By Jessie Seigel / Washington, D.C. Watching the career of former President Donald Trump is like watching A Nightmare on Elm Street or the Halloween series of movies. Like the fictional Freddy Kruger or Michael Myers boogeymen, in sequel after sequel—Trump keeps coming back. On Nov. 15, one week after the most prominent Trump-backed MAGA candidates went down to defeat in the midterm election, Trump announced his 2024 candidacy for president. At Mar-a-Lago, Trump spewed his standard lies and hate to his assembled collection of sycophants. Among other things, like dictators in China and Singapore, he said that he would call for the execution of drug dealers, and would send federal forces in to fight crime, unrest, and protests regardless of whether a state wants it or not: “If they don’t want our help, we’re going to insist that they take our help this time.” So much for the Posse Comitatus Act, which protects democracy and personal liberty by generally barring the federal military from participating in civilian law enforcement. Trump also called for onerous election restrictions, including an end to early voting and voting by mail. And according to the New York Times, Trump’s henchmen “have a plan for staffing not only his administration but also much of the federal civil service with political loyalists,” under a new federal classification that Trump originally created by executive order in 2020. President Biden rescinded that order. But if Trump captures the White House in 2024, he plans to reinstate it, converting thousands of civil service positions into political appointments. Trump has said he would thereby make “every executive branch employee fireable by the president of the United States.” Absolute one-man rule, here we come. Following the Republican failure to gain the Senate and only an extremely narrow win in the House, many Republican leaders, even some right-wing extremists are--at least for the moment-- blaming Trump. But as Doug Heye, a former spokesman for the Republican National Committee, told the Washington Post, “We’ve heard this song before. The question is: will this time be different?” Conservative Washington Post columnist George Will greeted Trump’s decision to run with a quote from Robert Penn Warren’s novel All the King’s Men,” based on the life and career of the Louisiana demagogue Huey Long. In the novel, the Long character, Willie Stark, is advised: “Make ‘em cry, or make ‘em laugh…Or make ‘em mad. Even mad at you. Just stir ‘em up…and they’ll love you and come back for more.” Whether Republican politicians or their constituents have gotten tired of Trump’s Huey Long-like show is yet to be seen. Republican leaders have the constancy of a weather vane in a high wind. The aspersions they cast on Trump today could change to boot-licking in a second. They are only speaking against him now because of concern that in 2024, he’ll lose and will drag their prospects down with him. Few are disowning what Trump stands for. Idaho Rep. Mike Simpson told CNN, “Let’s see who runs. Personally, I don’t think it’s good for the party. … I think [Trump’s] policies were good. I just don’t need all the drama with it.” Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley—he of the raised fist in support of the Jan. 6 insurrectionists—tweeted: “The old party is dead. Time to bury it. Build something new.” Hawley did not suggest what that “something new” should be, but I doubt that he has abandoned his support of might-makes-right violence. As reported by the Washington Post, Republican Virginia Lt. Gov. Winsome Sears, who has strongly supported Trump in the past, said that the fact that the former President’s endorsed candidates did not do well gives us “a clue that the voters want to move on. And a true leader knows when they have become a liability to the mission.” But move on to what? Sears did not specify what the “mission” is—perhaps she sees Trump as now a liability to the mission of Trumpism. Republican New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu easily won re-election while his state’s Trump-endorsed Senate candidate, Don Bolduc, lost by a large margin. Accordingly, Sununu warned against Trump’s Nov. 15 announcement of his candidacy. Sununu told SiriusXM that Trump could “muck up” the opportunity for GOP Georgia Senate candidate Herschel Walker to win if Trump announced his run before a Georgia December runoff. Sununu clearly didn’t care what kind of senator the uniquely unqualified Walker will be if he wins. Iowa Sen. Charles E. Grassley tweeted tersely: “Let’s look to the next election. Quit talking about 2020.” And Utah Sen. Mitt Romney told CNN, “I think that President Trump and election denying was an albatross around Republican necks.” Moreover, said Romney, “We’ve lost three races with him.” Perhaps more telling than the likely mercurial reactions of Republican office holders is that Rupert Murdoch and his Trump-promoting media outlets like the New York Post and Wall Street Journal—smelling blood—have begun criticizing Trump, and promoting as their new star, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. But most indicative of a possible lasting decline in Trump’s fortunes is that some GOP megadonors are deserting him. After Trump’s announcement of his 2024 candidacy, Stephen A. Schwarzman, the chairman, CEO and co-founder of private-equity giant Blackstone, said in a statement to Axios: "It is time for the Republican Party to turn to a new generation of leaders and I intend to support one of them in the presidential primaries." Ken Griffin, billionaire founder of the Citadel hedge fund, who had praised Trump’s policies, endorsed Ron DeSantis, and told Bloomberg that Trump is a “three-time loser.” Among Trump’s competitors, Florida governor Ron DeSantis is the GOP flavor of the week because, unlike the Trump-backed MAGAs, he won his election by a landslide. Of course, DeSantis rigged the system with his gerrymandering—something he would not necessarily be able to do nationwide. Virginia governor Glenn Youngkin, former Vice President “Hang him” Mike Pence, and Trump’s CIA director and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo are also expected to be primary competitors. In addition, if Trump gets the nomination, Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney might run as a spoiler to make good on her vow to prevent Trump from ever gaining the White House again. Trump’s candidacy could also be scuttled by indictments in the numerous ongoing criminal investigations (by DOJ for his actions surrounding Jan. 6 and his mishandling of classified documents, as well as by an Atlanta-area prosecutor for Trump’s pressuring Georgia officials to overturn that state’s election results). Moreover, Trump’s company is in the midst of a trial for criminal tax fraud. The bottom line is that the conservative politicos and business magnates are not turning on Trump because he is a criminal with Nazi-like authoritarian aspirations, but only because they now see him as a loser. In the end, it makes no difference to democracy’s survival whether Trump is on the 2024 ticket, or the next Trump is—be that DeSantis, Pence, Pompeo, Haley, or some other cynical Republican. As the New York Times so aptly put it: “fixating on the salesman misses the point. The problem is, and always has been, the size of the audience rushing to buy what he’s been selling.” Most Democrats won their midterm elections by the skin of their teeth. And although several election deniers in battleground states lost, according to The Bulwark, nationwide, 10 election deniers succeeded in being elected to the Senate, more than a dozen were elected to the House, eight have won governorships, and four have won elections to become secretaries of state. The Republican autocratic agenda has not changed. That movement is just getting started. And the danger to democracy will not go away even if Trump does. Political columnist Jessie Seigel had a long career as a government attorney in which she honed her analytic skills. She has also twice received an Artist’s Fellowship from the Washington, D.C. Commission on the Arts and Humanities for her fiction, and has been a finalist for a number of literary awards. In addition, Seigel is an associate editor at the Potomac Review, a reviewer for The Washington Independent Review of Books, and a dabbler in political cartoons at Daily Kos. Of this balance in her work between the analytic and the imaginative, Seigel jokes, “I guess my right and left brains are well-balanced.” More on and from Seigel can be found at The Adventurous Writer, https://www.jessieseigel.com.

