Dead Child: The Image of Refugee Desperation

The image of the dead child on the beach is hard to shake.

What is our obligation as the people in the life boat, as the people on the luxury cruise ship, toward those adrift at sea?  I'm speaking figuratively. What do we owe, as people in comfortable circumstances, to those who are suffering in war torn regions or in regions of famine?

In the 1980's I served on the Emergency Room committee at Georgetown University Hospital. One morning, one of the  hospital administrators, who happened to be a priest (a Jesuit, no less) started fulminating about the burden placed on the Emergency Room by immigrants from El Salvador or Honduras, I can't recall which, who were flooding into the ER and many of these got admitted to the hospital and this was wrecking budgets left and right. "Why don't we just send these people back? Don't we have any rules about who lives here now?  We can't just give free care.  It'll bankrupt this hospital!"

One of the other doctors on the committee, a guy with a name like Cohen or something Jewish, looked startled and amused and he said, "Father, and here I always thought this was a Catholic hospital. Christianity, you know. Love thy neighbor as thyself and all that."

Georgetown at that time had an entire institute for the study of the ethics of immigration.

Now we are hearing arguments about whether people trying to cross international borders are "refugees" (in which case they qualify for more sympathy and rights) or "economic migrants" (in which case they don't.)  

Apparently, our willingness to feel sympathy and to offer safe harbor has to do with whether or not their stories are heart rending, whether they have been fleeing some really dreadful, life threatening war or genocide or simply fleeing starvation or simply yearning to get out of a thatched hut in a muddy village to have a better life.

Donald Trump, who was born rich in America, has no sympathy for any illegal immigrant and wants to deport 11 million of them because they broke the rules written by members of his father's ruling class.

Cordell Hull 

During the 1930's Cordell Hull, Roosevelt's Secretary of State, turned back a ship filled with Jewish refugees/ immigrants/migrants from Germany. They did not have the letter attesting to their good character from their local police departments in Germany. They had broken the rules.  They went back to Germany, and, eventually to the ovens. Not our problem, said the man from Tennessee, who swiveled in his desk chair and pointed to the American flag behind his desk and said, "I could not allow these people who did not follow the rules to land on American soil without violating my own oath to serve that flag and the nation for which it stands." 

The Donald 

Donald Trump, presumably, would applaud.

The instinct among many who live along the border with Mexico is the same as that of the Hungarians who are erecting a fence to keep out Syrians trying to breach their border.

It turns out, the boat people are only a fraction of the more massive influx coming along land routes from Afghanistan, Syria and Lebanon.

Ross Douthat has written some  thoughtful essays about what Europe owes the desperate people arriving from Syria and from Africa seeking a better life. He suggests some nations like Greece and Hungary, which are not economically stable could be broken by a flood of immigrants. 

Maybe part of the problem is figuring out whether we are in an overloaded lifeboat, precariously floundering in stormy seas,  in which case taking on more bodies from the water is apt to sink our boat or whether we are on a luxury liner, in which case we would run no risk of sinking our ship by taking in the people from the water.  This is the question of exactly how much of a threat are those people trying to get in?  

There is the old warning, which is probably apocryphal, about the poll done in China saying 1/3 of the population of China says it would move to the United States tomorrow if they could. That would be what?  Over four hundred million Chinese overnight?  Would Chinese become the national language?  

Then there is the problem of admitting groups who have no intention of assimilating. In England and France, there are Islamic groups who do not accept the virtue of tolerance, as a concept. Fundamental to both nations, which consider themselves democracies, is the idea you must listen to the other side. But some groups within the immigrant communities assert they know the will of God and accepting education for girls, allowing women to dress so their ankles or faces are visible, allowing women to walk in public without a male relative, premarital sex, dating, listening to criticism of the prophet Mohammed, listening to popular music, exposing children to ideas not coming from religious authorities,  are all anathemas. In this case, do you really have the huddled mass yearning to breathe free or do you have, in essence, an invasion by a group intent on imposing its will on the larger society around it? 

If you have members of a group who seek refuge, but then arrive and find themselves offended by the people who live in their adopted land, what do you do with these malcontents? 

