In all likelihood early humans could not have survived alone. The odds against an isolated individual were prohibitive. And for that reason and lots of others, people over the centuries gathered together and linked up with others and with groups of all kinds, most predictably the immediate and extended family. Also, the clan and the tribe, eventually the village and the town and the surrounding community. Those who mastered a trade probably joined a guild of the similarly skilled. Across Europe everyone was class – ified as belonging to a separate rung on the social ladder – serfs, servants, peasants, bourgeoisie, clergy, nobility, etc. The group weighed heavily upon the person – provided identity, support of one sort or another but also defined the boundaries and limited the possibilities. Most everyone knew and accepted their place, understood the framework that existed to be fixed and unchanging. Still, forms of individualism began making inroads. Elements of the Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment and Romanticism, directly contributed to such developments. Nonetheless group identification and connection continued into the modern era whether in the village, the congregation, within a social class, or through affiliation with a trade. All this led in some way to a reliance upon a broader community beyond the individual, to a conception of the general welfare, also the expectation that the state could advance it. This is what ultimately undergirded the emergence of Socialist ideologies with their promises of wealth fairly shared and benevolence expressed by way of co-operative undertakings.
Group identities re-appear naturally in America. Large families flourished, church congregations spread far and wide, countless communities were everywhere established, trade organizations arose and, as many noted, a bewildering variety of associations formed to reform society or to advance concrete objectives. But at the same time, the American society sanctioned and idealized a level of individualism the world had never before encountered. The sources of this development were many and mutually reinforcing and included the absence of formal aristocratic structures, an extensive and bountiful land along with widespread property holding, the exhilarating promise of life, liberty and happiness, the guarantees of the Bill of Rights, the rapid movement out West to the frontier, as well as Evangelical beliefs in personal regeneration. Individual achievement came to be viewed as something society was eager to celebrate and reward, whether it was the intrepid frontiersman trekking through the wilderness, the ingenious tinkerer and inventor, the fearless gunfighter, the venturesome businessman and entrepreneur, the pluck and good fortune of the Horatio Alger hero, even the notorious outlaw.
The elevation of the individual was a powerfully energizing and liberating belief. The individual was set free to fulfill his destiny and to realize his potential, to defy convention and “group think,” to hit the road, become self-reliant and sever ties that proved burdensome, and to inspire others to do likewise. This produced a marvelously dynamic society, encouraged the
emergence of notable achievers, as well as legions of colorful and unconventional characters who helped give substance to the American Dream.But it has also come at a cost, short circuiting understanding and narrowing empathy. Individual ownership (private property) became sacrosanct, even when broader social priorities were at stake. Poverty, failure, and the absence of social mobility was readily ascribed to individual weakness and moral failure discounting other factors at play. Social class analysis and conflict too often was ignored when the focus centered primarily on the individual. Labor unions once enjoyed some measure of success, but in time lost leverage and effectiveness because America preferred to believe that the individual worker would be better off once freed from the costs and constraints of union membership. Socialism has ever been suspect in America because it acknowledged the reality of class, supposedly favored a “levelling,” as well as a broad distribution of National wealth, thereby threatening individual achievement and personal reward. Tax rates were always to be restrained lest individuals be denied just rewards for their labors and unique talents.
What is the proper relationship between extolling individual liberty, personal priorities and enrichment and promoting the advancement of the common good and welfare? Have we put too much pressure on individuals to go it alone, even as the result is often disaffiliation, loneliness, depression or worse? Should we not encourage and applaud individuals who cooperate, collaborate and seek out connections that strengthen the bond of community? Will we move more rapidly in that direction now that women, more inclined to connect, have stepped up, “leaned in” and become a highly visible and forceful presence in American society? Did an emphasis upon the individual serve a more useful purpose at a time earlier in our history than it may today? Such questions deserve serious consideration.

“No collusion, no collusion,” the president proclaims endlessly. We shall see – though the record revealed thus far appears highly suspicious in regard to Trump’s campaign involvement with Russia (while Russian operatives already stand accused and convicted).
Should it turn out to be so would this be the first time a presidential campaign was linked to a foreign country? History reminds us it’s probably happened before. The evidence is rather persuasive, though some would say not conclusive that the Reagan campaign of 1980 was in communication with Iranians in an attempt to delay the release of American hostages until after the election lest freeing them could swing support to Jimmy Carter. No hostage release occurred until after the election (which Reagan won easily). What fueled suspicions of collusion was that the announcement of their release came on the same day as Reagan’s inauguration (January 20, 1981). Fifteen years before, in the presidential election of 1966, strong evidence exists of backchannels opened to South Vietnamese government officials by Richard Nixon’s campaign in an effort to forestall peace negotiations. Were they to begin, Hubert Humphrey, Nixon’s Democratic opponent, might overcome the Republican’s narrowing lead. As it happened, talks did not get underway and Nixon captured the presidency.
