Monday, January 17, 2022

Marxist Monster?: President Clinton’s Foreign Policy

Marxist Monster?: President Clinton’s Foreign Policy


by Mindy Clegg 3 Quarks Daily


PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat (R) shakes hands with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (L), as U.S. President Bill Clinton stands between them, after the signing of the Israeli-PLO peace accord, at the White House in Washington September 13, 1993. 

In the 1990s, many Republicans fell victim to Clinton derangement syndrome. Georgia Representative Newt Gingrich built a successful career out of this syndrome. The anti-Clinton antipathy had its adherents on the left, too, but for far more reasonable objections grounded in real policy differences. The Clinton administration in the US pioneered the pro-business, neo-liberalism of third way Democratic politics that continues to haunt the party to this day. Despite this, the far right wing of the GOP (now its core) has made the Clintons into Marxist monsters despite a lack of evidence to support this claim. Donald Trump benefited from the irrational hatred of Hillary Clinton in 2016 (and we’ve all been the worse off for it). She carried the blame for some of the unhappy outcomes of her husband’s administration. In the domestic sphere, we have seen a push further right on social and economic issues. The Clinton foreign policy has largely been rejected, too, as it was focused on multilaterialism and a continuation of George HW Bush’s New World Order concept. The Clinton foreign policy was built on an optimism that America need not do much as the ultimate victor of the Cold War. If the past 22 years have been dominated by terrorism, entrenchment of neo-liberalism (and resistance to it), and subsequent economic instability, the 1990s were a time of uncertainty but also hope that most of our international problems were solved. That turned out to be a false hope.

Many people believe—sans evidence—that Bill Clinton’s administration pursued a far left agenda, an article of faith in the Culture Wars. At Buzzfeed, Alessa Dominquez argued that the culture wars aren’t “real” in sense of having a two-way conflict. Rather, demands for greater rights in public life and for more accurate depictions in the media by historically marginalized groups in American life are often purposefully misconstrued as an attack on “traditional” Americans (meaning white, middle class, Christian, especially men). In schools, the teaching of accurate history with regards to race and the push for greater inclusion of LGBQT+ youths have been met with not just outright hostility, but in some cases threats of violence. Although not always mentioned, this reaction grew out of years of attacks on the supposedly ultra-far left couple. There is little to support for that notion that Bill Clinton’s administration aimed to dismantle “traditional” family structures (traditional since the 1950s, maybe). But the right wing of the GOP needed a scapegoat to deflect from their lack of constructive policy positions outside of tax cuts and white grievance politics. Despite claims to the contrary, the Clinton administration consistently embraced the hard middle. From the mid-90s, as historian Steve Gillon argued, compromise became anathema to the GOP’s goal of complete and total victory. That it excited the base and drove contributions helped make this their central strategy. That it excited the base and drove contributions helped make this their central strategy. Such political machinations opened the door for a candidate like Trump. A whole generation of Republican partisans grew up with scorched-earth rhetoric in their politics. Trump capitalized on the already divisive culture wars, bringing in much more explicitly white supremacist threads. This has opened up a pathway to authoritarianism as Jason Stanley recently argued.

Most focus on the domestic sphere when discussing the extreme right wing reaction to the Clinton administration. We can draw a straight line from Gingrich’s language that demonized the Clintons as far left and the “lock her up” chanting at former President Trump’s rallies (a reference to Hillary Clinton’s supposed corruption as First Lady and then as a politician in her own right). But the Clinton administration in the 1990s did not promote far left policies and were likely no more corruption than their contemporaries. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell turned out to be a step backwards for gay rights in the US military. Additionally, the administration’s focus on crime rates and the promotion of the super-predator narrative helped drive the rise of the massive prison-industrial complex which we’re still grappling with today. President Clinton’s administration also downplayed their pro-choice position, using the slogan “safe, legal, and rare,” even as Clinton did have a solid record of promoting access to reproductive care. The Clinton administration also tracked right on economic issues. They supported Republican-led efforts to reform welfare benefits and pushed for free trade policies with our closest neighbors in the NAFTA treaty, widely opposed by labor unions. Because of these and other policies many on the left have strongly critiqued third way Democratic politics. Historians like Immanuel Wallerstein argued that President Clinton’s policies unleashed the destructive power of neo-liberalism by helping to reinforce a race to the bottom and facilitating a new wave of off-shoring. In the face of this criticism, Hillary Clinton tracked left for her own presidential runs, but she still rests solidly in the middle. But the myth that Bill and Hillary Clinton are far to the left persists.

But how about on foreign policy? What impact did the first full administration after the fall of the Berlin Wall have on the post-Cold War world? President Clinton inherited a hopeful, yet fluid situation in world politics. Not long before he won the presidency, the Soviet Union dissolved. New governments were forming across Eastern Europe and new members were looking join both NATO and the EU. But all was not well in world affairs, either. Yugoslavia descended into a series of protracted and genocidal conflicts. Clinton also inherited the US-led intervention in the Somali civil war from the previous administration of George HW Bush. Acts of terrorism (both domestic and abroad) grew in intensity. The irregular conflict in Northern Ireland continued, as did tensions in the Middle East. The Rwandian genocide also happened during the Clinton years with many criticizing the administrations actions as these acts of genocide unfolded. Perhaps these struggles and the fluidity of the situation drove President Clinton to try for the role of a peacemaker during his presidency. His diplomatic initiatives appeared successful on the surface, but some of that does not hold up entirely under a harsh light.

Three particular initiatives that the Clinton administration involved itself during the 1990s illustrate the level of hope of the era and the missed opportunities to remake the world. First, was the now-failed Oslo accords that hammered out a path for peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In 1991, the US and Soviet Union along with the government of Spain sought to revive the peace process in the Middle East at a conference in Madrid. This began after the first Gulf War, where President Bush attempted to spend America’s political capital from that victory on the Middle East peace effort. Little came of it, except promises for bi and multi-lateral negotiations later, taken up by the government of Yithzak Rabin in 1991. But scholars argued that the “symbolic importance” of the Madrid talks mattered, opening up the possibility of further peace initiatives.1 It led directly to the Oslo Accords, secret negotiations overseen by representatives of Norway between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The American government only got involved at the later stages and ended up with little ability to put pressure on either side, according to the State Department’s own website. Once they did—such as their attempt to mediate between Israel and Syria over Golan—things quickly ran aground. At the time, most agreed that the signing of the original accords between the Rabin and Yassar Arafat represented progress as both sides agreed to recognize the other. The negotiations were really a collective effort of the international community that the Americans only swooped in to claim later. Some point to the Clinton administrations support of successively hard line Israeli governments as undermining any successes for Oslo. Even so, there was a real moment of hope for a true peace in a troubled region.

The Clinton administration had to deal with the Yugoslav wars during the 1990s. The Dayton Accords ended the genocidal conflict in Bosnia and created the structure of the modern Bosnia and Herzegovina state. The agreement balanced power between the ethnic groups in the small Balkan country. The assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke held the first negotiations in regional capitals, with the final discussions being held on a US military base in Ohio. The initial agreement brought praise for bringing the conflict to a conclusion.2 But many have since noted real problems of the framework. The end of 2021 saw a rise in tensions in Bosnia, as the Bosniak Serb leader Milorad Dodik threatened to drop out of the government structure created by the Dayton Accords.

The last major diplomatic victory of the era was made in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement of 1998 (also known as the Belfast Agreement) mostly ended the decades-long irregular conflict there. This particular piece of diplomacy has proven to be the most long-lasting and robust agreement of the Clinton era. The structure gave Northern Ireland greater ties to the Republic of Ireland while re-configuring the relationship between the UK and the Republic. The current American President Joe Biden was among a group of senators pushing for greater American involvement in trying to solve the Troubles since the 1980s. As head of the Judiciary committee, he used his influence to push the Clinton administration to embrace the process in the late 1990s. The negotiations were primarily between the British government, the Unionists, the Republicans, and the Republic of Ireland, beginning with a ceasefire in 1994. President Clinton sent Senator George Mitchell to chair the discussions. Labour came into power in the UK in 1997, things hit high gear, according to The Independent. This extraordinary agreement gave a way forward in changing circumstances—while a majority of citizens of Northern Ireland in 1998 did not want to join the Republic of Ireland, if at some point in the future, people changed their minds, a vote can be held that the UK promised to honor. There continue to be fears that Brexit could end Good Friday, but so far things appear to be holding.

There is little doubt that Clinton administration hoped to build a freer, more peaceful, and more equitable planet in the wake of the seismic changes of the late 1980s and early 1990s. But the policies they inherited and the way in which they constantly sought compromise on key issues for Democratic voters eventually undid that hope by the early 2000s. Following along with the new found logic of the post-Cold War mindset, Bill Clinton led an administration that pursued that course via a neo-liberal agenda that assumed the end of Soviet Empire meant a full vindication for a market-centric society. Their approach fully ignored the still existing contradictions in American life on the axes of class, race, and gender. The over-dependence on the markets to solve America’s internal problems mirrored their lack of willingness to address the roots of various problems in the foreign policy sphere. Good Friday shows us that they could have worked with a deeper focus on the other seemingly intractable conflicts. The Clinton administration coasted on the good will built up by the end of the Cold War. In a fit of “end of history” optimism promoted by Francis Fukuyama in 1989, they assumed that there really was no alternative to capitalism. But I’m reminded of the short story The Space Traders by the late professor Derrick Bell, which called that narrative of inexorable progress into question on the issue of American racism. The American attempt to remake the world in our image during the Clinton era had the same blindness to the facts on the ground. By not digging into the real causes of conflict, the administration lost a real opportunity to change the world into a more sustainable, peaceful place. We live with those consequences today.