The American immigrant experience was, overall, one of a strong drive toward assimilation:  Jews changed their names to sound more Christian.  Daughters bleached their hair blonde to look less like people from their country of origin and more like the Marilyn Monroe idols on American screens. With this drive toward embracing group standards came a lot of self loathing among individuals.  The desire to melt into the stew in the melting pot rather than to become part of a salad in a salad bowl took its toll on individuals, but overall, it provided America with its greatest strength: Hybrid vigor. It is not our missiles or even our factories which form the basis of our strength--it's our diversity and our embrace and celebration of differences and our desire to form a more perfect union. But what happens when you have groups who reject the idea of e pluribus unum (one out of many)?

I have no easy answers. I guess I'm not as smart as Donald Trump.

Big Ideas: Social Security, Medicare

Voters have short memories, it would seem. But I heard on NPR this morning for half of all retired Americans, half of their income comes from Social Security.

Social Security was a big idea which gained traction during the Great Depression and Franklin D. Roosevelt got it through Congress, Democrats sweeping away a failed Republican presidency and failed Republican ideology that all America needs is stalwart self reliant people. The idea underlying Social Security is the concept that people are short sighted fools who are typically so hard pressed to pay today's bills they will not put aside money for their own retirement which seems far off. Cross-that -bridge-when-you-come-to-it mentality prevails in youth and actually, throughout life. So people have to be forced to put something away today for the future they can never believe will actually ever come.  

Republicans promulgate two main falsehoods about Social Security:

1. The "I Could Do Better Myth:" They assert confidently allowing the government to play this paternalistic role is an affront, that if you really want to assure a secure financial future, you ought to be allowed to fend for yourself in the stock market.  The fact is, even today, no investment you could make in stocks would repay you as well as Social Security.

2. The Sky Is Falling, "This Thing Is On It's Last Legs Myth:"  Every Republican loudly asserts Social Security is sinking beneath the waves in insolvency and trying to save it will take down the entire federal government and the nation with it. Of course, this is wrong. Yes, if Congress does nothing over the next 20 years, Social Security might go broke, but the Congress can do something, and  will have to do something, even if it's a Republican Congress; it will do something because the options available are so simple and painless, even for a Republican Congress, and refusing to feed Social Security, starving it to death will provoke a revolution, even among white, Southern Republican ignoramuses, once they see those checks stop coming.  Those "keep your government hands off my Social Security check," folks will get smarter in a hurry.

These painless solutions are obvious:  Congrress  could raise the retirement age, to 67, which would fit modern demographics. When Social Security was passed in the 1930's people didn't live much past 70, so they were only getting pay outs for 5 years or maybe 10. And there were a lot more young workers to support the retired workers then--the country had more young people and fewer older people and those younger people did not have to support the elderly for more than 5 years.

Or, the government could "raise the cap" and assess taxes on salaries over $118,000, which is to say, it could ask the wealthy to pay more toward the system. Currently, if you make $400,000 you only pay social security taxes on the first $118,000. If you make $400,000 you probably can afford to pay more in social security payroll taxes without much of a crimp to your lifestyle. Maybe you don't have to fly first class to Aruba for your winter break holiday, maybe business class.

Or, as Mike Huckabee has suggested, you might fund some of Social Security through a sales tax. Mr. Huckabee likes this idea because it galls him that prostitutes and drug kingpins who do not declare income or pay payroll taxes can get Social Security. Actually, I'm not sure Mr. Huckabee is right about this--I have known plenty of people who did not work enough in jobs which connected them to Social Security to be eligible for retirement benefits. 

The fact is, Social Security is not on the critical list. It is hale and hearty and people love it and that is what really gnaws at the Republicans. They have been trying to kill Social Security by "privatizing" it for years but even the most apathetic, ignorant and non political citizens can see it's a big idea that worked. Government doing something for its citizens.

The other thing which really inflames Republicans from John Boehner and Mitch McConnell to Ted Cruz and Ben Carson is Medicare. In a rare moment of frankness, Mr. Boehner remarked the big problem with Obamacare is that it would work so well the public would grow to like it as much as Medicare and then we'd have a nation of slackers who have grown soft sucking on the government teat.

