We are entering a new era, even if a certain someone is in denial. Here is a comics portrait by Nick Thorkelson, who is one of the most astute of cartoonists!
Tag Archives: Political Cartoons
Republicans have a long history of voter suppression. It is devious and totally in Trump’s wheelhouse, the sort of horrid activity done in plain view. You remember, during the debate, how Trump encouraged his supporters to intimidate voters at the polls, right? Well, that’s one form of voter suppression. That brings us to today’s editorial cartoon: Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who recently ordered that each county in Texas be limited to only one drop-off box for mail-in ballots. This is an abrupt decision made with only three weeks before the election.
Democratic members of Congress, all chairs of prominent committees, have called Abbott’s order an apparent “last-ditch effort to suppress Texans’ ability to vote.” Consider the fact that mail-in drop-off sites are relied upon just like mail boxes and each county is suppose to have what it needs. Harris County, a county with a population of 4.7 million, which includes Houston, has relied upon a dozen drop-off sites. Harris County is around the size of Rhode Island. Abbott now has Harris County with only ONE drop-off box! This is the opposite of making voting accessible for everyone. At this writing, Abbott’s order is being challenged but it may stand as is.
Houston, and the rest of Battleground America, we have a problem. Where are you experiencing voter suppression? In about three weeks, November 3, 2020, it will be Election Day in the United States of America. What are you doing to help promote a fair and honest election? Well, it has nothing to do with suddenly showing up in MAGA gear as a self-proclaimed poll watcher. For many Americans, it will mean voting like your life depends upon it. In the end, all of us in the USA must find a way to come together. We will continue to do this one step at a time. The Abbott order is now a moment in time right up there with another infamous moment in time, George Wallace standing in front of Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama on June 11, 1963, in order to stop the enrollment of African-American students. Don’t be hesitant, afraid and silent. Speak up. And vote.
The following is from the Texan Tribune, 6 October 2020. Read the entire article here.
The Democratic chairs of three high-profile congressional committees urged Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Tuesday to rescind his order limiting counties to one drop-off location each for absentee ballots, saying it “appears to be a last-ditch effort to suppress Texans’ ability to vote.”
In a letter to the Texas governor, U.S. House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., and U.S. Reps. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., and Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., said they are investigating Abbott’s order because it “may interfere with the administration of free, fair, and safe federal elections in Texas during the coronavirus pandemic.” The chairs also asked Abbott to provide documents regarding his decision.
Clyburn leads the U.S. House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, Lofgren chairs the Committee on House Administration, and Maloney presides over the Committee on Oversight and Reform.
Barr Spins Before Congress
Today, Barr testified/spun before Congress. A perfect example: Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked Attorney General William Barr what is it about Trump ordering his White House counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller (as well as demanding that McGahn lie that Trump had ever asked to fire Mueller) that is not obstruction of justice. Barr’s response was to spin a picture of Trump, with his brilliant legal mind, requesting a closer look at Mueller’s conflict of interest; and Trump never outright made such a crude demand as saying, “Fire Mueller!” Huh? Which is more likely, that Trump was simply expressing a legal opinion or that he barked out what he wanted? Feinstein followed up with the question: “So, what was the conflict of interest?” Barr never ever answered that question! He proceeded to tap dance byway of speaking on legal theory to run out the clock. And that is just one example of Barr’s technique. Don’t expect Don McGahn to ever get a chance to testify himself. If he does, that would be well worth seeing.
If you missed it today, Trump made an announcement that is a rehash of immigration policy which will secure a continuance of the Trump Shutdown.
The very idea of a comic strip like Doonesbury is in the best spirit of what comic strips have been capable of doing. Doonesbury, which launched October 26, 1970, lived up to its ambitious goals. Now, there’s been a seismic shift in reading habits, and comic strips are evolving and adapting to the new cultural landscape. In 2014, the siren song of Amazon compelled Garry Trudeau to shift his focus to writing a sitcom. On March 3, 2014, the “Classic Doonesbury” series began, featuring approximately four weeks of daily strips from each year of the strip’s run. Trudeau continues to produce new strips for Sundays. The times, they keep a changin’. That said, in the #MeToo era, with a focus on Brett Kavanaugh and rape culture, something can be learned from taking a look back at the early efforts of Garry Trudeau in his Yale college newspaper, specifically, the infamous “rape joke.”
