Saturday, September 30, 2017

No Miss Havisham

Forlorn, jilted Miss Havisham may yet be shuffling around her house in her bridal gown, still consumed after many years with thinking about what might have been, but I can assure you that my life is not like this. I do not shuffle around MY house in my high school baseball uniform, wondering what might have happened had I been able to hit the curveball. I am highly satisfied with how my life has turned out. It turns out that I didn't need to hit the curveball.

Thursday, September 28, 2017

The Republicans Tax Cut Mythology


PostEverything

I helped create the GOP tax myth. Trump is wrong: Tax cuts don’t equal growth.

The best growth in recent memory came after President Bill Clinton raised taxes in the ’90s.

  
Bruce Bartlett was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of “The Benefit and the Burden: Tax Reform — Why We Need It and What It Will Take."
 Play Video 3:02
Trump’s speech on the GOP tax plan, in three minutes
During a speech in Indianapolis, Sept. 27, President Trump said the GOP tax plan is a “once-in-a-generation opportunity” to lower taxes on the middle class and businesses.(Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)
Four decades ago, while working for Rep. Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.), I had a hand in creating the Republican tax myth. Of course, it didn’t seem like a myth at that time — taxes were rising rapidly because of inflation and bracket creep, the top tax rate was 70 percent and the economy seemed trapped in stagflation with no way out. Tax cuts, at that time, were an appropriate remedy for the economy’s ills. By the time Ronald Reagan was president, Republican tax gospel went something like this:
  • The tax system has an enormously powerful effect on economic growth and employment.
  • High taxes and tax rates were largely responsible for stagflation in the 1970s.
  • Reagan’s 1981 tax cut, which was based a bill, co-sponsored by Kemp and Sen. William Roth (R-Del.), that I helped design, unleashed the American economy and led to an abundance of growth.
Based on this logic, tax cuts became the GOP’s go-to solution for nearly every economic problem. Extravagant claims are made for any proposed tax cut. Wednesday, President Trump argued that “our country and our economy cannot take off” without the kind of tax reform he proposes. Last week, Republican economist Arthur Laffer said, “If you cut that [corporate] tax rate to 15 percent, it will pay for itself many times over. … This will bring in probably $1.5 trillion net by itself.”
That’s wishful thinking. So is most Republican rhetoric around tax cutting. In reality, there’s no evidence that a tax cut now would spur growth.
The Reagan tax cut did have a positive effect on the economy, but the prosperity of the ’80s is overrated in the Republican mind. In fact, aggregate real gross domestic product growth was higher in the ’70s — 37.2 percent vs. 35.9 percent.
Moreover, GOP tax mythology usually leaves out other factors that also contributed to growth in the 1980s: First was the sharp reduction in interest rates by the Federal Reserve. The fed funds rate fell by more than half, from about 19 percent in July 1981 to about 9 percent in November 1982. Second, Reagan’s defense buildup and highway construction programs greatly increased the federal government’s purchases of goods and services. This is textbook Keynesian economics.
Third, there was the simple bounce-back from the recession of 1981-82. Recoveries in the postwar era tended to be V-shaped — they were as sharp as the downturns they followed. The deeper the recession, the more robust the recovery.
Finally, I’m not sure how many Republicans even know anymore that Reagan raised taxes several times after 1981. His last budget showed that as of 1988, the aggregate, cumulative revenue loss from the 1981 tax cut was $264 billion and legislated tax increases brought about half of that back.
Today, Republicans extol the virtues of lowering marginal tax rates, citing as their model the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which lowered the top individual income tax rate to just 28 percent from 50 percent, and the corporate tax rate to 34 percent from 46 percent. What follows, they say, would be an economic boon. Indeed, textbook tax theory says that lowering marginal tax rates while holding revenue constant unambiguously raises growth.
But there is no evidence showing a boost in growth from the 1986 act. The economy remained on the same track, with huge stock market crashes — 1987’s “Black Monday,” 1989’s Friday the 13th “mini-crash” and a recession beginning in 1990. Real wages fell.
Strenuous efforts by economists to find any growth effect from the 1986 act have failed to find much. The most thorough analysis, by economists Alan Auerbach and Joel Slemrod, found only a shifting of income due to tax reform, no growth effects: “The aggregate values of labor supply and saving apparently responded very little,” they concluded.
The flip-side of tax cut mythology is the notion that tax increases are an economic disaster — the reason, in theory, every Republican in Congress voted against the tax increase proposed by Bill Clinton in 1993. Yet the 1990s was the most prosperous decade in recent memory. At 37.3 percent, aggregate real GDP growth in the 1990s exceeded that in the 1980s.
Despite huge tax cuts almost annually during the George W. Bush administration that cost the Treasury trillions in revenue, according to the Congressional Budget Office, growth collapsed in the first decade of the 2000s. Real GDP rose just 19.5 percent, well below its ’90s rate.
We saw another test of the Republican tax myth in 2013, after President Barack Obama allowed some of the Bush tax cuts to expire, raising the top income tax rate to its current 39.6 percent from 35 percent. The economy grew nicely afterward and the stock market has boomed — up around 10,000 points over the past five years.
Now, Republicans propose cutting the top individual rate to 35 percent, despite lacking evidence that this lower rate led to growth during the Bush years, and a drop in the corporate tax rate to just 20 percent from 35 percent. Unlike 1986, however, this $1.5 trillion cut over the next decade will only be paid for partially by closing tax loopholes.
Republicans’ various claims are irreconcilable. One is that the rich will not benefit even though it is practically impossible for them not to — those paying the most taxes already will necessarily benefit the most from a large tax cut. And there aren’t enough tax deductions, exclusions and credits benefiting the rich that could be abolished to offset a cut in the top rate.
Even if they had released a complete plan — not just the woefully incomplete nine-page outline released Wednesday — Republicans have failed to make a sound case that it’s time to cut taxes.
Nor have they signaled that they’ll commit to a viable process. It’s worth remembering that the first version of the ’81 tax cut was introduced in 1977 and underwent thorough analysis by the CBO and other organizations, and was subject to comprehensive public hearings. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 grew out of a detailed Treasury study and took over two years to complete.
Rushing through a half-baked tax plan, in the same manner Republicans tried (and failed) to do with health-care reform, should be rejected out of hand. As Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has repeatedly and correctly said, successful legislating requires a return to the “regular order.” That means a detailed proposal with proper revenue estimates and distribution tables from the Joint Committee on Taxation, hearings and analysis by the nation’s best tax experts, markups and amendments in the tax-writing committees, and an open process in the House of Representatives and Senate.
There are good arguments for a proper tax reform even if it won’t raise GDP growth. It may improve economic efficiency, administration and fairness. But getting from here to there requires heavy lifting that this Republican Congress has yet to demonstrate. If they again look for a quick, easy victory, they risk a replay of the Obamacare repeal fight that wasted so much time and yielded so little.