By Lydia Hope Wilen / New York City Decades ago, my sister Joany and I were looking for an affordable Upper West Side apartment to rent. A realtor took us to a building on West End Avenue in the 70s. The minute we walked into the gloomy apartment, we knew it wasn’t for us. The realtor said, “Once it’s fixed up…” As we were shaking our heads, she said, “I’ll leave you here to picture its potential.” Before stepping out the door, she turned back to add, “Harry Belafonte lives here and also has his recording studio in this building.” Harry Belafonte! Growing up in Brooklyn, Joany was in love with Harry Belafonte. She had every one of his records and knew every word of his songs. She once asked my father, “I know this isn’t going to happen, but if Harry Belafonte asked you for my hand in marriage, would you say ‘Yes’?” Living in East Flatbush and without any connection whatsoever to show business, what would it hurt for my father to say, “Okay, if Harry Belafonte wants to marry you, I’ll say ‘Yes.’” Facing reality in the apartment we were supposed to be considering, I joked, “If Daddy only knew how close you are right now to making that dream come true…” We had a good laugh and then as the voice of reason, I convinced Joany that even if we moved into this dreary place, we’d never see handsome Harry. She agreed. We rang for the elevator. It came. The door opened and …you’re probably thinking, there he was. Wrong! We got in and when it reached the lobby, the door opened and there he was, the beautiful Harry Belafonte. He smiled his radiant smile and stepped aside allowing us to exit. We still didn't take the apartment, but what a memorable Day-O . . . D-a-a-a-a-y-O! Soon after, on our way to Central Park, we saw a sign letting us know that apartments were available in this fairly new building in an ideal location–between the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade on Central Park West and Gartner’s Hardware Store. We came, we saw and we rented a one-bedroom apartment. A few years later, my father passed away suddenly and we had our mother move in with us that same day, never to return to Brooklyn again. Three women in a one-bedroom apartment. We were in desperate need of at least a two-bedroom apartment that we could afford. Not wanting to move from our desirable new building, we started asking the manager for a larger apartment. He kept saying there’s nothing available. This went on for a few months. We were so naïve. We thought a schmear was cream cheese on a bagel. We didn’t know that to get an apartment, you had to schmear (bribe) the manager. Stay tuned. The “What are the Chances...?” part is coming soon. Thank You Internet for Proof of the Show's Existence My first professional writing job was writing one-liners for the celebrity game show Personality, hosted by Larry Blyden. Because the producer wasn't going to pay me union minimum, I was not able to join the Writers Guild of America East and so I was not allowed to get a screen credit as a writer. I was lumped in with two others as Program Staff. It was still a thrill. Talk about a thrill... The producer invited me to join him in the control booth during the show's tapings. Also joining us in the control booth was Jane Crowley, NBC's manager of Standards and Practices. She was the censor and had the final say, for instance, if a celebrity's dress was too revealing or if a word like "toilet" could be used. It was a time when networks went to extreme measures to prevent the ity’s: profanity, obscenity, vulgarity and even a mere suggestion of sexuality. Miss Crowley, as she was known, was strict and stern, like Miss Rochford, my blue-haired junior high school principal. There was no exchange of small talk with Miss Crowley, until one day, when taping stopped and the production staff left the control booth to make adjustments on the set. The only people left in the control booth were Miss Crowley and me. The thoughts that went through my mind were insane. I wanted to spew all kinds of dirty words. Of course I didn’t and would never do that. Instead, she said, “Hey bitch, who did you sleep with to get this job?” I’m kidding! I just wanted to see if you’re paying attention. What Miss Crowley really said was, “I hope this doesn’t take long. They close off my block the day before Thanksgiving and I need to park my cousin’s car in my building’s garage.” For the first time I realized that Miss Crowley was a real person after all. I told her, “They close off my block also to allow bands to line up for the parade.” That fact made us realize we were both Upper West Siders. And then we took it the normal steps further. “What street?” “I’m also on that street.” “My building is…” “That’s where I live.” “I’m on the fifth floor.” I’m on the sixth floor. I live with my mother and sister. We’re looking for a larger apartment.” Miss Crowley said, “I lived with my mother who passed away recently and after the holiday, I’ll be moving out of a large apartment into a smaller one.” Once I discovered that her large apartment had two bedrooms, two bathrooms, and that no one had looked at it yet, I excused myself and called my mother and my sister, suggesting they both go to the manager immediately and insist on signing a lease for that apartment, sight unseen. Miss Crowley and I shared a cab ride home. By the time we got to the building, a lease was in the works and Miss Crowley, soon to be called Jane, invited us to see our soon-to-be new home. As it turned out, we moved into Jane’s fifth floor apartment and Jane moved into a one-bedroom right across from us. We all became good friends and enjoyed decades of that friendship. What were the chances of me getting that first writing job, being in the control booth, Jane Crowley being assigned as censor to that show, the control booth emptying out except for me and Miss Crowley and it being the day before Thanksgiving prompting talk about the Parade and people taking over our block and her cousin driving in to spend the holiday with her? It seems as though it was just meant to be. Can you imagine how thankful we were that Thanksgiving? If you have a “What Are The Chances...? story you would like to share, I’d love to know about it. Email it to me at editor@theinsider1.com. Don’t be shy! Lydia Hope Wilen had a successful collaboration with her late sister Joany as nonfiction bestselling authors (18 books), journalists, TV personalities, writers and talent coordinators on a Nickelodeon series hosted by Leonard Nimoy, Reading Rainbow episodes, skit writers for Dr. Ruth's TV show, Diet America Challenge on CBS, and writers of screenplays (optioned but not produced yet). Lydia is writing on her own now and has just completed an extraordinary book for young people and their parents. It will have them laughing and learning...once she gets an agent and it gets published.

By Andy Borowitz November 16, 2022 PALM BEACH (The Borowitz Report)—Stating that “no one’s ever done this before,” Donald J. Trump announced plans to be impeached for a historic third time. Speaking to supporters in a ballroom at Mar-a-Lago, the former President claimed that he and only he could bring impeachable offenses back to the White House. Although he was short on specifics about which crimes he might commit, Trump pledged, “We’re gonna perpetrate so much, you’re gonna get tired of perpetrating.” He contrasted his record for getting impeached with that of his successor, Joe Biden, who, he claimed, “is too low-energy to commit a felony.” “Joe Biden has been President for almost two years, and how many impeachments does he have to show for it? Zero,” he said. “The rest of the world is looking at us with a President who can’t get a single impeachment, and they’re laughing at us. Laughing at us. This should never be allowed to happen in this country.” Andy Borowitz is a Times best-selling author and a comedian who has written for The New Yorker since 1998. He writes The Borowitz Report, a satirical column on the news.

