WHAT WAS MARTIN HEINRICH THINKING WHEN HE VOTED TO CONFIRM KRISTI NOEM’S SUCCESSOR?

The great contrast in administrations between Trump 1.0 and Trump 2.0 is the difference in the quality of cabinet officers.  (Many might wish to skip my list of names as unnecessary or unpleasant reminders; if so, they should skip to the next paragraph.)  Key cabinet officers in Trump 1.0 were a mixed bag; with few exceptions, most were marginally qualified, some less so: Rex Tillerson and later Mike Pompeo (State), Steven Mnuchin (Treasury), James Mattis and later Mark Esper (Defense), and Jeff Sessions and later William Barr (Attorney General), Ben Carson (HUD), Wilbur Ross (Commerce), Elaine Chao (Transportation), and Betsy DeVos (Education).  Key Cabinet officers in Trump 2.0 include crooked and incompetent loyalists of little or no merit: among others, Kristi Noem (Homeland Security), Pete Hegseth (Defense), Robert F. Kennedy (Health and Human Services), Pam Bondi (Justice), Scott Bessent (Treasury), and Linda McMahon (Education).  (Stephen Miller, a racist and xenophobe, is a senior adviser.)

 

The significant fact about such cabinet officers is that all were not only nominated by Trump, but also confirmed by the Senate.  In Trump 2.0, Trump nominated them because of their loyalty to himself, not any particular qualifications for the position.  Indeed, in some cases—Noem, Hegseth, and Kennedy—, he seems to have nominated them because they were not qualified.  Most Republican senators confirmed them because they feared Trump’s retribution; a few, like Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy, trusted the glib assurances of nominees like Robert F. Kennedy.

 

Fear of Trump does not explain the votes of two Democrats in the case of Markwayne Mullin, nominated by Trump and confirmed by the senate by a 54-45 vote: 52 Republicans and 2 Democrats for, 42 Democrats, 1 Republican, and 2 Independents against..  The two Democratic votes came from Senators John Fetterman and Martin Heinrich.  Neither vote was needed for confirmation; on a strictly party line vote, Mullins would have been confirmed 52-47.  Heinrich’s vote was an unforced error revealing a lapse in judgment.

 

Fetterman’s vote is easy to understand; he has become a renegade in his party.  In this context of senators’ fear or naivete, Heinrich’s is not.  Heinrich explained his vote in a written statement:

 

This is going to surprise some people, but I consider Markwayne Mullin a friend. We have a very honest and constructive working relationship. We have authored legislation together, such as the Tribal Buffalo Management Act, and we crafted the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill together this year. We often disagree and when we do, we work to find whatever common ground we share.

 

I have also seen first-hand that Markwayne is not someone who can simply be bullied into changing his views, and I look forward to having a Secretary who doesn’t take their orders from Stephen Miller.

 

For five years, under this and the previous Trump Administration, I have lacked any constructive relationship with the Secretary of Homeland Security. This is despite my state being home to hundreds of TSA, CBP and Border Patrol constituents and many miles of the U.S./Mexico border. I want someone who recognizes the necessity of judicial warrants, as he has. I would like a Secretary who I can call and have a constructive conversation with about my state and the unique terrain that exists in the southwest and the proper mix of structure, technology and personnel necessary to effectively secure our border.

 

Heinrich’s explanation is feeble and flawed.  That Heinrich regards Mullin as a friend because they have worked together in the Senate is not remarkable; many senators work with other senators on a friendly basis to advance legislation of mutual interest.  Such collaboration between equals is no assurance that it will persist when one becomes a department secretary or when the issues are different and not the kind on which they have agreed and worked collaboratively.  That one senator cannot bully another—or, at least, Heinrich cannot bully Mullin—is no assurance that Trump (or Miller acting for him) cannot bully Mullin, as Trump (or Miller) has bullied so many others, department secretaries included.  If Heinrich thinks that he can get something accomplished by pushing his friendship with Mullin, Mullin can reply that, if Heinrich were his friend, he would not be pushing him into a tough spot with Trump (or Miller). 

