NUCLEAR WAR THAT ALMOST TOOK PLACE!

NUCLEAR WAR THAT ALMOST TOOK PLACE!

This week marks the 59^th anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis. I was attending Cambridge university in England in 1962, and had immersed myself in English literature. Politics was the furthest thing from my mind—that is, until the Cuban missile crisis.

I had rented a room in the house of an English family who lived a few blocks from the Cambridge campus. Mrs. Davenport, the lady of the house, awakened me at 2:00 A.M. on October 22, 1962. She said a neighbor had just called and told her to turn on the radio to hear a major press conference by President John F. Kennedy.

It was an extremely cold morning, and there was no central heating in the house, so I grabbed a blanket off my bed, threw it around me, and went downstairs to the living room. A fire was going in the fireplace, and the Davenport family had gathered around the radio. President Kennedy was just beginning his remarks.

 Good evening, my fellow citizens. This government, as promised, has maintained the closest surveillance of the Soviet military buildup on the island of Cuba. Within the past week, unmistakable evidence has established the fact that a series of offensive missile sites is now in preparation on that imprisoned island. The purpose of these bases can be none other than to provide a nuclear strike capability against the Western hemisphere.

 The President then announced a naval blockade of Cuba, which he called a “quarantine.” He made it clear that any ship bound for Cuba that was carrying offensive missiles, or any other military hardware, would be stopped and turned back. He continued:

It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response on the Soviet Union. And any hostile move by the Russians anywhere in the world against the safety and freedom of peoples to whom we are committed, including in particular the brave people of West Berlin, would be met with action.

 As he ended his speech, the neighbors from next door joined us in the living room. I was not sure how serious the matter was, but there was no doubt in the minds of my British hosts, who had lived the day-in, day-out horror of two world wars; they believed that we were on the brink of another world war, and they were devastated. The women in the room were crying. Eventually, everyone turned to me and asked why the President would want to start such hostility over a minor island south of Florida. I had no idea how to respond.

The next day several members of the Cambridge Union, the local debating society, approached me. They had sought me out because I was one of very few Americans at Cambridge. They wanted to have a full airing of America’s position on the Cuban crisis, and they requested that I speak on behalf of the United States. I protested that I wasn’t well versed in American foreign policy, and that they really should find someone else. But they said no one else was available and they hoped I would have the courage to stand up for my country.

I knew I was in over my head, and I needed help. The only place I could think of was the American Embassy in London; maybe someone there could give me some background information about why the blockade was necessary. After a ninety-minute train ride, I was in London by mid-day.

It was about forty degrees, much colder than usual for October in London, as I made my way on foot up Grosvenor Square toward the Embassy. I was surprised to see several thousand protesters outside the diplomatic compound, and hundreds of British policemen surrounding the Embassy. Chants of “Get out of Cuba!” and “American imperialism!” reverberated through the crowd.

I pushed my way to the gates of the Embassy and identified myself to the military guard as an American citizen. I was asked for my passport, which I did not have with me, but my Louisiana driver’s license was proof enough, and I was allowed to go through the gates.

At the information desk inside, an Embassy official asked my business. “I really could use some help,” I said, explaining that I was an American studying English literature at Cambridge University. “I’ve been challenged to debate some Brits at the Cambridge Union this evening, and defend America’s position of blockading Cuba. Quite frankly, I am not that well versed in our foreign policy, and I’m really in over my head. Can you help me?”

An Embassy staffer gave me a verbal briefing and a little background information. It is an understatement to say that I was lost in the forest of international conflict.

When I spoke up for the American position and tried to defend my country that evening, I was hissed and booed by an overwhelming majority of the crowd. The Russians had stated that the only missiles in Cuba were “defensive,” and that America was the villain. Try as I might, I could not convince the Brits any differently. I was up against several other speakers who rattled off numerous dates, events, and consequences of World War II and the Cold War. They were well versed in the politics of the day, and I was obviously less than qualified to be my country’s sole defending voice.

I was put down in my attempt to support or defend the United States, but I received quite a baptism in international politics.  And this difficult experience was an early lesson of political life political life for me in the years to come.

