Showing posts with label Norman Ball. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Norman Ball. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 19, 2020

Gordon Ball's East Hill Farm: Seasons with Allen Ginsberg: A Conversation with Jim Cohn & Kirpal Gordon



KIRPAL GORDON: So what’s your first take on Gordon Ball’s East Hill Farm: Seasons with Allen Ginsberg just out from Counterpoint Press? As a scholar of Beat and Postbeat literature, you know the many incongruities, biases and distortions this tradition has faced from the mainstream. In that context what do you think Ball’s memoir?

JIM COHN: Ball’s East Hill Farm is a corrective document to mainstream Beat bias or the entire Beat project falling out of favor with young poets today. It is a remarkably open and honest look at the agrarian & communal poetry scene Allen set out to create at the end of the 1960s. Last time I checked, social culture had moved online, so the problems of like-minded people living together collectively may be more abstract than when we were coming up. Being off the grid definitely wasn’t laced with the addictivity to it that it is today, but we had our own addictivities to deal with back then. On that score, society hasn’t changed all that much. But since climate change is our number one global crisis, and one that links generations from Ginsberg’s to Greta Thunberg’s, how we live together and how we use resources to fight our collective and individual carbon footprints still suggests that Allen was on the right track. 



Within the context of the human global extinction from man-made over-exploitation of fossil fuels, we now live in a period of hyper-outrage. Partisan amplified outrage. An age of extremist hatred and fear. An age of Domestic Terrorism. The era of the Unite the Right white supremacist, neo-Nazi, neo-Confederate, neo-fascist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia 11-12 August 2017. The age of ongoing massacres of our youth by adults with mental and/or ideological illness with access to NRA-supported obstruction to common sense gun restrictions and laws. The age of preposterous guttings of American environmental law by the Chief Executive of the nation and appointed persons invested in the perpetuation of drilling, mining and fracking of carbon resources from within the Earth at the tipping point in humanity’s collective ability to transform our planet with universal energies derived from sun and wind. Some of that outrage is between youth and their elders––for not doing enough in our own lifetime to switch our coal and oil-based society on alternative and non-polluting energies.




In East Hill Farm, Gordon Ball presents Farmer Ginsberg, a side of Allen’s life that shows him learning and doing new things. Here, we see him in a different kind of performance than he is generally known for. At East Hill Farm, we see him, with friends and family, confronting myriad issues of survival related to living off the land. This is not the usual way Allen is portrayed or thought about. Definitely not the way media tended to portray him. Ball’s presentation of Ginsberg is not that of the towering poetic figure, the transcending spokesperson for equality and justice, the heroic blueprint advocate for gay rights, the resilient voice of freedom connected to the great liberation poets of the West: Blake and Whitman before him. What Gordon presents in this memoir is the Allen Ginsberg who practiced compassion in every aspect of his daily life and the Allen Ginsberg whose family––from his mother to his life-love partner Peter Orlovsky––showed Right Action in the loving, dignified and respectful treatment of people with normate-differing abilities. 

Cadets read Howl, February l9, l99l, Virginia Military Institute, Lexington, Virginia

KIRPAL GORDON: As for your eye to Ball’s corrective lens to the Beats, you’re taking me all the way back to “Howl” and its prophecy of the technocratic in Western civilization, specifically your remark about the internet and how addictive watching TV, computer and phone screens can be. I recall in Norman Ball’s Introduction (no relation to Gordon) that he speaks of his mind-set prior to writing Between River and Rock: How I Resolved Television in Six Easy Payments: “I began experiencing recurring nightmares of Molochian furnaces, screaming, terrified children and a pervasive sense of dread.” Although Norm includes an assessment of every major contemporary prose and poetry work on the subject of media and mass conformity, Ginsberg’s “Howl” is the watershed he draws deepest from. AG’s inclusion of every margin of humanity, his return to the body, his candid eye to sex, his ayahuasca vision of the Drake Hotel in San Francisco, his incantatory Whitmanic wavelengths of speech: he helped inspire a new level of openness, an ecologically connected all-one world village, a return to nature. AG was surely heeding the zeitgeist he had helped awaken when he bought land upstate for his “haven for comrades in distress” and his own Yeatsian “cabin of clay and wattles made.” Or as Neil Young put it: “Are you ready for the country because it’s time to go.”

Gordon Ball recreates this late Sixties into Seventies moment in history most effectively. His voice––sincere yet tactful, awe struck yet discerning––is clearly the most reliable among that motley crew of woe-be-gone poets and hangers-on. I also applaud its Beat Generation-Objectivist aesthetic, its form/content marriage. Primarily a filmmaker at the time, Ball narrates his chapters in short cinema-verité bits, haiku-esque farm scenes, telling-detail visits from the locals, sight-is-where-the-eye-strikes hikes and adventures, sketches of dinners and parties. Another element of the memoir’s value is that Ball gets off the farm and into downtown Manhattan plenty. His mentor Jonas Mekas and his avant-garde film friends mix most artfully with Ginsberg’s multiple New York worlds. It’s great sociology and Ball is an excellent tour guide.

He’s no patsy or groupie, either. Of all the characters in the book, he seems to get the most from Allen’s insights and ideas––perhaps because the journeyman-apprentice relationship is on a solid footing of mutual benefit, admiration and appreciation. At times, Ball seems the only member happy to work for the common good and grudge-free of Ginsberg, who comes off not as a soft touch or a putz but a deeply thoughtful, complex and moral human being surrounded by troubled people during a troubled chapter of American history, which was also the time of AG’s greatest contribution to American life and letters. Whether on the road reading poetry and raising money for many causes or whether on the farm reasoning with crazy people or convincing his friends to see the bigger picture, Allen is the catcher in the rye 24/7. He doesn’t seem to rest. Saving the world is a full-time gig! Ball’s portrait of him is truer and more complete than the media’s picture of a bearded and stoned wild man in the 1950s. AG’s self-selected family/tribe, on the other hand, seems to do their best to conform to beatnik clichés. Their youthful defiance and exuberant adolescent rebellion now read like a cautionary tale about growing old in the American poetry racket. Ball, by contrast, literally digs in; he learns how to grow an organic garden and orchard.

Gordon Ball, Allen Ginsberg


JIM COHN: I wouldn’t say that AG’s self-selected family/tribe was consciously trying to “conform to beatnik clichés.” Maybe the younger folk visiting the farm were experimenting with what they took as a rural model of Beat bohemianism. Some of Allen’s long-time friends and lovers, already known Beat Generation writers and artists, they weren’t conforming to the beat clichés surrounding addiction. They had adult drug and/or alcoholic problems all their own. As Ball points out, this comes at a time when Allen is at the farm researching his own serious case about the CIA’s involvement in Southeast Asian drug trafficking. Ginsberg was a key researcher of the drug trade and clandestine U.S. involvement in the latter 20th century opioid crises. The one before the opioid crisis of the early 21st century. There was so much disinformation coming from the government related to the war in Vietnam. One of Allen’s many achievements at this point in his life was pointing out the hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy and that of domestic policies that led to War on Drugs. Ball’s chronicle offers additional proof that verifies to posterity this research Allen brought to light.

As “farm manager,” Gordon provides a remarkable portrait of Allen & his friends over the period of 1969-1971. I was not prepared for the granular detail and overall fine writing that carries you through this 400-page book. While I’d heard talk around the legendary “Cherry Valley Farm” for years, I really knew little of the particulars. There was only so much these settlers knew, and considering most of the original scouting party came from New York City, what drew them to the parcel was more aesthetic than practical.