This, of course, is a variation of that old line, "You know what happens when you feed a stray dog? It follows you home and you can't get rid of it."  That's the line you hear a lot in the South about any "entitlement" program.  Very folksy. Gets a lot of laughs. So now Social Security beneficiaries and Medicare beneficiaries (who have paid into the system for years and by virtue of that are, in fact, entitled) are stray dogs.

When Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare in 1965, it was a very modest program: It paid only for doctors' visits to patients in hospitals, not for any X rays or treatment the patients might get, not for office visits.  But that was enough to send the American Medical Association into a rage of righteous indignation, to bring the wrath of the Republican party down on all those who voted for what was sure to be the end of Western Civilization, the beginning of  socialized medicine, the opening of the door to socialism and and the casting of a deep stain on the soul of the nation.

Of course, now try to find an American doctor or hospital CEO or average citizen who can imagine what life would be like in this country without Medicare.  All you have to say is this:   If your parents didn't have Medicare, they'd be bankrupted by their first illness and they'd have to move in with you. Without Social Security, the'd have to move in with you even sooner.  How would  you like that?  Still want to vote Republican?

Sad to say, although it's the Democrats who have had the big ideas, it's the Republicans who manage to sound like they are the ones with big ideas.  Bernie Sanders is one of the few Democrats who does not run away from Democratic virtues. But he's an avowed Socialist and next to Mad Dog, he  may be one of the most un electable people in the country.  

What we need is a Democrat with guts, or "balls" as some would say. So far, Elizabeth Warren seems to be the only Democrat out there with balls and that makes a lot of people uncomfortable and we are not  talking transgender here.

Conscience and the Clerk

The curious case of Kim Davis, the Rowan County, Kentucky clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples raises the issue of how we should view people who claim something about their religion should trump some obligations of their jobs. 

Ms. Davis, who reportedly has been married four times, apparently hears the voice of God telling her gay marriage is BAD. Presumably, God has said nothing to her about divorce or serial marriages being BAD, but gay marriage is BAD. One might conclude Ms. Davis is awfully fond of marriage, given her frequent embrace of it, but some marriages just go too far for her.

  She was elected County Clerk, so she cannot be fired, but she can be jailed for contempt of court. Contempt of court, as I understand it, does not actually mean you disrespect a judge or have acted contemptuously; it means you have thwarted the will and function of a judge thereby preventing justice from being done. I'm not sure if the clerk thwarted the Supreme Court or some lower court, but off she went to jail.  It is not clear whether she was handcuffed, but there are photos of handcuffed wrists attached to newspaper stories about her. 

So, two issues:  1. How should government respond when someone refuses to carry out the responsibilities of a job which her bosses or the public expects her to execute?  2. Why are individuals who are clearly neither flight risks nor dangerous handcuffed? Was she strip searched in jail to be sure she was not hiding a dangerous weapon in her vagina with which she might harm her jailers or other prisoners?

With respect to the appropriate response to willful refusal to do some part of the job:  If a pharmacist who is a corporate employee says he will not sell Plan B to a woman because his religion tells him abortion is murder,  and he believes Plan B to be an abortafacient, we may agree that he might justifiably be fired for failing to fulfill his responsibilities and duties, and if the corporation does not fire him, we might agree action might  be taken against the corporation for allowing him to impose his beliefs on others.  But suppose the corporation simply does not stock Plan B?  Should we consider the reasons for this decision? Suppose the corporation says it is simply not in its financial interest, its business plan or its corporate mission to sell this drug and it reserves the right to make this judgment just as it did when it decided to not stock tobacco products?  Suppose the corporation says it decided not not stock Plan B because it considers abortion murder?

The Supreme Court has said the owners of a restaurant chain do not have to pay for health insurance which includes abortion or birth control coverage because they have said this would violate their religious beliefs. So one might conclude, the Supreme Court would allow the corporation to not stock Plan B and the corporation and the pharmacist are simply exercising their first amendment rights.

But a county clerk is a public official. If she is allowed to say she won't issue marriage licenses because it violates her religious beliefs, what about the Lester Maddox redux who says it violates his religious beliefs to allow black children to go to school with white children, to allow blacks to use the same toilets, swimming pools or hotel beds as whites?  

If the clerk is an elected official, she may claim she is defending not just her personal beliefs but she is defending the beliefs of the electorate and if they disagree, well then they can vote to remove/impeach. 