One film journalist’s stream-of-consciousness cinematic journey through the pandemic, Part 108 By Laurence Lerman / New York City Steven Spielberg’s latest film, the family drama The Fabelmans, goes into wide release this Friday (Nov. 25). Advance publicity and reviews tell us that it is the filmmaker’s most personal work, loosely based on his own childhood growing up in post-WWII Arizona. In this environment, young Sammy Fabelman, the film’s Spielberg surrogate (Fable Man, get it?), discovers the magic and wonder of cinema and how movies are made, just as he comes to realize that his parents are in an unsatisfying marriage and heading for divorce. A young boy discovering the movies and the seemingly enchanted world of moviemaking is pure Spielberg, if we’re to believe that the stories we’ve heard about his interest in filmmaking from a young age are accurate. It’s also well-known that Spielberg was a child of divorce—his parents separated in his late teens following years of an unhappy marriage. He himself divorced his first wife, actress Amy Irving, in 1989 after four years of marriage. He went on to marry Kate Capshaw, the leading lady of his Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, in 1991. The two are the parents to seven children, a mix of biological children, adopted children and stepchildren from he and Capshaw’s previous marriages. But Hollywood won’t be talking about Spielberg’s marriages or progeny come Monday, but rather how much money The Fabelmans made in its first weekend in broad distribution. Before that, it’s worth taking a look at the kind of impression the world’s most celebrated filmmaker has made on the box office over the years. Not that box office returns are an all-telling gauge of success... According to the film industry trade site boxofficemojo.com, Spielberg’s 35 feature films (directed in just over 48 years) have earned nearly $11 billion at the worldwide box office, give or take a few dozen million. Spielberg’s box office numbers are a slippery statistic to process—grosses always are, particularly when taking into account inflation adjustments, platform releasing and theatrical re-releases (remember those?). And with Spielberg, there are simply so many box office bonanzas to parse through. The Indiana Jones and Jurassic Park movies (he directed four Indy entries and two Jurassic Park pics), War of the Worlds (2005), Jaws (1975) and Ready Player One are a solid cross section of his most successful releases, but even with critics’ ratings added to the mix, it’s tough to get a sense of just how popular and enduring his films truly are. While there is a core group of moviegoers who can carefully describe his franchise pictures in depth, there are probably just as many who have enjoyed them but who couldn’t actually tell you much about the later entries in each series. I would never deny the value and expertise that Spielberg puts into his large-scale, action-adventure creations. But there’s one that stands alone--one Spielberg film that’s simply not like his others and that truly defines what Spielberg is all about in a visual, narrative and thematic sense. And as for the box office, even today, on the film’s 40th anniversary, it continues to hold its own against his biggest productions! I’m talking about 1982’s E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, a masterwork that is arguably Spielberg’s best-loved and most successful film. (At least, as far as my loose definition of “successful" goes.) Think back. For a record 16 consecutive weeks in the summer and fall of 1982, E.T. was the No. 1 movie at the U.S. box office, an accomplishment that will likely never be matched. A year after it was released, it surpassed his buddy and frequent collaborator George Lucas’s Star Wars as the highest-grossing movie of all time (at that point). And it still places impressively on the all-time highest-grossing list (yes, when adjusted for inflation) among the kind of rollercoaster ride spectacles that Spielberg and Lucas used to bang out summer after summer in the ’80s and ’90s. (The ones that have been replaced over the past two decades by Marvel Comics epics, Lord of the Rings fantasies, Pixar-styled animated adventures, Harry Potter tales, Fast & Furious acrobatic car movies and a new generation of Star Wars extravaganzas.) What’s most fascinating here is that E.T. is not a superhero opus or a space opera or a fantastical tale of an alternate world or a chrome-crunching automotive spectacular. E.T.—do I have to remind you?—is a gentle fable, a boy-and-his-dog tale involving the child of a single mother in suburbia whose adventures with an big-eyed, stranded alien tell a lovingly metaphorical tale of the wonder, excitement and magic of childhood itself. E.T. is sensitive and small. It’s personal. And it’s fair to say that the modestly budgeted E.T. ($10.5 million) wasn’t designed to bring in the kind of dollars that Transformers or Avengers or other franchise titles are made to do. That by the end of its theatrical run E.T. rang up $620 million worldwide is the ultimate “If you build it, they will come” revenge to any naysayers, not that Spielberg had many at that point in his career. Even more impressive is that Box Office Mojo estimates E.T. sold more than 120 million tickets in the U.S. in its initial theatrical rollout. That was more than half of the country’s population back then. The beloved movie has some teeth, as well, which may be one of the unspoken factors and nearly subliminal ones that played a role in its success. Spielberg has said that he modeled the film’s titular visitor on an imaginary friend he created in his head when he was a young teen trying to cope with his parents’ troubled marriage and divorce. The film was written by Melissa Mathison, who reportedly combined elements from two earlier projects that Spielberg had considered. One was a broken-family theme that that was directly lifted from an autobiographical project entitled Growing Up he had planned to make in 1978 following Close Encounters of the Third Kind that never made it past the development stage. And speaking of Close Encounters, where a wayward father becomes so obsessed with an extraterrestrial encounter that he runs off from his family, well that’s another example of a Spielberg film revolving around a splintered family minus a father. Hook (1991), Spielberg’s update of the Peter Pan story, and AI Artificial Intelligence (2001), also deal with absent dads. And while daddy is on the scene in Catch Me If You Can (2002), his problems with the IRS doesn't make for a happy family. Hell, even Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) finds Indy’s father, played by Sean Connery, coming back into his son’s life after spending the majority of his adulthood away and chasing down the Holy Grail. In The Fabelmans, the filmmaker is confronting an issue and period that clearly played a role in his formative years and later life. (Spielberg co-wrote the screenplay with playwright Tony Kushner, the first script Spielberg has penned since AI.) He’s dipped into the theme previously as more of a backdrop to larger stories, but now he’s confronting it head-on. Spielberg is the most successful filmmaker in the history of cinema—and cinema is arguably the most popular form of modern storytelling. That makes Spielberg one of today’s greatest storytellers. And with The Fabelmans, he's crafted an undeniably fascinating tale about the origins of the lights, camera and action that have kept his audiences enraptured for 50 glorious years. Laurence Lerman is a film journalist, former editor of Video Business--Variety's DVD trade publication--and husband to The Insider's own Gwen Cooper. Over the course of his career he has conducted one-on-one interviews with just about every major director working today, including Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, Clint Eastwood, Kathryn Bigelow, Ridley Scott, Walter Hill, Spike Lee, and Werner Herzog, among numerous others. Once James Cameron specifically requested an interview with Laurence by name, which his wife still likes to brag about. Most recently, he is the co-founder and editor-in-chief of the online review site DiscDish.com.