Heinrich’s explanation smacks of the usual personality-based, good-ol’-boy politicking which has done so little good in the confirmation of disastrous and dangerous department secretaries.  Heinrich’s standards of selection leading him to support Mullin’s confirmation disregard his record.  Mullin is a MAGA hardliner as befits his reputation for having “anger issues.”  He supports the ICE agent who killed Renee Good and Trump’s immigration policies.  Although he agreed to end administrative warrants used by ICE to enter peoples’ homes and make arrests, warrants recently declared unconstitutional, and other ICE abuses, he was evasive in his confirmation hearing about two critically important matters: whether he would stop pursuing the Administration’s quota of 3000 daily and indiscriminate arrests, and whether he would refuse to obey unlawful orders from Trump.  In short, Heinrich let his personal feelings about and senatorial relationship with Mullin outweigh his responsibility to judge Mullin’s qualifications and his positions on national issues from a perspective of his likely service to national as opposed to political, especially Trump’s, interests.

 

Like all those who have voted for Trump’s nominees for cabinet positions out of fear of Trump, the usual go-along-with the president-to get-along with him, or friendship with his nominees, Heinrich has put these irrelevant considerations above his duty to the welfare of the country in voting to confirm Mullin.  Heinrich is indifferent that Mullin’s positions as DHS Secretary will likely reflect his past positions on immigration, elections, and other MAGA issues.  Indeed, in response to Trump’s and his political proclivities, Mullin might accelerate the development of detention facilities (aka, concentration camps) and continue to disregard both civil rights and federal standards for such facilities.  He might provide ICE officers to patrol areas near voting polls, thereby deterring or intimidating voters, or to disperse voters in the name of controlling long lines, subduing disturbances, or curtailing demonstrations.  In their eventuality, Heinrich will no doubt, like Maine Senator Susan Collins, express his “concern”—a lame effort to excuse himself for his feckless vote of confirmation.  Although he does not run for reelection until 2030, his vote to confirm Mullin should be remembered and taken into account as a measure of his judgment and his fitness for office.

 

 

[Note: Both New Mexico senators rely on answering machines rather than aides to answer their phones.  They require that a caller leave a name, number, and message—a requirement which, I believe, discourages constituents from communicating with these elected officials.  In fairness, this requirement seems to be standard in the Senate.  Happily, NM District 2 Congressman Vasquez’s D.C. office still has human beings answering the phone.] 

THE SAVE AMERICA ACT SAVES NOTHING

      “A Note on Election Fraud,” which I appended to a recent blog, prompted a response from Representative Rebecca Dow (R, District 38).  My note addresses the issue of voter fraud and ends with a challenge to those who insist that millions of people have voted fraudulently in recent presidential elections.  Perceiving an attack on her position, Dow responded with the politician’s defensive non-sequitur: “So you oppose voter I’d [sic].”

I replied that “I am not opposed to it [voter ID]; I had to ID myself the first time I registered to vote, about 60 years ago, and have had to ID myself every time I have relocated.  But the demands were relatively simple; I do not recall having to show either a birth certificate or a passport.  In fact, I cannot remember what I had to do to ID myself.  But the world was not then run by paranoids or poseurs claiming most people or large numbers of minority groups were trying to pass themselves off as citizens entitled to vote.”

 

In the course of our exchange, Dow maintained a position consistent with either the SAVE Act or the SAVE America Act.

 

I believe in one vote per one legal citizen.

As I understand the proposed federal bill, the bill would require documenting proof Us citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. Unless it’s been amended. Include includes things like US passport, birth certificate, or other official citizenship documentation [sic, seriatim]

I have zero issues with that [sic]

 

Apparently, Dow thinks that I or others believe that non-citizens or some citizens should have one or more votes.  I do not, I know no one who does, but I urge her to contact VP Vance, who would give people with children more than one vote.  She knows the documentation required for registering but not the documentation required for voting.  She knows or cares nothing about the consequences of these requirements.  She ignored my claim that these requirements might disenfranchise millions of potential voters, including millions of women whose names on their birth certificates and their passports or drivers licenses do not match because they took their husband's name when they married.  And she did not answer my questions about whether she approved of the consequences.  So there the exchange ended.