Hillary Rodham Clinton - What Happened (Book Review)

Above all else, Hillary Clinton is a trooper who has the world a better place since she was the First Lady of Arkansas.  Her illustrious career made her one of the most qualified people to ever run for President.  She was the first female nominee of one of the two major parties.  It's a shame and a lose for the country and for the world that she was not elected.

On that last score, Hillary makes it clear with evidence that James Comey's sudden announcement on October 28 that he was reopening the Clinton email pseudo scandal cost her the election.  Polls showed this to be the case.  We should never forgive or excuse Comey.  Russian interference in the election to help Trump is unarguable.  It remains to be seen what comes of this.  How this country elected the most unqualified person in American history remains to be explained thoroughly.  There will be differing opinions; it's just a shame it happened.

This is a marvelous memoir combining autobiography, political analysis, and expert opinion on where the country should be going forward.  Hillary will continue to speak up and speak out, and this will benefit us all.

"This is the story of what happened.
It's the story of what I saw, felt, and thought during two of the most intense years I have ever experienced.
It's also the story of what happened to our country, why we are so divided, and what we can do about it."  P. XI

Hillary received 65,844,610 votes.  That's more than anyone candidate in history.  P. XIV

Her account of attending Trump's inauguration is heart- rending.  She could have not attended but she put country over partisanship.  If Trump is still around long enough to lose in 2020, I predict that he will not attend the inauguration of his successor.  P. 3

Glad to see she references historian Timothy Snyder and George Orwell.  P. 9

Yoga helped her get through the difficult days after the loss.  P. 27

Either you like Hillary, or you hate her guts.  It pretty much boils down to this.

"i tried to lose myself in books.  Our house is packed with them, and we keep adding more.  Our shelves are weighed down with volumes about history and biography, especially biographies of Presidents, but in those first few months, they held no interest for me whatsoever."  P. 29

in those months after losing the race she watched TV shows that Bill had been saving.  P. 31

Didn't want to be like Miss Havisham, wondering around the house wondering why might have been.  P. 32

Learning humility.  P, 34

"I ran for President because I thought I'd be good at the job."  P. 39

Says she should have stayed away from Wall Street speeches.  P. 46

Admits her mistakes in this book, unlike Trump, who NEVER admits a mistake.  P. 47

If you add together his time on Twitter, TV, and the golf course, what's left?  P. 50

Methodists are told to do all the good you can.  P. 54

There is only the trying.  P. 56

Sometimes a burrito bowl is just a burrito bowl.  P. 60

Would have won if not for the intervention of the FBI director in the last days.  P. 75