NPR carried a story today about a group suing a Massachusetts  government agency which regulates adoptions and has forbidden prospective parents from adopting if they answer affirmatively  the question: "Do you believe corporal punishment is appropriate to discipline children?"  These parents assert the Bible endorses corporal punishment for the disciplining of children and this regulation violates their civil rights to be free from government regulating religion. 
Not knowing much about the Bible, I Googled and learned, there is something in the Bible for everyone and everything:

Prov 13.24: "He that spareth his rod hate his son: but he tha loveth him chasteneth him betimes diligently."


And here I thought I had lovethed my sons. All of which goes to show, when you hear the word of God, it is a fine and mysterious thing and maybe that's why we need a Constitution.


Doctors have long been able to refuse to learn how to perform abortions , but in that case, there is no requirement for knowing how to do an abortion to be licensed to practice medicine. Oddly, there are state laws which require that all doctors who graduate medical school need to have learned how to deliver a baby--no matter if you are going into dermatology or psychiatry--unless you have  delivered 7 babies you cannot be awarded a MD degree in some states.  (That made for some eleventh hour dashes to the delivery rooms for some medical students.)

So far, the courts have said you can resign your job, but if you stand in the way of a court order, you are in contempt. 

Of course, what the citizenry will say is something else again.

There are times when we applaud an individual for refusing to execute the responsibilities of his office/job. When a soldier refuses to shoot down defenseless civilians at Mai Lai we applaud.  When a soldier simply follows orders and shoots down defenseless civilians or gases them in a concentration camp, we insist he ought to have followed a higher authority.

Am I comparing Ms. Davis to the virtuous concentration camp guard who refused to simply go along and just follow orders?  There are many differences, but there are some intriguing similarities. 

Our Most Un-Sexy Holiday: Labor Day

Well, All They Did Was Go To Work

"Labor is discovered to be the grand conqueror enriching and building up nations more surely than the proudest battles."
--William Ellery Channing


If you wanted to attach unpleasantness to a holiday, you could hardly do better than "Labor Day."  It's the end of the summer. It's when you learn, as a school child, the fun is over. And we think now of "labor." That is: "work." That is, where the fun ends.

Work is not about fun or sex (for most people) or for thrills (for most people) or for happiness in the task (for most people); it's what you do because you have to do it.

Of course, there are those who find meaning in their work--doctors, nurses, some police, even some computer nerds and some are thrilled by it--professional athletes, actors, dancers.

But for most people, work is something they are not happy about, but resigned to. When I was in college I ran across the remark, "Most people work to live. The German lives to work." Eventually, I got so absorbed in my studies, I began to think I was drifting in that direction--didn't last.

There are those who disdain the worker--Paul LePage, governor of Maine, leaps to mind. In 2011, he removed an eleven panel mural from the Maine state department of labor because he said it glorified the working many without glorifying the few entrepreneurs who paid them. 

Patently Offensive: Where Are the Entrepreneurs?

 He also put up signs at the state line proclaiming: "Maine: Open for Business."  Here is a man who knows who the real heroes are: Not, certainly, the workers, but the rich guys like the Koch brothers.

Of course, the murals showed children who had "lost their childhood" because they were forced to work in mills. Child labor is now thought to have been a dark side to American history by most people--not in Mr. LePage's case apparently.

Open For Business

Keep This Girl Out of Trouble

And there are depictions of strikers being arrested.  If you ever want to open your mind to a different version of American history, just open up any book by Howard Zinn, and you will find a story of startling brutality and venality, with names you may have heard in other contexts--like Andrew Carnegie, Commodore Vanderbilt, Henry Ford--who behaved unconscionably in the pursuit of they almighty dollar, maiming the workers who built their businesses in the process.

Gov. LePage Knows Who Deserves What

This is a day I can only imagine Mr. LePage and his fellow travelers, the Koch Brothers and Scott Walker (that successful union buster), find objectionable.  Laboring people are a necessary evil to these sorts, a sort of burdensome speed limit on an open road which should be in private ownership anyway. Laboring men and women simply get in the way, they are just one step away from the slackers who exploit unemployment and welfare and would be best replaced by robots who never complain or demand anything. 