KIRPAL GORDON: Unfortunately, what drew some of the members to the farm was less about living in the country than living far from certain white powders. Since “needle drugs” were outlawed on the Cherry Hill grounds, inevitable clashes of will arose when people were jonesin’ or scorin’, sweatin’ their way out or divin’ their way deeper down. Indeed, in my experiences with intentional communities, failing to obey ground rules can tear a group apart. It is a maddening scene to master when some work while others don’t work and yet cash their checks all the same from Mama Ginsey’s Committee on Poetry, Inc. In these regards, Ball proves most diplomatic in his descriptions of daily life.

Allen Ginsberg, Gregory Corso, East Village

JIM COHN: Having lived and participated on an organic farming commune up in St. Lawrence County, north of the Adirondacks, called Birdsfoot Farm from 1988-1992, I felt a kinship with Ball’s descriptions of making the house habitable, dealing with water and electricity issues, raising crops, and especially dealing with those arctic upstate New York winters. I was familiar with much of the work Gordon describes as well as the neighbors who lived nearby and how there were important relationships to maintain between people at the farm and the community at large.

One tell as to what that relationship was is how well Allen himself was respected around the greater rural Cherry Valley community. Although at first they were an odd lot living in the countryside cut off from the things to which they had habituated in the city, I was also familiar with the desire to live intentionally with others and the power of that desire, especially for young people, as I was when I made a deliberate decision to commit to that communal lifestyle for a period of time in my youth. And I could see Allen’s own attraction to the lifestyle, following Gary Snyder’s lead, as central.

KIRPAL GORDON: Ball’s memoir really makes that point clearly. I read the Gary Snyder-Allen Ginsberg correspondence back between ‘68-‘71, and I wondered why Allen never quite got settled on the land he purchased next to Snyder’s community in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada. After reading Ball, I gather that Allen’s predilection to shepherd his East Hill flock suggests that his obligations may have been more to people than to places.

JIM COHN: Along with that, you do see a commitment at East Hill Farm to practices that Gary Snyder wrote about when he introduced his own works on ecology and bioregionalism, based in large part on his anthropologic understanding of The Old Ways in both indigenous cultures and among those who came before us, before our times. I’m thinking of his Earth Household as a key work still relevant today.

We know from the Ginsberg-Snyder correspondence that Allen made a conscious choice between west and east coasts to lay down some roots of his own in the mid-to-late 60s, after a decade of fame and its myriad responsibilities from unleashing "Howl." Ball provides invaluable context as to the reason Allen chose to settle back east. Much of it had to do with Ginsberg’s sense that the monies fame provided him be used to take care of family members and Beat poetry friends who suffered from either communicative disorders, mental illness or addiction. Say what you will about Allen’s family and friends, weighing their artistic output against their self-destructive personalities and conduct, Ginsberg treated people with disabilities with basic sane respect deserving of all human being. Allen, himself, was at the core of one of the key “essential effects” of the Beat Generation; that is, he practiced the demystification and/or decriminalization of cannabis and other drugs. Most people perceive of decriminalization only in reference to how the law treats people disabled by their drug use. Ball’s narrative makes clear, in ways I myself saw firsthand, that Allen also meant decriminalization to mean how society treats people with body-related differences outside the normative.

Ball does a very good job laying out these relationships and their difficulties––better than any able-bodied writer writing about him that I’ve read. And Gordon’s also very clear that Ginsberg was clueless when he was convinced by American filmmaker and performance artist Barbara Rubin, best known for her 1963 underground film Christmas on Earth, to purchase the property. Ball writes a very clear picture, by the way, of Barbara Rubin who is an undersung woman of the Beat Generation. According to Ball, Rubin wanted to marry Allen and have his babies on the farm.

All Ginsberg seemed to know was that he had a fund set up to help poets unable to take care of themselves, and that he wanted the farm to be a place where people could dry out, rehab, and be treated as human beings with their own personhood. Whether it was one of the Orlovsky brothers, Hunke, Corso or Bremser, Ginsberg wanted to extend to those marginalized friends a safe and reasonable place to attempt a healthier lifestyle.
Allen also needed his own personal refuge from the pressures of fame and fortune; a place to which he could retreat.

KIRPAL GORDON: The lifetime struggles of the people you mention––with drug and alcohol addiction as well as mental illness––suggest that Allen Ginsberg was in way over his head. I’m not saying he did not love his friends, only that they may have needed professional help. In twelve-step parlance, one might say he was enabling, to some extent, his friends’ addictions. Viewing through a Buddhist lens, is there a more compassionate way of seeing this challenging and tricky situation?

Herbert Hunke


JIM COHN: I suppose, from a Buddhist perspective, the compassionate way of seeing Allen’s situation is that he needed to be in “way over his head,” don’t you think? That’s what Gordon so successfully conveyed through his narrative. The farm was, as many homes can be, a financial sinkhole. I mean, it took until 2007 for Americans to learn first-hand what a genuine money pit owning a home is. Allen is forever off the farm touring during this late 60s, early 70s period that Ball is describing. Doing readings all across the country.



At this point, poetry is his occupation, his job. He needs all these readings he’s doing across the country. He needs this bread for one thing: the farm. Homesteader Ginsberg perseveres and there are enough people and monies around to settle in. It’s a good story about how if we knew up front what we know about things we dreamt of doing young, we might have never done them. That’s what makes being involved in things way over your own head not a bad thing necessarily. It’s what you make of it that matters.



Ball describes at least two important things that happen to Allen while he was living at East Hill Farm. First, he got his music scene together and wrote music to all of Blake’s Songs of Innocence and of Experience. These songs were to become an important aspect of Ginsberg readings in the years that followed. Along with them, he began his recording career; something that in the age of The Beatles, Bob Dylan and Ray Charles, Allen wanted to expand into in order to reach younger people.



The second important thing that happened to him was that East Hill farm is the place where he learned that Jack Kerouac.

Peter Orlovsky with Shiva



KIRPAL GORDON: I despaired at the sinkhole side of Ginsberg’s farm-owning; he’s the only one chipping in with money. But I really enjoyed reading how he grew his musical chops. He learned from anyone who came around who could play. I think part of that impulse toward music may have come from gigging so much, which is to say that I think he took his very successful long-lined prophetic mind-breaths as far as he could. The next level is song! You know, from incantation to manifestation. I think the other draw was that the Beatles, Dylan and Brother Ray used simple musical forms. The payoff came from how all the elements combined. It can be a very liberating feeling for a free verse poet to write in song forms, and getting Blake recorded showed Ginsberg at his best: he threw himself into the project. Yes, he was appealing to a second generation of youth through song. So, in regard to your question––do I think Allen needed to be in over his head––I would answer: maybe. Ah, but had he not had to rescue broken-down people or worry about the heating bill or the impact of the latest antic of his comrades on his farm neighbors, who can say? I get the feeling that East Hill may have failed as a retreat for Ginsberg and his extraordinarily busy life. Ball makes it clear that Allen came there to write, study and make phone calls, but not to work with the team digging the well or trimming the garden or feeding the barn animals or building the new road. The esprit de corps that unites people doing physical labor in a concerted effort is what Whitman celebrates in Leaves of Grass: “The simple, compact, well-join’d scheme, myself disintegrated, every one disintegrated yet part of the scheme.” By contrast, Allen, for all intents and purposes, was by himself at East Hill Farm. He put out fires, talked members off ledges, settled disputes. But being a single parent can get lonely and exhausting. Imagine: had he stayed in town, taken voice lessons, hung with first-call musicians who could show him a few things about chords and composing and melody; had he had more conversations with people as interesting and multi-dimensional as himself, had he spent more time around folks who were not hitting him up for a hand-out, who knows? When the phone call comes that tells him Jack Kerouac is dead, would everything have been different?