"After waking up, I check my email and read my morning devotional from Rev. Bill Shillady, which is usually waiting in my inbox.  I spend a few minutes in contemplation, organizing my thoughts and setting my priorities for the day."  P. 85

Bill is a night-owl; Hillary is an early bird.  P. 86

Hillary is a hot sauce fan!  P. 92

On the road with Hillary.  P. 94

Bill collects "things."  P. 97

President Obama raised more money than anyone in history from Wall Street she reminds Bernie Sanders.  P. 97

Following the Cubs!  P. 100

Her amazing/thorough debate prep.  P. 103

She cannot understand why she's been called divisive.  "I'm really asking.  I'm at a loss."  P. 120

"Hear me out."  P. 121

Taken aback by the flood of hatred that grew worse as the election grew close.  P. 126

A champion of small, pragmatic changes rather than sweeping changes that have no chance of being enacted.  P. 136

The consequential act of her life was marrying Bill.  She said no the first two times.  P. 159

Bill loves to organize their bookshelves!  P. 160

Always searching for the right balance between idealism and realism.  P. 196

Over the years Hillary paid her dues for the Democratic Party.  P. 201

"Ad FDR supposedly told a group of civil rights leaders, 'Okay, you've convinced me.  Now make me do it,' "  P. 202

Finding a proper balance between pragmatism and principle isn't easy.  P. 206

Timely: Trump trying to dismantle CHIP.  P. 207

It always come back to children.  P. 208

The decline of serious journalism is declining and has been declining for years.  Details matter.  They matter greatly.  Hillary is a self-described policy wonk.   P. 223

Hillary says she is a progressive, but not a socialist.  P. 231.

Compromise is necessary to get anything done.  P. 231

Trump had no legitimate policies.  P. 232

What she would have done had she been elected.  P. 233

Economics was more important than emails.  P. 236

Frederick Douglass was at Seneca Falls in 1848.  P. 246

Hillary is fundamentally honest.  P. 321

"It'll be like Christmas in the Kremlin."  P. 337

The War on Truth goes on.  P. 365

She was shell-shocked on election night.  It is obvious that she did expect to win and did not expect to lose.  P. 385

Reading Tillich.  P. 430

"Do I feel any empathy for Trump?"  Fred Hudson does not.  P. 442

After the election: What do we do now?  We keep going.

There is only the trying.

Saturday, September 23, 2017

The Myth of the Benevolent Slave Master


PHOTO ILLUSTRATION BY SARAH ROGERS/THE DAILY BEAST

LIES

The Myth of Robert E. Lee And The "Good" Slave Owner

According to the Lost Cause mythology ginned up after the Civil War, Robert E. Lee was a benevolent slave owner who really fought for states’ rights. His slaves said otherwise.

