Wednesday, June 30, 2021

The Swimmer By John Cheever

The Swimmer

By John Cheever The New Yorker

It was one of those midsummer Sundays when everyone sits around saying, “I drank too much last night.” You might have heard it whispered by the parishioners leaving church, heard it from the lips of the priest himself, struggling with his cassock in the vestiarium, heard it on the golf links and the tennis courts, heard it in the wildlife preserve, where the leader of the Audubon group was suffering from a terrible hangover.

“I drank too much” said Donald Westerhazy, at the edge of the Westerhazys’ pool.

“We all drank too much,” said Lucinda Merrill.

“It must have been the wine,” said Helen Westerhazy. “I drank too much of that claret.”

The pool, fed by an artesian well with a high iron content, was a pale shade of green. It was a fine day. In the west there was a massive stand of cumulus cloud, so like a city seen from a distance—from the bow of an approaching ship—that it might have had a name. Lisbon. Hackensack. The sun was hot. Neddy Merrill sat by the green water, one hand in it, one around a glass of gin. He was a slender man—he seemed to have the special slenderness of youth—and while he was far from young, he had slid down his banister that morning and given the bronze backside of Aphrodite on the hall table a smack, as he jogged toward the smell of coffee in his dining room. He might have been compared to a summer’s day, particularly the last hours of one, and while he lacked a tennis racket or a sail bag, the impression was definitely one of youth, sport, and clement weather. He had been swimming, and now he was breathing deeply, stertorously, as if he could gulp into his lungs the components of that moment, the heat of the sun, the intenseness of his pleasure. It all seemed to flow into his chest. His own house stood in Bullet Park, eight miles to the south, where his four beautiful daughters would have had their lunch and might be playing tennis. Then it occurred to him that, by taking a dog-leg to the southwest, he could reach his home by water.

His life was not confining, and the delight he took in this thought could not be explained by its suggestion of escape. In his mind he saw, with a cartographer’s eye, a string of swimming pools, a quasi-subterranean stream that curved across the county. He had made a discovery, a contribution to modern geography; he would name the stream Lucinda, after his wife. He was not a practical joker, nor was he a fool, but he was determinedly original, and had a vague and modest idea of himself as a legendary figure. The day was beautiful, and it seemed to him that a long swim might enlarge and celebrate its beauty.

He took off a sweater that was hung over his shoulders and dove in. He had a simple contempt for men who did not hurl themselves into pools. He swam a choppy crawl, breathing either with every other stroke or every fourth stroke, and counting somewhere well in the back of his mind the one-two one-two of a flutter kick. It was not a serviceable stroke for long distances, but the domestication of swimming had saddled the sport with some customs, and in his part of the world a crawl was customary. Being embraced and sustained by the light-green water seemed not as much a pleasure as the resumption of a natural condition, and he would have liked to swim without trunks, but this was not possible, considering his project. He hoisted himself up on the far curb—he never used the ladder—and started across the lawn. When Lucinda asked where he was going, he said he was going to swim home.

The only maps and charts he had to go by were remembered or imaginary, but these were clear enough. First there were the Grahams’, the Hammers’, the Lears’, the Howlands’, and the Crosscups’. He would cross Ditmar Street to the Bunkers’ and come, after a short portage, to the Levys’, the Welchers’, and the public pool in Lancaster. Then there were the Hallorans’, the Sachs’, the Biswangers’, the Shirley Abbott’s, the Gilmartins’, and the Clydes’. The day was lovely, and that he lived in a world so generously supplied with water seemed like a clemency, a beneficence. His heart was high, and he ran across the grass. Making his way home by an uncommon route gave him the feeling that he was a pilgrim, an explorer, a man with a destiny, and he knew that he would find friends all along the way; friends would line the banks of the Lucinda River.

He went through a hedge that separated the Westerhazys’ land from the Grahams’, walked under some flowering apple trees, passed the shed that housed their pump and filter, and came out at the Grahams’ pool. “Why, Neddy,” Mrs. Graham said, “what a marvellous surprise. I’ve been trying to get you on the phone all morning. Here, let me get you a drink.” He saw then, like any explorer, that the hospitable customs and traditions of the natives would have to be handled with diplomacy if he was ever going to reach his destination. He did not want to mystify or seem rude to the Grahams, nor did he have time to linger there. He swam the length of their pool and joined them in the sun. A few minutes later, two carloads of friends arrived from Connecticut. During the uproarious reunions he was able to slip away. He went down by the front of the Grahams’ house, stepped over a thorny hedge, and crossed a vacant lot to the Hammers. Mrs. Hammer, looking up from her roses, saw him swim by, although she wasn’t quite sure who it was. The Lears heard him splashing past the open windows of their living room. The Howlands and the Crosscups were away. After leaving the Crosscups’, he crossed Ditmar Street and started for the Bunkers’, where he could hear, even at that distance, the noise of a party.

The water refracted the sound of voices and laughter and seemed to suspend it in midair. The Bunkers’ pool was on a rise, and he climbed some stairs to a terrace where twenty-five or thirty men and women were drinking. The only person in the water was Rusty Towers, who floated there on a rubber raft. Oh, how bonny and lush were the banks of the Lucinda River! Prosperous men and women gathered by the sapphire-colored waters while caterer’s men in white coats passed them cold gin. Overhead, a red de Havilland trainer was circling around and around and around in the sky, with something like the glee of a child in a swing. Ned felt a passing affection for the scene, a tenderness for the gathering, as if it was something he might touch. In the distance he heard thunder.