Footnotes

1 Harms, G., Ferry, T. (2005), The Palestine-Israel Conflict: A Basic Introduction, Canada: Pluto Press, p. 153.

2 Howard M. Hensel (2017). Sovereignty and the Global Community: The Quest for Order in the International System. Taylor & Francis. p. 208.

Sunday, January 09, 2022

Steve Bannon Is Onto Something

Steve Bannon Is Onto Something

EZRA KLEIN The New York Times

Opinion Columnist

In his 2020 book “Politics Is for Power,” Eitan Hersh, a political scientist at Tufts, sketched a day in the life of many political obsessives in sharp, if cruel, terms.

I refresh my Twitter feed to keep up on the latest political crisis, then toggle over to Facebook to read clickbait news stories, then over to YouTube to see a montage of juicy clips from the latest congressional hearing. I then complain to my family about all the things I don’t like that I have seen.

To Hersh, that’s not politics. It’s what he calls “political hobbyism.” And it’s close to a national pastime. “A third of Americans say they spend two hours or more each day on politics,” he writes. “Of these people, four out of five say that not one minute of that time is spent on any kind of real political work. It’s all TV news and podcasts and radio shows and social media and cheering and booing and complaining to friends and family.”

Real political work, for Hersh, is the intentional, strategic accumulation of power in service of a defined end. It is action in service of change, not information in service of outrage. This distinction is on my mind because, like so many others, I’ve spent the week revisiting the attempted coup of Jan. 6, marinating in my fury toward the Republicans who put fealty toward Donald Trump above loyalty toward country and the few but pivotal Senate Democrats who are proving, day after day, that they think the filibuster more important than the franchise. Let me tell you, the tweets and columns I drafted in my head were searing.

STOP TALKING AND GO AND DO SOMETHING!
But fury is useful only as fuel. We need a Plan B for democracy. Plan A was to pass H.R. 1 and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act. Neither bill, as of now, has a path to President Biden’s desk. I’ve found that you provoke a peculiar anger if you state this, as if admitting the problem were the cause of the problem. I fear denial has left many Democrats stuck on a national strategy with little hope of near-term success. In order to protect democracy, Democrats have to win more elections. And to do that, they need to make sure the country’s local electoral machinery isn’t corrupted by the Trumpist right.

“The people thinking strategically about how to win the 2022 election are the ones doing the most for democracy,” said Daniel Ziblatt, a political scientist at Harvard and one of the authors of “How Democracies Die.” “I’ve heard people saying bridges don’t save democracy — voting rights do. But for Democrats to be in a position to protect democracy, they need bigger majorities.”

There are people working on a Plan B. This week, I half-jokingly asked Ben Wikler, the chairman of the Wisconsin Democratic Party, what it felt like to be on the front lines of protecting American democracy. He replied, dead serious, by telling me what it was like. He spends his days obsessing over mayoral races in 20,000-person towns, because those mayors appoint the city clerks who decide whether to pull the drop boxes for mail-in ballots and small changes to electoral administration could be the difference between winning Senator Ron Johnson’s seat in 2022 (and having a chance at democracy reform) and losing the race and the Senate. Wikler is organizing volunteers to staff phone banks to recruit people who believe in democracy to serve as municipal poll workers, because Steve Bannon has made it his mission to recruit people who don’t believe in democracy to serve as municipal poll workers.

I’ll say this for the right: They pay attention to where the power lies in the American system, in ways the left sometimes doesn’t. Bannon calls this “the precinct strategy,” and it’s working. “Suddenly, people who had never before showed interest in party politics started calling the local G.O.P. headquarters or crowding into county conventions, eager to enlist as precinct officers,” ProPublica reports. “They showed up in states Trump won and in states he lost, in deep-red rural areas, in swing-voting suburbs and in populous cities.”

The difference between those organizing at the local level to shape democracy and those raging ineffectually about democratic backsliding — myself included — remind me of the old line about war: Amateurs talk strategy; professionals talk logistics. Right now, Trumpists are talking logistics.

“We do not have one federal election,” said Amanda Litman, a co-founder of Run for Something, which helps first-time candidates learn about the offices they can contest and helps them mount their campaigns. “We have 50 state elections and then thousands of county elections. And each of those ladder up to give us results. While Congress can write, in some ways, rules or boundaries for how elections are administered, state legislatures are making decisions about who can and can’t vote. Counties and towns are making decisions about how much money they’re spending, what technology they’re using, the rules around which candidates can participate.”

An NPR analysis found 15 Republicans running for secretary of state in 2022 who doubt the legitimacy of Biden’s win. In Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, the incumbent Republican secretary of state who stood fast against Trump’s pressure, faces two primary challengers who hold that Trump was 2020’s rightful winner. Trump has endorsed one of them, Representative Jody Hice. He’s also endorsed candidates for secretary of state in Arizona and Michigan who backed him in 2020 and stand ready to do so in 2024. As NPR dryly noted, “The duties of a state secretary of state vary, but in most cases, they are the state’s top voting official and have a role in carrying out election laws.”

Nor is it just secretaries of state. “Voter suppression is happening at every level of government here in Georgia,” Representative Nikema Williams, who chairs the Georgia Democratic Party, told me. “We have 159 counties, and so 159 different ways boards of elections are elected and elections are carried out. So we have 159 different leaders who control election administration in the state. We’ve seen those boards restrict access by changing the number of ballot boxes. Often, our Black members on these boards are being pushed out.”

America’s confounding political structure creates two mismatches that bedevil democracy’s would-be defenders. The first mismatch is geographic. Your country turns on elections held in Georgia and Wisconsin, and if you live in California or New York, you’re left feeling powerless.

But that’s somewhere between an illusion and a cop-out. A constant complaint among those working to win these offices is that progressives donate hundreds of millions to presidential campaigns and long-shot bids against top Republicans, even as local candidates across the country are starved for funds.

“Democratic major donors like to fund the flashy things,” Litman told me. “Presidential races, Senate races, super PACs, TV ads. Amy McGrath can raise $90 million to run against Mitch McConnell in a doomed race, but the number of City Council and school board candidates in Kentucky who can raise what they need is …” She trailed off in frustration.

The second mismatch is emotional. If you’re frightened that America is sliding into authoritarianism, you want to support candidates, run campaigns and donate to causes that directly focus on the crisis of democracy. But few local elections are run as referendums on Trump’s big lie. They’re about trash pickup and bond ordinances and traffic management and budgeting and disaster response.

Lina Hidalgo ran for county judge in Harris County, Texas, after the 2016 election. Trump’s campaign had appalled her, and she wanted to do something. “I learned about this position that had flown under the radar for a very long time,” she told me. “It was the type of seat that only ever changed who held it when the incumbent died or was convicted of a crime. But it controls the budget for the county. Harris County is nearly the size of Colorado in population, larger than 28 states. It’s the budget for the hospital system, roads, bridges, libraries, the jail. And part of that includes funding the electoral system.”

Hidalgo didn’t campaign as a firebrand progressive looking to defend Texas from Trump. She won it, she told me, by focusing on what mattered most to her neighbors: the constant flooding of the county, as violent storms kept overwhelming dilapidated infrastructure. “I said, ‘Do you want a community that floods year after year?’” She won, and after she won, she joined with her colleagues to spend $13 million more on election administration and to allow residents to vote at whichever polling place was convenient for them on Election Day, even if it wasn’t the location they’d been assigned.

Protecting democracy by supporting county supervisors or small-town mayors — particularly ones who fit the politics of more conservative communities — can feel like being diagnosed with heart failure and being told the best thing to do is to double-check your tax returns and those of all your neighbors.

“If you want to fight for the future of American democracy, you shouldn’t spend all day talking about the future of American democracy,” Wikler said. “These local races that determine the mechanics of American democracy are the ventilation shaft in the Republican death star. These races get zero national attention. They hardly get local attention. Turnout is often lower than 20 percent. That means people who actually engage have a superpower. You, as a single dedicated volunteer, might be able to call and knock on the doors of enough voters to win a local election.”

Or you can simply win one yourself. That’s what Gabriella Cázares-Kelly did. Cázares-Kelly, a member of the Tohono O’odham Nation, agreed to staff a voter registration booth at the community college where she worked, in Pima County, Ariz. She was stunned to hear the stories of her students. “We keep blaming students for not participating, but it’s really complicated to get registered to vote if you don’t have a license, the nearest D.M.V. is an hour and a half away and you don’t own a car,” she told me.

