Total Pageviews

Friday, August 18, 2017

I was wrong about President Trump. I thought he'd be even worse.

In 2016, The Globe envisioned a Pres. Trump.
During the 1980 presidential campaign, President Carter was determined to expose Ronald Reagan as a right-wing ideologue who would eviscerate the social safety net, ramp up military engagements abroad, and stoke racial tensions at home. Unfortunately, many of Carter's warnings about President Reagan came to fruition; Reagan became a monumental figure in American politics as his policies spurred decades-long income disparity.

The conservatism Reagan espoused still continues to permeate our political culture. However, Reagan's leadership was, at times, surprisingly pragmatic and conciliatory. As such, his presidency's detrimental societal impact, on the liberal progress of the New Deal and Great Society, was mitigated. His administration ultimately fell short of the tremendous fear that Democratic figures like Carter exhibited in 1980.

Fast-forward over three decades later and another impactful election is held in 2016 between two candidates who also are dramatically different: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. During the campaign, liberals like Clinton (and I) warned of the frightening prospect of Trump's hand on the nuclear button, the possibility that he would succeed in undoing many of President Obama's policy achievements, and the likelihood that xenophobia would define his immigration approach. 

Much of what Clinton and her fellow Democrats predicted about a Trump presidency has come true. Similar to the developments that took place after 1980 though, Trump's administration has, so far though, fallen short of the worst fears imagined. It should be noted that, barring Trump's removal from office or his unlikely resignation, there still remains over three years (at least) of the Trump presidency so I am sure the President will test our imagination. 

Another distinction between the Reagan era and the Trump era thus far has also been that, unlike Reagan, Trump has shown virtually no willingness to work with congressional Democrats to advance scaled back versions of his agenda. From his perspective, he does not have to since Republicans control Congress (the Democrats held a large majority in the House throughout the Reagan presidency).

But in a striking similarity to the Reagan administration, the Trump administration, despite all of its repulsiveness, has been restrained by our institutions, political pressure, and other crucial external factors. Consequently, President Trump has been unable to or unwilling to carry out even more nightmarish policy. On election night 2016, as it became clear Trump would be the 45th President, I feared a war with Iran or at least the end of the nuclear agreement, a total ban on residents from Middle Eastern countries that would survive legal challenges because of presidents' broad authority in that realm, the end of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, the bombing of North Korea, withdrawal from NATO, new surveillance measures (including a registry) targeting Middle Eastern immigrants, the elimination of the Legal Services Corporation and the Community Development Block Grant (among other domestic agencies), the reauthorization of torture, the addition of new detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention center, the prosecution of Hillary Clinton, and the repeal of the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law.

Some of these outcomes may unfortunately still come to fruition particularly since, at least with regards to the legislative goals, Speaker Paul Ryan leads a defiantly right-wing House of Representatives and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell leads a Republican caucus that is usually mostly united. But so far, President Trump has not succeeded in these aims nor has he even tried in many cases to carry out these efforts. He has flat out failed in some instances and succumbed to the political tides, and other pressure, in other instances -- and has been dragged kicking and screaming into those relieving decisions that he detested. 

Don't get me wrong: Trump has been horrid -- a disastrous president who has stoked fear among nonwhites and immigrants with his rhetoric and actions, tarnished our reputation in the world, and succeeded in squashing key Obama-era policies that protected our climate, public health and safety, and civil rights. That he has not been even worse should not obscure how dangerously effective has has been especially in quiet ways like reshaping Justice Department policies through his Attorney General, the retrograde Jeff Sessions. Nevertheless, beneath all of that, there is still the aforementioned unfulfilled that frustrates him and his allies. 

The reason the absolute worst has not come about is because of the sustained pressure the public, courts, and the press have placed on Trump and elected Republicans. Our exceptionally proactive and rich civil society has demonstrated, through activist uprising and judicial wisdom and dogged journalism, that Trumpism can be restrained. Consequently, it is up to all of us to defend those time-tested institutions -- free speech, free press, checks and balances -- to protect all of our rights, liberties, and protections. We can't expect President Trump to emulate President Reagan in advancing pragmatism but we can expect him, or at least his GOP allies, to fold under pressure. As Joe Biden would say: "keep the faith."