Because of the current controversy surrounding Confederate monuments, Robert E. Lee’s connection to slavery has become a matter of debate. Complicating the discussion is that his image remains tied to the legacy of the“Lost Cause,” a postwar effort to distort historical record. Insisting that the Confederacy had not seceded in the defense of slavery, but in defense of “states rights,” Lost Cause advocates painted slavery as beneficial to both whites and blacks, arguing the Confederacy’s leaders and soldiers were men of virtue who had merely endeavored to civilize and teach Christian values to an inferior people. In this southern revision of history, Robert E. Lee stands above all Confederate leaders as worthy of adulation; the very model of paternalistic southern gentlemen.
To challenge this image of Lee, historians have lately noted the experiences of African Americans who were the legal property of Lee’s father in law, George Parke Custis (George Washington’s step-grandson), who died in 1857. As executor of Custis’s last will, Robert E. Lee was charged with freeing the bondsmen within five years. Yet some of the enslaved insisted they were to be freed upon their master’s death, causing a conflict with Lee that resulted in a failed escape attempt from Arlington plantation by three of the enslaved. Under Lee's order to “lay it on well,” each of the rebels endured up to 50 lashes and suffered excruciating pain as the wounds were bathed in brine. Lee also broke with Custis and Washington family tradition, separating most of the enslaved families under his control.
ADVERTISEMENT
So much for the image of Lee as a “good master.”
Telling an even more dishonorable story are the wartime diaries and letters written by United States soldiers and newspaper reporters who interacted with African Americans enslaved by Lee and his family. Besides Arlington, Custis’ will also dealt with two other plantations, one of which was in New Kent County, Virginia, known as White House (George and Martha Washington were married there). Robert E. Lee's son, William H.F. “Rooney” Lee was to inherit the plantation upon his mother’s death, but he went ahead and moved there in 1859, taking control of its operations. This included managing close to 100 of the approximately 200 enslaved peoples that his father now legally possessed. By the start of the Civil War, Robert E. Lee had yet to free them as the Custis will dictated.
During the war’s 1862 Peninsula Campaign, United States troops temporarily occupied White House plantation, with General George McClellan establishing his headquarters at the site because it lay astride a railroad running directly to the Confederate capital of Richmond. Thus, Northerners came in close contact there with the plantation’s enslaved community.
A remarkably clear picture emerges of the life and sentiments of the peoples enslaved by Robert E. Lee and his family, based on their experiences as immediately recorded by soldiers and newspaper reporters. Such primary sources further challenge the depiction of Lee as a paternalistic slaveholder, completely dispelling the postwar creation of the “faithful slave” element of the Lost Cause.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Along with his father, Rooney Lee was in Confederate service, and his mother and family fled as U.S. troops descended upon the plantation. When the Yankees arrived, only the slaves and their overseer remained. "There has been about a dozen of families of slaves lived here," a Pennsylvania soldier explained in a letter home, noting that many of the younger black men had already fled from bondage. During the Civil War, masters attempted to frighten African Americans away from helping or joining U.S. soldiers by insisting that Northerners were evil devils who captured blacks, sending them to work in the Caribbean or South American jungles. According to a Baltimore American reporter, Lee’s family made the same vain attempt. They "told [their slaves] the usual stories about what the Yankees would do with them … but all these stories had no effect."
Lee’s slaves immediately revealed that the family’s lies had not fooled them, showing no loyalty to their fleeing masters. One soldier recorded in his diary that the overseer "told the darkies not to cook anything for the Yankies.” Nevertheless, the African Americans "were very kind to us & [gave] us corn cake, eggs, fresh herring, & salmon." This was the beginning of a mutually beneficial relationship.
Referring to the infamous evil character in Uncle Tom’s Cabin, a Philadelphia Inquirer correspondent described Lee’s overseer as having "the look of Legree," noting he told the enslaved community "he would cut them to pieces" for aiding the Yankees. Instead of cowering, an enslaved woman reported the overseer’s bullying to the Yankees. "A corporal [then] went to him, and . . . threaten[ed] to drown him” in the York River.  Emboldened, Lee’s slaves "refuse any longer to recognize [the overseer’s] authority." The New York World’s correspondent noted that if the overseer tried to punish the slaves "there will be one less slavedriver."
The enslaved community’s living conditions on the Lee plantation were disgusting. "The more I see of slavery, the more I think it should be abolished," a soldier opined. Another described the "long rows of ‘quarters," containing "log huts with no windows … holes in the walls, and only a mud floor." A New York officer was more blunt: "Their quarters look like a village of pigsties."
An Inquirer reporter described the Lee slaves as "ragged, dirty, and the smallest nearly naked." Few had ever been off the plantation their entire life. "There were all sorts of darkies there," one soldier noted, "stalwart field hands, old worn out men … "Topsies" carrying buckets of water on their heads, strong-limbed boys, and little toddlers running around [barely clothed]." It is no wonder the Lee slaves "were a happy set of darkies when they learned that they were free."
The enslaved community’s Christian beliefs were heavily rooted in the Old Testament, believing God would eventually free them as he had the Jews of the Exodus. The Lee slaves felt that day had arrived. One U.S. soldier attended "an outdoor jubilee meeting,” noting how the enslaved preacher delivered a sermon that was "not exactly Scripture, but it came near the truth.” When an army chaplain addressed the gathering, the community’s religious fervor and excitement at deliverance made for a “wild scene.” One correspondent noted, "We found most of the negroes in a high state of glee. They felt, on the arrival of the Union Army, that their chains were broken."
GET THE BEAST IN YOUR INBOX!

By clicking “Subscribe,” you agree to have read the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy
The Philadelphia Presscorrespondent noticed many of the slaves replacing their slave rags with Union uniforms, "some of them completely, others partially.” He then offered an assessment of Lee’s stewardship: “I apprehend the slaves of the rebel Lee are much better clothed now than when he was here to look after their wants." It was abundantly clear that the slaves showed no loyalty to the Lee family or the Confederacy: "every one to whom I have spoken would fight for [Lincoln] if he was called upon."
The New York Times got the most personal interview with a woman enslaved by Lee at White House. "Robert Meekum and his wife Diana are the leading colored people on this plantation," the paper reported. Robert was an "advisor … in both spiritual and temporal affairs" on the plantation, and officers immediately sought his aid in organizing the African Americans to work for the U.S. Army. The long-time couple lived in one of those “pigsty” huts, crammed with "several children, grandchildren, and hens and chickens.”
Years before, Lee’s father-in-law sold a child away from Diana, and it was a pain from which she had never recovered. Despite hopes that she would live “to see de day when all would be free,” she had come close to losing faith. There was no expectation that Robert E. Lee would willingly free anyone. Yet with her husband now assisting the United States Army as it prepared to assault the Confederate bastion of Richmond, she happily exclaimed, "Now I know I hab a Lord and Savior, and I thank him."
Noting that Lee was in Confederate service, the correspondent asked Diana if she was worried he might be killed.  She simply shrugged off the question, indifferently replying, "‘De Lord[’s] will must be done unto him.”
Clearly, Diana and her fellow enslaved community had no affection for the family and the man that held them in bondage, and were more than willing to aid his enemies. It is well past time for us to consider this perspective when assessing Robert E. Lee and the fate of his statues and memorials.

