also thank Vera Schiller who recommended me to follow her husband Irv, who led these “speak-outs” in the past. I want to welcome you to the 2nd session of the 2005-6 season of VOCAL’s Westchester County’s Intergenerational Advocacy Educational Program, speak-out forum for senior citizens. Basically this is a program that encourages seniors to voice their opinions on a subject of interest to our communities, whether local, regional or national. Its purpose is to help empower people to learn how to ask the right questions, find out information that is necessary for both their physical and mental well-being and add to their cultural and social awareness. By speaking out and using their mind with regards to current public policy issues seniors, like all of us will benefit.

I have passed out to all of you articles from various sources regarding this morning’s topic, “What Do We Do About Iraq?”

I also have a limited number of longer pieces that anyone can have. They also represent a broad spectrum of opinion:

My opening statement regards the important Public Policy question of “What should America do about Iraq?” Currently as a nation we are facing a very difficult situation in Iraq. We are spending approximately $7-8 billion per month. We are facing an ongoing insurrections that has escalated from 100 to 700 or so incidents per day that reflect bombings, small arms attacks, rocket propelled grenades, assassinations, kidnappings and general lawlessness. There has been some successes reflective or public voting, re-opening of schools, the development of a police force and army, the pumping of oil, the return of some services, businesses have reopened and the emergence of a free press. On the other hand there are people being killed every day by bombs, suicide bombers, and guerrilla warfare. The US has sustained over 2100 deaths, there are over 17,000 wounded and our armed forces are under great stress. This includes the stretching of our National Guard and Reserves, and the cost of medical care and disability. In other words is this effort worth the cost?

Therefore to frame our discussion this morning I would like to pose a few questions to our audience. Please note the following:

1)                 Should we stay the course with our current troop levels and rotation?

2)                 Should we increase our troop strength and therefore create more pressure on the insurgency?

3)                 Should we destabilize Syria whose porous border allows fighters to assist the Sunnis in their war against the Shiites?

4)                 Should we re-institute the draft and take the burden off our professional army, the Reserves, and the National Guard?

5)                 Should we establish a timetable for withdrawal of our troops?

6)                 Should we start pulling out our troops unilaterally without any regard to the progress regarding the Iraqi National Force?

7)                 Should Iraq be partitioned into three states, the Kurdish north, Shiite South, and the center left to the battle between the Sunnis and the Shiites?

Should therefore there be a change in Public Policy regarding the Middle East and the Islamic World

1)                 Should we alter our support for Israel?

2)                 Should we support a two state solution for Israel and the Palestinian Arabs?

3)                 Should we end our support for the oil oligarchies, like Kuwait, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia?

4)                 Should we be making a greater effort to forge cultural ties with the Islamic/Arab world?

5)                 Should we de-emphasize democratic reforms in countries like Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia?

6)                 Should we overthrow Syria, and destroy Iranian nuclear facilities?