----------------------------------------

UPDATE: This post has been updated on September 5, 2017 to reflect the fact that President Trump is ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. As I said above, this post should not be construed as any kind of defense of Trump as he has over three years to demonstrate how horrendous he can be and, even up to this point, he has already been repulsive.

Sunday, May 14, 2017

Trump's domestic policies reveal uncomfortable truths about the right

Photo Credit: Getty Images
President Trump is no stranger to hypocrisyalpha male posturing, and callous indifference to those he perceives as inferior to him. His domestic policy framework, as reflected in his draconian federal budget proposals and in his egregious health care legislation, exemplifies those traits. At the same time, those ultraconservative policies are revealing in an instructive way as they shed light on the parsimonious practices that have long steered the Republican right.

In terms of hypocrisy, the substance of Trump's domestic policy, though unsurprising to close observers of the presidential campaign, flies in the face of his self-professed concern for the working class. These are the individuals and families that would be most dramatically adversely impacted by the American Health Care Act (AHCA) and by Trump's proposed array of cuts to anti-poverty programs. Beyond the horrid policy implications of these measures, the politics provides a strong opportunity for Democrats to expose Trump and his GOP allies for who they really are: the robber barons who genuine working class champion Bruce Springsteen railed against in "Death to My Hometown."

Further, with regards to the ideological underpinnings of these policies, it should be clear by now what the ultimate aim of the Ayn Rand-inspired, Paul Ryan-driven agenda is -- one wholly adopted and embraced by the Trump administration in the form of White House Office and Management and Budget (OMB) Director Mick Mulvaney. Recently, Mulvaney condemned individuals with diabetes as people whose "bad choices" ought not to entitle them to the "care" of society.

Putting aside the breathtaking ignorance of Mulvaney's armchair diagnosis of millions, these remarks are unusually candid as they lay bare an unspoken tenant of right-wing dogma. Mulvaney's assessment reflects the deeper strain in the conservative ideological mindset that Social Darwinism, the notion of survival of the fittest, ought to steer public policymaking.

Indeed, the logical extension of the right-wing campaign to promote ostensibly individualistic ideals in domestic policy is that ideally meager public benefits only belong to highly deserving citizens, if anyone at all, at the exclusion of those who suffer supposedly 'self-inflicted' misfortune. Mulvaney uttered the unvarnished truth of the right's guiding belief system, a philosophy billed with appealing language (i.e. "personal responsibility") but grounded in suspicion towards the disadvantaged.

Ultimately, if nothing else, the shamefulness of these policies is that it does not have to be this way. Several years ago, Chris Hayes made a compelling point on his nightly broadcast that struck me with its simple yet clear message that "poverty is a policy choice." The empirical evidence plainly demonstrates that to be the case. There exists, within the right's school of thought, a determination to blame sky-high income inequality on workers.

Yet productivity has not kept up with wages over the course of the last several decades. It is no mistake that as wages and safety net spending declined since 1980, income inequality skyrocketed. Policymakers like Mick Mulvaney argue that, in light of this dilemma, fiscal restraint is necessary anyway. The United States is the wealthiest, most resourceful country on Earth, with the means to alleviate suffering at home and abroad so fiscal responsibility may be an offered justification for Mulvaney's cohort yet one without merit.

If anything, the expenditures of safety net measures are investments that help families prosper and the economy grow. We have the capability, on many levels, to remedy what ails the working class yet we choose not to do it -- all in the service of rewarding the fittest and punishing the unworthy and in the name of fiscal prudence.

Thursday, January 19, 2017

All the good you can: the path forward in Donald Trump's America

He may not have actually said it, it turns out, but John Wesley, a cofounder of Methodism, is often credited with having imparted this wisdom: "do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can." In the 2016 presidential campaign, this saying became the motto for Methodist Hillary Clinton's campaign.