As soon as Enid Bunker saw him, she began to scream, “Oh, look who’s here! What a marvellous surprise! When Lucinda said that you couldn’t come, I thought I’d die. . . .” She made her way to him through the crowd, and when they had finished kissing, she led him to the bar, a progress that was slowed by the fact that he stopped to kiss eight or ten other women and shake the hands of as many men. A smiling bartender he had seen at a hundred parties gave him a gin-and-tonic, and Ned stood by the bar for a moment, anxious not to get stuck in any conversation that would delay his voyage. When he seemed about to be surrounded, he dove in and swam close to the side, to avoid colliding with Rusty’s raft. He climbed out at the far end of the pool, bypassed the Tomlinsons with a broad smile, and jogged up the garden path. The gravel cut his feet, but this was the only unpleasantness.

The party was confined to the pool, and as he went toward the house he heard the brilliant, watery sound of voices fade, heard the noise of a radio from the Bunkers’ kitchen, where someone was listening to a ball game. Sunday afternoon. He made his way through the parked cars and down the grassy border of their driveway to Alewives’ Lane. He did not want to be seen on the road in his bathing trunks, but there was no traffic, and he made the short distance to the Levys’ driveway, marked with a “Private Property” sign and a green tube for the Times. All the doors and windows of the big house were open, but there were no signs of life, not even a barking dog. He went around the side of the house to the pool and saw that the Levys had only recently left. Glasses and bottles and dishes of nuts were on a table at the deep end, where there was a bathhouse or gazebo, hung with Japanese lanterns. After swimming the pool, he got himself a glass and poured a drink. It was his fourth or fifth drink, and he had swum nearly half the length of the Lucinda River. He felt tired, clean, and pleased at that moment to be alone, pleased with everything.

It would storm. The stand of cumulus cloud—that city—had risen and darkened, and while he sat there, he heard thunder. The de Havilland trainer was still circling overhead, and it seemed to Ned that he could almost hear the pilot laugh with pleasure in the afternoon; but when there was another peal of thunder, he took off for home. A train whistle blew, and he wondered what time it had gotten to be. Four? Five? He thought of the station where, at that hour, a waiter, his tuxedo concealed by a raincoat, a dwarf with some flowers wrapped in newspaper, and a woman who had been crying would be waiting for the local. It was suddenly growing dark—it was that moment when the pinheaded birds seem to organize their song into some acute and knowledgeable recognition of the storm’s approach. From the crown of an oak at his back, there was a fine noise of rushing water, as if a spigot there had been turned on. Then the noise of fountains came from the crowns of all the tall trees. Why did he love storms? What was the meaning of his excitement when the front door sprang open and the rain wind fled rudely up the stairs? Why had the simple task of shutting the windows of an old house seemed fitting and urgent? Why did the first watery notes of a storm wind have for him the unmistakable sound of good news, cheer, glad tidings? There was an explosion, a smell of cordite, and rain lashed the Japanese lanterns that Mrs. Levy had bought in Kyoto the year before last, or was it the year before that?

He stayed in the Levys’ gazebo until the storm had passed. The rain had cooled the air and he shivered. The force of the wind had stripped a maple of its red and yellow leaves and scattered them over the grass and the water. Since it was midsummer, the tree must be blighted, and yet he felt a sadness at this sign of autumn. He braced his shoulders, emptied his glass, and started for the Welchers’ pool. This meant crossing the Pasterns’ riding ring, and he was surprised to find it overgrown with grass and all the jumps dismantled. Had the Pasterns sold their horses or gone away for the summer and put them out to board? He seemed to remember having heard something about the Pasterns and their horses, but the memory was unclear. On he went, barefoot, through the wet grass to the Welchers’, where he found that their pool was dry.

This breach in his chain of water disappointed him absurdly, and he felt like an explorer who is seeking a torrential headwater and finds a dead stream. He was disappointed and mystified. It was common enough to go away for the summer, but people never drained their pools. The Welchers had definitely gone away. The pool furniture was folded, stacked, and covered with a tarpaulin. The bathhouse was locked. All the windows of the house were shut, and when he went around to the driveway in front, he saw a “For Sale” sign nailed to a tree. When had he last heard from the Welchers—when, that is, had he and Lucinda last regretted an invitation to dine with them? It seemed only a week or so ago. Was his memory failing, or had he so disciplined it in the repression of unpleasant facts that he had damaged his sense of the truth? In the distance he heard the sound of a tennis game. This cheered him, cleared away all his apprehensions, and let him regard the overcast sky and the cold air with indifference. This was the day that Neddy Merrill swam across the county. That was the day! He started off then for his most difficult portage.

Had you gone for a Sunday-afternoon ride that day, you might have seen him, close to naked, standing on the shoulder of Route 424, waiting for a chance to cross. You might have wondered if he was the victim of foul play, or had his car broken down, or was he merely a fool? Standing barefoot in the deposits of the highway beer cans, rags, and blowout patches, exposed to all kinds of ridicule, he seemed pitiful. He had known when he started that this was a part of his journey—it had been on his imaginary maps—but, confronted with the lines of traffic worming through the summery light, he found himself unprepared. He was laughed at, jeered at, a beer can was thrown at him, and he had no dignity or humor to bring to the situation. He could have gone back, back to the Westerhazys’, where Lucinda would still be sitting in the sun. He had signed nothing, vowed nothing, pledged nothing—not even to himself. Why, believing as he did that all human obduracy was susceptible to common sense, was he unable to turn back? Why was he determined to complete his journey, even if it meant putting his life in danger? At what point had this prank, this joke, this piece of horseplay become serious? He could not go back, he could not even recall with any clearness the green water at the Westerhazys’, the sense of inhaling the day’s components, the friendly and relaxed voices saying that they had drunk too much. In the space of an hour, more or less, he had covered a distance that made his return impossible.