In both the above instances, Americans assumed the initiative and sought foreign assistance in order to gain an advantage. But there was one other occasion when a foreign country deliberately intervened in an American presidential contest. The country? – Russia. Sound familiar? Back in 1978 Harry Truman squared off against Republican Thomas Dewey Also in the race were Dixiecrat candidate Governor Strom Thurmond of South Carolina and Progressive Party nominee Henry Wallace, former Vice-President under Roosevelt. It was rumored then, and evidence later surfaced to confirm, that American Communists, taking their cues from Moscow, were at the center of Wallace’s campaign, helping steer it to support Russian policies, with Wallace, for example, objecting strongly to the Marshall Plan and Truman’s policy of containment (of Communism). Wallace avoided saying anything critical of the Soviet Union during the campaign despite its blockade of Berlin and sponsored coup in Czechoslovakia. The United States, he insisted, could reach an “understanding” with the USSR. His defense of the Soviets prompted many Progressives to abandon the ticket, which resulted in his winning less than 3% of the popular vote. Just how the USSR hoped to benefit from Wallace’s win for the presidency is not clear, but there is little doubt it had intervened directly in our election.
So, while we await Robert Mueller’s assessment of the degree and impact of Russian intervention once again, this time in 2016, we should not forget those other instances when presidential contests have not been strictly American affairs.

DIVIDED WE STAND
Political palaver these days cannot proceed without someone tossing out the word “polarization.” We’ve come to accept the idea of a “Great Divide” across society that cannot be bridged. On one side are the President’s supporters and defenders who cheer his tweets, back his policies and believe that Fox News gets it exactly right. Trump’s “base” remains in place, firm in its conviction that their man speaks their mind and skewers those that they oppose. Across the gulf is arrayed tens of millions who look on with disbelief, completely mystified that a man they believe so patently ignorant, compromised, and corrupt, perhaps unhinged, has control of the engines of national power. They fear for the future of the nation, wonder whether the “wreckage” they perceive is beyond repair. No one on either side has the slightest idea of how it will all end. Accordingly, it may be of some interest and possibly even useful to look back over the years and document some of the great divides that once split our nation.
• Active support of the Revolution never involved more than a minority of the white population. A majority either stayed neutral, took oaths of loyalty only when patriot forces were in the area, joined loyalist armed forces or were vocal in opposing the revolution. Large numbers of Tories left America at the conclusion of the war.
• The debate over the Constitution divided the nation. Anti-Federalists were extremely suspicious of the motives of pro-Constitution forces. The existing Articles of Confederation Government was just fine, they believed. In many states the vote to approve the Constitution was exceptionally close.
• In the 1790’s the Federalists and the Democratic and Republican parties had little use for one another. Both saw conspiracies everywhere. Because the Federalists supported England, our former enemy, the Republicans backed France: The nation seemed about to come apart. Great relief followed when Federalists chose to abide by the election results of 1800, and albeit reluctantly, yielded the government to Jefferson and the Democratic-Republican party.
• With slavery locked into the South and the North increasingly committed to free labor, the gulf between North and South widened. What made it worse was that Southern planters and their allies portrayed slavery as a positive good, while Northerners became increasingly receptive to the arguments of the growing number of Abolitionists who feared an aggressive “Slave Power” was preparing to expand slavery far and wide. “A house divided against itself would not stand,” Lincoln warned.
• The South panicked in the aftermath of Lincoln’s election (1860). He would, they feared, work to undermine the institution of slavery. The secession from the Union by one Southern state after another eventually plunged the United States into Civil War, the most serious rift ever endured by the nation. Before it ended, 750,000 were dead, including President Lincoln, assassinated by a Southern sympathizer.
• The rise of big business in the late 19th Century in turn led to an effort by the laboring classes to organize. Strikes were frequent and often violent, especially when strikebreakers were recruited and state militias dispatched to the scene. Many Americans feared that opposing forces were irreconcilable and that a momentous clash between capital and labor was unavoidable.
• In the 1920’s the U.S. seemed headed in opposite directions. Many women were exhibiting a new sense of independence, jazz was finding a wide audience, new technologies were settling in (radio, automobiles, movies, airplanes, etc.), cities were expanding, widespread prosperity appeared achievable. On the other hand, fears over immigrants brought new restrictive laws (1921, 1924) along with Prohibition, Eugenics legislation, rapid growth of the KKK, the spread of Evangelical Christianity and efforts to restrict the teaching of evolution in the schools. Two mutually hostile world views were fully on display.
• In the sixties, America once again fractured. Young people (“hippies”) led the assault on what they derided as the “establishment.” In their dress, in their drugs, in their music and in their communes, their message for Americans was to “drop out,” reorder their lives and their priorities. Adding to their challenge was the simultaneous emergence of the Civil rights movement, the Woman’s Movement, the Anti-Vietnam War protests and the movement to scale back massive nuclear weapons stockpiles and delivery systems. Such widespread assaults against the “system”, coupled with certain radical outcropping (the Weathermen, Black Panthers, etc.) brought on a predictable backlash, produced a divide the country has not to this day resolved.