As a volunteer on the Clinton campaign, I especially appreciated this slogan. The high school I attended, Wyoming Seminary in Kingston, Pennsylvania, also embraced this motto. The school was founded by Methodists so it made sense that this ostensibly Wesley-originating quote was prominently featured on Sem's campus.

Whenever I heard that message uttered at Sem - "do all the good you can" - I was reminded that there was a higher calling and a broader purpose to the grind of school, to the work I wanted to do. When candidates like Hillary Clinton don't succeed in elections, it's important for progressives, for Democrats, and for anyone who is concerned about the future of our country under President Donald Trump to remember that why we became involved in the first place. For me, part of that motivation was my community.

When I canvassed and made phone calls for President Barack Obama's 2008 campaign in the Wilkes-Barre area, I saw a side of my hometown that I had read about and understood intellectually, as much as I could at that point, but didn't get to see up close and personal much. Voters told me they were looking to support change because they struggled with medical bills, gas prices, and discrimination. To them, these issues and frustrations consumed their lives so much so that they couldn't be as fully productive and energetic as they wished to be. Working for them, doing all the good you can for them, in any way, is what the spirit of progressivism and being Democrats should be all about.

Within this community though there are imperfections. There are deeply troubling sentiments that pervade corners of our neighborhoods; to deny that the nativist Trump campaign preyed on those fears, in my community and other parts of our country, would be delusional. But John Wesley would not want progressives to turn their backs on the least of us. Our brothers and sisters who suffer in poverty, often through no fault of their own, should be treated with "malice towards none and charity for all," as an actually great Republican president preached, regardless of their imperfections.

On the other hand, hate must be rooted out, regardless of economic anxiety. That requires us to seek out the "bravery that resides in every heart," as NEPA's own Joe Biden extolled -- light it, overcome fear, and know that whether it be in your own community or online or in your private interactions, that strength will build your character and strengthen your values. These battles though, aiding the disadvantaged and battling bigotry, need not be mutually exclusive. In fact, the sun is setting now on a presidency that showed us just that as Barack Obama united Americans of all backgrounds, from the small city of Kingston, Pennsylvania to the glitz and glamor of Hollywood, to his side to advance a more progressive America.

So what does this kind of path forward look like concretely? It means identifying the greatest needs in your community and addressing them in measurable ways. It means putting in the blood, sweat, and tears that local politics requires: getting the signatures to put a progressive on the ballot, knocking on doors for that candidate, and writing letters to the editor to make their voice heard -- or doing it yourself.

It means standing up to bullies in your own backyard, in speaking out, even in intimate settings, if you hear something that contradicts your values. It means investing in genuine public service, not just paying it lip service. It means putting your money where your mouth is so shared prosperity isn't just a pipe dream. It means doing all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can. That's our path forward in Donald Trump's America.

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

What Obama meant to me


When you grow up with an unusual name in a homogenous community, you are bound to experience all sorts of intrigued reactions when you introduce yourself or even just exist in that universe. "Where are you from?" is a common refrain. (Or "where are you really from?") Responses can range from the genuinely curious to pure indignity.

People project on to you all sorts of emotions, feelings, and fears that have followed them through life, that are displayed regularly on their television screens, and that permeate our culture. It is that fear that produces suspicious sentiments like "this is America, please speak English."

But that reaction, I know, deeply, is contrary to our core identity; it was an American hero, Abraham Lincoln, after all who implored us to appeal to our "better angels." A strain of xenophobia in our history exists but so does a society that adapted, that welcomed immigrants in a way unlike most other advanced democracies, that made people like my parents feel like they are Americans. 

Nobody spoke more compellingly to that optimistic view of our country, in our modern political history, than Barack Obama. When he landed on the national political stage in 2004, he spoke in terms about our country, as Chris Matthews said, like no other politician had in decades, perhaps since Bobby Kennedy.