An old man, tooling down the highway at fifteen miles an hour, let him get to the middle of the road, where there was a grass divider. Here he was exposed to the ridicule of the northbound traffic, but after ten or fifteen minutes he was able to cross. From here he had only a short walk to the Recreation Center at the edge of the village of Lancaster, where there were some handball courts and a public pool.

The effect of water on voices, the illusion of brilliance and suspense, was the same here as it had been at the Bunkers’, but the sounds here were louder, harsher, and more shrill, and as soon as he entered the crowded enclosure he was confronted with regimentation. “all swimmers must take a shower before using the pool. all swimmers must use the foot-bath. all swimmers must wear their identification discs.” He took a shower, washed his feet in a cloudy and bitter solution, and made his way to the edge of the water. It stank of chlorine and looked to him like a sink. A pair of lifeguards in a pair of towers blew police whistles at what seemed to be regular intervals, and abused the swimmers through a public-address system. Neddy remembered the sapphire water at the Bunkers’ with longing, and thought that he might contaminate himself—damage his own prosperousness and charm—by swimming in this murk, but he reminded himself that he was an explorer, a pilgrim, and that this was merely a stagnant bend in the Lucinda River. He dove, scowling with distaste, into the chlorine, and had to swim with his head above water to avoid collisions, but even so he was bumped into, splashed, and jostled. When he got to the shallow end, both lifeguards were shouting at him: “Hey, you, you without the identification disc, get outa the water!” He did. They had no way of pursuing him, and he went through the reek of sun-tan oil and chlorine, out through the hurricane fence and past the handball courts. Crossing the road, he entered the wooded part of the Halloran estate. The woods were not cleared, and the footing was treacherous and difficult, until he reached the lawn and the clipped beech hedge that encircled the pool.

The Hallorans were friends, an elderly couple of enormous wealth who seemed to bask in the suspicion that they might be Communists. They were zealous reformers, but they were not Communists, and yet when they were accused, as they sometimes were, of subversion, it seemed to gratify and excite them. Their beech hedge was yellow, and he guessed it was suffering from a blight, like the Levys’ maple. He called “Hullo, hullo,” to warn the Hallorans of his approach. The Hallorans, for reasons that had never been explained to him, did not wear bathing suits. No explanations were in order, really. Their nakedness was a detail in their uncompromising zeal for reform, and he stepped politely out of his trunks before he went through the opening in the hedge.

Mrs. Halloran, a stout woman with white hair and a serene face, was reading the Times. Mr. Halloran was taking beech leaves out of the water with a scoop. They seemed neither surprised nor displeased to see him. Their pool was perhaps the oldest in the neighborhood, a fieldstone rectangle fed by a brook. It had no filter or pump, and its waters were the opaque gold of the stream.

“I’m swimming across the county,” Ned said.

“Why, I didn’t know one could!” exclaimed Mrs. Halloran.

“Well, I’ve made it from the Westerhazys’,” Ned said. “That must be about four miles.”

He left his trunks at the deep end, walked to the shallow end, and swam back. As he was pulling himself out of the water, he heard Mrs. Halloran say, “We’ve been terribly sorry to hear about all your misfortunes, Neddy.”

“My misfortunes?” Ned asked. “I don’t know what you mean.”

“Why, we heard that you’d sold the house, and that your poor children . . .”

“I don’t recall having sold the house,” Ned said, “and the girls are at home.”

“Yes,” Mrs. Halloran sighed. “Yes . . .”

Her voice filled the air with an unseasonable melancholy, and Ned said briskly, “Thank you for the swim.”

“Well, have a nice trip,” said Mrs. Halloran.

Beyond the hedge, he pulled on his trunks and fastened them. They were loose, and he wondered if during the space of an afternoon he could have lost some weight. He was cold, and he was tired, and the naked Hallorans and their dark water had depressed him. The swim was too much for his strength, but how could he have guessed this, sliding down the banister that morning and sitting in the Westerhazys’ sun? His arms were lame. His legs felt rubbery and ached at the joints. The worst of it was the cold in his bones, and the feeling that he might never be warm again. Leaves were falling around him and he smelled woodsmoke on the wind. Who would be burning wood in the fireplace at this time of year?

He needed a drink. Whiskey would warm him, pick him up, carry him through the last of his journey, refresh his feeling that it was original and valorous to swim across the county. Channel swimmers took brandy. He needed a stimulant. He crossed the lawn in front of the Hallorans’ house and went down a little path to where they had built a house for their only daughter, Helen, and her husband, Eric Sachs. The Sachs’ pool was small, and he found Helen and her husband there.

“Oh, Neddy!” Helen said. “Did you lunch at Mother’s?”

“Not really,” Ned said. “I did stop to see your parents.” This seemed to be explanation enough. “I’m terribly sorry to break in on you like this, but I’ve taken a chill, and I wonder if you’d give me a drink.”

“Why, I’d love to,” Helen said, “but there hasn’t been anything in this house to drink since Eric’s operation. That was three years ago.”

Was he losing his memory, had his gift for concealing painful facts let him forget that he had sold his house, that his children were in trouble, and that his friend had been ill? Ned’s eyes slipped from Eric’s face to his abdomen, where he saw three pale, sutured scars, two of them at least a foot long. Gone was his navel, and what, Neddy thought, would the roving hand, bed-checking one’s gifts at 3 a.m., make of a belly with no navel, no link to birth, this breach in the succession?