Thursday, September 21, 2017

GOPer on repealing and replacing Obamacare

"You know, I could maybe give you 10 reasons why this bill shouldn't be considered," the Iowa Republican said. "But Republicans campaigned on this so often that you have a responsibility to carry out what you said in the campaign. That's pretty much as much of a reason as the substance of the bill." - Chuck Grassley, CNN

Hillary Selling Well


Hillary Clinton’s memoir sells 300,000 copies in its first week

  
A box of Hillary Clinton's book "What Happened" are staged to be distributed outside the Warner Theatre in Washington, Sept. 18, 2017. (Carolyn Kaster/AP)
What happened is Hillary Clinton’s memoir sold 300,000 copies in its first week.
Simon & Schuster announced Wednesday morning that “What Happened” sold 167,000 copies in hardback in the United States since it went on sale Sept. 12. (Nielsen BookScan indicates that about 8,800 of those copies were sold in the greater DC metro area.) 
According to the publisher, that’s the biggest first-week sales recorded by any author for a hardcover nonfiction title since 2012. Ebook and audiobook sales raised the book’s debut week total to 300,000. 
(That’s better than the first week of Clinton’s 2014 “Hard Choices,” but still below the extraordinary first-week sales of Sarah Palin’s 2009 memoir, “Going Rogue,” which reportedly sold 469,000 copies in its opening week.)
S&S said that the audiobook version of “What Happened” was doing particularly well. Read by Clinton herself, the book had the best week of digital audio sales in the company’s history.
Clinton’s memoir, which recounts her experience during the 2016 presidential campaign against Donald Trump, has found an interested audience abroad, too. “What Happened” will debut Sunday at No. 1 on the nonfiction hardcover list of Britain’s Sunday Times.
S&S reports that it has printed has 800,000 copies so far. 
Carolyn Reidy, president and chief executive of Simon & Schuster said, “The remarkable response to ‘What Happened’ indicates that, notwithstanding all that has been written and discussed over the last year, there is clearly an overwhelming desire among readers to learn about and experience, from Hillary Clinton’s singular perspective, the historic events of the 2016 election.”
Predictably, reviews of “What Happened” have been mixed.
The Washington Post called it “a raw and bracing book, a guide to our political arena.” Reviewer David Weigel went on to say, “The Hillary Clinton of this bitter memoir resembles the shrunken, beaten Richard Nixon who told David Frost that he gave his enemies a sword and ‘they twisted it with relish.’ Again and again she blames herself for losing, apologizing for her ‘dumb’ email management, for giving paid speeches to banks, for saying she would put coal miners ‘out of business.’ She veers between regret and righteous anger, sometimes in the same paragraph.”
The National Review scoffed: “The book only makes sense when you realize that What Happened is a fake title, a P. T. Barnum-style ruse to draw in the suckers. The real subject of this 500-page chunk of self-congratulation and blame-shifting — its real title — is Why I Should Have Won.”
The Atlantic claimed “What Happened” is “not a standard work of this genre. It’s interesting; it’s worth reading; and it sets out questions that the press, in particular, has not done enough to face.”
On Sept. 12, Clinton has also released a 117-word picture book adaptation of her 1996 bestseller, “It Takes a Village.”