 

•      •      •

 

Now that the Senate is debating the SAVE America Act, people should understand its provisions.  Central is the requirement of would-be voters to provide documents proving U.S. citizenship—e.g., passport, birth certificate, or government-issued photo identification—when registering to vote and a photo identification when voting.  (There are other requirements, some relevant to elections, some not, like those dealing with transgender issues.  What is with Republicans’ obsession with sex and gender?)

 

The SAVE America Act means to be a legislative solution to the alleged problem of large-scale voter fraud, that is, millions of non-citizens voting in recent presidential elections.  The allegation defies all evidence and losses of 61 of 62 cases challenging the votes in the 2020 presidential election.  If there were millions of fraudulent votes cast, there would be abundant evidence of them.  Yet incidents of election fraud as measured by convictions are few.

 

My source of information is The Heritage Foundation, the conservative organization which developed Project 2025.  Its Election Fraud Map identifies five kinds of cases, each kind reflecting the disposition cases brought to court; it also identifies eleven kinds of election fraud, including false registration or impersonation fraud at the polls, the kinds for which personal identification is relevant.  For a sense of proportion, I used Wikipedia figures for the turnout in the eleven presidential election years from 1984 through 2024.  I tabulated the cases of fraud convictions in federal election years from 1982 through 2024.

 

			All Elections: 1982-2024
		Convictions for Federal Election-Year Fraud
Presidential Election Turnout			All Fraud	False Regis	Voter Impers	Alien Voter
		1982	67	67	0	0
1984	92,654,861	1984	no data
		1986	41	0	0	0
1988	91,586,725	1988	1	0	0	0
		1990	no data
1992	104,600,366	1992	1	0	0	0
		1994	4	0	0	0
1996	96,389,818	1996	2	0	0	0
		1998	10	0	0	0
2000	105,405,100	2000	18	3	0	0
		2002	11	2	0	0
2004	122,349,480	2004	31	2	1	0
		2006	42	12	0	0
2008	131,406,895	2008	43	21	0	0
		2010	119	23	0	0
2012	129,139,997	2012	83	9	0	0
		2014	72	17	0	0
2016	136,669,237	2016	71	10	3	no data
		2018	87	17	0	0
2020	158,427,986	2020	31	7	2	no data
		2022	94	9	9	no data
2024	155,240,955	2024	43	23	1	1
total	1,323,871,420	total	871	222	16	1

 

The number of all convictions for fraud in the nation are a miniscule fraction of the total number of votes cast.  There is no reason to think that millions of undetected incidents of false registration or voter impersonation at the polls have occurred in red and blue states.  Again, the cases brought to challenge 2020 election results produced no evidence of voter fraud.  From 1982 through 2024, New Mexico had a total of 8 cases of fraud, of which 3 were of false registration and 1 was of impersonation fraud at the polls.  Such is the magnitude of the problem.

 

Only in the minds of the intellectually diseased (ID) or ideologically driven (ID) would such numbers suggest a problem at all, much less a demented effort to eliminate it entirely by draconian methods.  No reasonable solution of a “problem” of only about 240 convictions out of about 2 billion votes cast in federal elections for false registration and voter impersonation would propose the possible disenfranchisement of many millions—the common estimate is 21 million—of potential voters.  Yet the proposed SAVE America Act is just that unreasonable.  For each conviction for fraud, thousands—87,500—would be hindered from voting.  In short, the solution is many times worse than the problem—a clear symptom of an ID malady.

 

In practical terms, the proposed legislation would accomplish this disenfranchisement by making registering and voting expensive or inconvenient or both.  The central requirement of prospective voters to provide proof of identification places unreasonable demands on millions of people who do not have a passport, a birth certificate, or a government-issued photo identification.  Many cannot afford passports ($165) or birth certificates (around $10) or cannot obtain them (birth certificates never issued, lost, destroyed, remote); many have documents which are inconsistent (a woman’s name on a birth certificate might not match her name on a passport or driver’s license because of a name change at marriage).  For all, these requirements can be burdensome; for the poor, these costs amount to a poll tax.

 

Given the basic inanity of the SAVE America Act, the question is why Republicans—locally, surely among others, Rebecca Dow—support such an absurd legislative proposal.  There is only one answer: the desire to disenfranchise the millions of poor, minority, handicapped, or women voters who they believe vote for Democrats.  Which is to say, as we know, that Republicans are anti-democratic (lower-case d) types who believe that government rests on the consent of some, not all, of the governed because they do not believe that all people are created politically equal.