Clearly, then, the U. S. has been fractured many times before and has survived in each instance. It will likely happen again. Perhaps we can find encouragement in certain facts in the life of America’s great hero Ulysses Grant. His wife Julia came from a defiantly proud slaveholding family, while Grant’s father and mother were Abolitionists. (They did not attend their son’s wedding.) Nonetheless, in their old age, both Grant’s father and father-in-law lived together in the White House during Grant’s presidency. Some measure of reconciliation surely occurred. There is hope.

Recently, while cruising around You Tube, I happened upon a telecast of the seventh game of the 1952 World Series, played at storied Ebbets Field in Brooklyn (attendance 32,000). For a New York baseball fan it was a treat, a classic matchup – Yankees vs. Dodgers. On the field were the fabled players of yore – Mantle, Mize, Rizzuto, Bauer, Berra, Martin, Casey Stengel (manager), Robinson, Campanella, Snider, Hodges, Reese. At the microphone were Mel Allen and Red Barber, authoritative voices without question. I made the decision to stay with the game. (I wasn’t sure whether this was the series the Dodgers, who had never won the Fall Classic, broke through. It wasn’t. That came three years later – in 1955.) My principal interest here was to take note of how baseball had changed since that time, nearly 60 years ago. What follows is an account of my observations.
• There was but one sponsor – Gillette Razor Blades. It was entirely low key with no commercial inserts, like today, during the play by play
• Allen and Barber split the game, each alone on mike. There was no back and forth conversation (except when the game concluded). Remarkably lean and straight forward.
• Neither announcer said a word about the 1952 baseball season, or how either team made it to the Series. No mention of player season batting averages or accomplishments. Most strange. Commentary was strictly confined to developments during the Series.
• Except for Dodger starting pitcher Joe Black, who had come out of nowhere to lead the team to the pennant, nothing much was said about any of the players (except for 20-year-old Mickey Mantle, who was declared to be a future star). “Color” Commentary, “human interest” stuff was almost entirely absent.
• Both announcers provided the details of each play, even though viewers could see for themselves what had happened. (There was a separate radio “feed,” so it wasn’t as if such detail was intended for listeners.)
• This was the era of black and white TV. Camera coverage was limited (though split screen technique allowed viewers to see the pitcher about to deliver, along with the runner on first making his moves). There was, alas, no replay. I did miss it. Imagine being unable to review (often endlessly) noteworthy action on the field. We sure are spoiled these days. Furthermore, no speed gun informed us about pitch velocity.
• Players gathered on the mound. Managers came out to speak to their pitcher. No one covered their mouth, as is the practice today. Absent were fears about lip reading, eavesdropping, or “stealing” information.
• Baseball uniforms were ridiculously baggy. A stiff wind might have resulted in some of the lighter players becoming airborne. Numbers, but no names, on the uniforms. Players, as they left the field and headed into the dugout, casually tossed their gloves into foul territory. There they remained, until the next half inning.
• The dugouts were confined spaces. No railings to lean on or to protect players. They were sitting ducks in the event screaming balls rocketed their way.
• Batters rarely, if ever, “stepped out” while at the plate. They never requested that the home plate umpire check with a fellow umpire to rule on whether he had “swung” at a pitch. The speed of the game was remarkable since pitchers spent little time between deliveries, nor entered into discussions with their catchers. Famed Dodger slugger, Duke Snider, with the game still scoreless and with a runner on first, actually attempted to bunt the first pitch he saw!
• In this game the Dodgers had three black players on the field (Joe Black, Jackie Robinson, Roy Campanella). The Yankees – none (though front-line pitcher Allie Reynolds – who appeared in relief – was a Native American.
• Not surprising, most all spectators were well dressed, a majority wearing suits and hats. Women could be seen here and there, but men were overwhelmingly present.
• The Yankees won 4-2 (their fourth straight World Series victory). After the last out, players mobbed pitcher Bob Kuzava, but then promptly walked off the field and into the dugout. Today, in comparison, players remain out there, reveling in victory – jumping, hugging, high fiving, in no hurry to exit, while photographers rush into the tangle of bodies to record every moment of the raucous celebration.
It was a rewarding stroll down memory lane. And because I once was a NY Giant fan I rooted for the Yankees to win – to beat the “Boys of Summer.”

I’ve been behind the wheel for decades, logged hundreds of thousands of miles. So much of it has been routine, comfortably seated, cruising along, tension free, often pleasurable. But as everyone who hits the road knows, it can also be harrowing, at times infuriating, as we maneuver through traffic and contend with fellow drivers whose uneven skills, selfishness and aggression often put everyone around them at risk. Just how unsettling it can get will become obvious from the following list of notable challenges drivers face daily.