Cázares-Kelly learned that much of the authority over voter registration fell to an office neither she nor anyone around her knew much about: the County Recorder’s Office, which has authority over records ranging from deeds to voter registrations. It had powers she’d never considered. It could work with the postmaster’s office to put registration forms in tribal postal offices — or not. When it called a voter to verify a ballot and heard an answering machine message in Spanish, it could follow up in Spanish — or not.

“I started contacting the records office and making suggestions and asking questions,” Cázares-Kelly said. “I did that for a long time, and the previous recorder was not very happy about it. I called so often, the staff began to know me. I didn’t have an interest in running till I heard the previous recorder was going to retire, and then my immediate thought was, ‘What if a white supremacist runs?’”

So in 2020, Cázares-Kelly ran, and she won. Now she’s the county recorder for a jurisdiction with nearly a million people, and more than 600,000 registered voters, in a swing state. “One thing I was really struck by when I first started getting involved in politics is how much power there is in just showing up to things,” she said. “If you love libraries, libraries have board meetings. Go to the public meeting. See where they’re spending their money. We’re supposed to be participating. If you want to get involved, there’s always a way.”

Being angry but never getting off the couch is a wasted life. David A Fairbanks



Saturday, January 08, 2022

How Peter Bogdanovich Shaped the Backstory of Modern Cinema

How Peter Bogdanovich Shaped the Backstory of Modern Cinema


One of the most original directors of New Hollywood, Bogdanovich was also a critic who expanded our cinephilic heritage.



By Richard Brody The New Yorker


Even if Peter Bogdanovich, who died on Thursday, at the age of eighty-two, had never exposed a frame of film as a director, he’d be one of the history-making heroes of the world of movies. Bogdanovich, born in 1939, grew up in Manhattan as a precocious adolescent cinephile. In 1961, at the absurdly young age of twenty-one, he organized the first-ever American retrospective of Orson Welles’s films, at the Museum of Modern Art, and wrote a monograph about the director’s work. He did the same, at the same museum, the following year with the films of Howard Hawks, and, in 1963, with Alfred Hitchcock. These screenings, along with the symbolism of the entry into the museum’s ranks of three of the greatest filmmakers who were also Hollywood directors—and who were still working at the time—were something of a slow-motion coming-out party for the notion of Hollywood as a hotbed of directorial artistry.

It’s hard to imagine how peculiar that idea seemed then, how controversial it was, at a time when most prominent critics made a hard-and-fast distinction between art films made in Europe (or independently in the U.S.) and commercial films made in Hollywood. The notion that Hollywood harbored a handful of movie artists of the first rank, the equals of any directors anywhere, had begun to take hold in France a decade earlier, influencing a young generation of filmmakers—the French New Wave—whose work was then beginning to show up here. In the early nineteen-sixties, Bogdanovich’s curatorial and critical efforts gave practical impetus to ideas also expressed by a few other far-seeing American critics, principally Andrew Sarris and Eugene Archer. Bogdanovich made it possible for people in New York to see firsthand what they were talking about, and the critical mass of these newly acknowledged classics inspired a new generation of young American filmmakers to approach the art in a new way—with a self-conscious attention to the history of cinema, and of Hollywood. Among them were a pair of screenwriters, Robert Benton and David Newman, who, in 1963, were working on a script. As Benton told me in 2004, “Bogdanovich was in the process of doing his monograph on Hitchcock; so he’d call us, and say, 3 P.M., ‘Rope’; we’d see the film, and then we went back and worked on the script.” The film they were writing was “Bonnie and Clyde.”

Bogdanovich was more than a precocious programmer. He was a precocious artist whose early activity in the theatre (studying acting with Stella Adler at sixteen, directing an Off Broadway production of “The Big Knife,” by Clifford Odets, at twenty) foreshadowed his cinematic vocation. He started a journalistic career writing about films and filmmakers, and, in 1964, he and his first wife, Polly Platt, went to Hollywood in order to have greater access to his heroes of the industry. He was soon recruited by the low-budget producer Roger Corman, first to write scripts, then to direct. His second dramatic feature, “The Last Picture Show,” from 1971, catapulted him to the forefront of the industry—it was critically acclaimed, it was a huge commercial success, and it received eight Oscar nominations (including for Best Picture and Best Director, the screenplay, and the cinematography, as well as two each for supporting actors and actresses), winning two (for the performances of Cloris Leachman and Ben Johnson). But the best was yet to come.

Bogdanovich’s directorial artistry reached its zenith in a trio of even more stylized films. The first of them, the comedy “What’s Up, Doc?,” from 1972, starring Barbra Streisand and Ryan O’Neal, reflected Bogdanovich’s cinephilic passion in its wildly imaginative variation on Hawks’s “Bringing Up Baby,” amplified by mighty set pieces of comedic catastrophe in the manner of Buster Keaton. The other two are films of a sui-generis originality, in which Bogdanovich’s lifelong self-administered studies in cinematic classicism yielded two period pieces of a daring, exemplary modernism and an exquisite sense of style. First came “Daisy Miller,” an adaptation of the novella by Henry James, starring Cybill Shepherd, in which bold and filigreed choreographic figures for actors and camera alike reflect the intricate subjectivity of James’s writing, and in which the performances by Shepherd, Barry Brown, Leachman, Mildred Natwick, and Eileen Brennan, with their arch diction and precise gestures, incarnate the rarefied comedy of manners lurking within James’s tale of tragic passion. Then, in one of the most audaciously conceived and meticulously crafted Hollywood films of the time, “At Long Last Love,” a musical set in the nineteen-thirties that tells its romantic story by means of nearly wall-to-wall performances of songs by Cole Porter, starring the quartet of Shepherd, Madeline Kahn, Duilio Del Prete, and Burt Reynolds, Bogdanovich realized a fusion of Hollywood classics and art-house styles that also endows cream-puff confection and raucous humor with an air of bitter melancholy.

Before Michael Cimino’s “Heaven’s Gate,” before Elaine May’s “Ishtar,” there was the scandal of “At Long Last Love,” which the critics of the time heaven’s-gated, leaving Bogdanovich ishtarred and feathered. It wasn’t just that this big-budget, big-star film by a big-name director was being assailed by critics for its audacity and grand ambitions; Bogdanovich was also assailed for the daring, idiosyncratic originality of his art. Even more, he was derided—as Cimino would be, a few years later, for “Heaven’s Gate,” and as Elaine May would be, a decade later, for “Ishtar”—for bending studio filmmaking to a personal vision, for working in a mainstream studio with mainstream actors to wrench his movie outside the creative norms of the mainstream.

Though Bogdanovich’s career continued, and he had both some artistic successes (“They All Laughed,” “The Cat’s Meow”) and some commercial ones (“Mask”), he never again reached the heights of individualistic style or comprehensive originality of that nineteen-seventies trio. (Tad Friend’s 2002 profile of Bogdanovich in The New Yorker details the painful, tragic story of Bogdanovich’s decades of personal and professional difficulties, starting in the mid-seventies.) On the other hand, Bogdanovich remained, throughout his life, as crucial an activist on behalf of the cinephilic heritage as he’d been in his youth. His first film, from 1967, is a documentary about Hawks that he co-directed, and soon thereafter he made one about John Ford; his last, from 2018, is a documentary about Buster Keaton. He continued his journalistic activities, compiling his interviews from the sixties and seventies with directors from Hollywood’s classic age in a magisterial 1997 book, “Who the Devil Made It.” He did an entire book of interviews with Ford, another with Fritz Lang, and a third, with Allan Dwan (one of the least-known of the greatest Hollywood directors), that’s one of the most stimulating books of film-related interviews I’ve read. Bogdanovich’s extended interview with Hitchcock, from 1963, is a more illuminating document than François Truffaut’s celebrated book of interviews with him from the same era.

Bogdanovich’s most extensive and profound expansion of the cinephilic heritage reaches back even further into his own background, and it connects with his primal training and work as an actor. Bogdanovich has told the story himself: in 1968, seven years after the MOMA retrospective, Orson Welles appreciatively got in touch and suggested that Bogdanovich do a book-length set of interviews with him like the one that Bogdanovich had just done with Ford. The resulting book, “This Is Orson Welles” (which took a winding path to publication, in 1992, seven years after Welles’s death), is a classic of the literature of movies.

Yet this monumental book isn’t the sum, or even the summit, of Bogdanovich’s collaboration with Welles. In 1970, Welles got to work on a new film, which he partly self-financed, titled “The Other Side of the Wind,” and, as the production advanced and evolved, he cast Bogdanovich in a leading role, that of a celebrated young director with a devoted yet ironic relationship to a declining older director (played by John Huston). In the course of their friendship, Bogdanovich tried to get Welles back into Hollywood and get financing for movies, albeit without success. After Welles’s death, “The Other Side of the Wind” remained unfinished, and rights to the footage were in dispute. (Alex Ross wrote in The New Yorker about the vagaries of its ultimate completion.) When the business side was ultimately worked out, in 2017, the producers brought Bogdanovich in as part of the team that completed the film. It premièred in 2018, at film festivals, and was released on Netflix, which financed its completion, and in theatres.