And what exactly transpires within this particular comic strip? Our main character, arguably Trudeau’s alter ego, is annoyed by a female student and contemplates raping her. He wants to dance with her and she obliges but only after insulting him. He makes a self-deprecating observation in relation to the idea of raping her.
What made that joke possible? What made young Garry think that was funny and okay? It’s a joke that left me disappointed when I read it. I had purchased a collection of Trudeau’s Yale comic strips many years ago. In fact, I was a teenager, with ambitions related to comics, when I bought the collection of Yale comic strips. It has been said (and this could be internet trolling) that Trudeau admits to cringing whenever he sees the “rape joke” or hears of it and has even had it removed from later editions of this collection of his Yale strips.
What bothered me way back in the early ’80s, when I first read this comic strip was that I immediately knew it was wrong and yet there it was. Trudeau knew it was wrong too. It’s possible to imagine Trudeau, a Baby Boomer with a pre-internet mindset, mistakenly thinking that he could keep that comic strip under wraps. In all fairness to him, I can’t seem to find any response directly from him about the “rape joke.” There’s this recent Trudeau piece, no mention of the infamous joke, from Comic Riffs at The Washington Post.
He should talk about the “rape joke” now, all these years later. I know, not very likely. It is the stuff of legend how Trudeau has avoided the press. I always found that ironic given how outspoken he has been in his celebrated comic strip satirizing society, politics, and the media.
Is it too much to ask of Garry Trudeau to speak about that “rape joke” within the context of our current state? It’s a fair, even intriguing, question for him and it might just inspire Mr. Trudeau on what lies ahead for him. In fact, if he really wants an invigorating project, why not dissect that “rape joke” and come up with some answers. It could be a graphic novel. I’m not kidding.
“The wicked flee when no one pursues.”
James Comey speaks up for the truth in his new book, “A Higher Loyalty,” and he tackles his subject from many angles: giving the reader his life’s story, providing compelling examples of the demise of infamous liars, and saying it all with wit, grace, and a good dose of honest humor. This book has a lock on being timeless. A hundred years from now, people will still find it engaging while something like “Fire and Fury” will have become considerably dated. The name Donald Trump will elicit a mild groan in a hundred years while the name of James Comey will draw out favorable comparison with Jimmy Stewart’s character in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” Indeed, in James B. Comey we have a real life Jefferson Smith.
This is not a heavy book in the sense of being meant for only the most high-minded of readers. In fact, it is very accessible. The full title, “A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership,” is a valuable frame for an assortment of insights. Comey presents the facts and we see patterns emerge involving grocery store clerks, Mafia dons, American presidents, and law enforcement at the highest levels. Tell the truth and reap the rewards. Tell lies and face the consequences. What is so extraordinary is how often Mr. Comey finds himself in the middle of a number of historically significant events right up to our present crisis. I’m talking real American hero stuff where I’m left wondering if Tom Hanks will star in a movie as both Bob Mueller and James Comey.
For you kids too young to remember, Bob Mueller and James Comey go way back. In fact, in the Bush administration, Mr. Mueller was the FBI Director and Mr. Comey was the Deputy Attorney General. This was in the heyday of the U.S. War on Terror, led by mad dog Veep Dick Cheney. One of the most notorious programs of that era, code name “Stellar Wind,” allowed for wholesale spying on Americans, the law be damned. At the eleventh hour, on what may have been Attorney General John Ashcroft’s deathbed, there was a race between Comey and the President’s men to reach Ashcroft to get the final word on continuing the Stellar Wind program. Ashcroft had recently sided with Comey on putting the brakes on it. At that critical moment, just as Comey reached Ashcroft’s hospital bed, heavily guarded by the FBI, Comey put in a call to Mueller requesting that, under no circumstances, was he to be removed by Bush’s people. Without missing a beat, Mueller approved it. That is just a taste. There is more to this episode and it all hinges upon the essential value of integrity and honesty.
Another example that is quickly digestible by young and old alike is Mr. Comey’s indictment of Martha Stewart for insider trading. This is a perfect example of how telling the truth would have cut one path while telling a lie led down another path, a path that secured jail time for Martha Stewart. As Comey explains time and time again, his job is to make a case and that rests on finding credible evidence of wrongdoing. Once evidence is secured that the suspect has lied with intent of obstruction of justice, the suspect has been trapped in a corner and will have to pay the price.