It wasn't that he brushed aside those stains on our culture. He accepted, acknowledged, and understood them but he embraced a version of American exceptionalism that demonstrated that we were unique because we actually were, and could be, better than all that. That capacity for self-improvement for a nation was demonstrated in our own progress in elevating Obama to power. People with "funny names," immigrants, their children -- there was a place in America for them, too. "Omeed's a pretty good name," said the most powerful person in our country.

It was the same country where others have denigrated me for my heritage and my ethnicity. Nevertheless, that attitude did not define us. It was the election, and the reelection, of President Obama that spoke more about us. Nothing can change the fact that that's part of our history; we still did that and we still appealed to the better angels of our nature. We stand out on the world stage for being one of the small handful of countries to have elected an ethnic minority to the highest office in the land.

For me, and millions of others in our country and around the world, the Obama presidency has been a deeply emotional journey, impactful in immeasurable ways. As our country strived to become a more perfect Union, my own progression, as I came of age in the Obama era, was one marked by renewed possibilities. "If our country is ready to elect Barack Hussein Obama as president, in thirty years, it can be ready for" an Iranian-American president, perhaps, my family friend (a two-time Obama voter) wondered aloud. 

I was interested in politics but with the rise of Obama, I became passionate about it because I could relate to him. His 2008 campaign was the first political campaign I got involved in, in fact. I am a liberal Democrat and I support his policies but my affinity for our first black president went beyond that. He and his campaign represented the notion that it was okay to be different, that we should celebrate and embrace that difference, rather than bully or mock it. It was a validation but so too were the actual, tangible accomplishments of the Obama era.

For Iranian-Americans, it was an "open hand," a message of Nowruz greetings, an agreement that both eliminated a potential nuclear weapon and improved dialogue. No U.S. president before understood Iran in the way this president did, with all of the complications, complexities and animosities that existed in these countries' histories with one another. But he also knew the deep appreciation and love, truly, that Iranians have for America, its people, and its democratic history. To see up close and personal Iranian-Americans, some of the most pro-American people you'll meet, dancing in front of the White House after the passage of the Iran deal, just blocks from my college campus? A powerful sight unthinkable just years before.

Barack Obama's personal qualities were immensely appealing too: his calm in difficult moments, his comfort in his own skin, his confidence in his own judgment, his discipline in his lifestyle, his focus on details, his selflessness in working as a community organizer rather than taking corporate gigs he easily could have landed and his loyalty to his family. As someone who was a teenager when Obama took office and is halfway through law school as he leaves office, having that kind of role model on a national stage was particularly meaningful.

In these ways, though specific policy achievements are at risk, there is a permanence to Barack Obama's legacy. The indelible impact of his leadership and of his promise, of all he symbolizes and exudes, is felt in my upbringing, is appreciated by millions, and is enduring in our society. His presidency brought into focus the "better angels" of our culture. 

Our collective identity is, and forever will be, one where "all things are possible" (said the then-president elect on that balmy November night in 2008), one where we can achieve what the "cynics said we could not do" (said the victorious black candidate in the heavily white state of Iowa), and one where, yes, even someone with a funny name can make it and make a difference. 

Saturday, December 31, 2016

Unsung Heroes of 2016

On this last day of 2016, it has become abundantly clear that this year was, for too many citizens across the world, a troubling, tumultuous, and turbulent year. Even the mere utterance of the year evokes melancholy, an understandable reaction in light of nightmarish events like the unanticipated election of madman Donald Trump.

The president-elect has devoted much of his fear-mongering campaign to attacking people with identities different than his: blacks, the LGBT community and their allies, low-income Americans, and women, among others. In seemingly small but selfless ways, these individuals prove President-elect Trump's provocations wrong everyday. That was my experience in 2016 thanks to unsung heroes who, in myriad manners, put me at ease in tense, unfortunate moments that ultimately were resolved thanks to these individuals' dedication.