With his personal connection to Welles and his critical insight into Welles’s films, Bogdanovich was crucial to achieving the authentically Wellesian feel of the complex editing scheme with which “The Other Side of the Wind” was finished. Even more, Bogdanovich’s deft, mercurially comedic, and un-self-sparingly vulnerable performance in the film would—if the movie had come out in its time—have put Bogdanovich on the map as an actor. The connection of Welles and Bogdanovich has a diabolical symbolic consistency: like Welles, Bogdanovich was a prodigy of the theatre. Like Welles’s, Bogdanovich’s directing career took a major hit while he was in his prime and never quite got back on track. Like Welles, Bogdanovich, in his later years, spent much of his professional time not directing but acting. From 1994 to the end of his life, Bogdanovich did more than forty acting performances, the most famous of which is his recurring role as Dr. Elliot Kupferberg, in “The Sopranos.” Yet perhaps his most vital activity, in those later years, paralleled Welles’s work yet again: Bogdanovich proved to be a crucial mentor and inspiration to several of the best filmmakers of the new generation, notably Wes Anderson and Noah Baumbach. (Bogdanovich told Tad Friend, in a Profile of Baumbach in The New Yorker, that both directors called him “Pop.”) It’s easy to recognize echoes of the vulnerable, melancholy intimacy of “The Last Picture Show” in Baumbach’s films, and of Bogdanovich’s conceptualized stylization of grand passion in Anderson’s work.

I had the privilege of acquaintance with Bogdanovich, who got in touch after I’d written about a few of his nineteen-seventies films. We met for coffee and talked about movies, and I’d hear from him every now and then; the last time was about two years ago, when he called to talk about Hawks and Hitchcock and to brainstorm a book project about them. He felt that he hadn’t given voice to many of the critical ideas that he’d harbored and pondered for decades, and was hoping to find a context in which to develop them. It’s a grievous loss that, as far as I know, he didn’t do so, and the current movie-scape is the poorer for it—as it is for the early truncation of Bogdanovich’s directorial career, the stifling of the furthest extremes of his imaginative inspirations.

I find a peculiar historical pathos in the rise and fall of Bogdanovich’s career: a quintessential New Yorker, he moved to California and launched his studio career as if the Hollywood of Hawks and Ford and Hitchcock still existed. It didn’t, and he both helped to expand the world of the studios into so-called New Hollywood and experienced its snapback in the era of “Jaws” and “Star Wars.” What he didn’t do was to make films as an independent; he remained tethered to the studio system, even when it became inhospitable. (Another great New York-raised director who made his career in Hollywood, Francis Ford Coppola, also found himself ejected from the studios while still in his prime.) By contrast, the New Yorker Martin Scorsese, who’s only three years younger than Bogdanovich, came of age in a New York-centered cinemascape that Bogdanovich’s own obsessions had shaped, and Scorsese’s formative years as an independent filmmaker, his consistent hold on the notion and practice, are in some measure responsible for the self-renewing agility and latter-day reënergizing of his career. It’s that New York-centric movie world—of independent, director-centered, director-inspired filmmaking—to which Bogdanovich helped give birth, and part of his tragedy is that he only observed it from afar rather than partaking in it and flourishing in it. In any case, this crucial ground of the modern cinema bears the mark of Bogdanovich’s genius.

Saturday, January 01, 2022

Every Day Is Jan. 6 Now

THE NYT EDITORIAL BOARD

Every Day Is Jan. 6 Now

By The Editorial Board

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.

One year after from the smoke and broken glass, the mock gallows and the very real bloodshed of that awful day, it is tempting to look back and imagine that we can, in fact, simply look back. To imagine that what happened on Jan. 6, 2021 — a deadly riot at the seat of American government, incited by a defeated president amid a last-ditch effort to thwart the transfer of power to his successor — was horrifying but that it is in the past and that we as a nation have moved on.

This is an understandable impulse. After four years of chaos, cruelty and incompetence, culminating in a pandemic and the once-unthinkable trauma of Jan. 6, most Americans were desperate for some peace and quiet.

On the surface, we have achieved that. Our political life seems more or less normal these days, as the president pardons turkeys and Congress quarrels over spending bills. But peel back a layer, and things are far from normal. Jan. 6 is not in the past; it is every day.

It is regular citizens who threaten election officials and other public servants, who ask, “When can we use the guns?” and who vow to murder politicians who dare to vote their conscience. It is Republican lawmakers scrambling to make it harder for people to vote and easier to subvert their will if they do. It is Donald Trump who continues to stoke the flames of conflict with his rampant lies and limitless resentments and whose twisted version of reality still dominates one of the nation’s two major political parties.

In short, the Republic faces an existential threat from a movement that is openly contemptuous of democracy and has shown that it is willing to use violence to achieve its ends. No self-governing society can survive such a threat by denying that it exists. Rather, survival depends on looking back and forward at the same time.

Truly grappling with the threat ahead means taking full account of the terror of that day a year ago. Thanks largely to the dogged work of a bipartisan committee in the House of Representatives, this reckoning is underway. We know now that the violence and mayhem broadcast live around the world was only the most visible and visceral part of the effort to overturn the election. The effort extended all the way into the Oval Office, where Mr. Trump and his allies plotted a constitutional self-coup.

We know now that top Republican lawmakers and right-wing media figures privately understood how dangerous the riot was and pleaded with Mr. Trump to call a halt to it, even as they publicly pretended otherwise. We know now that those who may have critical information about the planning and execution of the attack are refusing to cooperate with Congress, even if it means being charged with criminal contempt.

For now, the committee’s work continues. It has scheduled a series of public hearings in the new year to lay out these and other details, and it plans to release a full report of its findings before the midterm elections — after which, should Republicans regain control of the House as expected, the committee will undoubtedly be dissolved.

This is where looking forward comes in. Over the past year, Republican lawmakers in 41 states have been trying to advance the goals of the Jan. 6 rioters — not by breaking laws but by making them. Hundreds of bills have been proposed and nearly three dozen laws have been passed that empower state legislatures to sabotage their own elections and overturn the will of their voters, according to a running tally by a nonpartisan consortium of pro-democracy organizations.

Some bills would change the rules to make it easier for lawmakers to reject the votes of their citizens if they don’t like the outcome. Others replace professional election officials with partisan actors who have a vested interest in seeing their preferred candidate win. Yet more attempt to criminalize human errors by election officials, in some cases even threatening prison.

Many of these laws are being proposed and passed in crucial battleground states like Arizona, Wisconsin, Georgia and Pennsylvania. In the aftermath of the 2020 election, the Trump campaign targeted voting results in all these states, suing for recounts or intimidating officials into finding “missing” votes. The effort failed, thanks primarily to the professionalism and integrity of election officials. Many of those officials have since been stripped of their power or pushed out of office and replaced by people who openly say the last election was fraudulent.

Thus the Capitol riot continues in statehouses across the country, in a bloodless, legalized form that no police officer can arrest and that no prosecutor can try in court.

This isn’t the first time state legislatures have tried to wrest control of electoral votes from their own people, nor is it the first time that the dangers of such a ploy have been pointed out. In 1891, President Benjamin Harrison warned Congress of the risk that such a “trick” could determine the outcome of a presidential election.

The Constitution guarantees to all Americans a republican form of government, Harrison said. “The essential features of such a government are the right of the people to choose their own officers” and to have their votes counted equally in making that choice. “Our chief national danger,” he continued, is “the overthrow of majority control by the suppression or perversion of popular suffrage.” If a state legislature were to succeed in substituting its own will for that of its voters, “it is not too much to say that the public peace might be seriously and widely endangered.”

A healthy, functioning political party faces its electoral losses by assessing what went wrong and redoubling its efforts to appeal to more voters the next time. The Republican Party, like authoritarian movements the world over, has shown itself recently to be incapable of doing this. Party leaders’ rhetoric suggests they see it as the only legitimate governing power and thus portrays anyone else’s victory as the result of fraud — hence the foundational falsehood that spurred the Jan. 6 attack, that Joe Biden didn’t win the election.

“The thing that’s most concerning is that it has endured in the face of all evidence,” said Representative Adam Kinzinger, one of the vanishingly few Republicans in Congress who remain committed to empirical reality and representative democracy. “And I’ve gotten to wonder if there is actually any evidence that would ever change certain people’s minds.”

The answer, for now, appears to be no. Polling finds that the overwhelming majority of Republicans believe that President Biden was not legitimately elected and that about one-third approve of using violence to achieve political goals. Put those two numbers together, and you have a recipe for extreme danger.

Political violence is not an inevitable outcome. Republican leaders could help by being honest with their voters and combating the extremists in their midst. Throughout American history, party leaders, from Abraham Lincoln to Margaret Chase Smith to John McCain, have stood up for the union and democracy first, to their everlasting credit.

Democrats aren’t helpless, either. They hold unified power in Washington, for the last time in what may be a long time. Yet they have so far failed to confront the urgency of this moment — unwilling or unable to take action to protect elections from subversion and sabotage. Blame Senator Joe Manchin or Senator Kyrsten Sinema, but the only thing that matters in the end is whether you get it done. For that reason, Mr. Biden and other leading Democrats should make use of what remaining power they have to end the filibuster for voting rights legislation, even if nothing else.