Monday, September 18, 2017

Hillary's Reading List


The Daily 202 

The Daily 202: The reading list that helped Hillary Clinton cope

  
With Breanne Deppisch and Joanie Greve
THE BIG IDEA: If I had to stock Hillary Clinton’s new memoir in a bookstore, I’d be tempted to place it in a section on self-help or bereavement.
What Happened” was quickly strip-mined for political nuggets after its publication last Tuesday. As I went through it over the weekend, though, what struck me most was how the wounded Democrat coped after her crushing defeat last November.
In short, Clinton has read voraciously and eclectically — for escape, for solace and for answers.
The collection of works that she cites across 494 pages showcases a top-flight intellect and would make for a compelling graduate school seminar.
“Friends advised me on the power of Xanax and raved about their amazing therapists,” writes Clinton, 69. “But that wasn’t for me. … Instead, I did yoga. … I also drank my share of chardonnay. … [And] I tried to lose myself in books.”
Parts of “What Happened” remind me of Joan Didion’s “ The Year of Magical Thinking,” Sheryl Sandberg’s “Option B” and even Elizabeth Gilbert’s “Eat, Pray, Love.” Blowing an election that she was confident she’d win — thereby allowing Donald Trump to become president — represented a humiliating, degrading and very public loss for the former secretary of state.
Yes, the book oozes with the sort of Clintonian grievance Americans have grown accustomed to — and exhausted by — over the past quarter-century. Her finger pointing, from Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein to James Comey, Julian Assange, and even Matt Lauer, has been well-documented by now.
But her account is also rawer, and thus better, than we expected. Clinton is much harder on herself than the mainstream media’s coverage of her rollout has given her credit for. She confesses that she’s wrestled with why she lost every single day since Nov. 8. “Sometimes it’s hard to focus on anything else,” Clinton writes. “I do sometimes lie awake at night thinking about how we closed the campaign…”
-- At first, Clinton turned to mystery novels in a bid to get the election results off her mind. She inherited her love for this genre from her mother, and she’d plow through a full book in a single sitting. “Some of recent favorites are by Louise Penny, Jacqueline Winspear, Donna Leon, and Charles Todd,” Clinton writes. “I finished reading Elena Ferrante’s four Neapolitan novels and relished the story they tell about friendship among women.”
Just as if she lost her appetite for a time, the biographies of former presidents that weigh down the bookshelves at her home in Chappaqua, N.Y., held no appeal. To keep her failure in perspective, Clinton thought instead about how good she still has it compared to Fantine in Victor Hugo’s “Les Miserables.” She resolved that she does not want to spend the rest of her life like Miss Havisham from Charles Dickens’s “Great Expectations,” stirring around her house stewing.
-- She went back to stuff that has given her joy or comfort in the past, including poetry by Maya Angelou, Marge Piercy and T.S. Eliot.
She reread one of her favorite books, “The Return of the Prodigal Son” by the Dutch priest Henri Nouwen. “It’s something I’ve gone back to repeatedly during difficult times in my life,” she writes. “Maybe it’s because I’m the oldest in our family and something of a Girl Scout, but I’ve always identified with the older brother in the parable. … It’s a story about unconditional love — the love of a father, and also The Father, who is always ready to love us, no matter how often we stumble and fall.”
Clinton’s flinty father always told her that he’d love her unconditionally. As a little girl, she’d ask him if he’d still love her even if she robbed a bank. Or murdered somebody. Absolutely, he’d tell her. “Once or twice last November,” she recalls, “I thought to myself, ‘Well, Dad, what if I lose an election I should have won and let an unqualified bully become President of the United States? Would you still love me then?’”
Nouwen was inspired to write his 1992 book by observing the Rembrandt painting that depicts the scene when the prodigal son comes home. “I can choose to be grateful even when my emotions and feelings are still steeped in hurt and resentment,” the Catholic priest wrote. “I can choose to speak about goodness and beauty even when my inner eye still looks for someone to accuse or something to call ugly. I can choose to listen to the voices that forgive and to look at the faces that smile even while I still hear words of revenge and see grimaces of hatred.” Reading this again and again offered Clinton a reminder about the importance of being grateful even when things aren’t going well.
Thinking about the process of mourning, Clinton looked to another book by Nouwen called “Bread for the Journey.” In it, he writes: “To console does not mean to take away the pain but rather to be there and say, ‘You are not alone, I am with you. Together we can carry the burden. Don’t be afraid. I am here.’ That is consolation. We all need to give it as well as to receive it.”
-- A few weeks after the election, Clinton picked up a copy of a sermon called “You Are Accepted” by the Christian theologian Paul Tillich. She remembered sitting in a church basement in Park Ridge, Ill., decades ago as her youth minister, Don Jones, read it aloud. “Years later, when my marriage was in crisis, I called Don. Read Tillich, he said. I did. It helped,” Clinton recounts. “Now I was sixty-nine and reading Tillich again. There was more here than I remembered.”
“God strikes us when we are in great pain and restless,” the sermon says. “Sometimes at that moment, a wave of light breaks into our darkness, and it is as though a voice were saying: ‘You are accepted.’”