 

Since the end of World War II, the German government has outlawed the Nazi, communist, and similar parties.  Yet Germany is still regarded as a democracy.  Perhaps the best hope for the continued success of democracy in America is a ban on the Republican and associated parties.  For now, the best that we can do is to vote Republicans or at least Republicans like Rebecca Dow out of office and not vote them into office in the first place.  Denying them political power is exactly what they deserve for trying to deny political power to others.

TRUMP'S MARCH MADNESS

      On the last day of February, Donald J. Trump ordered US forces to attack Iran, with a focus on assassinating Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.  The attack occurred while the US was negotiating with Iran about its nuclear and missile programs, and its support for terrorist groups.  Iran had made major concessions, but amateur negotiators Steve Witcoff and Jared Kushner were unimpressed.  The attack on Iran occurred between the second and third rounds of talks.  My first thought was a similar occurrence, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor during its negotiations with the US.  The next day, President Roosevelt stressed the perfidy of the Japanese in talking while an attack was being prepared and then launched.  To hear the new Iran leader rule out talks because of Iran’s bitter experiences in negotiating with the US makes clear that America is now seen as perfidious.  Other countries will also distrust America in negotiations.

Everyone now knows that, at the moment when Trump launched the attack, he had no good reason.  A 6 March Atlantic article itemizes ten reasons which his administration offered during the first week: address imminent threat, prevent nuclear weapons, stop the militias, effect regime change, punish election interference, secure world peace, secure a better world for our children, launch a preemptive attack, fulfill God’s purpose, and join an inevitable Israeli attack.  Any administration which offers up so many reasons for an attack and shifts among them on a daily or even hourly basis has no reason at all.  The most likely reason: Trump responded to Netanyahu’s urging.

 

The talk about long-term planning before Trump ordered the attack is nonsense intended to quiet criticism that the attack was poorly planned or even unplanned.  It is administration propaganda to show that Trump did not act impulsively.  More likely, after Trump ordered the attack, planners hastily dusted off old contingency plans and updated them with recent intelligence about Khamenei’s and other government leaders’ whereabouts.  But they lacked the time to update other parts of the plan—which explains why a girls’ school, previously part of a military installation, was attacked and about 175 schoolgirls and teachers killed.

 

All else about this attack on Iran reflects gross ignorance and gross incompetence, except for excellence in strictly military operations.  Trump gave no thought to Iran’s capabilities or intentions for responding.  He gave no thought to Iran’s ability to launch missile or drone attacks on targets throughout the area, incite terrorist groups like Hezbollah, and trigger terrorist attacks through sleeper cells.  He gave no thought to the consequences of such attacks on shipping through the Strait of Hormuz—direct consequences including a halt to shipments of, among other commodities, oil, fertilizer, and machine parts; or the indirect costs of higher prices for food because higher prices of diesel fuel make it more expensive to operate farm tractors and run to-market trucks.

 

Trump, always unable to consider any perspective other than his own, assumes that patriots and patriotism exist only in the US.  He did not consider or care that Iranians would be infuriated by an attack on their country and their leaders, bad as the old Ayatollah was and the new Ayatollah is likely to be.  So he and Hegseth will be surprised if Iran continues to fight on.  But back in the U.S. of A., Trump and Hegseth and others in the administration, reflecting their ethnocentric biases, talk about the duration of the war is terms contradictory and thus confusing.  Trump talks vaguely about the war ending soon; Hegseth talks about the attacks continuing for several more weeks or months.  That is the US side of the issue because Trump thinks that he sets the calendar.  But Iran has a calendar, too.

 

And, on its calendar, Iran is likely to continue damaging and disruptive attacks on many targets to inflict as much pain as possible on the US for as long as it chooses.  Drones and missiles will attack targets in Israel, Arab states on the Persian Gulf or the Gulf of Oman, and allied countries; they and mines will keep the Strait of Hormuz closed.  Even if Trump were to send ground troops into Iran to prevent attacks on shipping in those gulfs, they would likely have only limited success, which might not be success enough for shippers to take the risks of running the narrow passage.  Using ground troops would have unfortunate repercussions for him and Congressional Republicans who have thus far imposed no limits on his warmaking.