Whatever happens in Washington, in the months and years to come, Americans of all stripes who value their self-government must mobilize at every level — not simply once every four years but today and tomorrow and the next day — to win elections and help protect the basic functions of democracy. If people who believe in conspiracy theories can win, so can those who live in the reality-based world.

Above all, we should stop underestimating the threat facing the country. Countless times over the past six years, up to and including the events of Jan. 6, Mr. Trump and his allies openly projected their intent to do something outrageous or illegal or destructive. Every time, the common response was that they weren’t serious or that they would never succeed. How many times will we have to be proved wrong before we take it seriously? The sooner we do, the sooner we might hope to salvage a democracy that is in grave danger.


 

Tuesday, December 28, 2021

Desmond Tutu Opposed Capitalism, Israeli Apartheid and US/UK Imperialism, Too

Desmond Tutu Opposed Capitalism, Israeli Apartheid and US/UK Imperialism, Too


BY DAVID ROVICS Counterpunch


This may sound either arrogant or forgetful, but I could not possibly remember the number of times I was in the same room or at the same protest as Desmond Tutu. And the main reason I know he was there is because I was there listening to him speak, often from a distance of not more than two meters or so. I say this not to associate myself with the great man — though I’ll forgive you for thinking I’m a terrible, narcissistic name-dropper — but just to be sure we all know this all really happened, because I saw and heard it.

It seems very important to mention, because of the way this man is already being remembered by the world’s pundits and politicians. As anyone could have predicted, Tutu is being remembered as the great opponent of apartheid in his native South Africa, who was one of the most recognized and most eloquent leaders of the anti-apartheid struggle there, for most of his adult life.

Being a leader in the movement to end apartheid in South Africa was probably the greatest achievement of the man’s life work, and it should come as a surprise to no one that this is the focus of his many obituaries, along with the Nobel he was awarded in 1984. After Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assassination, he was remembered by the establishment in much the same way, as a leader of the movement against apartheid in the US. The fact that he had become one of the most well-known and well-loved voices of the antiwar movement in the United States and around the world at the time of his death has largely been written out of the history books, a very inconvenient truth.

But as with Martin Luther King, many of the same political leaders commemorating Tutu today would have been unlikely to mention him a day earlier, lest Tutu take the opportunity to speak his mind. This is certainly why he was not invited to commemorate his friend and comrade, Nelson Mandela, at Mandela’s funeral eight years ago.

Like King and so many others, we can be sure that all the praises of Desmond Tutu as the great moral compass of the world will be made safely, after he’s dead. Before then would have been much too dangerous, and he was best ignored until then — at which point his passing can be used as an easy way for liberals and conservatives alike to talk about how they also opposed South African apartheid, eventually.

Looking back at Desmond Tutu’s life, searching for various references to protests I recall him speaking at, there’s a headline from the Washington Post on February 16th, 2003 — “thousands protest a war in Iraq,” in New York City the day before. There were at least half a million people at the rally, on one of the coldest winter days anyone could remember. What I recall most vividly is being behind the stage, which was even colder than most anywhere else at the protest, because it was also in the shade. Huddling amid the frozen metal scaffolding were a variety of leftwing luminaries, including Desmond Tutu, Danny Glover, and Susan Serandon, who were getting all the attention from the media, allowing me to hang out with Pete and Toshi Seeger, since no one else wanted to talk to them, or me.

The following year there was a rally in Copley Square in Boston, Massachusetts against Israeli apartheid. It was very windy, and there were hundreds of people filling the area in front of the big church there on Boylston Street. I don’t remember who else spoke, but Tutu was the main speaker, and he spoke at length, after I sang “They’re Building A Wall” and other songs related to the anti-apartheid struggle in Palestine, as it was an event in solidarity with Palestinians. Being such a well-known leader in the struggle against South African apartheid, when he would compare Israeli apartheid to the South African version, this was just the kind of support the movement to boycott Israel needed, and Tutu did his best to provide it, over and over again.

There were three overlapping social movements in the early 2000’s that I was involved with as a musician, all of which Tutu was deeply involved with. I apologize for speaking of these movements in the past tense, but none of them are anywhere near as big or active as they were in the early 2000’s. I’m talking about the global justice movement and the movement to cancel debt in the Global South, the movement against Israeli apartheid, and the movement against the US/UK invasion of Iraq.

At the time I wondered how it was that Desmond Tutu was showing up at so many of the same protests, conferences, and other events I was attending, promoting, or singing at. There was a lot going on, and at the time I didn’t know Tutu was actually living in the United States much of the time in the early 2000’s, as a visiting professor in both Georgia and Massachusetts. There were a lot of other South African radicals at so many of the rallies, especially around the global justice movement, such as representatives of the South African trade unions. The South African poet, the late Dennis Brutus, was everywhere back then as well.

Journalism, they say, is the first draft of history. The journalists, when given the job to cover Desmond Tutu, generally did so when it had something to do with South African apartheid, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which he chaired, etc. The journalists aren’t present elsewhere. Their bosses didn’t send them to cover the protests Tutu was speaking at in Boston or New York, for the most part.

Lots of other drafts of history are then rewritten, for the text books, and for the obituaries, when once again Desmond Tutu’s centrality to the struggle against South African apartheid will be highlighted, with most everything else papered over or ignored entirely. Others will recall Tutu’s service to the global social movements that arose in the decades after apartheid, to which he gave the full weight of his moral standing — whether these movements were covered by the corporate press or not, whether most of us knew these movements existed or not.

Yes, for those of us who were involved with the social movements that were active when Tutu was a spry young man of 70 or so, we will remember him as a fierce critic of capitalism, of Israeli apartheid, and of US and British wars of aggression. And we know why he is being praised now by media outlets and politicians who have had no time or space for him since 1998 or so.

Desmond Tutu failed to remain in his historical place. Had he played his cards differently in the post-South African apartheid period, he could have been a very rich and even more venerated man, winning lots more awards and schmoozing with the world’s power brokers. Instead, before his official retirement from public life at the age of 79, he spent his seventies campaigning around the world as part of social movements for equality, dignity, and peace, and being a thorn in the side of so many of the rich and powerful people praising him today.

Dead people can’t speak out in their own defense, which makes them much less dangerous than when they were alive (especially if they died of natural causes). So it’s up to those of us who are still here to speak, and to remember. Long live Desmond Tutu. Long live Desmond Tutu’s vision of a world free of oppression — a world in which so many of the politicians praising him today would be in front of a truth and reconciliation commission tomorrow, if Tutu were calling the shots.  Our time will come.

David Rovics is a songwriter, podcaster, and part of Portland Emergency Eviction Response. Go to artistsforrentcontrol.org to sign up to receive text notifications, so you can be part of this effort. Another Portland is possible.

Thursday, December 23, 2021

An interview with Jesus

An interview with Jesus

Jonathan Roumie plays Christ in the biggest television series you've never heard of

From Spectator Life  Krish Kandiah

 


Jonathan Roumie as Jesus in The Chosen

It’s Christmas in Paris and Les Champs-Elysees is appropriately adorned. We are, after all, in the so-called Elysian Fields, paradise, heaven on earth. Red illuminated trees line both side of France’s most famous avenue, stars fill the sky and the red carpet is laid out in front of the prestigious Gaumont cinema. The welcome is fit for royalty. And, on cue, Jesus turns up.

Paris may be a far cry from Bethlehem two thousand years ago, but tonight sees a different long-awaited arrival: the French language national television release of the hit series The Chosen and a premiere with the man who plays Jesus –Jonathan Roumie.

This is probably the most successful television show you have never heard of. Over 150 million people have streamed this dramatisation of the life of Jesus, told through the eyes of the disciples. It is the biggest crowd-funded television series in history with fans raising $40 million to cover the production costs of the first two seasons, and a third season is already in credit. Jonathan Roumie has already started to collect awards, as has the director Dallas Jenkins.

Tonight in Paris it’s a game changer. ‘The Chosen’ will air on Canal Plus’s national free to air channel C8 at prime-time over the festive period. As I interview those on the red carpet at the premier screening, everyone I speak to is astounded that Europe’s most secularised nation (40 per cent say that they don’t follow any religion) has agreed to dedicate these highly sought-after television slots to a detailed retelling of the biblical story of Jesus. How has this religious coup-de-grace been made possible? It seems that the controversial billionaire owner of Canal Plus, Vincent Bollore, may have something to do with it. Rumour has it that he has been personally impacted by the story behind the film.

He’s not the only one. Around the world some 2.5 billion people claim to follow Jesus. That’s some pressure on any actor that dares to play him, let alone on the man who stars in the most-watched depiction of his life in the world right now. How does Jonathan Roumie deal with that pressure? He tells me in his humble and self effacing way: 'I pray a lot.' Roumie explains that he is 'excited' about the national release because it is going to allow French people 'to have it available in their own language. I almost prefer the voice of Jesus in French to my own voice.' 

Roumie on set with director Dallas Jenkins

Roumie reminisces on the day he was offered the role. Sat in a flat he could not pay his rent on, out of desperation he began to pray to God. One unexpected phone call later, and Roumie is offered the role to play Jesus, a role that will take his own faith to a whole new level. Now a profoundly convicted Christian, he has since hosted online prayer meetings attended by thousands from around the world.