Not every hard driving entrepreneur regards the workers who they employ as burdensome.  In Washington, DC, I knew two men who ran a real estate development firm. They spent years acquiring property in downtown Silver Spring, Maryland, trying to piece together a large city block they could develop, situated in an uninspiring town on the line with Washington, D.C.  While Bethesda and Chevy Chase had been gentrified into a sort of Rodeo Drive East, Silver Spring had remained a poor red headed step child, spurned, neglected, almost an embarrassment. Just as they completed their last acquisition, a mega-company, one everyone has heard of, a global juggernaut, arrived with an offer for the block they had assembled which was so gigantic they could not resist. Even if their grandest plans for the block were realized, they could not have made as much money. It meant they could cash in and retire in their mid 40's.

 One took the money, bought a huge estate in hunt country, Virginia retired and traveled. 

The other though, continued the firm, kept going into work every day.

"Why would you do that?" I asked him. "You continue to bear risk--you have a payroll, and all that goes with that--liability, workers' compensation, pensions to manage, HR rules and responsibilities. You're going to acquire new debt with each project. Why not just cash in like your partner and get clear? You got yours."

He looked at me, almost apologetic. I imagined he had had this discussion with his wife. "But I've got two dozen people who work for me. Their livelihoods depend on this company. And when we develop things, communities improve--the values of real estate rise; schools improve; life gets better for a lot of people; we build things and lives and futures. But mostly, it's the people who work for me. They have good jobs. I can't just walk away from them."

Can you imagine Paul LePage saying this?

Entrepreneurs Know Best

Mount McKinley Becomes Mount Dinali

I have not agreed with President Obama about everything.  I am disappointed he has taken so long getting us out of Afghanistan. 

But his instincts are right: Trying to close Gitmo was right. He was simply thwarted by the powers of obtuseness and darkness.

Now that his time is winding down, he is getting a little more free swinging and it's a delight to see.  He recently re named Mount McKinley, in Alaska, Mount Dinali, the native name for the mountain and the area surrounding it.

Of course, President McKinley was from Ohio and so John Boehner is upset.  But, at this point, I'd say upsetting Mr. Boehner is reason enough to do something. After all, for 6 years saying no to Mr. Obama was all the reason Mr. Boehner needed. 

Now if President Obama could just rename "Kentucky" or something in Kentucky. 

Last May I had dinner at a private home of an old friend. Among the guests were the Mayor of Nashville, a Democrat, and another gentleman who said President Obama was the worst President in the 20th century. 
"Oh?" I asked. "Why do you say that?"
"Well, he just is."
"What, in particular has he done that you dislike?"
"Well, Obamacare has been a disaster."
"Really? Has it hurt you or your family or anyone you know?"
"Well, no.  But it's killing the economy and ruining the country."
"That's funny, I thought the economy was doing pretty well. Are you talking about the U.S. economy?"
"Well, it's gonna tank."
"But what specific policies, aside from Obamacare do you find objectionable?"
"Well, he's just not a good person."
"So," I said, looking across the table at the Mayor, who had remained silent but was clearly enjoying this exchange. "You just don't like the man, because...? What specific qualities do you not like in him?"
"He's just dishonest."
"Dishonest? What has he been dishonest about?"
"Well, look, I'm not a racist, but I just can't stand the man."
"Well, certainly, that is opened minded of you," I said. "I mean, as Dr. King said it will be a bright day when children can grow up to be judged by the content of their character rather than by the color of their skin. Clearly, there is some content you are seeing I am missing. Or is it what nobody can miss you are bothered by?"

The hostess then changed the subject. The mayor looked down at his plate of apple pie a la mode, but I could see he was smiling.

The fact is, I turn on TV every day and I see a clip of our President and he is just so bright and reasonable and unruffled and I feel good.  What a difference from whoever that boob who preceded him. What was that guy's name?

Free The Nipple Comes to Hampton

Readers of this blog will know that Mad Dog is on the leading edge of news--"you heard it hear first" is our motto.


On May 22, Mad Dog posted about the depredation of the art work on Rte 27 near the Old Salt, which defaced a perfectly nice sculpture on the grounds  that exposed female breasts constitute a public indecency, a threat to town morals and would likely unhinge the children passing by it in school buses, who, up to that point had barely noticed the breasts, being otherwise occupied, texting their friends and playing games on their smart phones, as the buses whisked by the sand sculpture.