By Jessie Seigel / Washington, D.C. The defeat of so many Trump-backed MAGA candidates appears to augur the beginning of the end for Donald Trump. But wait five minutes. Because the Republican hierarchy blows with the wind. And even if Donald Trump disappears, that will not be the end of Trumpism. Nevertheless, as the electoral dust clears, many commentators are heralding the results of this midterm election as a strong win for the Democrats because they have held the Senate, and the predicted gargantuan Republican gain in the House has not materialized. More than that, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, ebullient over the results but careful to define himself as a “small-c conservative,” called the election a victory for Madisonian democracy. I agree with Scarborough. Although who will control the House is still, as of this writing, uncertain, the election results were a victory of sorts for democracy. The common wisdom is that in midterm elections, voter turnout is low, and the president’s party usually loses the House and Senate by large numbers. But in this midterm election, voters apparently were fueled by the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision in June autocratically eviscerating the constitutional right to an abortion, and by an understanding of the MAGA/insurrectionist threat to democracy. Voters came out in numbers almost equivalent to those in a presidential election. The polls—particularly Republican ones—predicted a huge “red wave” for Republican candidates, many of whom were Trump-promoted MAGA clones. Contrary to this puffery, the most prominent of those backed by former President Donald Trump lost to reasoned Democrats. And many of the Democrats that Trump tried hardest to defeat—won. In Pennsylvania, Trump-backed Dr. Mehmet Oz lost to the Democrat, John Fetterman, for Senate. And the insurrection-supporting antisemite Doug Mastriano lost big to Josh Shapiro for governor. In New Hampshire, the targeted Democratic Senator Maggie Hassan neatly won her contest beating MAGA Donald Bolduc. In Michigan, the Democrats--Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Attorney-General Dana Nessel, and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, staunch defenders of democracy all, handily won reelection against right-wing opponents. And they did so despite the toxic atmosphere created by threats against them and the plot to kidnap Governor Whitmer, as well as persistent attempted intimidation of poll workers. In Wisconsin, Democratic Governor Tony Evers won reelection. And although right-wing Republican Ron Johnson managed to retain his senate seat, he only narrowly defeated Democratic Lieutenant Gov. Mandela Barnes, despite Johnson’s use of racist ads. The Democratic gubernatorial and Secretary of State wins are particularly important to the integrity of future elections because so many of their MAGA opponents are election deniers who refuse to acknowledge that President Biden won the 2020 election, and who have vowed to make anti-democratic changes to limit the ability to vote and whether and how votes are counted. It is true that in Florida, Republicans Governor Ron DeSantis and Senator Marco Rubio won big, and a number of the House seats went to Republicans. But that should have been expected given that DeSantis redrew Florida’s electoral map—and even created a new district—to make sure Republicans would win in his state. In the Senate race in Georgia, Raphael Warnock was marginally ahead of Trump’s Herschel Walker. Since neither received more than 50 percent of the vote, their race will go to what is sure to be an expensive, bitter runoff on Dec. 6. This may feel like a rerun of Warnock’s nail-biter 2020 runoff in Georgia, but this time—since Senators Mark Kelly and Catherine Cortez Masto won their hard-fought races in Arizona and Nevada—Warnock’s race will not determine who controls the Senate. However, the Georgia race remains crucial since a Warnock win will solidify Democratic control, limiting the power of nominal Democrats like West Va. Senator Joe Manchin to hold the party’s policy agenda hostage, and might even permit elimination of the filibuster. As for the House of Representatives, the GOP was hoping for a tsunami of 50 to 60 seats but has gotten only a dribble. There are 20 House seats still in contention and so there is even a small possibility that the Democrats could yet retain the House. In addition, election night was a big win for women’s control over their own bodies. In Michigan, Vermont and California, citizens voted for state constitutional amendments protecting the right to an abortion. And in very red Kentucky, an abortion ban was voted down. The participation in democracy we saw on election night this year is heartening and speaks well of the electorate. The problem, though, is that if, once all the votes are counted, the Republicans obtain control of the House by even one vote, they will have power and the ability to use that power to further undermine democracy. Minority House Leader Kevin McCarthy already announced months ago that if he became Speaker of the House, revenge will be a mainstay of his agenda: investigation of the members of the January 6 committee, removal of them from their committees, the impeachment of President Biden, and elevation of insurrection supporters like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Jim Jordan. So, to those who treasure democracy: take a deep breath. Heave that sigh of relief at having, for the moment, stemmed the MAGA tide. But if the Republicans obtain control of the House—no matter how small their majority—be ready to fight tooth and nail, because those who want to defend democracy will need to do so. And if the Democrats retain control of the House and Senate, recognize that they have only won one battle in the war (hopefully a bullet-less war) to keep our country’s democracy. And tomorrow, get up ready to fight the next round. Political columnist Jessie Seigel had a long career as a government attorney in which she honed her analytic skills. She has also twice received an Artist’s Fellowship from the Washington, D.C. Commission on the Arts and Humanities for her fiction, and has been a finalist for a number of literary awards. In addition, Seigel is an associate editor at the Potomac Review, a reviewer for The Washington Independent Review of Books, and a dabbler in political cartoons at Daily Kos. Of this balance in her work between the analytic and the imaginative, Seigel jokes, “I guess my right and left brains are well-balanced.” More on and from Seigel can be found at The Adventurous Writer, https://www.jessieseigel.com.

By Judi Markowitz Election results aside, sadly we will continue to be a divided nation. Donald Trump gets the award for opening the floodgates and giving a voice to his Crazy Train of followers. He single-handedly changed the tone and tenor in society with his outlandish commentary and the blind legions of groupies that hang on to his coattails. You know these people, the conspiracy theorists, QAnon members, election deniers, and those who believe the outright lies perpetrated on our nation. This division feels eerily like the Civil War. Instead of North versus South, it’s Republican against Democrat. Civility is not a word in our vocabulary anymore. There was a time when I could discuss politics with a friend or relative who had an opposing viewpoint from mine, and we could disagree —with civility —no outrageous arguments or ill will intended. But now, just like in the Civil War, neighbor is against neighbor, friend against friend, and relative against relative. The United States is a hot mess with no end in sight. I have a friend–let’s call him Bryan. He gets so worked up about politics that he’s been kicked off Facebook four times. His fervent views and the manner in which he states his opinions have caused his ejection from social media. Bryan is outraged by the misinformation and disinformation disseminated by his Republican counterparts. When he points out that the 2018 election was one of the most secure ever and the results were certified by Vice President Pence, along with all 50 states, he receives nasty responses opposing the facts. At this juncture the argument heats up, and language is surly, to say the least. The outcome — Bryan is placed in the penalty box once again. I have a like-minded cousin whom I have been very close with since we were young kids. Through the years, she’s had a multitude of passionate discussions about Trump and his cronies with her Republican nephews, many of which have been on Facebook as well. Nephew #1 has heartily bickered with my cousin and when she disagreed with a political statement he posted on Facebook, she was demeaned by him publicly. Her nephew posted that he was elated when Amy Coney Barrett was nominated to the Supreme Court. My cousin replied she was less than happy with this choice. Then Nephew #1 wrote back, “I feel sorry for your grandchildren, who have a grandmother like you!” Nephew #2 has also made crass comments as well. After Trump was elected president, her nephew was elated. My cousin responded that she felt it was time to leave the country. His response, “I bet you poison the minds of the first-grade students you teach.” This was done on Facebook too. —another public shaming. They have since unfriended each other. Since 2016, when having dinner with friends at local restaurants, the conversation invariably turns to politics and Donald Trump. With silverware pounding and voices raging, it does not make for a pleasant evening. Even when all the diners are on the same page politically, there is angst and outrage at the current situation in the country. Antisemitism, crime, and the economy are up there on the list, along with abortion. We are witnessing an unprecedented time in history. Dinner gatherings used to be enjoyable, but the incessant political undertones in conversations, at times, are exhausting. Too many dinners have ended with eyes rolling and heads shaking at one another. Where is the fun anymore? My neighbor and good family friend