-- She was also moved by the TED Talk that Pope Francis delivered this April, in which he called for “a revolution of tenderness.” “What a phrase!” writes Clinton.
-- Clinton’s focus on novels and religious texts didn’t last too long, largely because of revelations about Russian interference in the election. “I read everything I could get my hands on,” she writes, referring to press accounts. “The voluminous file of clippings on my desk grew thicker and thicker. To keep it all straight, I started making lists of everything we knew about the unfolding scandal. At times, I felt like CIA agent Carrie Mathison on the TV show ‘Homeland,’ desperately trying to get her arms around a sinister conspiracy and appearing more than a little frantic in the process.” (She goes on to argue that what’s happening now is worse than Watergate.)
-- Between long walks in the woods, Clinton kept devouring books. She started looking for answers to the question that animates her book: What happened? 
“Since the election, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about why I failed to connect with more working-class whites,” Clinton writes.
Clinton first refers to the book “What’s the Matter with Kansas?”: “After John Kerry lost to George W. Bush in 2004, the writer Thomas Frank popularized the theory that Republicans persuaded whites … to vote against their economic interests by appealing to them on cultural issues – in other words, ‘gays, guns and God.’ There’s definitely merit in that explanation.
She then cites “Hillbilly Elegy,” which remains near the top of bestseller lists: “Anger and resentment do run deep. As Appalachian natives such as J.D. Vance have pointed out, a culture of grievance, victimhood and scapegoating have taken root as traditional values of self-reliance and hard work have withered. There’s a tendency toward seeing every problem as someone else’s fault, whether it’s Obama … undocumented immigrants … or me.”
Clinton notes (correctly) that the breakdown in civil society is a long-term trend that predates Trump and cites Robert Putnam’s “Bowling Alone,” a classic of this genre. The Harvard professor’s title alludes to declining membership in bowling leagues, which illustrates how people are growing apart and becoming less social. Putnam’s 2000 book was based on a 1995 article, but the problems he identifies have only gotten worse in the years since.
Hillary insists that she was not blind to the anger that existed in the Rust Belt before the election results came in.During the campaign, she writes that she and her husband Bill both read “The True Believer,” the 1951 classic by Eric Hofer about the psychology behind fanaticism and mass movements. She says she even told her senior staff that they should read it too.
Clinton says her most profound post-election insights about her struggles with working-class whites came when she went back to “Democracy in America.” She was first exposed to Alexis de Tocqueville’s book in an undergraduate political science class. The Frenchman traveled across the nascent country in the 1830s, marveling at the degree of social equality and economic mobility here compared to Europe. As first lady, Clinton leaned on “Democracy in America” to make the case in “It Takes a Village” that our national character has always been imbued with a belief that our own self-interest is advanced by helping one another.
After losing a national campaign, she zeroed in on another theme of de Tocqueville’s narrative. “After studying the French Revolution, he wrote that revolts tend to start not in places where conditions are worst, but in places where expectations are most unmet,” Clinton explains. “So if you’ve been raised to believe that your life will unfold a certain way—say, with a steady union job that doesn’t require a college degree but does provide a middle-class income, with traditional gender roles intact and everyone speaking English—and then things don’t work out the way you expected, that’s when you get angry. … Too many people feel alienated from one another and from any sense of belonging or higher purpose. Anger and resentment fill that void and can overwhelm everything else.”
-- Clinton is honest in the book that she’s routinely had to fake a smile since November. More than two dozen women, mostly in their twenties, have approached her to apologize for not voting for her. One time an older woman dragged her adult daughter and ordered her to apologize to Clinton’s face. “I wanted to stare right in her eyes and say, ‘You didn’t vote? How could you not vote?! You abdicated your responsibility as a citizen at the worst possible time! And now you want me to make you feel better?’” Clinton recalled. “Of course, I didn’t say any of that! These people were looking for absolution that I just couldn’t give.”
Often Clinton wound up doing the comforting, rather than being comforted. “It’ll be ok, but right now it’s really hard” was her go-to line when people asked how she was getting along. If she was feeling defiant, she’d respond: “Bloody, but unbowed.” That’s a phrase from “Invictus,” a poem by the 19th century English poet William Ernest Henley. It’s no coincidence that it was also one of Nelson Mandela’s favorites.
“My mistakes burn me up inside,” Clinton writes. “But as one of my favorite poets, Mary Oliver, says, while our mistakes make us want to cry, the world doesn’t need more of that. The truth is, everyone’s flawed.”
The coverage that greeted Trump’s 100th day as president was painful because it prompted Clinton to think about what the stories would have said about her. “A haunting line from the nineteenth-century poet John Greenleaf Whittier comes to mind,” she adds. “For all sad words of tongue and pen, the saddest are these: ‘It might have been.’”