“I’m sure you can get a drink at the Biswangers’,” Helen said. “They’re having an enormous do. You can hear it from here. Listen!”

She raised her head, and from across the road, the lawns, the gardens, the woods, the fields he heard again the brilliant noise of voices over water. “Well, I’ll get wet,” he said, still feeling that he had no freedom of choice about his means of travel. He dove into the Sachs’ cold water, and, gasping, close to drowning, made his way from one end of the pool to the other. “Lucinda and I want terribly to see you,” he said over his shoulder, his face set toward the Biswangers’. “We’re sorry it’s been so long, and we’ll call you very soon.”

He crossed some fields to the Biswangers’ and the sounds of revelry there. They would be honored to give him a drink, they would be happy to give him a drink, they would, in fact, be lucky to give him a drink. The Biswangers invited him and Lucinda for dinner four times a year, six weeks in advance. They were always rebuffed, and yet they continued to send out their invitations, unwilling to comprehend the rigid and undemocratic realities of their society. They were the sort of people who discussed the price of things at cocktails, exchanged market tips during dinner, and after dinner told dirty stories to mixed company. They did not belong to Neddy’s set—they were not even on Lucinda’s Christmas-card list. He went toward their pool with feelings of indifference, charity, and some unease, since it seemed to be getting dark and these were the longest days of the year. The party when he joined it was noisy and large. Grace Biswanger was the kind of hostess who asked the ophthalmologist, the veterinarian, the real-estate dealer, and the dentist. No one was swimming, and the twilight, reflected on the water of the pool, had a wintery gleam. There was a bar, and he started for it. When Grace Biswanger saw him, she came toward him, not affectionately, as he had every right to expect, but bellicosely.

“Why, this party has everything,” she said loudly, “including a gate-crasher.”

She could not deal him a social blow—there was no question about this—and he did not flinch. “As a gate-crasher,” he asked politely, “do I rate a drink?”

“Suit yourself,” she said.

She turned her back on him and joined some guests, and he went to the bar and ordered a whiskey. The bartender served him, but rudely. His was a world in which the caterer’s men kept the social score, and to be rebuffed by a part-time barkeep meant that he had suffered some loss of social esteem. Or perhaps the man was new and uninformed. Then at his back he heard Grace say, “They went broke overnight—nothing but income—and he showed up drunk one Sunday and asked us to loan him five thousand dollars. . . .” She was always talking about money. It was worse than eating your peas off a knife. He dove into the pool, swam its length, and went away.

The next pool on his list, the last but two, belonged to his old mistress, Shirley Abbott. If he had suffered any injuries at the Biswangers’, they would be cured here. Love—sexual roughhouse, in fact—was the supreme elixir, the painkiller, the brightly colored pill that would put the spring back into his step, the joy of life in his heart. They had had an affair last week, last month, last year. He couldn’t remember. It was he who had broken it off, his was the upper hand, and as he stepped through the gate of the wall that surrounded her pool it seemed to be his pool, since the lover, particularly the illicit lover, enjoys the possessions of his mistress with an authority unknown to holy matrimony. She was there, her hair the color of brass, but her figure, at the edge of the lighted, cerulean water, excited in him no profound memories. It had been, he thought, a lighthearted affair, although she wept when he broke it off. She seemed confused to see him. If she was still wounded, would she, God forbid, weep again?

“What do you want?” she asked.

“I’m swimming across the county.”

“Good Christ. Will you ever grow up?”

“What’s the matter?”

“If you’ve come here for money,” she said, “I won’t give you another cent.”

“You could give me a drink.”

“I could, but I won’t. I’m not alone.”

“Well, I’m on my way.”

He dove in and swam the pool, but when he tried to haul himself up onto the curb, he found that the strength in his arms and his shoulders had gone, and he paddled to the ladder and climbed out. Looking over his shoulder, he saw, in the lighted bathhouse, a young man. Going out onto the dark lawn, he smelled chrysanthemums or marigolds—some stubborn autumnal fragrance on the night air, strong as gas. Looking overhead, he saw that the stars had come out, but why should he seem to see Andromeda, Cepheus, and Cassiopeia? What had become of the constellations of midsummer? He began to cry.

It was probably the first time in his adult life that he had ever cried—certainly the first time in his life that he had ever felt so miserable, cold, tired, and bewildered. He could not understand the rudeness of the caterer’s barkeep, or the rudeness of a mistress who had once come to him on her knees and showered his trousers with tears. He had swum too long, he had been immersed too long, and his nose and his throat were sore from the water. What he needed then was a drink, some company, and some clean dry clothes, and while he could have cut directly across the road to his home, he went on, instead, to the Gilmartins’ pool. Here, for the first time in his life, he did not dive but went down the steps into the icy water and swam a hobbled sidestroke that he might have learned as a child. He staggered with fatigue on his way to the Clydes’, and paddled the length of their pool, stopping again and again, with his hand on the curb, to rest. He climbed up the ladder and wondered if he had the strength to get home. He had done what he wanted—he had swum the county—but he was so stupefied with exhaustion that his triumph seemed vague. Stooped, holding onto the gateposts for support, he turned up the driveway of his own house.

The place was dark. Had Lucinda stayed at the Westerhazys’ for supper? Had the girls joined her there, or gone someplace else? Hadn’t they agreed, as they usually did on Sunday, to regret all their invitations and stay at home?

He tried the garage doors, to see what cars were in, but the doors were locked and rust came off the handles. Going toward the house, he saw that the force of the thunderstorm had knocked one of the rain gutters loose. It hung down over the front door like an umbrella rib, but it could be fixed in the morning. The house was locked, and he thought that the stupid cook or the stupid maid must have locked the place up, until he remembered that it had been some time since they had employed a maid or a cook. He shouted, pounded on the door, tried to force it with his shoulder, and then, looking in at the windows, saw that the place was empty. ?