JIM COHN: Ball writes his book as if each little chapter is a frame in a movie. This makes total sense since movie making was his primary art form at the time. That said, he’s clearly a very keen-eyed visual writer with a memory for detail. There were sentences in his book that you never see punctuation as formal as that anywhere nowadays. His sentences have a compression to them. The feeling I felt took me back to a Henry James novel at times. I’m thinking about Gordon’s description of Lafcadio Orlovsky, who was basically mute, speaking to his mother on the landline telephone not realizing that she had hung up minutes before. This is a work of long sentence and short but plentiful with oft exquisitely fast chapters.



There’s an amazing energy that comes from Ball’s nonfiction. I can understand why Ferlinghetti raved about it. Gordon’s gift to posterity includes this written record he produced of the experiences he had at the farm. He was really the eyes of that world. I was so impressed by the way he managed to speak kindly, thoughtfully and respectfully of everyone who passed through, even if all some people brought to the farm was chaos, narcissism, selfishness and misery.



I mean Corso gives him a black eye. Often times he’s the lone sane person holding down the fort. The parent in the room. So, he really practiced, really lived a nonviolent life, a truly examined life, which I believe is what drew him to making this work fifty years after the fact. Even when his timeline focuses about him––his loneliness, his sexual relationships with women and men, his work on the farm, his travels to NYC or further south to visit family––he manages to keep the camera’s focus and the reader’s attention on the world itself.



Ball is candid about his bisexuality but it doesn’t define him. And he’s candid about sexuality at the farm in general, but neither does it define life at the farm. There is a sexual revolution going on across America at this time. People are more open and feeling more natural about their sexuality. Women and men. Sex is not going to be a taboo subject at the farm or in any context as long as Allen Ginsberg is its primary resident. But it’s not going to be the only subject by which one is defined. It’s obviously not a taboo subject for Gordon Ball either.



It’s neither remarkable nor unremarkable that women pass through the farm. But does the book do justice to the women on the farm? Their sexuality; their feelings about what this farm represents to them personally; their thoughts about bohemia, utopia, community and feminism; their sexual identity and artistic dreams? I’d say Ball reserves that degree of revelation only for himself. By bringing in his sexuality to the text so openly, so matter-of-factly, he provides numerous scenes from the farm suggesting a typically casual approach to sex among those living or visiting there, including Ginsberg’s own open and matter-of-fact approach to his own sexuality that came about at great expense, beginning with traumatizing psychological repression of his gay sexual orientation.



Within the context of these sexual and political progressive views comes the phone call to the farm; the short call Allen takes to hear that Jack Kerouac is dead. To me, this marks a profound moment in the history of the Beat Generation and impacts on the generations of poets that knew these writers in life as well as through their works. It begins the process of evaluating one of the strangest realities of the Beats, and that is Jack Kerouac’s views of sexuality and politics after the mainstream fame he found for On the Road and Dharma Bums. For all the fame Kerouac finds in the publication of Road and Bums, he follows a path of increasing misogyny and political conservativism; be it in regards to Old Boy Old School roles for women in the home or men serving their country in fighting nationalistic wars without ever asking if these wars are morally, ethically or even karmically worth fighting at all.



What happened to Kerouac? There’s this moment you and I have talked about. Snyder rejects Jack’s depiction of him in Bums. By all accounts, Snyder’s rejection is devastating to Kerouac. Gary’s own views on women were changing with the times, growing with the expansiveness of feminist theory, feminist power, and with the manifestation of significant shifts in how men and women viewed one another and themselves. As Snyder’s anthropologic and mythopoetic appreciation of the feminine grew, Jack’s views on women and politics seems to have reached an early and dysfunctional stasis from which the writing just stopped in terms of consciousness, in terms of loving kindness to self and open heartedness toward others. Jack grew more introverted with time. More withdrawn.



Over time, Kerouac and Ginsberg’s correspondence reveals a certain kind of disdain Jack held toward Allen, who learned much from Kerouac regarding not only a sense of poetic spontaneity, but also what Buddhism offers to the West: a way to look at one’s own mind and the root of neuroticism and spiritual liberation. There’s a sense you can’t help but get from their letters that the immense breakthrough Kerouac achieved through the publication of Road became a disabling factor for such a private person as Kerouac was.

I mean, primarily as a writer. The writer’s solitary life dedicated to the writing. Of being around others, but as a witness, an outsider to the lives people who don’t write lead. The lonesome solitude of “October in the Railroad Earth.”



It’s kind of like the old saying, “Be careful what you wish for,” in that what Kerouac appeared to have loved best about being the writer he was was the writing itself. But the Beats had a unique situation going in terms of media and mass suffering. Jack and Allen were media figures. For example, there was William F. Buckley, the conservative intellectual media personality, who challenged the Beat ethos directly, live on television. Jack, who in his prime was one of the greatest spoken word artists of any century, didn’t have the orality moxie to talk past Buckley directly to American youth.



But Allen did. Allen grew up in a family of debaters. It was the family pastime. Debate was second nature to him. He had the mental equipment to challenge authority, social convention and conformity, nationalistic hypocrisy, global injustice. I think Jack ended up projecting blame upon Allen for his own inability to navigate the contemporary culture spotlight that had embraced him. Jack gave rise to a counterculture that he felt no real connection to. The counterculture was Kerouac’s Frankenstein. It was too much responsibility for Jack to bear.



Ginsberg and Snyder were on the progressive side of history as Kerouac sank into a closed-minded view of people of color, women and politics. I’m saying this as a poet who came through the Kerouac School at Naropa and never regretted that decision for a second. Jack might have worked with his own naked mind through the 12-steps and found a way forward to expand upon the exuberance of best works––I’m thinking of Visions of Gerard, Dr. Sax, Desolation Angels (Part One), Visions of Cody, and The Scripture of the Golden Eternity. I tell myself, to paraphrase Hart Crane, that Jack was the rose that grew out of the mud puddle. He arose from his own French-Canadian American working-class background only to be trampled by his own footsteps.



Kerouac’s retreat from youth culture was complete when he died cut off from his Beat friends in St. Petersburg not long after Allen was establishing Cherry Creek Farm. But not Ginsberg. Allen is engaged at the time in cross-country major anti-war poetry readings, Be-Ins, protests and creative spectacle-theater demonstrations against the war in Vietnam. He’s appearing in court at the trial of the Chicago 7 speaking quite sanely while showing the insanity of the government’s opposition to his political positions.



What’s going on in America during the Vietnam War cannot help but appear in the pages of Ball’s book because Allen was at the center of the anti-Vietnam War Movement that attempted to inform young people not to say yes to war, to resist war non-violently, in an informal appreciation mirroring the political process behind the Civil Rights Movement, of making one’s voice heard, and allowing for other actions to prevail such as joining together with other citizens to mass protest and mass demonstrate against the failure of all wars.



When I read that chapter in East Hill Farm on Kerouac’s death in St. Petersburg, which I’ve visited and gone to the bar where Jack met his fate that precipitated his end, I thought to myself, “He’d be watching FOX news today if he were still alive. He might even be part of Trump’s base!”