We can cut to the chase now and look at an example involving Donald Trump. The one thing that kept rising to the top in conversations that Trump forced upon Comey was Trump’s denial of having anything to do with prostitutes performing urinating acts for his delight in a Moscow hotel. If it was not clear the first time, Trump felt compelled to repeatedly deny this incident. Based upon a lifetime in law enforcement, Comey could not help but bring up the fact that when suspects repeatedly deny something, there is a good chance that they’re lying, which establishes patterns of behavior.
Among the observations by Comey most anticipated by readers are his views on the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s mishandling of classified emails. One specific wrinkle in this case that is quite telling involved the spin desired by the Obama administration. Attorney General Loretta Lynch made explicitly clear, in front of staff, that she wanted Comey to describe what was happening with Clinton’s emails and the FBI as a “matter.” This really made no sense. As one colleague wryly said to Comey, “Yeah, sure, you are after all, the Federal Bureau of Matters.” Comey used the term “matter” once in a press conference and then let it go. From there on, it was what it was, an investigation.
Contrary to what is widely believed, Comey did not go it alone and reopen the Clinton email investigation all by himself weeks before the election. What happened involved following procedure, logic, and plain ole common sense. You can’t just dismiss thousands of new Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop. Again, Comey worked as part of a team. He ended up having to be the face of that team.
The point is, whether it is an investigation involving Democrats or Republicans, the FBI must under no circumstances be swayed into one camp or another. The Justice Department and the FBI are there to protect the American people and the Constitution of the United States. The FBI Director is not to be part of a closed group of friends as Trump would have it. Time and again, Comey speaks to what is in his heart, the people who have inspired him, the ideas and core values that have shaped his life. Sadly, he sees very little, if anything, guiding Trump. It is not said to mock Trump. We live in a crazy Trump-addled time. To say that Trump lacks a moral compass cannot be said enough. Any act that reminds us of how things are not okay, not normal, is a good thing.
Having been fired by Trump, yanked out of the job he loved, all for brazenly political reasons, it makes sense that Comey would ultimately speak out. That he has chosen to write such an even-tempered book, and of value for us now and generations to come, speaks well for the man, the institution of the FBI, and for the country.
“A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies, and Leadership” is a 312-page hardcover published by Flatiron Books, an imprint of Macmillan Publishers. You can pick up a copy by simply clicking the icon below:
“Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?”
There is an artful moment during the testimony of former FBI Director James Comey. Sen. Angus King, (I) Maine, asked if Trump saying he hoped the Flynn investigation would go away was a direction. And Comey quotes the famous line attributed to Henry II, and which floats within Shakespeare’s Richard II: “Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?” The senator said he was thinking of the same quote.
King Henry II wished that a priest would go away. That was Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury. The next day, that priest was murdered, honoring the king’s wish. King Trump “hopes” for something, that the investigation of Michael Flynn would go away, an inappropriate suggestion, even for royalty.
That quote speaks volumes.
Anyone interested in illustration, art, satire, or the specific art of drawing, will know something about the career of Edward Sorel. The work of Edward Sorel covers a wide spectrum resulting in a hefty portrait of the human condition, with a notable eye to speaking truth to power.
My interest in Edward Sorel runs deep. I checked out from my school’s library Sorel’s 1972 collection, “Making the World Safe for Hypocrisy.” It was 1973 and I was a sensitive and highly impressionable lad of 10 years-old. I was filling sketchbooks with portraits of Watergate personalities, both villains and heroes. I tore into that book and marveled over Sorel’s distinctive crosshatching and his lively expressive line work. I was in awe with how he brought to life various dignitaries, politicians, and movie stars. The gold standard had been set in my mind and it hasn’t changed ever since. What really wows me now goes back to my early introduction to the work of Edward Sorel.
Quotes from reviews for Mr. Sorel’s new book, “Mary Astor’s Purple Diary: The Great American Sex Scandal of 1936,” published by Liveright/W.W. Norton & Company:
“Life is so unfair. I tore up the old linoleum in a grungy apartment I rented years ago and found under it only schmutz, hardened chewing gum and a torn ticket stub to ‘Moose Murders.’ Ed Sorel tears up the old linoleum in his apartment and finds yellowing newspapers with headlines screaming about a scandal that gave him material for a terrific book. Not only does he then write a terrific book, but he illustrates it with his wonderful caricature drawings. Who would figure that Mary Astor’s life would provide such entertaining reading, but in Sorel’s colloquial, eccentric style, the tale he tells is juicy, funny, and in the end, touching.”