Secular audiences of The Chosen, Roumie believes, may have a similar awakening: 'What they think they know about Jesus and what he represents is completely at odds with the reality of who he was and what he did. I think they are going to be surprised and deeply touched by what they see. It will really spark curiosity to go deeper into his story.' In a divided and increasingly polarised world still facing the ravages of the pandemic Roumie believes the story of Jesus offers 'consolation, encouragement and hope through the struggle.'

Perhaps this is why Roumie carries the weight of his role so seriously. It is personal to him. Roumie had heard about a 19-year-old young woman who had written a suicide note and had made plans to end her life when, just at that moment someone sent her a link to the show. Starting to watch it changed everything for her. She found 'that her life meant something; that God loved her and a year later she was stood there telling me about it.' It’s stories like this that keep Roumie going. And, with five series still to film, former cast member from Chicago Med and game voiceover artist is going to need the inspiration.

What relevance has Jesus got for our polarised and secularised world? He sees the fact that the show is going out on national French television as not only something of a miracle, but a confirmation that Jesus really does have something to say to people today.

As people exit the theatre on Les Champs-Elysees into the crisp December air, I sense the relief from people who have just seen the show for the first time. They comment that the show is surprisingly engaging, and not the embarrassing piece of proselytising propaganda they half expected. Words like 'human' and 'authentic', are being repeated around me. Viewers have been touched by the fact that Jesus smiles, winks, makes jokes, and speaks in colloquial contemporary language, yet without deviating from the Jesus they know from the New Testament. Back on the red carpet I meet IT workers, priests, law students, teachers, business men, TV producers, film makers, journalists. Although many have some kind of faith others clearly don’t. But they do have one thing in common: they all want a selfie with Jesus.

The first two seasons of The Chosen are currently available in the UK to stream right now free of charge. https://watch.angelstudios.com/thechosen

 

Tuesday, December 21, 2021

What Can People Do To Maintain Brain Health As They Age?

What Can People Do To Maintain Brain Health As They Age?

Rudolph Tanzi: Harvard Magazine


Harvard Medical School professor of neurology Rudolph Tanzi discusses how lifestyle choices can help maintain brain health during a person’s lifespan. Topics include Alzheimer’s disease and other kinds of dementia, the role of genetics and environment in health, and the importance of sleep, exercise, and diet in controlling neuroinflammation.

Jonathan Shaw: Are there steps that people can take to maintain brain health as they age? How much of age-related cognitive decline is attributable to genetics, and how much to factors that people can control? What role does the immune system play in brain health? Welcome to the Harvard Magazine podcast, "Ask a Harvard Professor." I'm Jonathan Shaw. During today's office hours, we'll speak with Rudy Tanzi, the Kennedy professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School. Dr. Tanzi is director of the Genetics and Aging Research Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital, vice chair of neurology and co-director of the McCance Center for Brain Health, as well as the Mass General Institute for Neurodegenerative Disease. He is co-author of The New York Times bestseller, "Super Brain," and more recently, co-author of "The Healing Self." In the scientific community, Professor Tanzi is best known for discovering several genes connected to the development of Alzheimer's disease, including the one that leads to the accumulation of plaques in the brain. In the journal "Nature" in 2014, he and his colleagues published their development of Alzheimer's in a dish, the first brain organoid model, the team proved that amyloid does cause tangles in the human brain. Welcome, Professor Tanzi.

Rudolph Tanzi: Thank you, pleasure to be here.

Jonathan Shaw: Declines in cognitive ability are often described as an inevitable part of aging, and yet some people remain sharp into their 90s and beyond. Is memory loss, an inevitable part of aging?

Rudolph Tanzi: You know, I think memory loss and some diminishing of cognitive abilities, comes along with aging the same way as you know, I can't play basketball anymore with a bunch of kids in Charlestown because my knees won't allow it. You know, things happen, things break down, knees breakdown, joints break down, and the brain starts to break down. All we can do as we get older is figure out how to preserve each organ, each joint, each muscle for a longer time. And that's what we work on at the McCance Center: how do we preserve and promote brain health, and in doing so prevent brain disease? That's our goal.

Jonathan Shaw: And how much of age-related cognitive decline is attributable to genetics, and how much to things that we could control potentially?

Rudolph Tanzi: It's interesting, you know, this is what I wrote about in "Super Genes." And I actually did congressional testimony on it, based on the books that I wrote, which was kind of interesting. And what I told them was, look, if you look at age-related diseases, like heart disease, Alzheimer's, etc., you see a similar pattern. About 5 percent of the genes involved have very hard-hitting mutations—mutations that guarantee the disease, and usually with early onset. And usually those disease genes where you can't do anything about them—they're you know, they're the rare ones—also tell you about the events that pathologically happen earliest in the disease. So, for example, you know, Brown and Goldstein won the Nobel Prize for finding a family with a rare mutation that gave them high cholesterol. And based on that, they proposed cholesterol had something to do with heart disease. And the first genes we found, you know, when I was a student at Harvard, for my doctoral thesis, I found the first Alzheimer's gene. I named it amyloid precursor protein, APP, because it makes amyloid. And the mutations in that gene cause a rare form of early-onset Alzheimer's with certainty, by making too much amyloid in the brain. And just like cholesterol, now we know amyloid is something that occurs in the brain a decade or two or three before symptoms. That's when you have to hit it, just like cholesterol, you can't wait to need to bypass to hit it. You have to hit it earlier. So it's very analogous. Now, if you look at the other genetics of age-related diseases, the other 95 percent, you have genes with variations and mutations that predispose you to the disease, others that actually protect you from the disease, but none of them with certainty, at least not within a normal lifespan. So, you know, if you look at the early-onset Alzheimer genes we found that, you know, have mutations that guarantee the disease by 60 years old. Well, when lifespan was 50, those didn't guarantee disease because you didn't live long enough. And so some of the mutations we know now that predispose you to increased risk for late-onset Alzheimer's, like the APOE4 variant is most common, you know, maybe when lifespan is 120 years old, that will be called completely penetrant. It's going to guarantee the disease because you live long enough. So whenever you think about, does a gene mutation guarantee a disease? You have to think about how long you live, because some might just take longer to give you the disease. But based on how long we live right now, only 5 percent of Alzheimer's genes guarantee the disease, 95 percent only predispose, which means lifestyle has a lot to do with avoiding this disease, which is why I wrote my books, which is why we have the McCance Center, because we want to teach people how to do their best to try to avoid this disease with lifestyle.

Jonathan Shaw: Right? Is there any evidence that these ubiquitous smartphone apps that are supposed to keep our minds limber actually work?

Rudolph Tanzi: You know, no. I mean, these different apps for brain function, you know, I won't mention the names of them, but there are different apps that basically teach you how to focus, right? How to be able to be more alert and focus more. And I think what's good about that is I mean, is that it teaches you how to learn things, right? Because as we get older, we learn less well, right? What does protect the brain is learning new things. When you learn new things, you make new synapses, you strengthen old synapses. And a bottom line is that across neurodegenerative disorders, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, you name it, it's loss of synapses that correlates with the symptoms. So I like to say the more synapses you make, the more you can lose before you lose it. So you have to build up synapses like money in the bank, cognitive reserve, synaptic reserve, that way, you're more resilient. As the brain starts to break down, you have more synapses you can lose before you get into trouble. So learning new things will protect you: a new hobby, a new instrument, a new language, read some nonfiction, you know, just learn something, rather than just being entertained by a TV show or a trashy novel, right? Although that's fine, too, because it helps alleviate stress and that's another big thing you have to do. But in terms of brain games, the best thing they can do is teach you how to focus so you can learn better as you get older, I would say that.

Jonathan Shaw: I see. Now you have shown that education, while a teen I guess, actually can have an impact on brain health when you're much older, is that right?

Rudolph Tanzi: Well, you know, the more education you have, the more synapses you're building up your whole life. It's more money in the bank. Picture, you have so much money saved up and now you retire and now you're, you're spending money, well, you're going to last longer if you have more money saved up. It's the same thing with synapses. The more synapses you save up, as you get planning for retirement, the more you can lose before you get into trouble. So education, learning new things. But the other thing about education is it teaches you also how to take care of yourself better. You know, part of education, it might not even be causative, it might just be association, rather, you know, a correlation rather than causation. But if you're educated, you're more likely to be paying attention to what you need to do to take care of your body and brain. And so in some cases, education might protect you against Alzheimer's simply because that places you in a particular category of a type of person who may spend more time on health than somebody who didn't have that privilege and benefit of living somewhere where education and higher education was normal, and taking care of your health was a normal thing to think about. So you have to think about the correlation versus causation here as well.

Jonathan Shaw: Maybe we could talk about some of those specifics. What is the relationship between depression and brain health?