ROAD BLOCKS
• I’ve never heard anyone claim that traffic conditions are improving. Rather, advancing gridlock has become the normal state of affairs on many a major artery. How could it be otherwise when the number of vehicles continues to increase while road capacity remains the same? The concept of rush hour is becoming antiquated as traffic jams now consume more and more of each day. Everywhere, travel times have increased, even as navigational devices warn us of tie-ups ahead. Whether self-driving cars can make a difference here is not at all clear. Besides, that’s still down the road.
• Who has not become upset when coming upon a “Construction Ahead” sign? It, of course, signals a possible upcoming delay or stoppage, the result of a lane closure, or flagmen insisting that we slow down. (“Fines double in construction Zone” signs add an additional measure of unease to the situation.) We recognize that roads do require repair periodically, and therefore inconvenience is not too high a price to pay for improvements (except that construction work does not always coincide, as it should, with periods of light traffic). But, then after crawling along for some time, we finally arrive at the construction site. Plenty of equipment can be seen, but where are the workers? One would think that given the delays occasioned by the roadwork there’d be a concerted effort to speed things up. Rarely is that the case. And even when they are present, too often they appear little interested in getting to work. There may be an explanation, but it is not at all apparent to the drivers who grumble as they crawl past, eager once more to get up to speed.
• I often feel discriminated against by those directing traffic at complex intersections or because traffic lights have malfunctioned. They’ve been empowered to determine which of several lanes of cars should proceed at any point. Why is it that my lane is being ignored? Why  such obvious favoritism toward other drivers? Were the lights functioning, a more equitable system would govern traffic flow. Am I being overly sensitive? Still, it’s happened too often for me to believe it is mere coincidence.
• It doesn’t seem reasonable that there are so many stop signs at street corners where there is hardly any traffic. Stop signs are a drag, necessary in places, but otherwise overused and bothersome.
• Same story here: Driving along a broad thoroughfare with considerable traffic, your car is obliged to stop again and again by uncommonly lengthy red lights so that cars from side streets can enter. Except that at street after street there are no cars waiting. So, why is traffic forced to stop and wait for extended periods for nothing to happen?
• A siren blares in the distance. You twist first one way, then another, trying to locate what may be a police car, fire engine or ambulance. Until you determine the source of the sound, it can be quite unnerving. Then you must maneuver so as to get out of the way. What a relief as it passes by you and the siren sounds grow increasingly distant.
• There you are stopped behind a school bus, lights flashing, “Stop” signs jutting out. You regret having taken to the road, just as school is letting out. What’s worse is that the bus driver is engaged in conversation with a parent standing on the sidewalk. What a time for a discussion! Finally it’s over; the bus moves and so do you.
• Coming upon a turn arrow, that has just turned red, at a busy intersection. It can’t get any worse. So many other lanes must first be allowed to proceed before the arrow once again turns green. It seems endless. You’d best have something else to do in the meantime.
• Red light cameras, photo-enforced intersections, are the latest road menace. Stiff fines await those caught on camera moving when and where they shouldn’t. You don’t want to be caught on camera crossing the lane. As you approach the corner you may not know how long the light has been green. Still, you enter the intersection and it turns red. You’ve become the latest victim, a photo of your car evidence; of your violation. So you must approach a corner warily, then decide in an instant whether to cross over in rapid fashion or to stop, take no chances, and await a “fresh” green light. Talk about high anxiety!
• It surely appears to be the case that when some event will likely curtail oil supplies (OPEC decision, storm in the Gulf of Mexico, pipeline explosion, refinery shutdowns, etc.), gas prices at the pump jump almost instantly. They are, however, “sticky,” i.e., rather slow to come down, even after the “crisis” has passed.
• Among the most challenging of maneuvers is backing into a parking spot on a busy street, with cars right behind. You understand that other drivers, now obliged to stop, are not happy. You had better succeed on your first attempt. What a relief when you roll in successfully and the cars you’d forced to wait, move on.
• The amber or yellow light dilemma – to stop or to proceed. Problem is the duration of amber lights vary. You’d best know beforehand what you’re dealing with. With a long yellow light it will be possible for you to move ahead. With a short one you might find yourself exposed, moving against a red light and oncoming traffic. It can be tricky. Be careful.
MEAN MOTORISTS
• You are driving straight ahead, but the driver in front, poised in the intersection, is planning a left turn, but not moved over sufficiently to enable you to get by. How inconsiderate.
• The driver forgets to disengage his signal so you expect him to turn at any point. Except he doesn’t. After a time you conclude that he has no intention to do so. It’s all rather annoying.
• There is a long line of cars awaiting a green light. It changes, but the driver in front is in no rush to get underway. He knows he will have a green light. You, however, are not so sure. He makes it; you don’t. Not fair.
• Motorcycles are scary. They roar past you, often making deafening, disorienting noises. They can, while you’re stuck in heavy traffic, zip right by and are soon gone. You envy them.