Thanksgiving, 1969: From left, standing: Julius Orlovsky, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Gordon Ball, Allen Ginsberg, Robert Creeley. Front, seated: Gregory Corso, Peter Orlovsky


KIRPAL GORDON: But as Gregory Corso puts it during a conversation with Bob Creeley and Lawrence Ferlinghetti and the East Hill Beats about Kerouac’s death, “We’ve got to have both sides of the story, Jack’s is one” (page 224). That faith and sense of unity the Beats felt toward one another since their Columbia days appeared to be over. Ball also makes clear that AG and company were still reeling from JK’s recent and final published essay “After Me, the Deluge” in the 26 October 1969 Los Angeles Times, five days after he died. The bard from Lowell (and a lover of St. Theresa) delivered some hard and bitter words for his old running buddies. The New York Post was waiting for Allen’s comment on the essay. As Creeley told Ball, “Allen felt it was a no-win situation.” Around the time of that essay, Kerouac was phoning Allen to inform him of the “Great Jewish Conspiracy.” Do you see what I mean?



Take it all the way back to his novel Big Sur, published in 1962. I think it’s sadly obvious that the master of spontaneous bop prosody was suffering from acute and severe alcoholism. It’s a tough way to go out, especially for a lover of freedom and a seeker of Beatitude like Kerouac. At some point, the booze takes over; the booze does the talking, the planning, the denying and the hustling. The spirits of alcohol broke him down, made friends look like enemies, reinforced worst tendencies. He left his life of travel and pilgrimage and returned to the misogyny and MAGA-like politics of his folks and the old hometown. Unlike his Tokay days of old, he now had money, but he was isolated and living with his conservative mother and wife. He seemed quite disconnected from the rucksack revolution, the New American Poetics tradition, the hitch-hiking of highways and the repudiation of Joe McCarthy’s abduction of democracy: the restless, wild, roman candle-bursting version of America he had helped inspire. Perhaps his powers of observation and his love of his friends––his real gift and his real subjects––were gone. Diving into the bottle did not bring back the gift or his friends! Let’s take it back to 1957 with his “overnight success” with On the Road. He was called King of the Beats and interviewed as if he were the spokesperson of a movement. That had to be disconcerting. To my appreciation Kerouac’s real contribution to American letters is right up there with Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man. Both novelists are under the spell of Charlie Parker, re-vitalizing language through the musical discoveries of the be-bop revolution. Heady stuff! I think his real compatriot in music is John Coltrane. Jack and John were hard working, spiritually driven seekers who translated their baptism into Yardbird’s flow and produced full confessional genre-defying upliftment and Wholly Communion for an audience bigger than just Beat and bop lovers. They celebrated their exodus from square America and their New Jerusalem offered us a perpetual rebirth of wonder. Future generations on the road to freedom will yet benefit. When I consider Kerouac’s oeuvre, I also think of Nelson Algren’s work as well: they give voice to elements of American life misrepresented and misunderstood in the mainstream.



I agree that Kerouac’s death birthed a profound moment in the Beat Generation. Call him a glutton for (or addict of) celebrity, but Ginsberg just kept staying pertinent throughout the rest of his life. To me, Allen’s counterpart in music is Miles Davis who was born the same year as AG and Trane (1926; Kerouac, 1922). Like Miles, AG stayed on the scene, re-invented himself, defied his own limitations, expanded the power of art to change people’s lives, especially the young at heart. Yes, he spoke to the next generations through music. Like Miles’ Bitches Brew which had just hit, Allen and his harmonium was the next chapter of the oral tradition he had been renewing since the Six Gallery reading (1955). Ginsberg would remain loyal and carry the flock of down-and-outers on his back for a long time yet, but regarding your remark about Allen being in over his head as not necessarily a bad thing, he loved his mother. She was crazy and institutionalized, so why shouldn’t he seek to make the world safe for marginality for his crazy and institutionalized friends?



Regarding your question, does the book do justice to the women of the farm, I would say there is not enough evidence to hazard a guess. It’s kind of out of focus. I don’t get the feeling that the community, at least the men, thought too much about gender roles or women’s rights particularly, though these issues were big time and mainstream back then. As for Ball, he was only a few years out of college and new to the game of love. Yes, it’s great reading of his open-mindedness, but (like all of us) he had trouble de-coding the messages of his partners, which led to more entanglements than enlightenments. Ball is refreshingly matter-of-fact regarding sex, as you point out, and a lot like Allen on that subject. But I find that reading about other people’s sex lives can get tiring.



Where does Gordon Ball excel? I agree with Ann Charters, who calls him a “Beat Boswell,” and Bill Morgan, who calls him “a masterful story teller [who] could turn a depressing tale of poets at rock bottom into a triumph of the human spirit.” That’s the real shot.



Jim Cohn

JIM COHN: East Hill Farm appears to me to be a work of outstanding personal research and scholarship. Charters’ remark suggests as much; the book is a matter of detective work, investigative nonfiction piecing together of various literary and historical sources. Ball had his own journals, as he reveals throughout the text. He seems to have compared his timelines with Allen’s notes, more likely than not, through research-visits to Stanford where the one thousand linear feet of Ginsberg papers are housed for posterity. It’s a great trick of sorts how he lays passages from his journals with Allen’s again and again. One informs and illuminates the other. Is he reading Allen’s journals in the moments from the past he’s describing? Is he comparing his own journals to those of Allen’s after the passing of decades from within the confines of that reading room at Stanford with its myriad closed-circuit cameras recording visiting scholars every move?



I think the book was written to defy that otherwise “depressing tale of poets at rock bottom” you mention. I remember finally, years later, seeing the awful Alison Ellwood and Alex Gibney 2011 film Magic Trip, made from footage taken by Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters on their 1964 tour of America on a bus named Furthur and thinking to myself, “This looks like a hellava lot less than Tom Wolfe made it out to be.” There are things about rural America that urban America fears. Not the least among those fears is the dread of isolation; feeling cut off from the mass imagination of materialism and winning; the fondness for things to populate America’s servitude to capitalism. I would argue that Kerouac’s art leaned into the past for its sustenance. Allen’s leaned into the future. Gordon Ball, as the writing itself suggests, exhibits the power of the present.



There’s a certain magic in maintaining one’s presence and farm life is an ideal way to formalize that. In an idealized American literary sense, there’s Brook Farm and the Transcendentalists. But Hawthorne didn’t stay there all that long and he was a founder. Poets and writers do not make for the best farm laborers; not in America, generally speaking. Hawthorne thought better of his Customs House work after feeling his soul buried under cow shit. Emerson never joined the community though he was invited several times. Thoreau seemed to feel his individualism would be thwarted living there. Solitude was far easier for him to making a writer’s life from than working a community farm.



But Gordon had the wherewithal at this period in his life, regardless of the sense that he had of not knowing if this was the right path for him, to make something out of the materials and beings before him. It seems to me that Ball saw a form of activism by simply keeping record of the Great and Small changes within and around him. In collecting enough data, he exhibited a trust that it would lead to its own trends, much like the study of the weather. You take the temperature of a place daily, note the amount of precipitation and wind speed, the humidity in the air, barometric pressure, and pretty soon you’re mapping out climate change, and hopefully, a way through our man-made changes to our planet.



There was one detail that I thought Ball would discuss that he never did and I’m curious what your take on it was. I’m talking about the coal-burning stove in the kitchen. Here’s Allen setting up East Hill Farm and there’s Gordon and friends tilling the fields, growing crops, moving in the direction of organic farming methods, and never does he talk about the coal burning at the center of their existence. Today, we accept that coal, as we have used it as a resource, is a major source of pollution. Was he trying to make a point about the limitations of our idealism? I don’t really know.