 

So Iran will try to punish the US for its devastating and destructive attacks.  It will attack US bases overseas and vulnerable “soft” targets at home like a basketball stadium during March Madness or a Black Friday sale at a large retail store like Macy’s in New York.  The military will be prepared for such attacks, but the US will be surprised if—when—Iran brings the fight to America because, at the end of February, just before the attack on Iran, Kash Patel, FBI Director, fired a dozen counter-intelligence analysts expert in Iran because they had been involved in the investigation of Trump’s retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.  Trump’s administration has reduced or eliminated other staff experts in counter-intelligence, foreign espionage, and cyberwarfare, and thus impaired the US ability to defend itself against its enemies—today, especially Iran’s—covert operations.

 

In short, Trump bit off more than he could chew.  With his lack of information and foresight, he did not know what he was doing when he launched the attack in his usual impulsive way—Trump just being Trump.  Now, as consequences which he cannot control become apparent, he does not know what to do.  Reports in the New York Times indicate that he is scared, as well he—and we, though for different reasons—should be.  That leaks are coming from the White House suggests that the rats are perhaps looking for the mooring ropes to leave ship.

 

If Republicans were to seek to limit the damage being done by the Trump administration, they would take a first step by blocking the nomination of Markwayne Mullin to be Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.  His resume reads like a lampoon of an official: no college, career in plumbing, ten years in Congress, and a reputation for being the “dimmest bulb” in the Senate—an attainment the more remarkable because of competition from Tommy Tuberville.  His major recommendation is loyalty to Trump, a loyalty which can be dangerous to the country.

 

Trump is responsible for his nominations, but Republican senators are responsible for their confirmation.  In most cases, they voted unanimously to confirm the most ignorant, least competent, and probably most corrupt nominees in history—any qualifications subordinate to loyalty to the dear leader.  Among them, the more notorious are Kristi Noem (Homeland Security, recently fired), Pete Hegseth (Defense), Pam Bondi (Justice), Scott Bessent (Treasury), Howard Lutnick (Commerce), Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Health & Human Services), Chris Wright (Energy), and Linda McMahon (Education).  A demonstration of their unfitness is likely coming as the consequences of Trump’s attack on Iran come home to America.

 

It will take more than a Blue Wave in November to hold accountable those—Trump and Congressional Republicans—who now endanger its safety and welfare.  After all, American elected Trump, not once, but twice, the second time after being given four years to reconsider the man and his malignant narcissism.  And many of those who did not vote for him have still acquiesced in his authoritarian efforts, the propensity to do so being proportionate to their or their companies’ wealth.  Trump has brought out the worst in Republicans and in DINOs; it will take the best in the rest of us to repair what they have broken.

SCHOLARLY EXPLORATIONS AND DISCOVERIES IN SHAKESPEARE

 [Note: This blog is a change from recent blogs on bad news at the federal and local levels, a change which I imagine many of my readers will appreciate.  However, it might not be the change which they would want; it requires some familiarity with two of Shakespeare’s major tragedies, Macbeth and King Lear, and some interest in scholarship and its importance.  I take the risk of losing many readers because I also needed a change and thus resorted to subjects which have engaged me for years.] 

Recently, a friend of mine expressed horrified incredulity that anyone—of course, she meant me—would be a Shakespeare scholar.  I was so surprised that I stammered an answer which I cannot now remember.  We went back to watching a men’s college basketball game and our drinks.  Afterwards, I pondered what sensible response I could make to the many people who scorn researching, writing, and publishing articles and books on sometimes arcane or trivial literary topics as far removed from the world of consequential events.

 

There are two main replies to my friend’s horrified incredulity.  First, if not an academic, a Shakespeare scholar is simply a hobbyist, like a gardener, a quilter, a stamp collector, a participant in battlefield reenactments, anyone who finds inherent interest in his pastime.  As an independent scholar, I enjoyed Shakespeare’s plays, read them with an eye to what other scholars had ignored or overlooked, and liked asking questions and answering them for myself and others.  One “discovery” of mine, to be discussed below, is “godsonne,” a word appearing only once in Shakespeare’s works.  In the many editions which I have consulted, no editor (and no scholar or critic—I use the words interchangeably) comments on this unique occurrence.  But Shakespeare must have meant something by it in King Lear.