• Talking about unwanted noise, consider the car alongside, windows open, radio blasting forth sounds most unwelcome and far too loud. Why must you be subject to his awful taste in music?
• A car moving well above the speed limit zooms past you repeatedly changes lanes, and in little time disappears into the distance. You hope a police car is nearby and will catch this speeding menace. Alas, none is around. Hopefully, the day will come when roadside cameras will pick up such “crazy” drivers, and the law will bring them to “justice.”
• It’s stop and go traffic and you are slow to inch forward when the car ahead moves. This prompts the driver behind me, apparently upset, that I haven’t rolled ahead a few more feet, to blast his horn. Okay, we’re now about four feet further along!
• The exit ahead leads on to a major highway. Accordingly lots of cars are lined up, waiting to get on. Entering that line I’m prepared to edge up ever so slowly until reaching the highway entrance. Others aren’t as patient. They speed past me, then well beyond my location, jump ahead of many cars, then squeeze their way into the line. If I were there, I wouldn’t let them in. But their aggressive ways saved them several minutes. And it confirmed for me the obvious fact that many people don’t play by the “rules.”
• Every so often I’m in a car whose driver finds fault with just about everyone else on the road. He’s the victim; the other drivers are making his ride miserable. They didn’t signal – They left their blinkers on – They’re following too close – They’re weaving in and out – They cut in right in front of him. He’s perfect; they’re all incompetent. It would, given this point of view, seem truly a miracle that he can emerge unscathed from this mayhem. I am, on the other hand, repeatedly impressed that so many supposedly “incompetent” drivers nevertheless manage each day to maneuver safely alongside each other. It’s a matter of perspective.

For the first few thousand years of civilization the idea of human equality seemed altogether remote from reality. No society thought to commit to such an unnatural proposition. Instead, distinctions of all kinds were widely accepted, recognized as appropriate and necessary. There was royalty and aristocracy, undeniable marks of superiority everywhere. Military orders and priesthoods kept commoners in line. Men, almost everywhere, assumed the subordination of women, while masters regarded slaves, servants and apprentices as properly beneath them.
Not much changed until the 18th Century, but then, especially in Britain’s American colonies, the idea took root. There no titled aristocracy had emerged, no military establishment embedded in society, no authorized priesthood apart from the populace. Plus an impressive number of free men owned land, which meant that they could vote. Paradoxically slavery also fostered egalitarian trends, among whites that is, where clear superiority over blacks produced a rough sense of equality within their ranks.
The immortal words of Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence – “all men are created equal” and possess rights that are “inalienable,” dramatically underscored what had happened in the colonies and offered an inspiring guidepost for the future American society (soon supplemented by a resounding Bill of Rights). Now those intent on challenging hierarchies of long standing had their rallying cry, a clarion call to reorder the way society had long been organized. In the Northern states the legal framework of slavery was in time overturned while vocal groups there demanded that the South do likewise. Here and there women began to challenge assumptions about their subordinate status and constricted roles. Educational reformers recognized that to move society toward greater equality required an enlightened citizenry and thus advocated for a public educational system. Widespread literacy prevailed and a vibrant press emerged. Andrew Jackson toppled the all-powerful Bank of the United States while reformers attacked other privileged monopoly corporations and redesigned the legal system to enable simple and accessible incorporation procedures. “Utopian” communities abounded, many featuring egalitarian experiments involving work assignments, marriage relations and gender roles. So Jefferson’s ringing pronouncement back in 1776 not only sparked and justified a revolutionary uprising, but also committed the United States to the ultimate goal of promoting greater equality across society.
But human equality was then mostly a concept, a heartfelt assertion, a legal construct. Many at ground level saw things differently. Individuals clearly did not look alike and they possessed greater or lesser capacities. Some strong, others weak; some competent, others deficient; some successful, others abject failures. So regarding them as equal was for many little more than wishful thinking. And so while the U.S. took comfort and pride in the egalitarian rhetoric, many viewed matters quite differently. Such was the case across the 19th Century and into the 20th. Native Americans were largely cast aside. Blacks continued to be regarded as racially inferior; immigrants, especially the Irish, Chinese, Japanese and Eastern Europeans, considered unacceptable and unassimilable, while women, viewed as intellectually limited, were confined to their own lesser world. The poor and large portions of the working classes were regarded as morally debased, a perpetual menace to established society, some so deficient intellectually that sterilization measures (Eugenics movement) were introduced and intended to keep their numbers in check. With all this in mind, it’s hard to imagine how a belief in equality managed to survive this period.