is married to a staunch Republican. They are polar opposites when it comes to politics. They have survived the storm by adhering to a few mutually agreed-upon house rules that work for them: They avoid political conversations. CNN and Fox News are never on, which I suppose helps to maintain their rivaling views. Friends and relatives have come to realize that political conversations are a no-no when in their company. But once again, how did we get to this point? Why do we have to tiptoe around each other? I have heard stories of men who played golf together for 30 or 40 years, but when politics seeped into the mix, it became problematic. My husband, Jeffrey, conveyed a sad story about his golf foursome — two Republicans and two Democrats. They had been golf companions for years. During those decades, there were always opposing viewpoints and arguments ensued that ruined many rounds of golf. The morning after Trump became the Republican candidate for president, the foursome was at it once again. The Republican golfers gave each other an exuberant hug and the two Democratic golfers looked at each other with disgust and vowed, “Never again.” Sadly, they have not teed it up since. Another relationship that bit the dust. I was at a physical therapy appointment with my daughter right after the January 6th insurrection on the Capitol. As the therapist was helping Lindsay use her walker, we began our usual discussion of politics. There was so much to say about the events of January 6th–we were genuinely upset about this frightening upheaval to democracy. We weren’t speaking loudly, but another patient was honing in on our discussion. He ran through the room and stopped us in our tracks. The man declared that Trump was not responsible, nor did the former President encourage the angry crowds who wanted to overturn the election results. He added that it was a peaceful protest, not an insurrection. I guess my eyes deceived me when I was watching the mayhem take place. I don’t know what channel he was viewing on that fateful day. The physical therapist and I both tried to bring some semblance of calm to the situation, but our protestor was outraged at our opinions. We were afraid of what he might do given what we witnessed at the Capitol. After a bit of prodding, the irate man left the building and canceled his appointment for the day. Just another local lunatic. Political discourse is not safe to indulge in anymore — you don’t know who’s eavesdropping. Unfortunately, political discord has become our mantra and we are now a polarized nation. Our dance of denial has interfered with relationships. Many Americans are too quick to judge, too quick to spread lies, and too quick to inflict violence on those who oppose their radical views. To paraphrase the famous 1950s police drama, “There are eight million stories in the naked city, and these are just a few of them.” Judi Markowitz is a retired high school English teacher of 34 years. She primarily taught 12th grade and had the pleasure of her three sons gracing her classes. In addition, she taught debate, forensics, and Detroit film. Judi has four adult children and seven wonderful grandchildren. She is married to Jeffrey Markowitz, whom she met in high school. Judi grew up in Oak Park, Mich. which had a stellar school district, with excellent teachers. The city provided activities for all–and there were even sidewalks. Judi moved to Huntington Woods as an adult, which is a half mile from her childhood home. She wanted the same experience for her children as she had growing up, and Huntington Woods provided that. The View from Four Foot Two is Judi’s first book.

By Alan Resnick / Detroit Michigan remains blue and the results from the statewide midterm races have left me relieved, yet also despondent and disquieted. Our incumbent governor, attorney general, and secretary of state — all Democrats — won re-election.  But they did so against rivals that Richard Czuba, an independent pollster in Lansing, Mich., called,  “the worst ticket I have seen from any party in the last 40 years.”  All happened to be election deniers who were endorsed by twice-impeached, disgraced, ex-President Donald Trump. Tudor Dixon, the Republican candidate for governor, believes that abortions should be illegal even in cases of rape and incest.  She ran a TV ad claiming that her rival wanted to put a drag queen in every classroom.   She mocked the attempted kidnap attempt against her opponent, incumbent Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.  And Dixon was the most moderate of the three statewide Republican candidates. Matthew DePerno, a tax attorney who was the GOP’s candidate for attorney general, called Democrats, “radical, cultural Marxists who want to silence you" at an October 1 rally headlined by Trump. DePerno added “If that doesn't work, they want to put you in jail.” DePerno supports an abortion ban with absolutely no exceptions. He has compared the morning-after pill to the drug fentanyl, suggesting that both be banned. The New York Times has reported that, “At least five times, Mr. DePerno’s clients or legal colleagues have asked Michigan’s Attorney Grievance Commission to investigate his conduct.” Oh, I almost forgot to mention that DePerno remains under investigation for whether he should be criminally charged for attempting to gain access to voting machines after the 2020 election. But Dixon and DePerno are positively mainstream compared to Kristina Karamo, the Republican nominee for secretary of state. She has called abortions “child sacrifice.” On her podcast Coffee and a Mike, Karamo blamed Antifa for carrying out the Jan. 6 insurrection. In another episode, she referred to yoga as a "satanic ritual." And in yet another, she claimed the Democratic Party “has totally been taken over by a satanic agenda.” Even with this level of crackpot extremism, Dixon, DePerno, and Karamo each received approximately 45 percent of the popular vote. I know that, by some definitions, the Democrats’ margin of victory is considered a landslide. But this level of support still depresses and concerns me. How could so many people vote for these three candidates? It’s not because so many Michganders voted Republican. I’ve done so in the past for candidates at the state and federal levels and have no qualms about doing so in the future. It simply depends on the candidates and the issues I view as important in any particular election. I would describe myself as more liberal with regard to social issues and more conservative about fiscal matters. I don’t think that makes me terribly unusual. And this year’s Michigan election tended to be one that the Republican candidates framed as a cultural war. So my choice was easy. I suppose it sounds as if I consider my values to be somehow superior to those of many of my fellow citizens. But I’ve always thought that concepts like voting rights, fair, free and safe elections, the peaceful transition of power, and respect for all people were American values, beliefs that defined us as a people. Instead, a large percentage of my state’s population appear to consider me woke, a Marxist, or the spawn of Satan. On October 16, the lead story on CBS Sunday Morning was about a small political movement in Oregon known as Move Oregon’s Border. The story profiled a few people who live in the rural portion of Oregon, east of the Cascade mountain range. Republicans, they feel their cultural values and political priorities are not recognized and represented in their home state. The Western side of the state, which is more urban and densely populated, and decidedly Democratic, consistently has greater representation at the state level. Rural population interests therefore are invariably outvoted. The solution? Make the rural portions of Oregon part of Idaho. This would leave Oregon only one-third its current size, but with a still significant and homogeneous population. And it would increase both the size of Idaho and the homogeneity of its citizens. Nine counties in Oregon have already approved such a measure, and another two counties voted on it Tuesday. The simplistic response to this dilemma is, “If you don’t like it here, move.” And the CBS story profiled a man who did exactly that. A libertarian, he uprooted his family from the suburbs of Eugene to Idaho. He acknowledged that it was painful to leave friends and colleagues behind, but he and his family feel welcomed among neighbors who share a common set of values and beliefs, and a government that represents their concerns At the heart of this story is the idea of feeling disenfranchised. And it’s obvious that a large percentage of the population feels that way, both here in Michigan and around the country. Moreover, the percentage seems to be growing. I intellectually understand the idea of voter disenfranchisement, although I don’t feel that I’ve ever experienced it. So I can appreciate why people who feel their values and priorities are consistently not represented by their elected officials would respond to politicians whose rhetoric resonates with them. But I don’t believe for one second that Donald Trump, who incited and gave license to many of the extremist politicians who ran here and elsewhere around the county, cared about the disenfranchised at all. To him, they were simply rubes, suckers, marks, dupes, and losers, nothing more than political contributions and votes. And I believe that the Trump-backed candidates who ran in this week’s elections have been playing and manipulating the disenfranchised in the very same way, as a means for power and personal gain. And that saddens me most of all, even though most of them lost here and in other states. For these politicians, the division, hatred, and havoc they have caused to our society and democracy just seem to be nothing more than collateral damage. Alan Resnick is an industrial psychologist with over 40 years of professional experience. He and his wife are sheltering at home in Farmington Hills, Michigan. He is passing the time by cooking, exercising, catching up on friends’ recommendations of must-see TV and writing.