—Woody Allen, The New York Times Book Review (cover review)
“Rapier-sharp…With a tip of his pen to Daumier, the artist evokes the quaint, febrile glamour of Astor’s Hollywood, and his affectionate, conversational prose gives Mary and her story a kind of valiant dignity never bestowed while she lived.”
—Edward Kosner, Wall Street Journal
“Delightful, colorful, and occasionally cheeky.”
—Allison Sadlier, Entertainment Weekly
Edward Sorel (born Edward Schwartz, 26 March 1929, The Bronx) has recently released a book from Liveright/W.W. Norton. The book, entitled “Mary Astor’s Purple Diary” is about his lifelong obsession with film star Mary Astor but it’s also a memoir of a sort. You may have read Woody Allen’s review of the book in The New York Times Book Review. Allen had the honor of introducing many new readers to the opening story in the book: It is 1965 and Edward Sorel, newly married and settling into new digs, is left with the task of replacing the old linoleum kitchen tile. Lo and behold, buried underneath is a stash of old newspapers chronicling the scandalous 1936 custody battle of Hollywood star Mary Astor. Well, the rest is history and this most engaging book.
I interviewed Mr. Sorel this last Wednesday, February 8th. I hope you enjoy it.
HENRY CHAMBERLAIN: Turning our attention to Mary Astor, what is intriguing about her is that she had a life where one plus one kept equaling three. Despite a series of bad choices, whether in lovers or career options, Mary Astor managed to persevere. Is that part of the appeal, that she took such an offbeat path?
EDWARD SOREL: The appeal came when I read her memoir. She was a self-denigrating and witty writer. Very observant. Somewhat cynical about Hollywood. She had an intelligence that appealed to me. Then I started seeing her movies and I was hooked on her. Her bad decisions that you refer to have to do with having had an abused childhood, not in any physical way but in a mental and psychological way.
Her father kept her from having friends because he didn’t want her to see how Americans lived, how Americans treated their children. He wanted to be the dictator of his home. And he succeeded. She was unable to break free from him until quite late in her life. And it kind of ruined her. And God knows she made a lot of terrible mistakes in her life.
I was watching 1924’s “Beau Brummell” and I am intrigued by the relationship Mary Astor developed with her co-star, John Barrymore, of all people. In their case, the twenty year age difference was inappropriate. However, it was what it was. And it was through Barrymore that Mary Astor learned a lot and gained self-confidence.
He did do her a lot of good but not for any altruistic reasons. He was out to nail her. He was on his way to Hollywood on the 20th Century Express. He had just completed the most successful run of “Hamlet” that America had seen. He was acclaimed as America’s greatest actor. He was on his way to the coast to make “Beau Brummell” for Warner Bros. because they were paying him a lot of money. And he picks up a magazine that has a photograph of Mary Astor about the age of 16 and under the photograph it said, “On the Verge of Womanhood.” Barrymore had a particular liking for virgins.
As I pointed out in the book, it was Barrymore who had his way with Evelyn Nesbitt, who later married Harry Kendall Thaw. And it was Thaw who shot Stanford White, America’s great architect, because he thought Stanford White had taken his wife’s virginity–when, in fact, it was Barrymore. That is a sidebar I’m proud of since I pieced together that bit of information.
According to Mary Astor, Barrymore really believed that he was going to marry her. And maybe he did plan to. But when Mary would not break free from her parents, after Barrymore offered her starring roles, because her father forbade it, Barrymore realized that she was just a child. She was completely under the sway of her father. Marrying a woman twenty years younger was one thing but marrying a child was something else. He broke her heart by calling it off.
I think it’s a cartoonist thing, as I’m a cartoonist, that we keep seeking out the offbeat. So, in the spirit of that I throw out a curveball, and ask you about your changing your last name to Sorel. You are referring to Stendhal’s “The Red and the Black.” I loved that book and the main character, Julian Sorel. Is there something interesting going on there with that connection?
I liked to think that I saw myself in Julian Sorel because he was like catnip to women, which I really wasn’t, and he hated the corrupt society of his time, as I hated mine. The first election that I voted in was the one between Eisenhower and Stevenson. I took a dim view of both of them and voted for a third party.