But it did. Americans have never given up on this incandescent idea (or at least in their faith in equal opportunity). Recent decades have seen group after group come out of the shadows, insist that attitudes and barriers that had left them behind be swept aside. Women, African Americans, immigrants, those with disabilities and those of various gender identifications, all staked their claims to equal footing, demanding a levelling of the playing field. They have been heard; and their demands at least partially met. But, as in the past, such claims advanced in the name of equality were not everywhere welcome and often resisted. Furthermore, a new stridency entered the debate as a severely fractured political system split people into mutually exclusive and hostile camps. In this contentious atmosphere certain groups, notably immigrants, Muslims, the poor, rural populations and inner city dwellers, were singled out as unworthy, undeserving, even a threat to the well-being and security of American society.
Both the idea and the necessary components of equality first took root in the U.S. and became the centerpiece of our national ideology. But as we’ve seen, the idea did not always hold sway and many were denied their rightful place or a reasonable opportunity to enter mainstream society. Today that struggle is once again underway, achieving some semblance of equality as elusive as ever.

I have experienced nothing but heartbreak, bouts of depression and despair watching my Mets descend into the depths of their division. After a promising start that ignited high expectations of a pennant race, it’s all come apart. Not only are most of the guys underperforming, but injuries have stripped the roster bare and made the likelihood of a midseason “correction” and resurgence unimaginable. In view of this, and in order to salvage my summer, I have decided to throw in my lot with the NY Yankees. Yes, I will follow and root for the “Bronx Bombers” for the remainder of the 2018 season.
“You can’t be serious! Mets and Yankees fans have been bitter rivals over the years.” Haughty Yankees supporters have mocked and had nothing but contempt for the boys from Flushing, Queens. It’s unthinkable, unnatural for anyone to go over to the hated enemy. “Don’t expect to find anyone,” a Mets fan warned me, “supporting such an outrageous betrayal. Real fans stick with their team in good times and in bad.”
Let me remind you that I’ve been a Mets fan beginning Day One in 1962. Casey, Kranepool, Seaver, Strawberry, Mookie, Lindsey Nelson, Shea – I’ve followed Mets fortunes season after season, including the many lean years. I have an inscribed brick embedded in the sacred space just outside the main entrance to Citi Field. Not long ago I celebrated a Stuyvesant High School reunion with my classmate – Saul Katz, Mets COO. My daughter and my grandson are devoted fans, unwavering in their loyalty. So much for my credentials – I’m no Johnny Come Lately or fair weather fan.
So, have I become unhinged? Many pre-season prognostications placed the Mets in the thick of the pennant race which meant that my summer would be filled by “meaningful” games day after day. Today that feels like ancient history. It’s hard to tune in these days, their performance often so disheartening, leads blown, offense anemic. My problem, therefore, became how to fill all the time I had expected to devote to watching baseball, a game that I love. Why endure an endless, empty summer? The U.S. isn’t even in the World Cup!
I never was a Yankee hater. I rooted for the Mets to crush them whenever the two met, but otherwise I was okay with Yankee success. As a lifetime New Yorker I’ve always cheered for our local teams. But, of late, that has been almost totally unrewarding. Giants, Jets, Rangers, Islanders, Knicks, Nets – it’s been a sports wasteland. Like any fan, winning means everything. So here come the Yankees of 2018. After a slow start, they’ve rocketed to the top. Young, powerful, speedy, well-armed, they promise to remain a contender for the entire season. For me, watching them will fill the endless hours of summer which otherwise threatened to be dull and empty.
I will get to know the Yankee players, root for them to win and extend the season into late September and October. I don’t expect to love the Yanks the way my heart has gone out to the Mets, but I will cheer for them and celebrate their heroics.
I’m not sure Mets fans had the stomach to read this far into the article. Nor will they likely accept me back next season when the Mets hopefully will field a more competitive team. No doubt they’ll be delighted if, as the summer unfolds, the Yankees fade and the Mets right themselves and come on strong. You never know. But, I’m comfortable with my decision. I’m getting on in years. Another “lost summer” is not something I’m prepared to accept.

SEETHING
There I am, on the “service” line at my local Best Buy. Two employees are engaged behind the counter, and ahead of me, carrying a computer keyboard, just one other person. I can’t imagine there’ll be much of a wait. But for whatever reason, there is. In each instance the customers, just why I can’t determine, are involved in lengthy conversations. Still confident I’ll be served shortly, and in no particular rush, I stand there calmly, just gazing about. For a time the fellow in front of me, a tall, lean, gray-haired guy, probably in his late 30’s or early 40’s, stands motionless, seemingly at ease.. But then he begins to stir, his body language suggesting growing exasperation and impatience. I’ve waited on enough lines in my life to know that it’s just a matter of time before he decides to sound off. And, the only one around to complain to – is me. Sure enough he starts letting me know he’s upset. Somehow he’s concluded the problem is that neither of the customers speaks English very well. Since I can’t hear what is being said at the counter, I can only assume he’s reached that conclusion because both of them are not white, quite possibly born overseas. “You’d think after all these years,” he says, “they’d learn to speak the language.” It’s clear instantly where he’s coming from. I have no intention of feeding his prejudices. I counter, noting that my grandparents who came from Europe never learned English, even after living in the U.S. for decades. Still, l opt for a diversion at this point and mention that these days your mobile Smart Phone can translate for you. He’s heard about this and seems impressed how, with technology, we can overcome language barriers.
