Ruminations,October 19, 2008

 Themyth of Nathan Hale

Everythingyou know about Nathan Hale is wrong says M. William Phelps, author ofthe book NathanHale:TheLife and Death of America's First Spy.According to Phelps, Nathan Hale never said, when he was sentenced todeath, “My only regret is that I have but one life to lose for mycountry.”

 Phelps,who offers us an iconoclastic view of Hale, says that there is norecorded message of Hale’s last words, so he assumes that none weresaid. However, in an earlier writing, Hale did write, "I am sosatisfied with the [American independence] cause in which I haveengaged that my only regret is that I have not more lives than one tooffer in its service." This documented line captures much of thesame sentiment as the oft quoted line. If Hale did not say, at hissentencing, “Myonly regret is that I have but one life to lose for my country,” heshould have.

 Howdid this myth of Nathan Hale’s last words come to be accepted?Myth, the late scholar Joseph Campbell tells us, “is the lifebloodof society” and that “mythstransformconsciousness." Amyth can be fact or fiction but is integral to what a society thinksof itself and is often vigorously defended.

 Thesemyths apply not only to national societies but also to politicalsocieties. Republicans think of themselves as pillars of fiscalprobity and think of Democrats as the tax-and-spend party. In spiteof six profligate years as the majority party during which theyaccumulated record spending and record debt, they continue to believethis.

 Democratsthink of themselves as the civil rights and feminist party, and ofthe Republicans as the racist and sexist party. That’s why theyvigorously defend their turf.

 WhenDemocrats are confronted by an African-American whose principles runcounter to their orthodoxy and threaten their civil rights domain,they attack. For example, one can infer from Majority Leader HarryReid’s (D, NV) comments that he believes Supreme Court JusticeClarence Thomas is stupid. Reid, who often disagrees withconservative Justice Antonin Scalia but admires his intellect,compares Thomas unfavorably with Scalia. Yet, in her well-researchedbook on the Supreme Court, SupremeConflict,Jan Crawford Greenberg says, “From the beginning, Scalia foundhimself agreeing with Thomas’s views on the l aw. After Thomas’svery first conference, Scalia changed his mind to side with him …and on several other occasions that term, Scalia switched his vote tojoin Thomas in dissent.” It appears that Scalia admires Thomas’sintellect; if so, how could Thomas be stupid and Scalia smart?

 Democratsexercised a similar defense of their turf when women threaten theirfeminist orthodoxy. For example, when Republicans nominated a womanfor vice president, a host of Democratic writers lined up to declarethat Sarah Palin is not a woman. It’s fair to be critical of Palinon many issues but — not being a woman?

 Innominating Barack Obama as their candidate for president, Democrats,further mythologize themselves as the only civil rights party and tryto cash in on the American myth of color-blindness. And, shouldanyone attack Obama, woe to him. Consider Joe the Plumber, aka JoeWurzelbacher. Wurzelbacher had a legitimate question on Obama’s taxpolicy and posed the question. Obama didn’t handle it well and as aresult, Obama’s supporters went out to attack Wurzelbacher. We nowknow that this private and obscure individual is a Republican(aha!!), not a licensed plumber (must be up to no good), owes $1,200in back taxes (a scofflaw!!), he never made $250,000 in a year (he’sa poor Republican – the worst kind) and “Joe” isn’t even hisreal first name (it’s “Sam” – “Joe” is his middle name).What has all this “dirt” got to do with Obama’s tax plan?Nothing but anyone who attacks a Democratic myth will be discreditedand can expect to pay the consequences.

 Whena myth, like Nathan Hale’s last words, exemplifies a nationalspirit, it can be uplifting to the national character because it sayssomething we all like to believe of our selves and in no way demeansothers. But when a myth consists of self-delusion and unfairlydemeans other groups, it can be debilitate society. And if a majoritycomes to hold a delusional myth, it can be downright scary.

 Iwent to Nathan Hale Junior High School and have long held the myth ofHale’s last words. I shall continue to hold on to that myth,whether or not Hale actually said them while his executioners placedthe noose around his neck. He was an American hero. My only regretisthat some Americans do not hold on to uplifting myths.

 Decidingwho can and who can’t be elected

In1928, the Democrats ran New York governor Al Smith for president.Smith was running against Republican Herbert Hoover who served asSecretary of Commerce for a political party that had overseen astrong economy. Hoover was admired for his earlier achievementsmanaging a relief program that distributed food throughout a starvingEurope after World War I. Franklin Delano Roosevelt had at one timeexpressed his hope that Hoover would become president one day. Ohyes, one other thing that differentiated Smith from other Hoover wasthat Smith a Roman Catholic – the first Roman Catholic to run forpresident from a major party. When Smith lost, experts opined that aRoman Catholic could not be elected president.

 In1960, when John Kennedy announced that he was running for president,there was concern that, as a Roman Catholic, he, too, might prove tobe unelectable. Well, as we all know, Kennedy won – but it wasclose, very close. Suppose Kennedy had lost. I suspect that therewould have been experts who would have said that loss absolutelyproved that Roman Catholic couldn’t be elected. And from that pointon, both parties would have been reluctant to nominate a RomanCatholic.

 SupposeBarack Obama loses the 2008 presidential election. Will there beexperts who assume that this is proof that a black cannot be electedpresident? You bet.

 Howabout Sarah Palin as the second woman to run on a major party’sticket? If she loses, following the loss by Geraldine Ferraro in1984, there will be those who say that a woman on the ticket is aloser.

 Inpoint of fact, there are always some people who will vote against acandidate because that candidate is a woman, black, a Roman Catholicor has some other identifying characteristic. Then too, there aresome who will vote for a candidate because that candidate is awoman, black, a Roman Catholic or has some other identifyingcharacteristic.

 Iguess the point is that people vote for and against candidates for avariety of reasons. To try to break down the results of over 100million voters into one pithy aphorism is silly. Then too, theelection period is often called the “silly season.”

 Lapelpins

Oneof the criticisms of Barack Obama is that he doesn’t wear anAmerican flag lapel pin.

 Didyou see the last debate? Obama had an American flag lapel pin andJohn McCain didn’t. Now, how can we spin that?

 Freudianslip

JohnMcCain, addressing Barack Obama during the last presidential debate:“Senator Government…”

 RobertJ. Kulak

WestHartford, Connecticut