The other thing about Julian Sorel was that he hated his father. God, I certainly hated mine, not only because he tried to discourage me in wanting to be an artist but because he was a mean-spirited ignorant man not kind to my mother, not kind to anyone. And I didn’t want anything to do with him. I was going to be a cartoonist and I didn’t want to sign my name, Schwartz, in the right-hand corner. And I chose the name, Sorel, because of the novel. It seemed as good a name as any.
I think back to myself as a boy wondering about how you created your work. You’ve spoken about “finding lines.” Could you share a little bit about that?
When you work commercially, and you’re taking assignments, you have to show the art director what you plan to do. So, you do sketches of the drawing you plan to do. And, after a while, I began to notice that my sketches had more vitality and life than my finishes did. My finishes were often dead and overworked. And so I tried to emulate the quality that I had in my sketches which meant doing it without tracing. In point of fact, that’s impossible to do if you’re doing very complicated scenes. You can work direct if you’re doing a face, a figure, a still life, or anything relatively simple. You can work direct without tracing and the work has a vitality to it. But when you’re doing complicated scenes, with many different elements, you really do have to know where you’re going. So, I found out that if I just had a light outline of where I wanted the elements to be, and didn’t trace, I could keep this sketchy quality that I think gave my art work some distinction.
That quality of your art has influenced so many artists, whether they realize it or not. And, certainly, there have been other artists who have used an “expressive line.” You have talked about some of your favorites, like Feliks Topolski. There’s a certain sensibility that you both share.
Yes, well, he wasn’t trying to be funny like I always have. But his work has spontaneity, which I value in every artist. Wether its Bemelmans or Topolski. What shocks me now is to find so many artists who enjoy doing art work with a computer. I’ve seen some very nice computer art. You can get that nice flat color and can do all sorts of tricks that you can’t do by hand. But, to me, it doesn’t seem like fun. It seems like working on a machine. I just love the act of drawing. I’m a throwback. Most of the illustrations that you see today in magazines, and God knows you don’t see too many, are computer-generated in some form or another.
One compromise is for the artist to draw some of the illustration by hand, scan it, and do the rest on a computer.
It doesn’t seem fun to me but it must seem fun for them. I don’t cast aspersions on their way of doing it.
I think it boils down to being a time-saver. And, once a routine has set in, that’s the way it’s done and that’s it.
The other thing about computer art is that there’s nothing original, nothing to hang on the wall. You could have a show but it would only be prints. To each his own.
I wanted to touch on one of the all-time classics, your 1967 anti-war illustration, “Pass the Lord and Praise the Ammunition.” The real life punchline there is that you were all set to roll out a poster when the focal point of the piece, Cardinal Spellman, passed away rendering your satire unsellable. Now, there’s some divine intervention.
The day it came off the press is the day he died. It never sold in any store in America. It is in a museum in Amsterdam. One store in Chicago tried to sell it and had its window broken. Apparently, Cardinal Spellman had some fans in Chicago. That was a bad break. You get some bad breaks and you get some good ones. I was the recipient of Woody Allen’s praise on the front page of The New York Times Book Review. That was the best break I ever had.
I encourage everyone to check out the short film on you that your son, Leo, did. That is quite informative and a treat. It shows you in your studio. And then the Q&A afterward with illustrator James McMullan is very impressive. Towards the end of that, you talk about the pen you favor, a Speedball B6. I’ve always had a devil of a time with steel point dip pens. But the Speedballs I could manage. And then you flip it backwards to get the crosshatching.
Yes! That was my secret. The Speedball does move and it allows you to be kind of spastic over a piece of paper.
I wanted to ask you about Donald Trump. There was that drawing of him as Medusa you did last year. The big news at the moment is all about Mitch McConnell silencing Elizabeth Warren. I could see that as perhaps triggering an Edward Sorel drawing.
I can’t cope with Donald Trump. I haven’t done political cartooning in a number of years. I can’t deal with him. With all other presidents, you could make fun of their hypocrisy and have fun with them. But Mr. Trump is kind of crazy. And he’s dangerous. He’s cruel. Making fun of him doesn’t seem what’s called for. It’s trivializing him. He shouldn’t be trivialized. He’s really a danger. People are really scared. They wake up with Donald Trump on their mind and they go to bed with him on their mind. He’s a heavy presence in our lives now. I don’t know how to deal with that.
You can’t call him the new Nixon. At least with Nixon, there was a mind at work. It’s being very generous, but there was some sense of integrity compared to Trump. Nixon you could call a president. But, with Trump, he’s president only by title.