Inexplicably I am now informed that he installs windows. Moreover, he recently completed several big jobs – 20-30 new windows, big bucks involved. That’s followed by a complaint. “The guy never tipped me. Big expensive house, rich people, but they’re cheap. Maybe that’s how come they’re rich,” he tells me. He then mentions another “big job” where he got a $5 tip. “I gave it back, told him he needed it more than I did!”
He’s likely concluded that I’m a good listener so he moves on to another sore subject. Someone, he complains, has messed with his computer; insisted he pay them before they’d clear things up. “I hear the Pakistanis are doing this sort of thing.”
The good news is it’s now his turn and he moves to the counter to discuss his “tech” problem. Who knows what else he would likely have revealed to me. Even so, in the space of just a few minutes he had already unburdened himself, disclosed a series of grievances that lay just below the surface, and that he felt little hesitation sharing. He had, I sensed, identified me as a fellow “white man” (everyone else in our immediate area was non-white), assumed I’d understand and sympathize with his views.
Few today question the presence of working class discontent. Millions of Americans sensing a loss of status feel neglected and trapped having experienced little or no improvement in their lives. In this instance the fellow managed in practically no time, and almost automatically, to disparage and scapegoat colored people, the wealthy and foreigners. For him there was little doubt that he’d become a victim. Can we assume he was speaking for countless other disgruntled Americans?
Had our wait on line been longer could I have encouraged him to reconsider some of his views? Could I have challenged certain of his “truths” or been able to “reason” with him?
Because time ran out it didn’t happen. I imagine he concluded either that I agreed with him or that he’d been sufficiently persuasive, got me to thinking as he did. But clearly minds did not change; they rarely do in such circumstances. Just how to bridge this great divide remains the supreme challenge of our day.

TIME AND AGAIN
Even those reasonably well informed about U.S. history will admit to large knowledge gaps for the period 1865-1900. The years before and after have attracted far more attention and analysis. There won’t be a large audience for The Republic for Which it Stands, Richard White’s massive, nearly 900 page account of this period. Accordingly I assumed the challenge and thus can summarize for those interested. What struck me was the consistently bleak picture he presents for those years, an age which, after all, featured westward expansion, significant industrial developments, the growth of major cities and a nation at peace (overseas at least, until 1898). What follows are notable themes of White’s impressive work.
• A succession of brutal massacres of native Americans by the military, as well as civilians. Rarely were women, children or the elderly spared. Government officials cheated them, starved them, lied to them and drove them off their lands. Indians might survive, it was asserted, only if they abandoned their traditional tribal organizations and adopted the ways of white Americans; even so, the public assumed that extinction of the Indians was close at hand.
• Chinese laborers were critical to railroad construction, mining and Western logging. Still, everywhere, they were exploited, paid “Coolie” wages, attacked, murdered, driven off, their residences destroyed. Viewed as hopelessly clannish, there was no place for them in America and so the Chinese became the first group specifically denied further entry into the United States (1882).
• The slaves had been emancipated and blacks in the U.S. attempted to find their footing, aided by the Federal government and sympathetic Northern and Southern whites. Whatever progress resulted, however, gradually was reversed as violent anti-black organizations (KKK, et al) mobilized to murder and intimidate blacks, limit job possibilities and their right to vote. By the end of the period Jim Crow segregation laws had spread across the South, the promise of freedom largely unfulfilled.
• A growing stream of immigrants to our shores left more Americans fearing for the future of the country. The new arrivals were considered to be of a lower order, uneducated, unskilled, slum dwellers, prone to violence and inebriation, and despite notable exceptions, could not be assimilated. Their continued entry into the U.S. and their high birth rates, it was feared, could result in “race suicide” for white America.
• There was widespread and severe suffering among the working classes, now largely wage laborers. Their work commonly required 12 to 14 to 16 hours a day, but even then they endured lengthy periods of unemployment (due to a series of prolonged economic down turns). A majority lived at subsistence levels. Life expectancy fell, infant mortality rose. The height of Americans actually declined in these years. In response workers began organizing and striking in an effort to improve conditions. They succeeded at times, but everywhere encountered fierce resistance from employers and strike breakers, repressive measures from police forces and the military. “Respectable opinion” tended to dismiss the working classes as rabble, Socialists, Anarchists or worse.
• Corruption was widespread and high profile scandals abounded. Corporate leaders manipulated stocks and bonds routinely and found ever willing government officials who, for a price, provided favorable legislation, tariff protection, and subsidies, and directed police forces to suppress strikers. (In 1895, U.S. Supreme Court justice Henry Brown stated that “probably in no country in the world is the influence of wealth more potent than in this, and in no period of our history has it been more powerful than now.”) In the cities political bosses used their power to skim off public funds to enrich themselves and to reward followers.