 

Sunday, June 27, 2021

The End of the Islamic Republic

 The End of the Islamic Republic

ABBAS MILANI Project Syndicate

Sayyid Ebrahim Raisi’s victory in Iran’s presidential election places all of the country’s levers of power in the hands of regime hardliners for the first time in decades. But behind the apparent consolidation of power, domestic turmoil looms as the country's structural challenges worsen.

PALO ALTO – Iran’s presidential election on June 18 was the most farcical in the history of the Islamic regime – even more so than the 2009 election, often called an “electoral coup.” It was less an election than a chronicle of a death foretold – the death of what little remained of the constitution’s republican principles. But, in addition to being the most farcical, the election may be the Islamic Republic’s most consequential. 

The winner, Sayyid Ebrahim Raisi, is credibly accused of crimes against humanity for his role in killing some 4,000 dissidents three decades ago. Amnesty International has already called for him to be investigated for these crimes. Asked about the accusation, the new president-elect replied in a way that would have made even George Orwell blush, insisting that he should be praised for his defense of human rights in those murders.

Never has such a motley crew been chosen to act as a foil for its favored candidate. The regime mobilized all of its forces to ensure a big turnout for Raisi, who until the election was Iran’s chief justice. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei decreed voting a religious duty, and casting a blank ballot a sin, while his clerical allies condemned advocates of a boycott as heretics. But even according to the official results, 51% of eligible voters did not vote, and of those who did, more than four million cast a blank ballot. There are already allegations that the announced numbers were doctored, and a powerful movement to boycott the election has already declared the outcome a virtual referendum against the status quo.

Despite the constitution’s republican elements, real power has always been in the hands of the Supreme Leader. Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, virtually all elections – except those in the first couple of years – were to varying degrees engineered. The Islamic Republic has always been closer to a traditional Islamic state than a modern republic. But after Raisi’s election, it will be a stretch to call Iran even a competitive authoritarian regime where factions compete in managed elections to divide power.

This election was not just about the presidency, but also about the selection of the next Supreme Leader. Khamenei is 82, and has long been battling prostate cancer. Some believe the plan is to anoint Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba, as the next Supreme Leader, making the post hereditary (and moving Iran closer to becoming a caliphate). In this scenario, Raisi is to be the pliant president who enables Mojtaba’s rise. But others think that Raisi himself is Khamenei’s designated successor.

Despite this important ambiguity, two things seem clear. First, both candidates are bad news for Iran and the region. Mojtaba is a shadowy figure who for many years has been his father’s de facto chief of staff, and, more important, has close ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ brutal intelligence forces. And Raisi’s bloody record in the judiciary speaks for itself. Second, the IRGC – a political, economic, cultural, military, and intelligence juggernaut – will be calling the shots in selecting Khamenei’s successor. 

More broadly, it is also clear that the regime, enfeebled by structural challenges – including a drought, COVID-19, a collapsing financial system, a determined women’s movement demanding an end to gender apartheid, and rising discontent among young people – has been flexing its muscles at home and abroad. Its response to these challenges has been continued brutality against its citizens, abduction of dual nationals to use as bargaining chips, a rapid increase in uranium enrichment, and more attacks on US forces in Iraq by regime proxies. 

Raisi will be in office when and if the ongoing negotiations with the United States resurrect some version of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. A revived JCPOA would bring an end to some of the sanctions re-imposed by former US President Donald Trump when he withdrew from the deal in 2018. While the Trump administration’s policy of “maximum pressure” hurt ordinary Iranians, it also weakened the regime. If human rights are not a crucial part of any new deal with Iran, then the gains from an end to sanctions will strengthen the regime’s most strident elements. For the US, negotiating with a roguish regime is prudent policy, but normalizing such regimes is to the detriment of America’s long-term interests.

The debate about Iran in the US has often devolved into a false binary between advocates of “regime change” and “appeasers.” In conducting its negotiations, President Joe Biden’s administration must avoid both sides. But while Iran has rightly criticized the US for unilaterally renouncing a binding agreement, the US should demand that Khamenei take direct responsibility for negotiating with the US. According to both Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and outgoing President Hassan Rouhani, Khamenei was involved in every step of the JCPOA negotiations, but remained in the shadows, and even allowed his minions to attack the deal long before Trump walked away from it.

The US neither can nor should accept the responsibility of changing Iran’s regime. Only the people of Iran can and should make that decision. But any US negotiations with the Islamic Republic must recognize that America’s long-term interests, and those of the people of Iran, can be realized only with a modern democracy, not an Islamic caliphate. The country’s grave structural challenges can be solved only by a national concordance that includes all strata of Iranian society, particularly women, as well as the Iranian diaspora.

The election of Raisi indicates that Khamenei and his allies are moving in the exact opposite direction, which all but guarantees domestic turmoil in the coming months and years. A prudent and effective US strategy toward Iran must place this reality at the center of its calculations.

ABBAS MILANI

Friday, June 25, 2021

Harry Hay, John Cage, and the Birth of Gay Rights in Los Angeles

Harry Hay, John Cage, and the Birth of Gay Rights in Los Angeles

By Alex Ross The New Yorker

Five men sat together on a hillside in the late afternoon, imagining a world in which they did not have to hide.