KIRPAL GORDON: You bring up interesting issues about Ball’s method of scholarship, data collection and access to Ginsberg’s archives at Stanford. There is something thorough and thoughtful and detective-like going on in East Hill Farm, just like Ball’s earlier work as editor of Allen Verbatim: Lectures on Poetry, Politics and Consciousness (1974).



As for coal, as for gender roles: I don’t think it was on the minds of the East Hill community much. From my own experience of living upstate (mid-Hudson Valley), I would say that avoiding freezing to death often takes on the phrase: by any means necessary. As you note early on, Allen and krewe made it up as they went along. So many of the “improvements” of the farm seem born of the moment, not exactly the result of planning. On the other hand, spontaneity served them well. They kept finding people who knew what they didn’t know, whether it was about water or roads or cars or heaters or ditches or musical chords. The memoir pays tribute to the kindness of these country folks who come to the aid of the city folks often and in good spirits. Indeed, it is the opposite of the rural/urban split dividing the nation at that time.



As for idealism and its limitations, I can say for sure that Ball exposed the limits of my own idealism throughout his memoir! I wanted to dive into the tale on any number of occasions and confront Peter Orlovsky, Herbert Hunke, Ray Bremser and Corso on their intent (conscious or unconscious) to sabotage the community. Total props to Ball for his patience and equipoise!  



The strength of Ball’s position––and the strength of the story––is his trust and insight into what Allen was doing globally/locally. Each page brings you deeper into his apprenticeship not with Allen but with the behavior AG is modeling as a poet, artist, citizen, communard. As you say, Ginsberg’s having fun with the locals, but he’s also marching against the war, raising money for incarcerated comrades, researching the CIA’s drug involvement in Southeast Asia, testifying at trials, speaking truth to Nixon’s war-mad power play, reading and writing poetry from this insider’s point of view. His sacks of mail alone are keeping the town’s post office from closing! As you noted on Kerouac, he knew the loneliness of the long-distance runner but couldn’t enter the cultural revolution he had helped instigate. Ball demonstrates how Ginsberg skillfully joined with a number of progressive forces to stop the war and widen our lens to view a rainbow coalition, the latest iteration of Whitman’s Democratic Vista. To whip that old contrarian phrase, it was the counter-culture’s finest hour. Bodies were dropping. In 1970 law enforcement killed white and black students at Kent State and Jackson State. It was no time to be aloof or ironic. Just like now. The country is so divided down the middle that no one seems to be listening to the other side much. I think that’s the value of Ball’s memoir; it’s a corrective not just to the Beats but to a form of openness, a way of being, that the nation is in danger of losing. 


Gordon Ball
All Ginsberg-related photos copyright Gordon Ball. Unauthorized copying in any form is a violation of applicable laws.

Saturday, July 18, 2015

Dissent: It’s Not Just for History Anymore

(A slightly abridged version of this review 
 appeared previously in Pop Matters) 



Dissent: The History of an American Idea 
By Ralph Young 
New York University Press, 2015 
602pp 
$39.95/cloth 


“Our textbooks on political science and economics are obsolete. Our nation has been hijacked by oligarchs, corporations, and a narrow, selfish, political, and economic elite, a small and privileged group that governs, and often steals, on behalf of moneyed interests…During this plundering we remained passive, mesmerized by the enticing shadows on the wall, assured our tickets to success, prosperity, and happiness were waiting around the corner.” ― Chris Hedges, Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle 

This review starts not with a quote from Ralph Young’s Dissent: The History of an American Idea, but from one of the most vital political analysts of our time addressing a potentially irreversible crisis happening right now under our very noses: the suspension of dissent as a corrective and cyclical mechanism against the prevailing status quo. Of course as Dissent abundantly shows, the composition of both the privileged and dissenting class changes dramatically with each historic engagement. Less clear is whether the power structure will succeed in evolving an ever-more repressive paradigm on the way to stifling dissent altogether. 

In fairness to Young, his book is (as the subtitle fairly reflects) a history. So this reviewer’s disquiet precedes the reading of this expansive and, in many ways, impressive account. Nonetheless in other ways, Dissent reads like one of Hedge’s superseded text books, perhaps what one might encounter in a 200-level survey course in a university Political Science class. When the forest is ablaze, the last thing one wants to be handed is a field guide to its pristine flora and fauna. How about a red phone to the forest fire-fighters instead? 

At the end of the day, history is at the end of the day. Flames lapping at your heels? That’s a whole ‘nother campfire. I confess to first flipping to the book’s conclusion where any sense of urgency might best be expressed. The book is after all a 2015 edition, a full two years on from the tragic ‘death by prosecutorial mischief’ of Aaron Swartz, easily his generation’s Abbie Hoffman. Hedge’s 2010 book for all its portent could not have incorporated that cruel injustice. Yet Dissent makes no mention of Swartz; nor of electronic civil disobedience pioneer Jeremy Hammond, sentenced in 2013 to ten years in prison for leaking intelligence firm Statfor’s emails which detailed money laundering and other improprieties. Indeed there’s no mention of hacktivism at all. Wow. Tales of yesteryear indeed. The book concludes with this: 

“And we need to demand more responsible journalism, we need to demand politicians who are beholden to the people and not to those who bankroll them, we need to question authority, we need to speak out, we need to make sure that “We the People” really means something. We need to dissent.” 

Never mind the comma splices. I’m thinking wan, pedestrian and textbook-safe; obsolete, as Hedges might say, before the ink dries. There are kids in jail right now, others in early graves over this whole dissent business. Historical remove aside, the nation’s commissioned thinkers in this space have an obligation to meet these dark times with something that reaches beyond banal pieties. 

Equally dubious is the author’s introductory assertion that we can expect more of the same because, well it’s been that way for four centuries. Here’s Young: 

“In a century that is only in its second decade, we cannot foresee the scope and extent of future protest movements, but if the history of the past four hundred years has taught us anything, it has taught us that dissent and protest in all its numerous manifestations is not going away and will continue to shape the United States.” 

Oh really? Suppose modern surveillance techniques and perfected manufactured consent has in fact delivered us to a Panopticonic dead-stop? What we thought was an endless cycle may turn out, in the final analysis, to be a ratchet converging on its terminal click. 

So much for my book-ended beefs. Perhaps I overreact with the jealous prerogative of the present moment. Are we wrong to expect more here-and-now hand-wringing from a historically focused account? On to the middle part, the history stuff, which is really quite fascinating and where Young exercises his true vocation. In fact, he excels in story-telling mode. 

The odd thing about dissent is the illusion of its perpetual virginity, which Young ably conveys—how it always feels peculiarly impudent to the status quo each time it is invoked. During the western expansion of the 1870-80s period, myriad groups meet near-identical resistance, from Chief Joseph’s Nez Perce to Chinese coolies, to the Mexican resistance group the The White Caps. Then later, Americans of northern and western ancestry express alarm at the influx of Eastern European Catholics and Jews. 

The fundamental fear never seems to abate and typically manifests in a twofold manner: one, there is a sense that ‘true American identity’ is being hopelessly diluted by the new strangers and two, a selfish determination resists sharing the wealth and allowing economic parity and enfranchisement. Sometimes the status quo’s fear is not ethnically-based at all, but rooted instead in cultural or even psychological factors. 