• Vicious anti-Catholic sentiment was widespread among Protestant Americans, and Roman Catholics were widely viewed as threatening American values and democracy. Often opposition centered on Catholic efforts to obtain public funding for their schools. Furthermore, assaults against Mormons were common, its support of polygamy seen as a direct attack against monogamy and the sanctity of the home. It was an outrage that Brigham Young had married at least fifty five wives, sixteen of whom had given birth to his forty eight children.
• The “thinking classes” bemoaned the state of affairs across America. Their indictment included unprincipled and greedy political leaders, the fecklessness of government, the widening chasm between rich and poor, the dangerous immigrant hordes, the desperate working classes and the violence, real or threatened. Society might advance, but only, they argued, if the fittest survived.
The “good news” here is the reader’s awareness that as the new century dawned an Age of Reform would be ushered in, led by those determined to grapple with some of the major problems outlined above. Progressive men and women would organize, determined to challenge corporate power, official corruption, city bosses, poverty, racism, environmental degradation, the conditions and compensation of labor, etc.
The bad news would seem to be that now, well over a century later, most of the troubling issues back then bear strong resemblance to current, and still unresolved, problems. Despite measurable advances and improvements in the quality of life within our nation, we still witness widespread racism, suspicion of and anger towards immigrants, concentration of wealth, urban blight, religious discrimination, persistent corporate influence over government, corruption at all levels, working class malaise and serious environmental decline. That we’ve come a long way since the Civil War is undeniable, but perhaps that’s in part an illusion inasmuch as we’re still grappling with most all of the problems that afflicted our society so many years ago.

CIRCLES OF DEATH
Most of my life I realize has already taken place. Still, I’m hopeful my time won’t run out soon. Both my parents lived ‘til a ripe old age, so it’s possible they’ve passed on what it is that could keep me going. At the same time I can’t but notice that all around me more people are dying than ever before. That’s no surprise since just as I’ve advanced in years so have most of the people I’ve known in my life. Attending many a funeral in recent years has confirmed that fact.
Don’t include me among those who dwell on this state of affairs. I’m not the type who reads the daily obituary section, scanning the names of those who have passed away and, at what age. I do, however, glance at my college’s alumni newsletter and take note of classmates who’ve recently died. Almost every issue gives notice of such ongoing losses.
Deaths affect me and probably most others in similar fashion. Many of us relate to the passing of well-known figures long in the public spotlight. We’d somehow come to rely upon their continued presence, appreciated what they’d come to represent and helped to define formative periods of our life. For me, someone like Jerry Lewis (d. 2017) would be such a representative figure. Or they epitomized a memorable era. Muhammed Ali (d. 2016) surely filled that role. Or like Carl Sagan (d. 1996) and Stephen Hawking (d. 2018) who both enlarged the boundaries of human thought. The deaths of public figures or celebrities rarely leave us grief stricken, but does produce an empty feeling, narrowing our world, reminding us of what once was and will not again be. (Though, now in the era of You Tube, we’re able to bring back many of these celebrated figures. Why mourn Frank Sinatra when we can access so many of his stage performances over the years. Alive or not, we can still thrill to his artistry and presence.)
Then, there are the deaths of those who were acquaintances, parents of friends, former colleagues, people whom we’ve known at some point in our life, including members of organizations to which we belong. We are saddened by news of their passing, especially if their lives were cut short, if their deaths were sudden or unexpected, or if they succumbed to some dreaded ailment or disease. The first of such deaths move and disturb us, but once more and more of them occur, such events become the new “normal.” At this stage you’re attending funeral after funeral, the rituals and procedures, growing familiar. We encounter people from previous funerals – hear the details of the last days of life – express condolences to family members, inject personal anecdotes and recollections of the deceased, listen to prayers, hear family members extol the virtues and achievements of their loved one, discover information about their lives hither unknown, and, if we enter the proper frame of mind, we may find ourselves reflecting upon the arc and direction of our own lives. The funeral over, we return to “life” and its daily rhythms and routines.
Then, there are persons who depart from this earth whose losses create a void, a dull ache, a hurt which recedes only with the passage of time. Good friends, neighbors, colleagues, relationships with all of them of long standing. We mourn the losses, feel sorry for ourselves as our life has been forever diminished. Mortality hits home, encouraging serious self-assessment and reflection. Nonetheless, these periods pass: life goes on. Memories remain, but they do fade, though on occasion conversations, photographs or reminiscences bring back precious details of past relationships.
Life ongoing provides the essential antidote to death, even as we face an ever tighter circle of death. The passage of years means more and more funerals will appear on our calendar. We become not insensitive, but rather more fatalistic. All of us inevitably are heading in the same direction to that ultimate destination. Time tables, however, have not been made available.