In a solitary gay-pride parade the other day, I trudged up the Mattachine Steps, a long, steep public staircase east of the Silver Lake Reservoir, in Los Angeles. The steps—one of many pedestrian shortcuts that interlace the hilly neighborhoods of Silver Lake, Los Feliz, and Echo Park—are named for the Mattachine Society, the first enduring American gay-rights organization. The group held its inaugural meeting on November 11, 1950, outside the home of the Communist activist Harry Hay, who lived at the top of the stairs. Five men sat together on the hillside in the late afternoon, imagining a world in which they did not have to hide.

Gay Angelenos like to remind their counterparts to the north and east that L.A. played a crucial, perhaps decisive, role in gay-rights history. In 1947 and 1948, Edythe Eyde, a secretary at R.K.O. Pictures, distributed a carbon-copied publication called Vice Versa: America’s Gayest Magazine, the first of its kind. The pioneering gay magazine ONE began publication in downtown L.A., in 1953; after battles with censorship, it won a landmark case at the Supreme Court, in 1958. A year later, gay patrons at a Cooper Do-Nuts shop, also downtown, reportedly responded to police harassment by throwing doughnuts at officers. And, in 1967, the Black Cat tavern, in Silver Lake, was the scene of a significant protest against police violence. The Stonewall riots, in New York, two years later, have gone down in legend as the great gay breakthrough, but organized efforts in both L.A. and San Francisco mattered just as much.

In the post-Stonewall era, the Mattachine Society has often been caricatured as a meek bunch of well-dressed squares who pursued respectability at all costs. Eric Cervini’s recent biography of Frank Kameny, the stalwart of the Washington, D.C., Mattachines, rejects that stereotype, portraying Kameny as one of the most fearless fighters that the gay movement has known. Mattachine’s first iteration, under Hay’s leadership, occupies a category entirely of its own. It was informed both by Communist Party tactics and by countercultural life styles. It grew from the radical bohemia of Edendale, as parts of Los Feliz, Silver Lake, and Echo Park were once collectively known. Hay himself was a wholly original character who looked past the gay-straight divide to the multiplicities of contemporary queer culture.

Early gay-rights advances depended heavily on the indignation of white men who could not accept being reduced to marginal status. Hay fit the type, up to a point. His father was a mining engineer who became wealthy while working for Cecil Rhodes, in South Africa, and for the Guggenheims, in Chile. The family moved to L.A. in 1919, when Harry was six. The boy gravitated toward theatre and other arts, to the annoyance of his authoritarian father. Although Harry struck a formidable figure—by the age of fourteen he was six feet three—he was marked as effeminate, and suffered as a result. He took refuge in the role of the mocking outsider. The matachin was an all-male sword dance that became popular in sixteenth-century Europe; Hay pictured its practitioners as ambiguous shamans, comparable to two-spirit beings in Native American tradition.

Music was a particular passion of Hay’s. A 1927 article in the Eagle Rock Reporter and Sentinel attests that Hay studied piano with a Mrs. Palmer T. Reed and played an overture of his own devising at one of her recitals. While at Los Angeles High School, he won a scholarship for vocal performance. Later, in the forties, he researched global folk-music traditions and taught classes on the subject. During a stay in New York, he formed a strong attachment to “Parsifal,” Wagner’s vaguely erotic celebration of male brotherhood. At the Met, he noticed, a frisky clientele would gather in the standing room. As Stuart Timmons notes in his 1990 biography, “The Trouble with Harry Hay,” the inner circle of the Mattachine Society was dubbed Parsifal, in Wagner’s honor.

A fellow-student at L.A. High was destined to find greater musical fame: John Milton Cage, Jr., a clean-cut, brilliant boy from Eagle Rock. The link between the future pioneer of gay rights and the future giant of avant-garde music is a fascinating artifact of bohemian L.A. Cage was the class valedictorian in 1928, and that same year he won the Southern California Oratorical Contest, with a speech titled “Other People Think”—a prophetic statement that implored Americans to fall silent and listen to the rest of the world. Hay entered the same contest a year later, speaking on the topic “Youth Progresses.” Cage, by then a freshman at Pomona, returned to coach his successor. In the event, Hay lost to Earl T. Smith, a Black student from Manual Arts High School, who went on to have a modest career as an actor.

Cage and Hay formed a closer bond in the early thirties, at a time when Cage was in a relationship with an artist named Don Sample. In Hay’s recollection, the three young men formed a circle of “bright intellectual Faeries,” with Cage emerging from his shy cocoon. Hay lent his fine baritone voice to two early Cage pieces, settings of Aeschylus and Gertrude Stein, which were performed before a bemused crowd at the Santa Monica Bay Woman’s Club. Then, in 1935, Cage married the painter Xenia Kashevaroff, precipitating a break. Hay was not surprised when his gay friends made heterosexual detours—three years later, he himself married Anita Platky, a fellow-Communist—but he was unprepared for the chilly welcome he received when he went to visit the couple. Cage greeted him on the porch and did not invite him in. Hay later told his biographer, “I could only guess I looked too—obvious.”

Within a few years, Cage had fallen in love with Merce Cunningham and abandoned the pretense of the straight life. Still, he never definitively identified himself as gay. Unswervingly radical in his artistic and social philosophy, he stopped short of political engagement. Politics comes in many guises, however, and Cage’s stance of absolute otherness, especially from the late forties onward, became an oblique mirror image of Hay’s own break from convention. These two student orators from L.A. High carved out new ways of living in the world.