 

Second, a Shakespeare scholar can be one committed to advancing human understanding and cultural enlightenment.  Addressing the foremost literary writer in western civilization can—and, I think, should—be a moral undertaking with both aesthetic and ethical ends.  Literary criticism of Shakespeare’s plays should be a cogent exposition of what is artful and insightful in his representation of a selection of the human experience, with the aim of developing a reader’s sympathy with, if not acceptance of, people unlike themselves in societies and cultures which might be unlike their own.  In a world shrunk by technologies of communications and transportation, the success of scholarship to these ends is not a negligible contribution to humankind.  I offer some of my scholarly works as examples of either the hobbyist or the aesthetic and ethical impulses of my Shakespearean scholarship.

 

Three of my publications are those of the hobbyist.  They address issues arising in the peculiarities of an unusual Elizabethan dramatic manuscript known as The Book of Sir Thomas More, three pages of which some attribute to Shakespeare.  One is a note which attempts to sort the loose manuscript pages into the order of composition and only indirectly concerns any role which Shakespeare might have had in the play, which, by the way, was never performed.  The attempt required a careful study of the watermarks and chain lines of the folio pages—nothing hair-raising about that research or its results.

 

The other two are articles, 40 years apart, which address the handwriting of those three pages.  Both articles are part of an intense scholarly debate with high stakes in a small field.  The debate is between traditional scholars and Anti-Stratfordians, who believe in Anyone But Shakespeare as the author of the plays conventionally attributed to him.  ABS types have offered more than 80 alternatives!  Whether Shakespeare’s handwriting appears in these three pages is critical.  Traditional scholars argue that the handwriting is his—which proves that Shakespeare authored the plays attributed to him—, and ABSers deny it and thus leave room to deny his authorship.  My position is a lonely one between the two sides.  My 1975 article challenged traditional scholars’ attribution to Shakespeare by arguing that there is no basis for comparing the handwriting of Shakespeare’s six signatures and the handwriting in the three manuscript pages.  Traditionalists take less comfort from my article than ABSers do, both sides regard it as sine qua non in the field.  Then, 15 years later, my article was itself tacitly challenged by a distinguished paleographer at the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington, D.C.  Circumstances kept me from reading his article for 25 years; when I did, it appalled me.  I reacted by writing a comprehensive refutation of old arguments reiterated and of new arguments reflecting sophistry, both kinds accepted by the unwary or unwise.  Pointedly, the editor of the Shakespeare Quarterly, a Folger Library publication, placed it first in the 2016 summer issue.  I am proud of both articles, but neither is going to enlarge or enhance anyone’s appreciation of humankind.  They do, however, disabuse scholars of an untenable approach to the authorship question.  It is my belief that there is enough strong evidence for the traditional attribution that it need not rely on—indeed, is weakened by—spurious arguments to prop it up.  They also spoil the fun or dissipate the profit of the worst kind of pedant who proliferates quibbles for publications; one actually criticized me for my scrupulous attention to fact.

 

Aside from a few articles which directly address challenges to Shakespeare’s authorship, most of my other articles and my one book, Shakespearean Tragedy as Chivalric Romance, address issues about the meaning of some of his plays.  My scholarship rests on an approach which has been out of fashion—indeed, distinctively unfashionable—for half a century.  Instead of interpreting his plays for relevancy in terms of race, gender, and class, I avoid ulterior motives by relying on a literary tradition still popular in Shakespeare’s time: English chivalric romance.  Its motifs serve as a language to convey meaning.  Reviews of my book grudgingly acknowledge the merit of its interpretations but criticize them for not following current critical fashion.  Not blinded by fashion, but following evidence in the texts as a scholar should, I made discoveries which support my innovative interpretations.  I offer two examples, one from Macbeth, the other from King Lear.