Rudolph Tanzi: Well, you know, it's, it's a chicken and an egg question there, you know, because as you get older, and your brain may not be working as well, or you might have some brain fog as we call it, like you get with post-COVID in some folks, the frustration, the agitation, even at the subconscious level, of not functioning the way you did, not recalling words and names the way you did, not being able to get to quick answers as you did ,can lead slowly to depression. And so we don't know if depression is a risk factor for Alzheimer's disease versus, is depression one of the first signs of the disease itself. So safeguarding against depression, keeping track of depression is important because once you become depressed, you might become isolated. You might choose to not learn new things, you might choose to not interact with people. You know, I have an acronym I use called SHIELD, right. I developed it after the third book for when I had to go on the book tour and I had to encapsulate the whole "Healing Self" book. And SHIELD: "S" stands for sleep, "H" stands for handling stress, "I" stands for interaction with others, not being isolated and depression can lead to that. "E" stands for exercise, "L" we just talked about stands for learning new things. And "D" stands for diet. So you know, that's how we kind of frame, even at the McCance Center for Brain Health, how to give lifestyle advice to folks about preserving and promoting brain health.

Jonathan Shaw: Okay, so maybe we could go through this in terms of the SHIELD acronym, but what about anxiety or stress? Are those the same thing, or are they related?

Rudolph Tanzi: Oh yeah, they're related. Look, I guess you could say the stress comes from having to separate or detach from something on which you're somewhat dependent or conditioned. So as we get older, you know, the changes that come that separate us, from loved one who pass away, or kids go off to college, a lot of stress comes from just being separated from things that you want and like. And that also causes anxiety. So if you think about, "What is fear?", right, the simplest way of, of what fear is that leads to anxiety and stress is memory of pain. That might sound weird to you. But the first memories we have as an infant are memories of pleasure, which create desire, and memories of pain, which create fear. You don't want that pain again, so your fear it. So that creates anxiety. Anxiety can come from wanting something you can't get-desire, you liked it before, you get attached to it. It can come from fearing something that you don't like, like going to get a root canal, because you had that pain before and now you remember it, so it's fear. And this is what causes stress: anything that separates you from where you are comfortable, secure, and feeling like life is okay. And as we get older, there are pathways in the brain that become more emboldened, more solidified, that can deal with change less well. So the more rigid you become, the more "my way or the highway" you become, the more trouble you put yourself in. It's important to stay flexible, resilient, plastic. And that means taking what comes without anxiety and stress.

Jonathan Shaw: What sort of strategies do you counsel people to take in order to cope with that or to help develop their flexibility?

Rudolph Tanzi: Well, you know, this was what "Super Brain" was mainly about. I'm not trying to promote my books, it's just in "Super Brain" we wrote about how you need to learn how to not identify with your feelings and thoughts. We make the point, the brain is an organ that serves you, the observer of the brain, just like your stomach serves you. You observe your stomach, "oh, I'm hungry, right?" "Yes, I am, my stomach." Right. But your brain, because it brings us feelings and thoughts, we identify with it. And we say that freedom comes when you sit on that mountaintop, I call mountaintop consciousness, and you observe, what thoughts are my brain bringing me right now, what feelings are my brain bringing me, right? So like to say, I use the example in the book, if you see a red car, you don't say, "I am a red car." No, your brain brought you the sensation of the color red and the shape of something that you know is a car, right? Now that red car drives through a puddle and soaks you with mud. And now you're angry. You're angry, "I am angry," right? Now you're not angry, your brain brought you the feeling of anger so you'll avoid next time getting covered in mud, because it's probably not good for you. But we will quickly say, "I am angry about what that car did." But I would argue in the "Super Brain," that's just as crazy as saying "I am a red car." Your brain simply now brought you a feeling of anger, versus the visual sensation of a red car. Identify with neither. Observe them. And live with them. And that's a good way to deal with stress. That's what we talk about in "Super Brain".

Jonathan Shaw: I see. So that's a kind of mindfulness, you're sort of aware of how your own thought process is unfolding.

Rudolph Tanzi: Yeah, as feelings come through, as thoughts come through, rather than identifying with them, observe them, learn from them. You know, same thing with habits, you know, it's good and bad habits that determine where you are and where you're going. Your habits from the past determine who you are right now, your habits right now are determining where you'll be in the future, and the only way you can change habits is you have to observe their roots in your brain as they occur. And I always like to say resistance is futile. Resistance leads to persistence. But you know, think about rewiring rather than resisting. We rewire your neuroplasticity by observing it and saying...You know, it's kind of like, your brain is kinda like a little kid that you're babysitting or parenting, right? If you try to control a little toddler, forget about it, right? Resistance leads to persistence. What you try to do is rewire. You try to, you try to show them the other ways to do things. You have to also teach your brain other ways to do things. You have to treat your brain like a petulant child that's always trying to get its way. And the reason for that is that your brainstem, you know, your instinctive brain which is 400 million years old, is constantly trying to get you in trouble. And your poor little 4-million-year-old brain, your frontal cortex, which is trying to tell you to chill out and be restrained. Well, who's going to win: a 400-million-year-old part of the brain or a 4-million-year-old part of the brain? It's like the the veteran and the rookie in the locker room. The veteran wins. So you have to go out of your way to put the rookie in the game, right, and control the big ape in the back who's trying to get you to do bad things. It's causing most of your problems.

Jonathan Shaw: Is there a connection between being overweight and brain health?

Rudolph Tanzi: Well, yeah, I mean, obesity of course increases risk for just about everything, right: heart disease, cancer, stroke, Alzheimer's disease. So what's good for the heart is good for the brain. That's whether it comes to diet, exercise. I mean, you know, the way to fight obesity, of course, is exercise and diet. And exercise actually reduces inflammation in the brain, it clears amyloid plaque out of the brain, it induces, as we showed in a paper in "Science" a couple of years ago it induces the birth of new nerve cells in the hippocampus, the short term memory area that's involved with Alzheimer's. And likewise diet, if you have the right diet, meaning more of a Mediterranean diet. I'm a vegetarian, I've been vegetarian since college. But if you're a vegetarian and you have a plant-based diet, that's best for the brain, because the main thing in that is a plant-based diet provides the fiber that your gut microbiome likes. So the bacteria in your gut you have, you know, trillions of bacteria in your gut, 8000 different strains of bacteria. Most people only know about the 10 or 12, they read on the yogurt label. But these bacteria are determining everything from mood to the amount of pathology in your brain as you age through the gut-brain axis. So a lot of brain health comes from the right diet, and high plant-based foods, vegetables, seeds, nuts, whole grains, less processed foods, less sugar, less fat, are all gonna be good for the brain, mainly because you're making your gut microbiome happy.

Jonathan Shaw: Did you start eating plant-based foods because of what you were learning scientifically? Or was it a choice that came from somewhere else?

Rudolph Tanzi: No, I had a vegetarian girlfriend in college. So I, you know, went vegetarian, and then I felt so much better. I was, you know, in college for a while I was kind of anxious and stressed and like a lot of people are in college. As soon as I became a vegetarian, everything was better. I just felt a ton better so I never went back. I do eat dairy. I'm not a vegan. I limit dairy, but I do eat dairy.

Jonathan Shaw: You were recently a co-author on a paper that identified irisin, I don't know if I've pronounced that correctly, but a muscle hormone as a means of conferring the benefits of exercise on cognitive function without the need for exercise. How does a irisin appear to work?

Rudolph Tanzi: Yeah, so Bruce Spiegelman at Harvard at Dana-Farber discovered irisin is what he says it's after the Greek god, goddess? Iris.

Jonathan Shaw: Okay.

Rudolph Tanzi: Irisin is a product of a protein that comes from a gene called FNDC5. And it comes from muscles. It's made in muscle when your exercise. So you're exercising and you make irisin and then it goes to the brain, and it's beneficial by inducing growth factors that are good for neurons, it induces neurogenesis. So, we had a paper, a separate paper with Bruce Spiegelman in "Science" a couple of years ago showing that exercise induces the birth of new neurons, neurogenesis, and it induces a very important growth factor in the brain called brain-derived neurotrophic factor, BDNF. We found you have to have both BDNF and neurogenesis to improve cognition in Alzheimer's mice. And then the new paper with Christiane Wrann who worked at Bruce Spiegelman, now she's at Mass General, she's a collaborator of Se Hoon Choi in my lab, showed that irisin is the other big player. So the big players are irisin, BDNF, and they're induced by exercise. And the cognitive provement comes from a combination of new neurons being born in the short-term memory area of the brain, hippocampus, which gets affected by Alzheimer's, but it also helps fight neuro-inflammation. Exercise also induces an enzyme, we have a new paper of sending out for publication soon, where we show that exercise induces an enzyme that eats amyloid. So another way to get rid of amyloid is by exercise. I emphasize this because the best thing you can do for your brain when you're middle aged, is think about what you do for cholesterol to keep your heart healthy, right? We all manage our food. We take a cholesterol med if we have to, we check our cholesterol every year as we get middle-aged or younger. Amyloid is to Alzheimer's as cholesterol is to heart disease. The amyloids accumulating in your brain, we think it plays a normal role in the brain protecting against infection, and too much amyloid then triggers a cascade of events that lead to cell death and inflammation and Alzheimer's. But that happens decades before symptoms. So, SHIELD, actually, all aspects of SHIELD help limit the amount of amyloid in your brain, just like the lifestyle measures you might take to limit cholesterol to avoid heart disease later on. So this is an analogy that'll become more and more apparent over time that people need to start realizing right now. And you know, this controversy about this Biogen drug that was approved for Alzheimer's, it just removes amyloid, but it didn't do much for people cognitively. And, you know, the good news about that is, you know, there's a lot to be worried about a drug that may not really work and be so expensive and people who can't get it might mortgage their house to get it for their loved one, but that aside, it opened the door now for all kinds of drugs. It can be cheaper and safer, that you're going to hit amyloid early in life, just like we hit cholesterol early in life. And I think that's going to go a long way for eradicating preventing Alzheimer's disease, or reducing the incidence of it the same way cholesterol meds have reduced incidence and prevalence of heart disease.