By John Rolfe / Red Hook, N.Y. Despite a cascade of threats against election workers and officials across the country, the worst did not materialize on Election Day. I’d braced myself for altercations and outright violence at polling places, so it was with some relief that all we had to endure was: A bomb scare at an early voting site in Manhattan on Sun. Nov. 6. Reports of voter intimidation by as yet unknown individuals in North Carolina and by armed poll watchers in Arizona. Glitches with voting machines in Arizona and New Jersey that were quickly cited by conspiracy theorists and Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake as evidence that the elections were rigged. Never mind that voting in Arizona is overseen by the GOP. Having a remedy in place was still viewed with suspicion by Lake and her allies who condemned — as a corrupt attempt to “slow roll” (Lake’s term) outcome — the time-consuming efforts to carefully tabulate the vote. I suspect that the ongoing prosecutions of militia members and other extremists for their involvement in the Jan. 6 siege of the Capitol and the foiled plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has had a chilling effect on those who would use organized force to sway the outcome of elections. But there is still plenty of time for things to go terribly wrong. Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel has vowed that her party’s candidates will accept results of voting only “after the process” has played out — the “process,” one can only assume, being a full slate of recounts, audits, legal challenges (at least 120 lawsuits have been filed against voting procedures in various states), and appeals (one assumes all the way to the Supreme Court). That will take weeks. Some losers, such as Blake Masters in Arizona, refused to concede. It’s most likely just a show for the GOP base, but the pot will continue to boil as Donald Trump, losing candidates, sympathetic Republicans and right-wing media outlets continue to feed the nation disinformation and baseless charges of voter fraud. Allegations of chicanery rile the base, particularly in the fraught battleground state of Arizona. Never mind that years of investigations by the George W. Bush and Trump administrations failed to find any significant systemic problems with our election systems, or that 60+ court challenges were rejected in 2020 for lack of evidence or legal standing. Fortunately, election deniers who ran for office have succeeded only in GOP-dominated states, so the election process in key swing states such as Pennsylvania and Michigan will remain out of their hands for 2024. But in the days and weeks ahead, I won’t be surprised if we see some lone wolf political terror attacks of the kind I wrote about last week. A reprise of Jan. 6 will almost surely happen at some point if the perpetrators of the first attempt to overturn a national election are not held to meaningful account. Trump and the GOP have proved that many Americans accept violence as “legitimate political discourse” and even expect it. What lies ahead appears to be two years of bitter gridlock in Washington where little is done to address the problems that candidates raged about on the campaign trail (not that many specific plans were presented), let alone shore up our democratic process. This do-nothing period will be a great luxury for Republicans as it will allow them to simply blame Democrats and hope for a better outcome at the ballot box in 2024. What disturbs me most about these times is the realization that millions of Americans really don’t care very much about what form of government our country has as long as gas and grocery prices remain cheap and people they dislike or fear bear the burdens of our most pressing problems. Democracy will live on for now, but if anything, we’ve only bought ourselves a little more time before a very ugly reckoning. The right wing’s Frankenstein won’t die quickly or easily. John Rolfe is a former senior editor for Sports Illustrated for Kids, a longtime columnist for the Poughkeepsie Journal/USA Today Network, and author of The Goose in the Bathroom: Stirring Tales of Family Life. His school bus drivin’ blog “Hellions, Mayhem and Brake Failure” is parked on his website Celestialchuckle.com (https://celestialchuckle.com) with the meter running.

By Emmy Serviss / Boston On June 24th when the Supreme Court took away my rights over my own body, I felt Numb. Today, on November 11th, following one of the most crucial midterm elections in years, I feel scared. I’m not a political aficionado. I don’t know the specific races I should be watching, but I know which swing states to keep an eye on. I don’t know the names of the nominees I should be wary of, but I know what’s at stake. Anyone who says they’re “not political” is coming from a place of privilege. Not caring about the current election (or any election, really) tells me that you don’t have anything to lose. YOUR rights aren’t at risk of being taken away, so you have the luxury of “not caring.” But when Americans are allowed easier access to guns than healthcare, and a mass shooting happens every other week – you care. When you’re a woman who could be forced to carry a baby to term, even if you have absolutely no desire to have children – you care. When you’re Jewish and always thought that “it couldn’t happen here,” until anti-Semitic rhetoric and literal Nazis are suddenly making their presence known – you care. There are so many people who don’t have the privilege to “not care.” We’re scared. I’m scared. As the election results trickled in, I felt the same nervous energy as I did six years ago. When I went to bed that night, I remember feeling a little concerned, but confident that I would wake up to our first female president. I had no idea what I would wake up to the next morning, or what the next five years would hold. The thought of the Republicans taking majority over Congress is terrifying, given what is at stake, and I genuinely don’t know if my fear is overreacting, or completely warranted. As I’m writing this, the Democrats lost a couple Senate seats, and lost a few House seats. But they also gained several governors’ seats, so I don’t know what any of that is predicting yet. This is the part where my lack of political prowess makes me prone to panic. Part of me wants to turn on CNN to hear the commentary and explanations of what is happening from people who know what they’re talking about. And the other part of me thinks that could make me even more confused and/or more panicky. I mailed in my ballot early, so I did my part. I made my voice heard. I cast my vote. But the idea that millions of other Americans may be voting to take away MY rights and the rights of others chills me to my core. I want to believe we’re better than this. But are we? We certainly haven’t been showing the world our best selves over the last five years. I want to believe that America is still the land of the free and the home of the brave. But I don’t know if that’s true anymore. And that makes me feel sad. And scared. Emmy Serviss is a Boston-based writer, actor and video editor. Once it is safe to return to live theater, you can find her performing with ComedySportz Boston and the sketch group SUZZY. When not on the stage, Emmy enjoys indulging in her new pandemic hobbies, laughing way too loudly and counting the days until Halloween.