From the top of the Mattachine Steps, I walked down the other side of the hill and made another steep ascent, into a section known as Elysian Heights. Both Hay and Cage lived in the area briefly, after their marriages. While Silver Lake long ago became a deluxe neighborhood, its streets gleaming with multimillion-dollar mid-century-modern homes, much of Elysian Heights retains a rustic character. Streets peter out into dirt paths and pick up again farther up the hill. In the thirties and forties, Communists and other radicals occupied many of the area’s houses, some of them little more than cabins. They valued the secrecy of this environment, which was outside the easy reach of the L.A.P.D.’s dreaded Red Squad. Gays and lesbians prized such spaces for similar reasons.

Daniel Hurewitz’s revelatory 2007 study, “Bohemian Los Angeles and the Making of Modern Politics,” shows how Hay’s gay activism was rooted in local Communist cells and in the broader landscape of L.A.’s progressive politics in the thirties and forties. Across the country, the left was reaching its zenith in this period, with a quarter of Americans favoring socialism, according to a 1942 poll. But L.A.’s minority communities felt a particular vulnerability, impelling them to direct action. Mexican-Americans confronted mob violence during the Zoot Suit Riots, of 1943. African-Americans encountered police brutality and racist real-estate covenants. Japanese-Americans were interned en masse after Pearl Harbor. In 1952, the Echo Park chapter of the Civil Rights Congress organized discussions around such topics as “White Chauvinism and Genocide.” Jewish leftists, for their part, saw anti-Semitism churning behind Red-hunting efforts.

The same dream of minority unity floats above George J. Sánchez’s absorbing new book, “Boyle Heights: How a Los Angeles Neighborhood Became the Future of American Democracy.” Before the Second World War, Boyle Heights, which is east of downtown L.A., had housed Jewish, Latino, Black, and Japanese communities in close proximity. Furthermore, as Sánchez observes, these multinational, multiracial groups were able to maintain distinct identities, resisting an assimilationist mentality. Boyle Heights was no utopia, to be sure: the disappearance of the Japanese population after 1941 shattered the ideal. Still, the trailblazing Latino politician Edward Roybal, who represented East L.A. in Congress from 1963 to 1993, built a potent multiracial coalition on the basis of his Boyle Heights background.

Hay’s inspired stroke, articulated in an early Mattachine document, was to posit gays and lesbians as an “oppressed minority,” whose culture should emerge parallel to “our fellow-minorities—the Negro, Mexican, and Jewish Peoples.” The turning point had come in 1948, when Hay embraced the Presidential campaign of Henry Wallace, who made civil rights a central plank of his platform. At one point, Hay thought of forming a group called Bachelors for Wallace. (He also considered the name Bachelors Anonymous; the cell-like, leaderless structure of Alcoholics Anonymous impressed him.) As it turned out, most local leftists were aghast at this new mutation. Hay withdrew from the Party, on the ground that his homosexuality would make him a security risk. An even more absurd humiliation followed: in 1953, the growing Mattachine Society forced Hay and other founders to step down, on the ground that their leftist ties were a liability. Only decades later did Hay receive his due as a gay-rights pathfinder.

Hay lived until 2002, imperiously swishy to the end. In 1979, he co-launched the alternative-gay movement known as the Radical Faeries, and for years he involved himself in Native American activism. In his 1996 book, “Radically Gay,” he urged gay people to “tear off the ugly green frog-skin of Hetero-male imitation . . . to reveal the beautiful Fairy Prince hidden beneath.” He would be happy to know that his trim hillside house in Silver Lake remains in gay hands.

Tuesday, June 8, 2021

Alan Dershowitz, the peripatetic, irascible, controversial, and seemingly omnipresent.

Alan Dershowitz, the peripatetic, irascible, controversial, and seemingly omnipresent.

 By Harvey Silverglate


Alan Dershowitz, the peripatetic, irascible, controversial, and seemingly omnipresent retired Harvard Law professor has just published his book for 2021. I say this because he has kept up a schedule of publishing a book-a-year during his entire career. For those who thought that he would go quietly into retirement when he left Harvard in 2013 after a half-century of teaching criminal and civil liberties law and related subjects, they have learned otherwise. Dershowitz’s retirement has left him more time to teach not his students, but the members of the general public willing to hear and read his well-informed but often highly controversial views.

In this latest book, "The Case Against the New Censorship: Protecting Free Speech from Big Tech, Progressives, and Universities," one of his shorter, more compact efforts, he has taken on what he deems “the new censors.” These groups include huge technology companies engaged in disseminating viewpoints by and to the hundreds of millions (by now billions) of users world-wide as well as the more traditional media, such as newspapers and television. The new censors also include groups previously viewed as promoters of free speech and academic freedom, including so-called “progressives” as well as universities. The latter not too many years ago could be counted on to support, protect, and practice free speech, but in a remarkable and disturbing evolution they are now deeply engaged in censoring - or, in the lingo of the day, “cancelling” - those opinions that deviate from the “progressive” views that have become the only acceptable political positions on most liberal arts campuses.

Disclaimer: In one sense, I might not be the right person to review this book. I have been a friend of Dershowitz since both of us arrived at Harvard Law School in 1964 – he as the youngest tenured professor in the school’s long history, me as a first-year student. We hit it off instantly, and not just because we were each born in Brooklyn and stood out like sore thumbs at Harvard. We shared a passion for free speech and due process of law, and we were suspicious of the over-use of state power to punish or, worse, to shut-up, unpopular individuals. As soon as I graduated, we began a long friendship marked by many collaborations in defending unpopular clients. Yet I decided to do this review precisely because I know the author so well, and because I followed so closely his involvement in the cases he discusses, particularly his defense of Trump at the first impeachment trial. Further disclosure: Dershowitz has dedicated this book to me.