Speaking of the 1950s’ consumer explosion and general exuberance born of full employment, Young also points to the dark Cold War imaginings fanned by McCarthyism: “Whereas the 1920s featured a conflict between modernism and traditionalism, the 1950s was a schizophrenic age split between confidence and paranoia.” 

At other times, dissent is not a unitary expression issued towards a singular injustice. In the chapter Progressives and Radicals, which deals with the turn of the twentieth century, Young details a complex milieu of, “political, economic and social problems caused by rapid industrialization, urbanization, and mechanization” giving birth to a “range of responses”. Much of the dissent is of a reactionary cast, as opposed to a bold, progressive bid for a heretofore unclaimed promontory, as a loose and disparate coalition of farmers, small store owners, capitalist reformers, etc. weigh in against growing wealth disparities that are robbing their hard-won gains. Not unlike our own era, political corruption is rampant and wealth distribution is dramatically skewed (In 1900, the top 10% owned 72% of the nation’s wealth). The middle was losing ground. Sound familiar? 

In Dissent in the Age of Reason, it’s already clear by 1720s-era Colonial America that Enlightenment ideals and the Age of Reason are destined to clash with slavery, Native-American relations, women’s rights, the more rigid strains of Calvinism and Empiric mercantilism. By the end of this chapter (around 1740), Young points out that while the preponderance of, “demands fell on deaf ears…they did help raise awareness…furthermore, dissenters were aware of each other. When one group spoke out against injustice, it set an example for others to speak out.” 

While this emboldening process assists in normalizing the righteous dissent of the oppressed throughout the centuries, the individual battles never seem to get easier. At least past dissenters could count on hospitable enough terrain from which to mount their subversive aspirations—from the Suffragist movement of the post-Civil War era, to the Quaker pacifists of World War One, to today’s Tea Party. One is always left hoping the war is not over altogether. For one thing, there’s unfinished business. Edward Snowden could use a plane ticket home. 

But then, maybe the Mugwumps nursed similar anxieties. The last battle will not announce itself as such. One also fancies Fighting Bob La Follette devising a way to fight around today’s thicket of drones and eavesdropping devices. Might human ingenuity have its limits though, particularly in the face of some oncoming Terminator? 

Indeed dissent has been, as Young insists, “one of this nation’s defining characteristics.” However definitions change. Wars on International Terror mission-creep into Wars on Domestic Dissent (if the former, and not the latter, was even the original intent, a debatable point.) Despite its penchant for repetition, history, today, may offer the least instructive value to the present moment than at any other time in, well, history. Let us hope, my fellow post-TPP Americans, the circle stays unbroken. To expand upon a certain historian: We need to dissent if we are to avert a permanent breach.

Friday, July 3, 2015

A Discussion with Jack Abramoff: Ten Years On


Biased Pluralism, the Tragedy of the Commons 
and the Demise of American Democracy

Previously appeared in Dissident Voice, Counterpunch and Dark Politricks

“…society appeals to an individual exploiting a commons to restrain himself for the general good–by means of his conscience.” —from ‘Tragedy of the Commons", by Garrett Hardin



By this time, the particulars of former lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s now-decade-old crimes have been well-documented, fully aired and even Hollywoodized. He’s served his time and continues to pay his debt to society in the form of sizable restitution.

That said, not everyone feels obliged to extend Abramoff forgiveness—an altogether personal and defensible position. (At this point, I reserve the weight of my derision for the system itself which, on the day of Abramoff’s sentencing, barely slowed to slap its own wrist. The usual legalized bribery meet ‘n greets in the form of Congressional fundraising events proceeded that very evening.) Suffice to say, Jack Abramoff remains a polarizing figure in many quarters.


This interview endeavors to move the ball forward, soliciting Abramoff’s observations on the business of lobbying today. After all, his activities led in large part to the law federal lobbyists presently operate under, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (HLOGA), amendment to the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (LDA). More on this later.


Interested readers are also urged to reacquaint themselves with the historical particulars of the affair (as this interviewer did), including interviews with 60 Minutes’ Leslie Stahl, Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard Law School Professor Lawrence Lessig, Russia Times (RT) and C-Span2 AfterWORDS as well as Abramoff’s own book, Capitol Punishment (2011).

********

Norm: Good afternoon Jack and thank you for joining us.

Jack: My pleasure.

Norm: Perhaps you’ll indulge me for a moment with a preamble.

Jack: Certainly.


Norm: There was a study released last year by Princeton and Northwestern University professors Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page respectively, which sought to examine empirically-derived political data from the period 1981 to 2002, specifically 1,779 enacted policies over that period. (Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens; Perspectives on Politics / Volume 12 / Issue 03 / September 2014, pp 564-581; Copyright © American Political Science Association 2014).


We won’t delve statistical analyses and methods here except to say the study was peer-reviewed. The key finding was that the 90th percentile of the population (by income) was fifteen times more likely to have its preferences reflected in policy decisions than was the 50th percentile. This led Gilens and Page to conclude that average citizens have “little or no independent influence” on the policy-making process. In short, we inhabit an oligarchy with only the barest democratic façade.


The good news is that 1) we now have an empirical protocol for quantifying relative influence as a function of socio-economic status and 2) we possess rigorous academic confirmation of a reality which registers a big ‘duh’ with the average Joe. As this is not a televised interview, I’ll note for the reading audience your jaw didn’t exactly hit the ground either. Nonetheless I’ll ask you anyway. Are you surprised at just how lop-sided and anti-populist these findings are?


Jack: I am not surprised at all. In almost every human endeavor, the elite have more impact and influence than the average person. Political influence in the United States can be acquired either by dedicating time and effort to making your voice matter, or by buying that influence and impact. Those who are more wealthy have more discretionary income and those among that group that are politically inclined are more able to expend those resources than the rest of us. Similarly, those activists who have politics in their blood have more time than the rest of us to spend impacting policy.


Norm: I should note that the academic community was caught off-guard for the most part by these findings as they suggest a heretofore-aberrant form of democracy that travels under the moniker ‘biased pluralism’. Perhaps you could recommend to the American Political Science Association a good lobbyist to get democracy back on track.


Jack: I’ll see if I can find them someone [laughs].


Norm: You’re on record as not being a big fan of publicly funded elections. Could you elaborate on your misgivings with this approach?


Jack: The money in the system that I believe needs to be removed is the money spent by people seeking some special favor or interest from the government, and their advocates, otherwise known as lobbyists. My belief is that, if you want something for yourself from a public servant and give that public servant money or something of value, then you have, in essence, bribed that public servant.


So, if I could wave a magic wand and change the campaign finance system, I would eliminate the ability of lobbyists and their clients to give any money at all within the federal system, including Super PACs. If someone wants to give money for any other reason, including admiration of a candidate’s positions on issues other than those that impact that donor’s pocketbook, I have no problem with their giving whatever they want.


The truth is, of course, that virtually all big dollar donors on the Left and Right have a quid pro quo in mind. Removing them from the system would dramatically reduce the amount of money in politics. I favor this over publically funded elections for several reasons. Primarily, I don’t believe public funding has any chance of becoming law. The Right is against it – as they generally oppose expansion of government, and since it would, at some level, put the decisions to fund campaigns in a public official’s hands. That is anathema to conservatives.


Even if this could somehow become the law, I would be opposed because the folks most likely to benefit from public funding would be the cadre of political consultants. You would find hundreds of shadow candidacies springing up, as consultants and lobbyists rushed to rake in the new bucks.


Finally, I am personally opposed to forcing someone to fund ideas that they find abhorrent. Of course, one could argue that most people fund things they find abhorrent currently, but that does not make it right.