In March, Clinton turned to Eleanor Roosevelt for inspiration. She made a “pilgrimage” with a handful of girlfriends to Hyde Park, N.Y., to see Val-Kill, which was the former first lady’s private cottage. This is where she went to think and write. Hillary looked at Eleanor’s favorite books on a shelf, and then a historian escorting her group around shared copies of some of her letters. “Reading the mix of adoring fan mail and nasty, cutting diatribes was a reminder of the love-hate whiplash that women who challenge society’s expectations and live their lives in the public eye often receive,” Clinton writes.
-- Clinton acknowledges suffering bouts of self-doubt that cause her to re-litigate decisions that she made during the heat of the campaign. “I have a new appreciation for the galvanizing power of big, simple ideas,” she writes. “It’s easy to ridicule ideas that ‘fit on a bumper sticker,’ but there’s a reason campaigns use bumper stickers: they work. … In my introspective moments, I do recognize that my campaign in 2016 lacked the sense of urgency and passion that I remember from ’92.”
Before she announced her candidacy in 2015, Bill and Hillary both read a book called “With Liberty and Dividends for All: How to Save Our Middle Class When Jobs Don’t Pay Enough.” Peter Barnes makes the case for a new fund that would use revenue from natural resources to pay an annual dividend for every American. The idea is inspired by the Alaska Permanent Fund, which distributes the state’s oil royalties to citizens of the state every year. It would theoretically ensure that everyone received a modest basic income every year.
This fascinated the Clintons, and they spent weeks excitedly exploring it. They wanted to call it “Alaska for America.” Ultimately, Hillary shelved the plan after concluding that the numbers did not really add up. Looking back, she thinks maybe she should have just embraced it anyway. “To provide a meaningful dividend each year to every citizen, you’d have to raise enormous sums of money, and that would either mean a lot of new taxes or cannibalizing other important programs,” she writes. “I wonder now whether we should have thrown caution to the wind and embraced ‘Alaska for America’ as a long-term goal and figured out the details later.”
Bigger picture, Clinton complains that Bernie put her in a tough spot by running on the kind of pipe dreams that made “Alaska for America” look pragmatic. “No matter how bold and progressive my policy proposals were — and they were significantly bolder and more progressive than anything President Obama or I had proposed in 2008 — Bernie would come out with something even bigger, loftier, and leftier,” Clinton fumes. “That left me to play the unenviable role of spoilsport schoolmarm, pointing out that there was no way Bernie could keep his promises or deliver real results.”
-- As the months wore on, Clinton focused increasingly on the role that she could play in the so-called Resistance movement. She decries the emergence of “alternative facts,” a term popularized by White House counselor Kellyanne Conway. “Attempting to define reality is a core feature of authoritarianism,” Clinton writes. “This is what happens in George Orwell’s classic novel ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four,’ when a torturer holds up four fingers and delivers electric shocks until his prisoner sees five fingers as ordered. The goal is to make you question logic and reason and to sow mistrust toward exactly the people we need to rely on: our leaders, the press, experts who seek to guide public policy based on evidence, ourselves. For Trump, as with so much he does, it’s about simple dominance.”
On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century,” the thin volume by Yale history professor Timothy Snyder, has been especially popular in elite circles this year. This quote from the book resonated the most with HRC: “To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle.”
Writing about sitting through Trump’s inauguration, Clinton laments: “We were in a ‘brave new world.’”
-- A few months later, looking for inspiration as she prepared to deliver the commencement address at Wellesley College, her alma mater, Clinton reread Vaclav Havel’s “The Power of the Powerless. Under the yoke of Soviet oppression, the dissident who would become the first president of the Czech Republic wrote an essay in 1978 about the ability of individuals to wield the truth like a weapon against the regime’s “thick crust of lies.”
“The moment someone breaks through in one place, when one person cries out, ‘The emperor is naked!’ — when a single person breaks the rules of the game, thus exposing it as a game — everything suddenly appears in another light,” Havel wrote.
Clinton muses: “Havel understood that authoritarians who rely on lies to control their people are fundamentally not that different from neighborhood bullies. … This felt like the right message for 2017.”
-- The cosmopolitan Clinton quotes a diverse range of other international voices in the book, including Lebanese writer Kahlil Gibran, Nigerian author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, Austrian novelist Rainer Maria Rilke, Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw and German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.
-- To be sure, Clinton has also watched a lot of television since November. The weekend after the election, she turned on “Saturday Night Live” and fought back tears as she watched Kate McKinnon — in character as her — perform Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah.” She binge-watched old episodes of “The Good Wife,” “Madam Secretary” and “Blue Bloods.” She caught up on “NCIS: Los Angeles,” which Bill thinks is the best in the CBS franchise.
One day, she even watched a video of one of her three debates against Trump. When the sound was off, Clinton realized that “between his theatrical arm waving and face making and his sheer size and aggressiveness, I watched him a lot more than I watched me.” “I’m guessing a lot of voters did the same thing,” she laments.