By Bonnie Fishman / San Francisco Bay Area I’ve been the designated “family worrier” since childhood. Do you have something to worry about? I’ll take over your fretting. Heap it on. I have no limits to what I can angst about. Since the 2016 election, I’ve slept with one eye open. I don’t trust what’s going on in the world and particularly in today’s politics. I watched the news obsessively during the last administration, but from 2020 to the present. I took a reprieve, feeling a little safer with a reasonable, kind person at the helm. Now, the liars, the nonbelievers, the hate-mongers, the uninformed are back in our purview with a greater and more horrendous force than ever. My husband, Bob, and I drove 2500 miles each way across the country for eight years from Michigan to California for the winter. When Bob was behind the wheel, I NEVER slept and quite frankly, barely took my eyes off the road. If I could see an accident or mayhem coming, maybe it wouldn’t come. Same with politics. I have returned to watching way too much news, keeping that one eye open. During the ’80s,’90s, and 2000s, when I was working fulltime and raising a family, I must admit, I didn’t pay much attention to politics. Yes, I read or heard the news every day. With the opposition in office, I didn’t fear for my safety or the loss of our democracy, even though I may not have agreed with the policies. Today and in recent years, it’s a whole different ball game. What happened?! One national misstep of voting in an ignorant, power-hungry, hateful, lying, narcissistic president has caused the country and the world, for that matter, to rip the top off of Pandora’s box, unleashing vitriol, lies and racism. It’s now acceptable to say horrible things and even act on them. Throw in taking away our right to choose and civil liberties, both eyes are open now at night! This phenomenon is happening worldwide. That’s a scary thought! The most frightening idea is the possible loss of our democracy. In October 2018, the Fishman cousins took a wonderful trip to Corfu, Greece. We had many a discussion about everything under the sun, including politics. One evening, while discussing the terrible administration we were experiencing, my cousin, Carol, said the most astonishing thing to me. “Maybe some day soon we won’t have a democracy.” What?What was she talking about? How could that ever be possible? Guess what? Here we are! On the precipice of losing said democracy. My head is spinning, with one eye open. Most of my friends are liberal, like-minded people. However, I had a rather humorous experience during the 2016 election. My sister, Marcia has traveled all over the world with two Republican friends, usually during the first week in November, for the past two decades. In 2016, I joined them on a trip to Argentina and Uruguay. While in Montevideo, just about everywhere we went, a waiter would ask, “So what do you all think of the upcoming election?” We would all be sitting at a table or in a booth, the. Dems on one side and the Republicans on the other. We would all shrug and respond “We’ll see.” The silent code between these travelers was to NEVER talk about politics. On election night, our friends were in their hotel room, Marcia and I were down the hall in ours. The TV is on in both rooms. They’re thrilled and I’m pacing and pacing. I can’t believe what’s happening. I’ve got to eat and pace. “Let’s order pizza!”, I exclaim. In Uruguay? No way. One orders empañadas, little turnovers filled with all kinds of delicacies, from chicken and pork to dulce de leche and chocolate. I go all out and order the desserts. Hey, they even deliver! Did this change the election results? Heck no. But I sure had a bit of pleasure eating these South American favorites. For this year’s election on Tuesday, I repeated the pacing and eating. I whipped up a batch of flaky turnovers. When I make this dough, I often double the batch and keep one dough patty in the freezer. Then when I have a hankering, I defrost the dough, roll it out and fill it with what’s in the pantry or fridge. This time, I made classic apple, raisin, and cinnamon, a popular combination in Uruguay. An even more popular option is the turnovers filled with dulce de leche. Most people use the canned variety but I, of course, have made it from scratch. I’ve also gilded the lily by adding chopped almonds and chocolate. This is actually a fun project to do with someone else, especially children. They can easily put their desired filling in the dough, fold it over, and seal it. They’ll be pleased with the results. Let us know here at The Insider how your pacing and eating went on Tuesday. Do you keep one eye open? Dessert Turnovers Yield: 2 dozen (1 dozen apple and 1 dozen dulce de leche) Dough: 8 oz. unsalted butter, room temperature 1 c. plain yogurt 2 1/2 c. flour Dulce de leche filling: 2 c. whole milk 1/2 c. + 2 Tbsp. sugar 1/8 tsp. baking soda 1/2 tsp. vanilla 1/3 c. coarsely chopped almonds 1/3 c. semi-sweet chocolate chips or chunks Apple filling: 1 lg. tart apple, peeled, cored, cut into 1/8” dice 1/4 c. raisins 3 Tbsp. sugar 1/2 tsp. cinnamon The finish: 1 egg white cinnamon sugar or coarse sugar Make dough: Using a stationary mixer fitted with the paddle, beat the butter until light and fluffy. Add yogurt and beat until smooth. Gradually add the flour. Blend to combine. Form into 2 discs, cover, refrigerate for at least 1 hour. Make dulce de leche: In a 2-qt. heavy-bottom saucepan, place the milk, sugar, and soda. Bring to a boil. Turn down to a simmer. Simmer uncovered for about 1 hour, stirring occasionally. As it begins to caramelize, stir more often. Cook until thickened. Blend in the vanilla. Pour into a bowl and cool completely. Make the apple filling: Combine the ingredients in a bowl. Reserve. Preheat the oven to 400 degrees. Line 2 cookie sheets with parchment paper. Roll 1 disc of dough out on a lightly floured surface into 1/16” thickness. Cut into 4” diameter rounds. Place the rounds on the cookie sheets. Brush the edges with water. Place a teaspoon of filling of dulce de leche on half of each circle. Sprinkle with chopped almonds. Place chocolate pieces on top. Fold over the tops. Brush tops with egg white. Sprinkle with cinnamon sugar or coarse sugar. Crimp with a fork or with fingers. Bake for about 20 minutes, or until golden. Roll and cut the second disc as described above. Brush edges with water. Mound a good tablespoon of apple filling on half of each circle. Fold over the tops. Crimp with a fork or with fingers. Brush tops with egg white. Sprinkle with cinnamon sugar or coarse sugar. Bake for about 20 minutes, or until golden. Bonnie Fishman attended the Cordon Bleu Cookery School in London. Later, she owned and operated Bonnie’s Patisserie in Southfield, Mich. and Bonnie’s Kitchen and Catering in Bloomfield Hills, Mich. She has taught cooking for over 35 years and created hundreds of recipes. She is now living in Northern California.