Now we have the "Free the Nipple" movement, coming to Hampton tomorrow, an effort to liberate female breasts and all minds with respect to the the idea that female breasts are inoffensive. 

To his great credit, the Hampton town manager, Fred Welch, has said the law is on the side of the women who wish to go topless on Hampton Beach. In this, Mr. Welch is far ahead of his less sophisticated brethren some 300 miles down the road in New York City, where Mayor Bill De Blasio has convened a commission which includes the Police Commissioner, the Manhattan District attorney's office, the City Planning Commission, the Department of Consumer Affairs, the deputy mayor for housing and economic development, among many others, to deal with the problem of women in Times Square who have painted their breasts and then pose for photos with tourists, for pay.

As the New York Times points out, "The size and firepower of this task force are more appropriate for an Ebola outbreak."  The Times also notes the women posing for these photos are far tinier than the "towering images of near naked models preening and pouting on the digital billboards all around [them.]"

Two years ago the seacoast suffered through "Nipplegate" an episode at a local hospital  in which a confused post partum nurse on the maternity ward delivered the wrong baby to a mother for breast feeding. The mother, drowsy in her dark ward room, breast fed a neonate belonging to some other mother.  This was not a case of "switched at birth" in which the wrong baby was sent home with the wrong mother, but it did prompt some high tech solutions. Mad Dog cannot recall exactly how the high tech got done, but he does not recall chips being implanted under babies' skins (as they now do with dogs). It was something less aggressive, a chip in an ankle bracelet or a Fitbit or something. Breasts were involved in that story and it had the catchy "nipplegate" tag line, which is why Mad Dog thinks of it now.

But here in provincial New Hampshire, we are, most of us, apparently, unfazed by the prospect of actual, living women exposing their breasts on our most iconic beach. It's just the idea of a sand sculpture depiction of a languorous mermaid that disturbs us.

•  14




|
Heidi Lilley, 54, of Gilford, and Kia Sinclair, 23, of Danbury, on Thursday visited Hampton Beach, where they plan to hold a topless sit-in for women on Aug. 23 in support of the Free the Nipple movement to fight oppression of women. Photo by Rich Beauchesne/Seacoastonline.
• 
  

  By Max Sullivan
  msullivan@seacoastonline.com

  Posted Jul. 30, 2015 at 4:19 PM
  Updated Jul 30, 2015 at 4:37 PM 
  
  
  

  HAMPTON — Female supporters of the Free the Nipple campaign are planning to sit topless on Hampton Beach next month in an effort to change public perception of women’s breasts. While police are saying it's perfectly legal, at least one Hampton Beach official strongly objects.

  Heidi Lilley, 54, of Gilford, and Kia Sinclair, 23, of Danbury, are using Facebook to mobilize women to gather at the beach for the topless sit-in on Aug. 23, they said.  Free the Nipple first gained traction in 2014 with the premier of a globally supported film with the same name. The campaign’s main Facebook page has more than 52,000 likes. It is billed as an equality movement to empower women and fight oppression.

  “Really it’s us exercising our right to go topless,” Sinclair said. “We want to encourage as many women (and men) to come and support us, whether that is in Hampton specifically or anywhere in New Hampshire.”

  John Kane, Hampton Beach Village District marketing director, said he is “absolutely against it.” He said the district has “spent generations and millions of dollars along with the state and the town” to make Hampton Beach a “family destination.” A Free the Nipple event will set those efforts back, he said.

  “Hampton Beach is a family resort, and we try our best to keep it that way,” Kane said. “I don’t want to have a mother having to block her 4-year-old son’s eyes from (topless Free the Nipple supporters) trying to make a point that doesn’t matter. There’s many beaches where, if they want to prove something, they can do so. Let them go there.”

Braggadocio and Its Apppeal

People Like A Strong Man

Strong Men Make You Feel Secure

"The trouble with life is: the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubts."
--Bertrand Russell


Last night I watched the West Wing Episode of "West Wing" in which the President's daughter has been kidnapped by men who demand the release of a slew of imprisoned terrorists in exchange for her release. President Bartlet invokes the 25th Amendment, by which he temporarily resigns the presidency and hands over the office to the Speaker of the House (the vice president having recently resigned), so he cannot accede to the kidnapper's demand, because he is no longer in power.  The Speaker, played by the inimitable John Goodman, is a blustery, straight talking oaf, who turns out to be just right for the moment.

