by Jan Galligan &
Lillian Mulero
"Celebrity distorts democracy by giving the rich, beautiful, and famous more authority than they deserve," says Maureen Dowd. Her new book, The Year of Voting Dangerously: The Derangement of American Politics will be released on Sept. 13.
While serving as cultural correspondents at the 2016 San Juan International Film Festival, we received an invitation to attend a Conversatorio at the Conservatorio, a talk between Maureen Dowd, political columnist for the New York Times, called by some “the most dangerous columnist in America,” and New York Times congressional reporter and Washington D.C. bureau chief, Carl Hulse, known by the nickname “The Senator.” We decided to skip the closing ceremonies of the Film Festival in favor of attending the talk, billed as a discussion on the 2016 Presidential election – Clinton vs. Trump.
Arriving early we milled
around the lobby and noticed a well-heeled crowd, people who
obviously read the New York Times. One table at the reception area
was filled with small receiver and headphone sets for simultaneous
translation, but few people were picking those up. We grabbed a
couple of index cards in order to prepare our question for the
audience participation section of the presentation, and found a seat
in the middle of the auditorium. Lillian spotted Geraldo Rivera
sitting a few rows in front of us, closer to the stage.
Dowd introduced herself by
reading what might have been one of her Times columns, talking about
Clinton, Trump, the election and the general sense of craziness that
currently prevails. She told an anecdote about meeting privately
with president Obama, thinking he was going to give her an scoop or
some inside information. Instead, he told her to her face just how
annoying her found her. Hulse, gave an extemporaneous presentation of
his experiences among the senators in D.C., and then told a lengthy
anecdote about being invited to the White House to watch a Chicago
Bears football game with president Obama, both Hulse and Obama being
natives of Illinois and fanatic supporters of the Bears. That time
the Bears were thoroughly trounced by the Packers. The story,
intended an amusing encounter with the president, fell flat – as
most of the audience had no knowledge or interest in American
football. Both Dowd and Hulse seemed to favor Clinton in her contest
against Trump and their analysis suggests that she has a good chance
to prevail in November. Dowd characterized Trump as a clinical
narcissist who is running his campaign on a moment to moment basis,
unplanned, seemingly spontaneous, and subject to the ups and downs of
the news cycle. Hulse said that there is no doubt that Trump wants to
win; the question being what will he do if he doesn't. Both Hulse and
Dowd related a lunch they attended last June at Trump's invitation,
held in the Trump Tower dining hall. Over plates of meatballs and
spaghetti (“which Trump barely touched,” said Hulse) they
discussed his problems with the Republican party and other issues of
the moment. They said that they were surprised to find him to be both
friendly and solicitous in person. Characterizing Clinton, they both
agreed that despite her cool, wonkish public persona, in private they
said in unison, “she is a hoot.”
When the time came for
questions from the audience, we handed in our card and waited to see
if it would make the cut. There was just time for a handful of
audience inquiries. They mostly dealt with questions about the two
candidates, their chances, and possible post-election scenarios. Our
question, which turned out to be the last one of the night and the
only question specific to current affairs here on the island,
concerned the political and economic future of Puerto Rico. Knowing Geraldo Rivera would be listening, we had asked:
Can you speculate on the PROMESA process, politically and
economically? What might be the outcome by the time of the 2020
presidential election? Dowd deferred to Hulse for the response,
saying she had given him responsibility to be ready for such a
question. He said that he had actually followed the issue closely in
discussions with congressmen involved in the legislation that
established PROMESA. He gave a carefully worded explanation that he
appreciated the sensitivity of the issue to the people of the island,
calling it the “third-rail” issue of the moment. He explained
that he lived in D.C. when a fiscal control board was appointed by
Congress to oversee the capital city fiscal crisis of the late 1990s.
He contended that however painful the process, the outcome for the
city had been positive and that by 2001 the city had completed four
consecutive years of balanced budget. He said he hoped for a similar
outcome for Puerto Rico in the near future.
the Conservatorio de Musica de Puerto Rico, September 7, 2016