One film journalist’s stream-of-consciousness cinematic journey through the pandemic, Part 107 By Laurence Lerman / New York City While a Reel Streaming column tied in to this year’s midterm election shouldn’t come as a surprise, we figured that a fresh angle would be one focusing on elections gone wrong. That’s been a large part of the conversation over the past 20 years, hasn’t it? That so many Americans currently think the electoral process isn’t kosher is a truly depressing thought. The idea that something is going very wrong between the ballot box and the announcement of election results—that there are formidable, dishonest forces at work affecting the democratic process that defines our nation—is almost too much to absorb. It's no surprise, then, that wrongfully conducted or deceptive elections and campaign have been a subject in a sizable number of movies over the years. Here are 10 movies spanning eight decades that include a Hollywood classic, a snarky new millennium favorite, a numbingly violent future-shock thriller, a Warner Bros. Merrie Melodies cartoon and a half-dozen others that fit the theme. And like this year’s electoral contests, the majority of them concern state and local politics. While none of them could be considered an actual comedy (save for the Merrie Melodies installment), all employ a satirical view of the political world they’re tackling, a kind of gallows humor that generally holds them back from being too funny. And when it comes right down to it, this is really nothing to laugh about. Bulworth (1998) Directed by Warren Beatty Who’s Up for Election? Jay Bulworth (Warren Beatty), a Democratic senator from California and one-time liberal who has conceded to more conservative politics over the years, faces a primary challenge from an up-and-coming young populist. What Goes Wrong: Weary of politics, drinking excessively and planning to commit suicide, Bulworth decides to speak out in a brutally honest manner, lambasting the right wing and embracing his near-socialist values in the form of rapping and hip-hop culture. The Best Man (1964) Directed by Franklin J. Schaffner Who’s Up for Election? Former Secretary of State William Russell (Henry Fonda), an intellectual with a rumored past of sexual indiscretions, and Senator Joe Cantwell (Cliff Robertson), a self-described “Man of the People” and ruthless opportunist, lead the race for the presidential nomination for their unnamed political party. What Goes Wrong: Neither candidate can stand the other, leading to scenarios involving blackmail, extortion and accusations of infidelity. When the smoke clears, the two men appear to have knocked each other out of the running and virtually handed the nomination to a minor contender. Election (1999) Directed by Alexander Payne Who’s Up for Election? Tracy Flick (Reese Witherspoon), an overachieving Omaha high school student, runs unopposed for student government president, but still goes to extremes to guarantee she will win. What Goes Wrong: Tracy’s civics teacher, Jim McAllister (Matthew Broderick), frustrated that nobody else is running in the election and unhappy with the exasperating Tracy in general, recruits several other students to run and then gets perilously involved in the counting of the ballots. The Candidate (1972) Directed by Michael Ritchie Who’s Up for Election? Bill McKay (Robert Redford), the idealistic and charismatic son of a former California governor (Melvyn Douglas), is corralled by a political election specialist (Peter Boyle) to run against a three-term California Republican, Senator Crocker Jarmon (Don Porter). What Goes Wrong: Since it appears clear that Jarmon cannot lose and that the race is already decided, McKay is free to campaign by saying whatever he wants and to spread his own values. Hitting the trail across the state, McKay unbelievably goes the distance and wins the election. Before meeting the press and his public at a victory party, McKay asks his campaign manager, “What do we do now?,” a query for which the manager has no answer. Bob Roberts (1992) Directed by Tim Robbins Who’s Up for Election? Conservative folk singer Bob Roberts (Tim Robbins) runs for the U.S. Senate and manages to cunningly craft a series of smear campaigns and dirty tricks to gain an advantage over his opponent, the incumbent Democrat Brickley Paiste (Gore Vidal). What Goes Wrong: A failed assassination attempt of Roberts works politically in his favor and he wins the election with 52% of the vote. Although the Senator-elect claims his wounds have left him paralyzed from the waist down, a close look reveals him to be tapping his feet at a celebration party. Irresistible (2020) Directed by Jon Stewart Who’s Up for Election? A veteran Democratic Party campaign consultant Gary Zimmer (Steve Carell) travels to Deerlaken, Wis. to get behind the campaign of a retired Marine Colonel Jack Hastings in his run to become the town’s Democratic mayor. Zimmer’s theory is that if Hastings is elected, it will convince the American people of the heartland to vote Democrat in the next presidential election. What Goes Wrong: The Republican National Committee sends Zimmer’s nemesis and former girlfriend, campaign operative Faith Brewster (Rose Byrne), to get behind the town’s Republican incumbent, Mayor Braun (Brent Sexton). By election day, it becomes clear that the citizens of Deerlaken have had their own agenda and carefully worked-out plan for who was going to become their new leader. Citizen Kane (1941) Directed by Orson Welles Who’s Up for Election? Powerful media baron Charles Foster Kane (Orson Welles) runs for governor of New York. What Goes Wrong: In the midst of his campaign, Kane begins an affair with an amateur singer (Dorothy Comingore), which is discovered by both Kane’s wife (Ruth Warwick) and his political opponent Jim Gettys (Ray Collins). The ensuing scandal ends both Kane’s political career and his marriage. The Manchurian Candidate (2004) Directed by Jonathan Demme Who’s Up for Election? Ruthless Virginia Senator Eleanor Prentiss Shaw (Meryl Streep) uses her influence to secure her Gulf War hero son, Congressman Raymond Shaw (Live Schreiber), a nomination to become the Republican Party’s vice-presidential candidate in the next election. What Goes Wrong: Secretly captured and brainwashed during the war by scientists affiliated with a mysterious political faction, Shaw turns out to be a tool of a private equity firm connected to his mother. Eleanor later manipulates Captain Ben Marco (Denzel Washington), a similarly brainwashed member of Raymond’s former platoon, to get him to assassinate the president-elect so that Raymond will become the new leader. Ballot Box Bunny (1951) Directed by Friz Freleng Who’s Up for Election? Yosemite Sam runs for mayor on the campaign promise that he will get rid of all rabbits, prompting Bug Bunny to oppose him in the race as the “pro-bunny” candidate. What Goes Wrong: Bugs and Sam’s campaigns take on an incendiary tone as the candidates unleash an exploding cigar, piano and canon at each other, with Sam generally being the recipient of the fiery results. In the end, Bugs and Sam are both defeated by a literal “dark horse” candidate who also happens to be a “mare” (so it stands to reason he would be elected “mayor.”) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8afEuHqoI4 (EDITED CLIP OF BALLOT BOX BUNNY) The Purge: Election Year (2016) Directed by James DeMonaco Who’s Up for Election? In 2040, 18 years after being forced to watch her family killed on Purge night (when all crime, including murder, is decriminalized for 12 hours), Charlene Roan (Elizabeth Roan) is a Senator running for President who promises to end the annual Purge. What Goes Wrong: Two months following the Purge, a TV announcement declares that Roan has won the election in a landslide victory. That’s followed by a news report stating that violent uprisings are spreading across the nation, instigated by Purge supporters in response to the election results. Laurence Lerman is a film journalist, former editor of Video Business--Variety's DVD trade publication--and husband to The Insider's own Gwen Cooper. Over the course of his career he has conducted one-on-one interviews with just about every major director working today, including Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, Clint Eastwood, Kathryn Bigelow, Ridley Scott, Walter Hill, Spike Lee, and Werner Herzog, among numerous others. Once James Cameron specifically requested an interview with Laurence by name, which his wife still likes to brag about. Most recently, he is the co-founder and editor-in-chief of the online review site DiscDish.com.

Fred Plotkin, a pleasure activist and passionate Italy and culinary expert, speaks each Friday with leading people in the arts FRED PLOTKIN is one of America’s foremost experts on opera and has distinguished himself in many fields as a writer, speaker, consultant and as a compelling teacher. He is an expert on everything Italian, the person other so-called Italy experts turn to for definitive information.  Fred discovered the concept of "The Renaissance Man" as a small child and has devoted himself to pursuing that ideal as the central role of his life. In a “Public Lives” profile in The New York Times on August 30, 2002, Plotkin was described as "one of those New York word-of-mouth legends, known by the cognoscenti for his renaissance mastery of two seemingly separate disciplines: music and the food of Italy." In the same publication, on May 11, 2006, it was written that "Fred is a New Yorker, but has the soul of an Italian."