 

Heretofore, all scholars of Macbeth have regarded the long scene between Malcolm and Macduff as irrelevant to the play except as didactic discourse on the ideal king, a pause before the rapid action of the final act, or padding for an already short play.  This criticism struck me as impertinent.  I did not believe that Shakespeare devoted over a tenth of his shortest tragedy to an unimportant scene since length is a sign of importance.  Concurrently, scholars have found Malcolm to be “a milksop” or a “voice” of political platitudes.  Yet, when he first appears, probably in battered armor, he credits the sergeant who fought against his captivity as he fought at great risk against rebels.  Later, when he meets with Macduff in the English Court, he utters lines overlooked by these critics; he claims that he would “tread upon the tyrant’s [Macbeth’s] head,/Or wear it on my sword”—claims implying his ability to defeat Macbeth in combat and which Macduff silently accepts as plausible.  Much is at stake in this scene.  It is the turning point in the exile-and-return motif of chivalric romances in which the legitimate heir proves his worth to succeed a dispossessed father.  Malcolm’s test of Macduff’s loyalty is really a test of Malcolm’s acumen in ascertaining the reality of loyalty beneath the appearance of it, a test necessary to demonstrate his superiority to his father, who lacked such insight.  Malcolm succeeds and prevents the prospect, had he failed, of history repeating the past, of a treacherous thane overthrowing a legitimate king.  The scene also dramatizes the struggles of two worthy men deeply concerned about the welfare of their country but suspicious of each other to find ways to overcome their distrust.  Not to recognize Malcolm’s complete success is to undermine his triumphant ascendancy and to insinuate that the kingship remains vulnerable to betrayal.  The difference between these competing views of the play is the difference between Shakespeare’s affirmation of the succession of kings leading to James I and modern cynicism about political success.

 

Return we now, in a round-about way, to “godsonne.”  Such a cynicism taints most interpretations of the end of King Lear, which most scholars view as dominated by the pathos of Lear’s death with his dead daughter in his arms and the apparent nihilism of it all.  My scholarly approach does not dismiss the power of his grief, but it does dismiss the idea of nihilism.  The last scene has much more to it than his agony and nothingness.  Even in his grief, Lear, said not to know himself, reveals in a moment of triumph an important part of his personal identity and establishes the terms of recovery and restoration of the kingdom.  That much more is the clustering of motifs from chivalric romance which lead to the recovery and restoration of right rule in England from the forces led by Edmund, Goneril, and Regan.

 

At its beginning, the play establishes two plots involving fathers and their children: Lear with Goneril, Regan, and Cordelia; Gloucester with Edmund and Edgar.  The older children are villains who undermine the younger sibling.  Critics note the parallels between the two plots but discount Edgar because his platitudes make him appear to be someone not to be taken seriously.  So they ignore the decisive fight between the two brothers.  Appearing as an unknown knight—the scene makes much of his concealed identity—, Edgar defeats Edmund.  By doing so in single combat, Edgar establishes his identity as a family member and settles issues of governance between rivals to power—all according to chivalric romance motifs.

 

Then Lear, sent for as an afterthought, enters, howling in grief.  He claims he might have saved Cordelia, but the only justice he could attain was to kill the man who hanged her.  When an attendant vouches that he did so, Lear speaks up with pride: “Did I not, fellow?/I have seen the day, with my good biting falchion [a machete-like sword often curved]/I would have made him skip”—thus identifying himself in his youth as a knight.  Scholars have ignored Lear’s self-identification and Edgar’s knightly performance: Lear a knight, Edgar a knight, both bound by the moral and religious guidance of godfather to “godsonne.”  Edgar’s succession to the throne vanquishes the idea of nihilism and promises better rule for England.

 

I need not claim that my scholarship is impeccable and my interpretations infallible.  I need claim only that nothing discussed above justifies horrified incredulity.  What has been gained by my scholarship?  Something, but nothing earth-shattering.  A better understanding of two of Shakespeare’s greatest tragedies.  An appreciation of a contemporary perspective from contemporary cultural materials—a start to understanding others, not contemplating ourselves in our parochial terms.  I am a small-d democrat, but I can admit that Macbeth and King Lear demonstrate that, in specific times and places, reasonable people can respect, even revere, monarchy.  I know that I can live in a world with democracies and monarchies if their people accept them.