There was the Philly-hailing Greyhound bus driver who went above and beyond the call of duty in retrieving my phone from a vent I had clumsily allowed it to fall into while on the bus. During this bus trip, it, for some time, did not seem possible that my phone was retrievable as it had fallen into a place where bus passengers all failed to retrieve it despite their best efforts. To my amazement, I found out after the bus trip ended that the driver went out of her way to work with manufacturers, folks who make things work behind the scenes, to utilize unique tools to physically pry my phone out of there. I am immensely grateful for her as she had no obligation to assist me in this endeavor but the kindness of her heart was evident.

There was the Orlando area Best Buy GeekSquad employee who, during Thanksgiving week, worked tirelessly to repair my broken laptop. He offered his personal email address so we can check continually on the progress made and he worked to expedite the mission because he knew we would be leaving within days to go back home. Ultimately, he was able to salvage the data on the hard drive of my laptop despite potential hazards with the motherboard of my laptop. He was a lifesaver in the weeks before my final exams as I had crucial notes from my classes on my laptop. He was uncommonly patient and explained complicated matters in easily comprehensible language thus putting my mind at ease.

There was the Wilkes-Barre area Motorworld employee who just today, upon realizing that my car was fraught with potential issues that I did not realize, was able to provide service to my vehicle's troubles so swiftly that it is already ready for pickup. I am leaving shortly for a New Year's Eve celebration in Philadelphia so the time crunch was agonizing but her diligence was much appreciated. She did not have to be so understanding but for her unusually swift assistance, I am extremely thankful.

Beyond these exceptionally altruistic individuals, there are dozens of other stories of unsung heroes in my travels of 2016 -- people of all walks of life, colors, and creeds who revealed their basic decency in ways that Donald Trump will likely never understand. They uncovered their humanity in small acts of kindness that reflect their character. Often, their work goes unnoticed while their identities are attacked as ignoramuses choose to believe that they do not add any meaningful value to this world. Unlike President-elect Trump, these individuals don't seek glory or fame or riches; it is fathomable that that's why he will never fully understand these peoples' toils and triumphs. In unheralded yet individually impactful acts, these individuals' enduring empathy towards others proves Trump wrong everyday. As such, they are unsung heroes of 2016 who made this difficult year calmer and better.



Thursday, November 3, 2016

The Case for Hillary Clinton

On November 8, American voters should elect Hillary Clinton, a deeply experienced and solidly liberal candidate, as the first woman president. The specter of Donald Trump, a dangerous demagogue and cavalier charlatan, leading our diverse, democratic country on the world stage should be sufficient reason to vote for Clinton. But beyond the frightening prospect of Trump's hand on the nuclear button, a truly devastating scenario that should scare every American, there is an affirmative case for Clinton that has to be made.

She is prepared, knowledgeable, qualified, intelligent, an incredible listener, and a fiercely productive worker; as such, she exhibits virtually all the hallmark qualities of a capable leader. With regards to her policy positions, she has long been a stalwart domestic policy liberal, particularly on issues that are elemental to the progressive movement: health care, child care, taxes, and even criminal justice.

It is a shame that she has to remind media outlets of this experience but it's true, as she said in January on MSNBC's Morning Joe, that she has a track record of fighting "inequality of all kinds." Dating back to her impressive career as a legal aid lawyer, working in the Children's Defense Fund and overseeing strong funding for the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) in the Carter administration, she's demonstrated genuine concern for underprivileged people.

Moving forward, she should be expected to uphold President Obama's core policy achievements, consequential laws and executive actions that have improved the lives of millions. Rightly, she's run proudly on Obama's record of progress. More specifically, she is in favor of ideas that are evidence-based, needed for this moment, and rightfully left of center.

Those proposals include Bernie Sanders' push for debt-free college, particularly salient in this time of high debt; experts have noted that such a policy actually fiscally assist the budget given the vast amounts already spent on various aid programs. Students' own fiscal house would also be in order. That way they can prepare more productively, with less hassle, for their futures, an outcome favorable for the broader economy. Importantly too, unlike her opponent (who called climate change "a hoax"), Clinton is ready to tackle climate change, a problem her record and her calls for further regulation of greenhouse gases make clear she takes seriously.

