Yesterday, my family marked the anniversary of the loss of my late grandmother, Florence Rosberg. I wrote this about my personal debt to Florence on her death in 2005. davidfrum.com/article/ode-to…
Today, we commemorate the premature loss of my late mother, Barbara Frum, who died on this day in 1992, age 54.
Barbara Frum meant so much to so many people - both through her journalism and her innumerable acts of personal generosity - that commemoration of this second sad anniversary cannot be a private act. In her life, we understood: we had to share her. And so it has been ever since.
I talked about Barbara's influence upon me in this interview last year. thewalrus.ca/david-frum-fig… I repeat so many of her sayings so often. I think today of something she once said about her life's work in an interview shortly before her death ...
... the interviewer saluted her as the most influential journalist in Canada. She answered that her influence was that of a drop of water that over time might gradually trace a groove in a rock. But, she said, "I'm a very small drop of water. And it's a very big rock."
But the drop of water still flows even after the source was stilled. When I listen to interviews on CBC, even now I hear her vocal mannerisms reverberating through time, much as - according to Tom Wolfe - airline pilots channel the voice of Chuck Yeager.
The Canadian expectation of honesty and accountability in public life- the Canadian hostility to inflammatory bias in media - that too confirms Barbara's continuing impact on the world. She refused special favors, never cut a queue, and was always first to correct her mistakes.
"Above all things, I hate a lie," she often said. And the lies she hated were not only the concealments of politicians and the distortions of journalists, but the structures of self-flattery that prevent us from seeing necessary truths about ourselves.
My most important seminar rooms were her breakfast table and her dressing room, the places where we had our longest and most intimate conversations. She was often tough. Unlike some other mothers, she used to say, "I'm not a son-worshipper."
When I was young, she would be visibly disappointed in me if she heard me repeat as my own thought something that (as she instantly discerned) I'd absorbed second-hand from some politician or writer or professor. She taught the uncomfortable work of thinking for oneself.
When her loss was new, it was almost beyond bearing. The only way her family coped was that so many others lent a shoulder to help bear it with us. Now, 29 years later, when she might still have been alive age 84, the fellow-bearers are still there. Thank you to all who remember.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This below point is being repeated a lot, but I think some who repeat it are in danger of misunderstanding its significance. A short historical thread ...
The Democratic party of the 1880s offered a haven to unreconstructed neo-Confederates, in alliance with corrupt urban machines. Although it took care to nominate untainted men like Grover Cleveland at the top of the ticket, down below - very different story. 1/x
The electoral power of the 1880s Democratic party depended on violent voter suppression in the South - and flagrant voter manipulation in the cities of the North. There's also reason to believe that Democrats benefited more from female disenfranchisement ... 2/x
Voting turnout in the UK has declined from the 80% numbers of early 1950s, but still exceeds US levels: 67% of those eligible in 2019.
Of the 22 elections from 1945, the Conservatives won the most votes in 13.
Why do Republicans assume they'll be uncompetitive if more vote here?
Voting turnout is even higher in Germany than UK, mid 70%s of those eligible. Of the 19 elections beginning 1949, the conservative coalition won the most votes in 16.
So why do Republicans assume they'll be uncompetitive if more vote here?
Right-of-center parties have dominated since 1945 in other peer democracies with high voting turnout: Japan, Italy, France, and Australia - the last with compulsory voting.
@jonathanchait@AJentleson A tip-off that the story is bogus: in all the hundreds of paintings of genteel Anglo-American tea-drinking in the 18th century, I'cw never seen one in which the tea is drunk from a saucer rather than a cup
Assertive presidential leadership can polarize something that otherwise would be broadly unifying. IE the reason we had a "Marshall Plan" (named after then SecState) rather than a "Truman Plan" was that President Truman's name excited strong partisan feelings 2/x
We saw this in the Obama and Trump years over and over again. People might not have an opinion over this program or that issue. They had STRONG feelings about Obama/Trump. Attach the high-intensity name, and the merits of the program/issue got lost. 3/x
If your theory of the case is that we are headed for hyper-inflation, the collapse of political authority, etc. ... it's bizarre to imagine that there's an INVESTMENT STRATEGY that will protect you. Investment strategies presuppose civil authority able to uphold property rights.
A little while ago, I moderated a panel of money managers. I asked the most pessimistic, "Are you one of those gold, guns, and canned goods guys?"
He answered, "In a real collapse, the only assets that matter are the guns. They'll take the gold and canned goods."