He seems unhinged. I think it was Bernie Sanders who called him unhinged. He seems too crazy to be in that office. I don’t know what else to say about him.
Especially living it right now. It is stomach-turning. I won’t talk about him anymore. But I do need to mention Melissa McCarthy’s impersonation of Sean Spicer. Have you seen that?
No, tell me about it. I’ve been trying to avoid the news lately.
Well, Melissa McCarthy is a comic genius and she was on Saturday Night Live last weekend. She did a spot on impersonation of Sean Spicer, had the look and mannerisms down.
Oh, wait, I did see that! A friend sent that to me.
I think that has the power of a political cartoon and then some. It captivated everyone. It was an emotional release for everyone to see that.
Yes, I’m sure it was. It was very funny.
It seems to me that every artist needs a hero, someone to play off of. I see your book, weaving your life with Mary’s, as following the artist’s struggle. I think of how Mary evolved. I think of how Mary and Bette Davis were able to rewrite “The Great Lie,” turning that around into a notable film.
She did become a very fine actress. But she also became a little bit like her father, terribly obsessed with money. She twice turned down contracts for starring roles since she believed supporting roles would provide a longer career. She did indeed have a long career. She was in over 100 movies. And she was going strong until about 1959. She didn’t take chances. Maybe she didn’t believe she was a good enough actress. She missed having a chance at great roles and great performances. That was too bad.
My obsession with her has to do with my thinking I wasn’t a great artist because I didn’t have an obsession. So, I was very grateful when people called my interest in Mary Astor an obsession. Yes, it was an obsession and I do think it helped produce my best work.
Can you tell us about your connection with Boston University?
I was very lucky to have Boston University buy my entire work, my oeuvre, as we say. In March, they’re having a retrospective of all my work and, as a matter of fact, I’m still packing up things to send there.
The Howard Gottlieb Center at Boston University has one of the finest collections from all walks of life. They have the second largest Martin Luther King collection. They have many of America’s great writers. They have Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. They have most of the actors and actresses from the golden age of Hollywood. I’m very delighted to be part of this collection.
I heard a siren in the background. It brings back my visits to New York. You are a lifelong New Yorker and I know how much you love New York. Could you share some of your thoughts on the city?
I do love New York. I don’t love the crowds anymore. I do worry. When you live in a city like New York, you do begin to see a kind of science fiction future: crowds everywhere, lines everywhere. New York is kind of becoming that. They keep building these enormous skyscrapers without thinking about how the city will accommodate it. They’re not building out, like they did in Los Angeles. They’re building up. It used to be that the only crowds were in midtown but now crowds are all over. And you find yourself walking in the gutter because there’s too many people on the sidewalk.
So, yeah, I love New York. The New York that I grew up with, where the museums were free and everyone went to public school, seems to have vanished. Everything is expensive now, including the museums. It’s very difficult for young people. When The New York Times that I used to buy for three cents is now $2.50, The New Yorker which I used to buy for ten cents, is now something like $7, it’s bizarre. And, of course, the wages that young people get are pitiful. So, yeah, I love New York but I don’t like the time particularly.
Is there anything else that you’d like to add?
I can tell you about my next book. It’s going to be similar in structure to the Mary Astor book. It’s going to be a memoir. It will be about my growing up in New York. And it will be about the thirteen presidents that I’ve lived through.
My point is that every one of these presidents, whether I liked them or not, committed illegal acts, overthrew governments illegally, and did unconstitutional things. Starting with Dwight D. Eisenhower, who became enamored with Billy Graham. It was through those machinations that they put “In God We Trust” on our currency and inserted “Under God” in our oath of allegiance. Somehow, I regard that point in history as the slope we’ve been sliding ever since.
Now, it’s done so garishly with someone like Trump.
Right. Trump, the great Christian, who apparently was much loved by the Bible Belt. I don’t think there’s anything more derogatory I can say about organized religion than that they were responsible for the election of Donald Trump.
Is part of the new book you’re working on sitting on your drawing board?
Not yet. A little bit is sitting on the computer. Nothing has been drawn yet.
I wish you well on that. It’s been exciting and quite a treat to get a chance to talk with you for a bit.
You’re very kind. Thank you so much.
You can listen to the interview right here.
“Mary Astor’s Purple Diary: The Great American Sex Scandal of 1936” is a 176-page hardcover, with full-color illustrations, published by W.W. Norton & Company. For more details, visit W.W. Norton & Company right here.