With this disclaimer in mind, it is incumbent upon me to give my honest opinion of this book. The Case Against the New Censorship is a much-needed critique that had to be written by someone with Dershowitz’ vast experience and deeply-held views. It will not be easy to find another such powerful assessment of our current predicament and a recipe for our way out.

Dershowitz starts out by stating clearly what his goals were in writing this book. The Trump presidency unleashed a number of unhealthy, in some cases downright dangerous trends that have been lurking just beneath the surface in the worlds of politics, media, and higher education. Until recent years, the nation’s politics were divided roughly between a “liberal” (Democratic) party and a “conservative” (Republican) party. The two parties, though frequently in disagreement, managed to share power in an essentially civil manner. Disagreements normally did not morph into almost armed combat. During the Reagan presidency, Republican President Ronald Reagan and Democratic House Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill, Jr. were, in their private lives, on famously cordial terms and liked each other. During the hotly contested presidential election of 2000, Al Gore conceded the race to George H. W. Bush even though many argued, with good reason, that Gore might well have won.

In contrast, the past four years of the Trump administration, and the start of the Biden administration, have produced a rancor not seen in this country since the McCarthy witch-hunts of the 1950s and, in the mind of some, not since the Civil War.

Dershowitz focuses withering criticism on the media – the traditional print media as well as the newer electronic social media – for its lack of objectivity and fairness in reporting anything and everything Trump-related. Yet, Dershowitz defends the right of the media to act as they have. The author’s criticism of Trump’s enemies, especially those identified as “progressives,” is somewhat balanced by his critique of some of Trump’s defenders. This is not a book that can be labelled as an apologist for either side of the aisle, nor for any particular party. Dershowitz is, if anything, an equal opportunity critic. As such, he criticizes the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) which lost its way by morphing from a politically neutral defender of liberty into a partisan progressive organization taking sides in national politics and joining the war on Trump. What is missed in these times is a neutral defender of the speech rights of both sides, a role that Dershowitz has bravely assumed.

(I should add, again by way of disclosure, that in 1999 I co-founded The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (“FIRE”) – www.thefire.org – dedicated to the protection of free speech and due process on college campuses. However, FIRE field of interest and activism is quite limited, and it does not substitute for the ACLU’s formerly broader reach.)

The author beseeches his readers to distinguish between criminal speech and merely provocative speech. He notes that in the second impeachment, the Democrats focused on Trump’s infamous speech before the deadly attack on the Capitol. Dershowitz correctly points out that Trump’s speech, provocative though it was, did not fall outside of the broad definition of free speech established by the Supreme Court in the famous 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, a case involving the free speech rights of the Ku Klux Klan when Brandenburg, a KKK speaker, gave an incendiary speech against Jews and Blacks. The Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg’s conviction for allegedly advocating violence in his speech, concluding that his free speech rights had been violated by Ohio law. If Brandenburg was protected by the First Amendment, so was Trump. The second impeachment violated Trump’s constitutional rights and, in any event, as Dershowitz correctly argues, an ex-president cannot be impeached.

Interestingly but not entirely surprisingly, Dershowitz notes that some of the political figures who played leading roles in the impeachment battles were former students of his: Senator Ted Cruz and Rep. Jamin Raskin of Maryland. Further, Dershowitz participated in the defense of Jamin Raskin’s father, Marcus Raskin, who was charged, along with Dr. Benjamin Spock and others, with inciting resistance to the draft during the Vietnam War. This little factoid is more important that it might first appear: it is just another example of how Dershowitz was in the middle of some of the most famous, and infamous, legal battles of the past half-century, many of which have been the subject of the prolific author’s earlier books. Dershowitz has been compared to the Woody Allen movie “Zelig,” about a character (played by Allen) who takes on the personas of the people around him. (While Dershowitz does not take on the personas, he does seem to emerge as an actor in so many of the political and legal contretemps of the era.) Allen co-stars with his then significant other, Mia Farrow. Indeed, when Farrow split from Allen and instigated a criminal investigation against him for allegedly abusing one of Farrow’s daughters, Farrow was represented by none other than Dershowitz!

But for all the interesting asides by Dershowitz, the focus of this book remains the dangers posed to constitutional liberty when colleges and universities and their faculty and students, the news media, and progressive politicians and their supporters and enablers in the private sector, gang up (or, in more polite terms, team up) in order to attack a political figure, they disapprove of without adequate attention paid to constitutional rights and political norms. The Case Against the New Censorship is a book well worth reading and pondering. It makes a very important – indeed urgent – argument for toleration of opposing points-of-view to avoid veritable civil war. It makes a convincing argument for the transcendent importance of free speech and due process of law for even the most despised and unpopular.

Of course, as with any book written by Dershowitz, it inter-weaves a discussion of general principles of law with first-person experiences teased out of his own cases. He is both legal counsel and public advocate. Balancing these roles is very difficult, but it is essential if the lawyer for a client is to have credibility with the reader. Dershowitz, in this book, as with other books he has written about his own cases (one thinks back especially to his controversial 1986 book “Reversal of Fortune: Inside the Von Bulow Case”), is not always able to achieve total objectivity (assuming that total objectivity is ever possible). He makes clear that he did not vote for Trump, he did not support Trump politically, but he wants to protect Trump’s right to free speech. It is a laudable purpose, but in a book written about a client it is only imperfectly achieved. Still, even imperfectly achieved, Alan Dershowitz’s insider’s insight into the national trauma that the nation experiences is now part of the history books – to be judged by future generations more than by our own.

Harvey Silverglate, a criminal defense and civil liberties lawyer, is GBH News’ regular “Freedom Watch” contributor. The author thanks his research assistant, Emily Nayyer, for her assistance in the preparation of this piece.