He is a Republican, and he stands in stark contrast to the cerebral Bartlet, who, the Speaker believes, overthinks everything, agonizes about killing "the bad guys."  The Speaker, as President, sends in the bombers and the Special Forces to destroy what are thought to be training bases in the home country of the terrorists. Of course, the home country is one of the last Arab countries to be at least nominally allied to the United States, and it is the country of the terrorist who President Bartlet killed because this particular terrorist was killing people and plotting to blow up the Golden Gate Bridge even as he was posing as the ambassador and exchanging gifts with the President in the Oval Office. Bartlet, after much soul searching, concludes the man is simply too dangerous to tolerate, and orders his murder/execution. Now, some of his countrymen, who may or may not have been motivated by that killing, have captured his daughter.

The Speaker, in his new role as President decides to unleash the dogs of war and, as he says, who knows what will happen next? But it feels right.

It is all so eerily close to President Bush's reaction to the 9/11 attack: Let's just go kill somebody; who cares if we got the right guys? We are pissed and somebody's gonna feel our wrath, and if it wasn't Iraq that did this, they probably know who did and maybe they'll get to those guys for us, just to take the heat off.

When Barlet's crew watches the Speaker/President's press conference, they have to admit, they admire the way he's played it. They say he looks "Presidential."  What they really mean is he has said politically incorrect things which express what the public really believes. He dismisses objections that the United States has violated international law, saying there is no such thing unless everyone plays by the same rules and clearly terrorists do not, so they're not protected, which justifies our killing them without due process or anything other than a personal conviction these guys are the guilty ones.

They Know How to Inspire

It is the same simplicity of approach which Donald Trump follows:  Don't give me law and principle: I know what feels right and I'm gonna do it.  
That sort of thinking, of course,  is what got us mired in the Iraq fiasco. 
John Kerry pointed out that attacking Iraq after 9/11 would be like attacking Mexico after Pearl Harbor--attacking just anyone doesn't make sense. You really ought to go after the right someone. That argument never gained much traction among the public, spoiling for a fight. We wanted to find someone to charge up San Juan Hill and avenge an act of terrorism.

A Good Glower Helps

But what kept us in Afghanistan was something else, and a lot of that something else was legalistic thinking, worries about our "commitments" to some dummy government we helped set up and sustain.  When it comes to international relations, the idea that we are not all playing by the same rules,  and so we can make our own rules,  is a very appealing "truth."  It plays well on TV.

It's played very well for Donald Trump, and not just for questions of international policy.  But it plays especially well there. When illegal Mexican immigrants become rapists and thugs, well, let's call them that and galvanize opinion around a strong leader. 

REPORTER #1 [on TV]
Doesn't the murder of a foreign official undercut our moral authority to
condemn human rights violations in China and Africa?

WALKEN [on TV]
We live in the real world. Our moral values system only works if everybody
plays by the same rules.

REPORTER #2 [on TV]
But didn't it violate the Neutrality Act protecting citizens of friendly
nations from prosecution?

WALKEN
Terrorists aren't nations,...

CUT TO: INT. - RESIDENCE - CONTINUOUS

Liz, Abbey, and Ellie are sitting on the couch watching the press conference.

WALKEN
...and the Neutrality Act doesn't give a free pass to people who support
the murder of women and children.

REPORTER #3 [on TV]
...violating international law?

Abbey, deep in thought, gets up from the couch and leaves the room.

WALKEN [on TV]
International law has no prohibition against any government, superpower
or otherwise, targeting terrorist command and control centers. And Abdul
Shareef was a walking command and control center.

CUT TO: INT. - JOSH'S BULLPEN AREA - CUBICLE - CONTINUOUS

WILL
Damn. Good answer.

REPORTER #4 [on TV]
You stated that as Speaker, you knew of and supported the assassination. Do
you now regret that support?

WALKEN [on TV]
My only regret is that we only got to kill the bastard once.