Norm: In ‘Capitol Punishment’, you zero in on the profound moral confusion plaguing the system: “Contributions from parties with an interest in legislation are really nothing but bribes. Sure, it’s legal for the most part. Sure, everyone in Washington does it. Sure, it’s the way the system works. It’s one of Washington’s dirty little secrets–but it’s bribery just the same”.


Forgive me, but this seems more like a dirty big secret whose roots may extend beyond the system, springing from the culture itself. In the 1987 movie Wall Street, Gordon Gekko famously asserts ‘greed is good’ in true upside-down fashion. Have we lost touch with what constitutes the unconscionable?

Jack: If bribery was the only sinful behavior our society embraced, we would be living in a very different world. The hallmark of modern society is our ability to convince ourselves that aberrant behavior is normal and acceptable. We see this is almost every facet of our lives. With bribery, the sophistry is fascinating. Because our politicians are not accepting bags full of cash, they somehow feel they are not being bribed. Worse, if most members of Congress were compelled to take a lie detector test querying whether they thought they were being influenced by the money they receive, they and their denials would pass with flying colors.

Norm: In your CSPAN interview, you expressed surprise at how unconcerned our elected officials appear to be at the abysmal 11% approval rating of Congress as an institution. Might it be because the incumbency reelection rate is 96%? (Source of both stats: Politifact.com, November 11, 2014). How can we send the institution of Congress packing when we’re so enamored of our own local hero?

Jack: I think the problem is that most people view politics much like they view the weather: it stinks, but there’s not much we can do about it. People have come to the conclusion that the nation is too big and the forces that impact our policies too powerful that their voices are now too small to matter. They are wrong of course. But that depressing attitude has now become the default reaction that permits the powerful to run roughshod over our lives. The only way people can push back, they feel, is polling negatively against Congress as an institution. It’s very sad, especially since it doesn’t have to be like this.

Norm: You suggest a radical approach for separating power from money. HLOGA’s cooling-off periods (between public and private sector employment) are, in your opinion, simply not enough. Rather, Congress and their staffs should be precluded forever from entering the lobbying business. Such patrician forbearance seems more apropos to Plato’s Republic than the Land of the Wagging Styrofoam Index Finger. So I must ask, respectfully, are you pulling our index fingers? Everyone knows philosopher-kings never clinch the nomination.

Jack: Could it be achieved? Of course. Will it be achieved? Probably not because there is no well-funded movement to make it a reality. In our nation, things don’t just happen. They happen because smart, powerful and motivated people push them. I have been pushing a political plan to make some of the changes that are needed, but that plan requires funding to fight the battle in Washington.

Most of the people who dedicate resources to politics are terrified by the proposals we have presented, so they are not going to help. There are very few who have resources and are willing to spend them to change the system. Until there are resources, there won’t be change, sadly. To change this playing field, we first have to take control of it.

Norm: Would you care to guestimate what percentage of Congress endures the indignities of public office for the chance to spin through the revolving door into the highly lucrative influence game at some later point or is the Senate gym just that darned well-appointed?

Jack: It’s hard to estimate that percentage, but it’s far higher than it should be. When I was lobbying, it seemed like 90%, but now I’m not sure. One of the problems for future lobbyists – otherwise known as Congressmen – is that there are so many of them already out there lobbying. Since most Congressmen are used to pampered treatment and consider business development unsavory, many are not good business generators. Without the business, the lobbying jobs are more difficult to get. Maybe they should run training seminars for Congressmen to teach them how to get business and otherwise prepare for their next career. I’m kidding of course!

Norm: Black humor is allowed. I understand you observe a strict Orthodox kosher diet. Hopefully my analogy’s not too unpalatable. But let’s say someone enters my hamburger joint whereupon I suggest they try my new jumbo burger in lieu of the anemic single-patty burger they typically order. The customer agrees. I’ve successfully ‘peddled them upstream’ to a higher price and higher calories. Have I exerted undue influence or merely practiced good salesmanship? What was Willy Loman but a door-to-door lobbyist?

Jack: Of course we are all salesmen at some level. A kid convincing her parents to let her use their car; a spouse convincing her mate that her parents need to feel welcome over the weekend; an employee seeking a raise from a boss. We are all constantly selling and selling is lobbying

Norm: Ninety years ago, Edward Bernays’ Crystallizing Public Opinion explored techniques for compelling Americans to buy loads of stuff which invariably ended up stacked in their garages. Indeed without two-car garages the economy might have stalled decades ago. There seems to be something quintessentially American, if not downright patriotic, about buying and selling—an activity which you equate to lobbying. Shop influence ‘til you drop?

Jack: It’s not just an American phenomenon. It’s human nature. The reason lobbying is seen as American is because we enshrined the right to lobby –petitioning our government– in our founding charter. Most other nations had periods where petitioning their sovereign resulted in beheadings. In America, just as eventually it became nearly impossible to succeed at a criminal or civil court proceeding without the assistance of an attorney, petitioning the government became difficult without the services of a lobbyist. Like attorneys in court, lobbyists know the rules of procedure and the deciders better than the average person. In America, assisting people petitioning the government because an industry called lobbying, but not just in America. Europeans posit the delusion that they don’t have lobbyists, that no one in their nations can come in from the outside and influence their public servants. It’s absurd and untrue.

Norm: Speaking of free markets, I think a lot of small government folks would cheer your observation that lobbying is more about defense than offense, that is, getting the government off a client’s back as opposed to winning them an unfair advantage.

Jack: First, I believe that most lobbying is good lobbying. I define good lobbying as lobbying where the lobbyist does not use money to create an unleveled playing field. Bad lobbying is a small percentage of the lobbying at a federal level. Most lobbyists in Washington don’t have the money to play the game in a pernicious way. Thus, they are left fashioning their petitions based on the merits of their arguments, as it should be. As for offense or defense, because of entropy it’s generally easier to destroy than build. In the lobbying context, stopping something from happening is much easier than making it happen, mainly because there are usually ten ways to stop something for every one way of getting it done.

Norm: Resuming the marketplace theme, I’m a baker. I get up at 5 am, ply my wares and drop into bed exhausted at 9 pm. Lacking the time and energy frankly to ‘petition the Government for a redress of my grievances’, I form a Bakers Association with my fellow merchants. We hire an agent to press our professional (read: special) interests on Capitol Hill. This agent then proceeds to lay awake at night imagining—if not even contriving—our industrial-grade grievances.

But hang on. Since when did the commons become little more than a big piñata to be swung at by a hundred self-interested rolling-pins? Why is it not enough simply to be an American? If everyone re-baselined back to unleveraged citizenry instead of hiring seditious agents to obtain a leg up, would we not have something more akin to majoritarian pluralism?

Jack: We could all be ‘simply Americans’, without anyone needing to protect our interests, if the government was not involved in every aspect of our lives, making decisions that impact our livelihoods and lives. Also, we could all be ‘simply Americans’ if everyone agreed to do it. We don’t live in such a society. We live among human beings, not angels. Some of us are going to be aggressive and use any means we can to get what we want, usually at someone else’s expense.

I write in my book about a fictional picture-frame-making company suddenly confronted with legislation that would put it out of business. After presenting the narrative, I ask whether the business should just ignore the new law and fold up or try to lobby to protect itself. It’s not the business-owner’s fault a new law is on its way to destroy his enterprise. Therefore, how can he be blamed for hiring a lobbyist?