As if these issues were not enough, Clinton has also demonstrated a commanding prowess of health care policy, a realm she is familiar with in intimate detail. Her suggestions in this arena are laudable too. The Affordable Care Act, a major step forward in insurance reform, would be greatly improved with a government-run public option and more generous subsidies. These ideas would make health insurance more affordable for struggling families and they are ones Clinton has embraced. On immigration, she's also shown a willingness to go further than Obama as she's pledged to build on his protections from deportation for millions thus putting families at ease. On criminal justice reform, she's harkened back to her roots, as someone who went undercover to go after discrimination in education rights, to propose a compelling series of proposals (i.e. severely limiting mandatory minimums) to end mass incarceration.

Lastly, there is the issue of the Supreme Court. Whoever Clinton appoints will, in all certainty, be more progressive minded than whoever Trump puts on the Court. If voters arm Clinton too with a Democratic Senate majority, they can expect to see a justice who is in the mold of great, liberal jurists like Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- someone who is dedicated to advancing civil rights and rooting out injustices that have harmed our democracy like the Citizens United ruling and the case that gutted the Voting Rights Act. Such a justice would see the Constitution as it should be seen: a living, breathing document that must be interpreted in light of our ever changing society.

On the other hand, Clinton's radical opponent, the uniquely awful Donald Trump, sees the world a different way. Electing Trump would be a regressive shock to the system unlike one we've ever seen. He would gut Obama's accomplishments, as he promised recently here in the electorally all-important Philadelphia suburbs, thus sending into financial misery millions of Americans who are now insured, enjoying stronger wages finally after years of stagnation, and protected by the CFPB from the recklessness of institutions like Wells Fargo.

More importantly, Trump would fundamentally reshape and alter the identity of the country. We would no longer be as welcoming to immigrants, we would cease to have any regard for the enriching diversity of our beautiful country, and his very presence as our president would mean to the world that we accepted his brand of bigotry, misogyny, and recklessness in words and deeds. Ultimately, he is, as Clinton and Obama so often say, "temperamentally unfit" for the office, something he's proven again and again with how easily he is angered and how dangerously he asked three times in a one-hour meeting on security why we cannot use nuclear weapons at will.

In the end, this election, in my humble opinion, is a binary choice. Either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States. Given the impressiveness of Clinton's strong record and the strength of her policy proposals, and the unusual threat to our institutions and norms represented by Donald Trump, voters should pick Clinton for the sake of our country's survival, frankly, as we know it. It's true that Clinton has blemishes on her record.

She's more hawkish than Obama, as demonstrated in her vote for the Iraq war, and her handling of her email on a private server was inexcusable. But she's also shown a willingness to learn from these errors, calling such moves "mistakes," and, as such, she showed an attentiveness to criticism that her opponent would never consider. That key part of it should speak well about how she'll govern as opposed to her rival. Lest I say more? In the end, it is no contest. Vote. The world is watching.

Sunday, July 17, 2016

The new Match Game is a very, very good revival. They finally got it right.

Gene Rayburn and the panel in the 1970s.
 Tonight is the fourth episode of the latest revival of Match Game, otherwise known to my friends as my favorite television program of all time. A reincarnation of the popular 1970s game show that lives on in GSN and BUZZR reruns, the classic show is back in full force on the primetime ABC Sunday and Fun Games lineup with Alec Baldwin as host. The results so far have been great in the sense that critics have provided resoundingly strong reviews and the ratings have been quite solid, beating the offerings on other major networks in the same time slot.

(I was even lucky enough to see a taping in person with my great friend Evan Feurstein in New York City. I should also mention that I am especially grateful to my wonderful girlfriend Erin and her parents who made time to watch the premiere episode with me recently when I visited Erin in Atlanta during her summer internship for The Carter Center).