Jonathan Shaw: Are there particular forms of exercise that are better than others? And also is one's ability to exercise, necessarily compromised as you get older, something that you would compensate for with drugs or drug combinations like irisin and BDNF or other things like that?

Rudolph Tanzi: Well, it's the amount of exercise that matters. There's no set rule, right? I mean, some people say 7,000 steps, 8,000 steps, 10,000 steps. I have a recumbent bike, because my knees are bad from way too much basketball way too long, including over at Longwood back in the day. And you know, on the recumbent bike I can go as long as I want. So if do a half hour a day on a pretty high resilient level, like you know resistance, and 90 rpm. And that gets my heart rate going, and I break a sweat. And, you know, I just had my stress test, which I have every four years, you know? And they said, "Well," this was literally just this week, and they said, "You did better on your stress test this year than you did in 2017 four years ago. So whatever you're doing, you're doing it right." And it's not a ton of exercise. I mean, you know, half hour on a bike, watching some TV, it's not much to ask for. Or maybe just so an hour long brisk walk or a treadmill for 20, 30 minutes, that's that's all it really takes, but try to do it daily. But do we know exactly how much exercise benefits the brain? No, because the mice studies, these mice have running wheels. And they, they're nuts. They run all night. I mean, if you want to try to mimic the exercise that we do for mice to make them cognitively better in a human, you'd have to be like 100x Olympian, you would never get it done.

Jonathan Shaw: How important is sleep in this whole equation?

Rudolph Tanzi: I put sleep number one, my order in SHIELD would be sleep. It's a tie between exercise and diet. But sleep would be number one because it's during sleep that so many good things happen for your brain. I get seven to eight hours of sleep a day on weekdays, and on weekends I get eight to nine. During sleep, you clear amyloid, you stop inflammation, you consolidate memories, you wash your brain out. And the way it works is like every time you go from dream sleep to deep sleep, consider that one rinse cycle for your brain. We jokingly call it Mental Floss. Right? So when you go through that cycle of dreaming to deep sleep, you actually clear amyloid and other debris out of your brain, you help reduce neuro-inflammation, you induce neurogenesis, the birth of new neurons. But it's also when you take the memories that have been reinforced during the day from your thumb drive and put it on your hard drive from your hippocampus to your frontal cortex, you're consolidating memories. And even dreams have a huge role. I mean, dreams are basically movies based on real events, right, they're fiction, but they're based on real events. And it's the way your brain, it's not perfectly recording everything, it's re-imagining and casting again, a movie version of what really happened to help consolidate what you need to learn from those experiences. And it's not really a coincidence that after you dream and recapitulate so many memories in strange fictitious ways based on real events, that then you start to consolidate memories in deeper sleep. And you also start removing all of the debris and gunk that's produced while you're making memories like amyloid and other stuff. So I mean, this is all during sleep. So the more sleep you get, the better. So I put sleep at number one now for brain health. In fact I should say at the McCance Center for Brain Health, we're starting the equivalent of a human genome project for sleep, the human sleep project, and we're raising a ton of money for it. We're really digging into how to use sleep as a diagnostic for brain disease, using sleep as a therapeutic, finding out ways how to mimic the best things about sleep pharmacologically. So we're doing everything, doing a big project on sleep at the McCance Center right now.

Jonathan Shaw: Are you looking then also at genes that determine how well people sleep, or is that something beyond this?

Rudolph Tanzi: Yeah, there are genes that are gene mutations associated with insomnia and sleep disorders. But you can also look at the healthy aspects of sleep and say, how our genes changing in the brain during the times of sleep where you're consolidating memories or cleaning the brain. And then, you know, once you have gene expression profiles, thousands of genes firing and being expressed in different ways up and down, you can then search for natural products or drugs that do the same thing. So you can use, increasingly we can use gene expression profiles as an input on internet tools that say, okay, which drugs or natural products lead to the same gene expression changes as the good ones that occur during the best parts of sleep? And then you can see if you can find a drug that mimics the best parts of sleep, so that's another part of the research process.

Jonathan Shaw: Is reducing inflammation, which you've mentioned a couple of times now, the common denominator among the lifestyle connected changes that can help people preserve their brain health?

Rudolph Tanzi: It's the most important, because like in Alzheimer's disease, it starts with amyloid early on, just like heart disease begins with cholesterol. And as I said earlier, the early-onset families with mutations that guarantee the disease early in life, teach about the earliest events. So in heart disease it's cholesterol, in Alzheimer's it's amyloid. So if you want to protect the brain early on, prevent disease early on, be proactive rather than reactive, stop the triggers: the amyloid plaques, the tangles caused by those plaques. But at the end of the day, what causes the most damage in the brain that leads to symptoms is inflammation, right? So I like to say to plaque is like the match, the amyloid plaque is like a match. It likes the tangles. They're like brush fires and they spread. And it turns out you can live with those. You won't get the disease if you only have plaques and tangles, at least not within a normal lifespan. The cell death that's caused by the plaques and tangles, the brush fires, when that becomes too expansive, that's when you get symptoms. Well, what causes the excessive cell death is the triggering of inflammation. And the way it works is very simple. As neurons die in the brain with tangles caused by plaques as we age, those dying neurons are then detected by glial cells, particularly microglia, astrocytes. And those glial cells are programmed in a very primitive way. If they detect neurons are dying, it is assumed it's an infection, right? Because not so long ago in evolutionary terms, when lifespan was 25 years old, if somebody had neurons dying at the ripe age of 18, it wasn't Alzheimer's, you probably got a bad mosquito bite, and you had encephalitis. So these glial cells are your housekeepers, the same glial cells that during sleep are like Scrubbing Bubbles cleaning up your brain, cleaning up debris. If while they're cleaning they detect neurons are dying, they are instantly programmed to assume infection, even if it's not, because it hasn't been enough time between when lifespan was 25 and now 85 or 80, for them to change. So when they detect nerve cells dying, they assume it's an infection, and they have one goal now: stop cleaning house and destroy this part of the brain, because it's infected and we don't want that virus or bacteria to spread. That is neuro-inflammation. It's meant with good intentions: to protect against an infection that probably is not there, but was detected to be there because neurons were dying, but the neurons are dying because you're getting older with plaques and tangles. So if we want to help patients right now who have Alzheimer's, you have to put out the fire. You have to stop the neuro-inflammation or protect against it. It's late to the game to blow out the match or stomp out the brush fires to plaques and tangles, even though that will help prevent future fires. Right? So I worked with these two kids from Brown University, who came to me when they were undergrads, you know, on a student project of how to protect neurons from dying from neuro-inflammation, with the idea that, you can't necessarily stop the neuro-inflammation, well, at least if you stop the neurons from dying, that will feed less new neuro-inflammation because it's a vicious cycle. There's neuro-inflammation when neurons die, that causes more neuro-inflammation. So can we at least protect the neurons from dying? So we came up with a combination drug and started a company of which I'm a co-founder, so for disclosure purposes, called Amylyx. We did an ALS trial because across diseases ALS, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, there are different ways to get there, but it's neuro-inflammation in the end that causes the most damage leading to symptoms. And so we did a trial on ALS and it worked, and we published a paper in "New England Journal of Medicine." The trial was done at the Healey Center at Mass General by my chief ran the trial, Merit Cudkowicz and her colleague Sabrina Paganoni. And now this little company with these two kids, as I call them, now they're 28 and 29 years old, are looking at a good chance of having a newly FDA-approved drug for ALS and helping people. So, if you want to help people who are suffering right now, with neurodegeneration, you got to put out the fire or protect against it. But for the future, for my 13-year-old daughter, she'll go to the doc, when she's, whatever 40, 50, and they'll say, here's how much amyloid you have in your brain already, just like we say how much cholesterol you already have. And here's your drug to bring it back down so you never get to the point of triggering neuroinflammation. We'll be proactive, not reactive. In the future, we'll look back at now and they'll say, man, can you imagine like back then, they waited for the brain to degenerate to the point of dysfunction before they even diagnosed the disease nevermind treat it. Imagine if we did that with heart disease and diabetes. It's absurd. But that's where we have to move now, away from that reactive approach to a proactive early detection, early intervention, early prediction approach, and that's what the McCance Center is aimed at at Mass General.

Jonathan Shaw: Thank you very much Professor Tanzi for your time today.

Rudolph Tanzi: Thank you. It's been a pleasure.






Rosewood