Moreover, I ask, which lobbyist would serve his interests best? The lobbyist who is an expert in picture frames, or the lobbyist who plays golf each week with the Senator coming after their industry? The problem is not the picture frame company. Nor is it the lobbyist. The problem is the Senator, not to mention a government so gargantuan and overextended that there is no shortage of work for the tens of thousands of lobbyists traversing the byways of Washington DC.

Norm: Under majoritarian pluralism isn’t influence always ‘undue’ as the former more effectively averts a tragedy of the commons scenario?

Jack: Influence is a tool, like cash or a gun. It can be used for good or for evil. We don’t live in a society so simple that the removal of lobbyists will give birth to heaven on earth. Lobbyists are a symptom of the problem of too much government. Of course, half the nation believes there’s not enough government. This lack of cohesion enables the lobbyists to find plenty to do.

Norm: It’s fascinating how this debate invariably circles back on ideology. Is there an unexploited Tea Party issue lurking in here somewhere?

Jack: Absolutely. More government means more lobbyists. Limited government means less. The ideological implications are undeniable.

Norm: In the wake of the Obama Administration’s 2009 Executive Order 13490 which precluded lobbyists from the Administration while unleashing a de-registration trend, opinions differ on just how material this unregistered phenomenon became.

For example in my recent interview with Public Citizen’s Craig Holman, he suggests the exodus has been vastly overstated. Whereas James Thurber of the Center for Responsive Politics is more critical, saying, “most of what is going on in Washington is not covered” by the lobbyist-registration system. In your opinion, to what extent has lobbying, in effect, gone off-balance sheet?

Jack: First, let me mention that, while as a lobbyist, I disdained the work that Craig Holman and Public Citizen did, now that I am reformed, I realize Craig and his colleagues are real heroes. They are one of the only groups that has any real impact in this space. Craig is not only a great guy, he’s also one of the most effective lobbyists I know – and I mean that as a compliment!

But yes, I think lobbying is far too off-balance sheet. Even the act that regulates the lobbying industry –the LDA –and the changes provided in HLOGA still allow people who are lobbying to legally avoid registration. That’s how former US Senator Tom Daschle was able for so long to lobby and not register. That’s how former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was able to proclaim with a straight face that he wasn’t a lobbyist, when he was lobbying Congress on the Health Care Act—as an historian! Most of the work done for clients is not actual lobbying. It’s strategizing, preparing, researching, etc.

As for the Obama rules prohibiting lobbyists from entering his Administration, I have a few thoughts. I was against this, because if you are trying to put together a talented group of public servants, you cannot exclude lobbyists, since they are often far more knowledgeable about issues than are the public servants. My approach would be that, once you enter the Administration, you can’t return to the lobbying world.

Norm: So, a one-way, one-time revolving door? And yes, agreed. Craig Holman is a true warrior for the undivided public interest.

Jack: Exactly. That would enable those who are talented to enter and really serve the public. Those who want to enter the government to burnish their lobbying credentials – so they can charge more when they exit – would be precluded. This would only work with forced recusal from any matter that you lobbied on previously.

Also, you would have to outlaw huge payments that companies make to their employees before they enter the government – an advanced bribe. This was the case with the current Secretary of Treasury, Jacob Lew, who had a provision in his Citibank contract that he was due a mammoth bonus should he leave for a highly placed government job. The only thing more aggravating than that abuse was how those in the media who otherwise are concerned with corruption ignored this one for fear of offending Obama and their friends on the Left.


Norm: There’s another untagged carp in the lake, the unlobbyist who isn’t even a deregistered or former lobbyist, but rather a single-shingle wannabe in a cheap suit working an undisclosed business development contract. Of the tin men in his midst, veteran lobbyist Howard Marlowe recently had this to say:

“We in the lobbyist profession register, and the public and media can at least find out who we work for, what the issues are that we’re hired to work on, and what we’re getting paid.”— Howard Marlowe, 35-year Washington lobbyist, Bloomberg, April 3, 2014

Law360 was even blunter:

“More nefariously, some [unlobbyists] may not register simply because they doubt they will ever be caught.”—from ‘Criminal Referral of Alleged ‘Unlobbyist’ Is A Wake-Up Call’, Law360, July 31, 2014


Extending the analogy, let’s say this old guy with a cane bamboozles people into thinking he’s a retired granddad with loads of spare time and an unerring sense of civic duty—except he invariably has sales literature stapled to the back of his grandfatherly appeals.

HLOGA seems to impute ethics transgressions onto clients and Congressmen, and not just to the unlobbyist who sucks them in. What I’m asking is, are Congressmen obligated to vet and toss bogus lobbyists out on their ears for flogging thinly disguised (and implicitly undisclosed) economic interests?

Jack: I am uncertain whether there is a legal obligation for Congress and their staff to check the registration of lobbyists. Frankly, we need a new law that requires registration as soon as someone makes even one lobbying contact for pay. The requirements for registration in the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) are far more explicit than for LDA.

Norm: Rather than chase the high-profile Senators and Congressmen whom you found to be rather lazy and self-absorbed, you wooed the hard-working staffers instead who remain, let’s face it, the nuts and bolts of legislative production. This afforded you a powerfully incentivized ‘Trojan Horse’ workforce until such time as they came to work for you directly. Is it fair to say you essentially turbocharged the revolving door back in the day?

Jack: Yes that’s fair to say. You see, the insiders’ class has an unparalleled ability to move seamlessly from government to the lobbying world. These folks know all the players from the time they were in government, and, believe me, they get their calls returned. They are better able to get favors granted than outsiders and have every advantage possible. Stopping the revolving door would be devastating to the insider lobbyists and would do a lot to level the playing field.

Norm: You suggest smart lobbyists quickly figure out the latest reforms and devise techniques to get around them. Are we dealing with a whack-a-mole dynamic, that is, any reform bill can at best be effective for a few years after which fresh reforms become necessary?

Jack: There is never going to be a perfect law in this arena, because there are legitimate concerns that are opposed and have to be considered. Free speech is at odds with undue influence here. We can’t destroy our rights to free speech, but we must deal with undue influence. So, every remedy will likely need updating and adjustment as it is implemented. That’s okay. We live in a society of adjustment. Just take a look at our tech advances. We are constantly readjusting.

Norm: As you brought up technology, there’s much talk of traditional lobbying moving to a more technology-driven and social-media-based model. What effect do you see technology having on the future of lobbying in America?

Jack: Until and unless this system is reformed dramatically, while there will be a role for social media and technology enhancing the lobbying, it won’t change the paradigm that powerful insiders will control the playing field. They will control the social media and tech role in politics as well. Social media and tech are tools, every bit as much as polling and phone banking are tools. The tools will change, but the powerful will stay in power, until there is systemic change.

Norm: F. Scott Fitzgerald would be offended Jack if I didn’t press you a bit on how your second act is faring. Hopefully you have good news and fresh initiatives to report.

Jack: Norm, I’m just trying to do my best on the playing field I’m on today. I am doing what I can to speak about these important issues and to encourage citizen action, but I am limited in my ability to make things happen because I am not a man of resources these days. That’s okay, though. One of the biggest lessons I had to learn through my scandal was that it’s all right to lose. In the old days, I never lost and wouldn’t even consider losing as acceptable. That is an arrogance at odds with my faith and being a good citizen, but in those days, it didn’t matter to me. Today, I realize that I might lose, including on this issue. I hope we can do something, but if not, I am working hard on saying: ‘It’s okay’.

Norm: Thank you Jack. It’s been a pleasure. I wish you all the luck in your future endeavors.

Jack: Thank you, Norm.