However, when the revival was announced in April, a lot of Match Game fans, myself included, were excited but apprehensive. The nervousness is attributed to the fact that all previous efforts to revive the show disastrously failed. There was the anemic Match Game-Hollywood Squares Hour - which barely survived a single season - that felt incredibly forced: a lame effort to fuse two shows that had little to do with each other.

That effort failed in no small part because the Hollywood Squares portion was hosted by Sha-Na-Na's Jon "Bowzer" Bauman, an individual who was simply not cut out to be a game show host. Then there was the short-lived 1990 revival, a noble ABC effort that had its positives, like bringing back Charles Nelson Reilly on the panel, but was plagued by an unfortunate time slot and dry hosting courtesy Ross Shafer. Towards the end of the 90s, an even worse attempt was made in the form of a syndicated version that also suffered from poor hosting skills, a bizarre panel, a low cash prize, unfunny questions, a lackluster set, and terrible time placements.

Alec Baldwin and the panel on the new Match Game.
To be fair, it is a difficult task to revive Match Game and that's because the 70s version was simply so freakin good. The chemistry between energetic host Gene Rayburn, the fun (drunk) celebrities, and the contestants was what made the show so entertaining. It is hard to replicate that unique interaction. But what's also true is that the show pushed the envelope for its time, featuring risque double-entrende fill-in-the-blanks that could be answered with "boobs," "derriere," and "making love," all permitted terms on CBS daytime. As TV's social standards have relaxed over the years, it's become harder to elicit the same shock value and humor.

But where other revivals miserably failed, this Match Game succeeded -- with flying colors. Of course, it still is no match for (no pun intended) the 70s version but it's at least a solid B+ show. For one, Alec Baldwin is a genuinely good host. He skewers contestants, a la Steve Harvey but also a la Rayburn himself, when their answers are bad, and he has a hilarious rapport with the celebrities that is genuine and whimsical.

Speaking of the celebrities, they are solid picks who viewers recognize and are entertained by, like Titus Burgess and Sherri Shepherd and Sutton Foster AND especially the talented Rosie O'Donnell (occupying the Brett Somers seat but replicating Richard Dawson in mastery of the head-to-head match), and these celebrities clearly are drinking a little between tapings so that makes it more enjoyable.

Further, the questions are topical, with figures like Donald Trump and Justin Bieber implicated, so that gives it a sort of Cards Against Humanity feeling that folks enjoy. The questions can also finally actually be answered with words like "penis" and "vagina," disallowed on previous revivals, and that's liberating in a way because it allows for more freewheeling, laugh-out-loud moments. In that way, this version is envelope-pushing in the same kind of way the 70s program was. Another vital update from those prior revivals is that the dollar amount of the top prize is finally at a higher level: $25,000; the 1998 version unthinkably kept the top amount at $5,000 (the same level of the 70s show).

Beyond that, this revival works too because it retained so much of what works from the 70s show like the catchy theme song and think music, the signature skinny microphone, essentially the same vintage set, silly format, and cool logo, and even the same kind of opening. Previous revivals tried to change these things for more modern or different styles and features that were, frankly, not appealing. Don't fix what's not broken!

In fairness to the previous revivals though, this one has succeeded actually partly because a newer, younger generation, including me, are familiar with the 70s Match Game now thanks to its reruns. That wasn't necessarily the case in 1990 and 1998 when previous revivals tried and failed; consequently, there are millions of new fans who are undoubtedly part of the audience of this revival.

Lastly, it is important that they put the show on in primetime on Sundays in the summer: a time when Americans are watching television and want to see something funny and relaxing before they head to bed for the week ahead. It helps too that it is part of a lineup of game shows that include Celebrity Family Feud and The $100,000 Pyramid as viewers stick around from the previous shows at 8 and 9 pm, respectively. As the celebrities and Baldwin become increasingly relaxed and even more comfortable in their roles, this Match Game will continue to succeed.

For more on Match Game, including an in-depth explanation of why previous revivals failed, check out my website. (Thank you to my great friend Jack Cartwright for giving me this website back in 2004 when he set it up for me).