Peace and Justice

Jim Brown’s syndicated column appears each week in numerous newspapers throughout the nation and on websites worldwide.  You can read all his past columns and see continuing updates at http://www.jimbrownusa.com.

 

 

GET THE POLITICIANS OUT OF REAPPORTIONMENT!

Thursday, October 21st, 2021

Baton Rouge, Louisiana

GET THE POLITICIANS OUT OF REAPPORTIONMENT!

The Louisiana legislature, like similar bodies across the country, are starting their preparation to reapportion the state’s various legislative bodies. In the bayou state, legislators will be touring parishes and holding hearings to get input as to what the public thinks. o.  The best thing for for these lawmakers to do is just to get out of the way.

 By federal law, all election districts must be reapportioned every 10 years to reflect the latest census figures. But should legislators, who have a vested interest in how the redistricting lines are drawn, actually do the drawing?

The problem is one of gerrymandering, where district lines are not drawn to reflect geographical or political balance, but to favor the incumbent or some other partisan choice.  When legislators do the redistricting, the norm seems to be that the state ends up with meandering footprints meticulously designed, it would seem, to ensure that no incumbent will face serious opposition regardless of how the political winds are blowing. So here’s what we have. In elections, people choose their legislators.  In reapportionment, legislators choose their people.”

Gerrymandering, by the way, means to manipulate the electoral boundaries for political gain so as to give undue influence to an incumbent or other favored candidate. The name comes from Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry, who in 1812 created winding districts that looked like salamanders to favor incumbents. Thus the convoluted word of gerrymandering.

What most voters want to avoid is the self-dealing by legislators where voting districts slashes across communities of interest and geography.  A blatant example of winding, disjointed gerrymandering is the Louisiana third congressional district.  It winds from the Mississippi border south of New Orleans though the southern part of Jefferson Parish and all the way through south Louisiana up to Lafayette, some 300 miles in length.

The question for Louisiana voters is this:  Are they that concerned that the legislature is, for all practical purposes, creating their own voters?  Is this healthy in the in the Bayou State — or in any other state?  Many think it’s not.

So what are the alternatives?  What are other progressive states doing to transfer the power of redistricting to a system less driven by self-interest?  Fourteen states have assigned the task to officials or panels outside the state legislature.  And independent redistricting wears the cloak of good-government reform, as long as a consensus can be built on just who will serve on such panels.  How do you pick the members?  How can such a system be put in place that assures voters the final result will be fair, non- partisan, and keep local interests balanced?

There are a number of bright people in Louisiana with solid business and educational backgrounds that are capable of taking on this controversial task. There are several respected demographers in the state, and a number of well qualified professors at Louisiana universities.  Retired judges fit the category as well as representatives of some of the state’s good government groups.

When I was first elected to the Louisiana legislature back in 1971, legislative redistricting had taken place just months before.  But the reapportionment plan did not pass federal court muster, and was thrown out just weeks before the primary election date.  Ed Steimel was head of the Public Affairs Research Council at the time, and was appointed by federal judge Frank Polozola to serve as a “special master” to redraw the district lines.  Based on Steimel’s rework, the old plan was thrown out and the new court ordered plan put in place.  There was general agreement that the Steimel Plan was fair and kept district more cohesive and less spread out. (It must have been good as I won my senate seat easily in the first primary.)

One idea would be to create a Louisiana Fair Reapportionment Practices Commission. Let nominations for its members come from the legislature, the Supreme Court, the good government groups like PAR and CABL, the various college boards, and perhaps a key business group or two.  Then put all the submissions in a hat, and draw out eleven names to serve as members to begin their work right after the new census data is made available.

The goal for such a commission is simple – put the important issue of redistricting into the hands of less vested interests instead of those who in the past have been allowed to define the terms of their own cartel. Simply put, it’s just wrong for legislators to draw these districts and then run in them.  There needs to be a better way.

Peace and Justice

Jim Brown

Jim Brown’s syndicated column appears each week in numerous newspapers throughout the nation and on websites worldwide.  You can read all his past columns and see continuing updates at http://www.jimbrownusa.com