Giving and Re-gifting

Re-gifting is a word usually said with a sneer or a smirk, as if the one who did it had committed a faux pas. I’d like to know why. Why should I not give something that I already own if it is an appropriate item? In what way is the gift enhanced if I have a receipt that shows I paid cash for it, or, more likely, charged it to a credit card?

I guess the idea is that pre-owned equals used and used items are considered to be tacky gifts. Of course, there are many grades of used. A coffee maker that shows the wear and tear of daily use is probably not a good gift. But a coffee maker used once and retired from active service would be a useful gift for anyone who drinks coffee. A coffee maker received as a gift and never taken out of the box ought to be a fine gift, given without any embarrassment and received with no thought of whether it looks like the same one the giver unwrapped on her last birthday.

If I buy a holograph letter signed by Abraham Lincoln and give it as a gift, it is considered a wonderful present. But if I find a letter in an old trunk in my attic, unless it can be authenticated and its monetary value established, it doesn’t matter who signed it or how interesting it is, it’s merely old paper and is unacceptable as a gift.

An antique is an acceptable gift, as long as it is bought at an antique store especially for the giftee or is an heirloom of the giftee’s family. If I decide that the pressed glass square honeycomb dish I bought nine years ago at the local Antique Alley would be nice to give my niece as a housewarming present, that’s tacky and I’d better hope she never finds out that I took it out of my breakfront to wrap for her. But if I buy a pressed glass vase at Target and it’s nicely packaged in a box to show that it’s brand new, my niece may think I’m a cheapskate but the gift will be perfectly acceptable.

The inconvenience of procuring the gift also plays into its acceptability. If I stop alongside the road and buy a dozen roses from a vendor’s ice chest on my way to visit a friend in the hospital, it’s okay but kind of tacky. However, if I phone a florist and have flowers delivered, that’s a great gift, whether I visit or not. Even better is if I go to the florist shop, have a bouquet especially arranged, and take it to the hospital to my friend. Just look at all the time and effort I put into it, not to mention the monetary cost. I’m a really good friend.

In my opinion, it is absolutely silly to waste time and effort on the issue of re-gifting. Even if I inadvertently give you something you once gave me, what’s the big deal? Most of us receive so many gifts that we can’t possibly remember who gave them all or on what occasion. If it was nice enough for you to give me, then it’s nice enough for me to give you. If you don’t want it or have no use for it, give it to someone else, sell it at a yard sale, or donate it to a charity.

The tackiness of re-gifting is an idea being promoted by retailers and who can blame them? But we needn’t play into it.

Presidential Ignorance

As I near the completion of my basic research for Presidential Educations: Prelude to Power, it occurs to me that ignorance is just as important as education in the affairs of our nation. As a people, Americans appear to believe that everyone who runs for president possesses sufficient knowledge and understanding of the way the world operates to take care of national business. What voters are asked to compare are mostly attributes relevant to getting elected, such as media savvy, credibility, and party affiliation. Those journalists who show an interest in the candidates’ educations, understanding of issues, and accomplishments are easily out-shouted by the journalists who are interested in real or potential sex scandals, expletives used in private conversations, sycophancy, or trade-offs for future favors.

Education, of course, is much more than time spent in classrooms and lecture halls. In fact, it appears that the most important education is acquired outside these places. Not that schooling isn’t important, just that it isn’t all-important. We tend to assume that a person who has graduated from a university held in high esteem is well-educated. That may or may not be the case. Woodrow Wilson held a Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins but he received the degree more than a year after he left the university without completing his graduate course. His mentor agreed to accept his book, Congressional Government, as his doctoral thesis, although it had not been written for that purpose. Wilson spent two days taking tests and was granted his degree. He wrote the book without bothering to visit Washington, D.C. and without seeing congress in action. He knew the theory of congressional government but his presidency leaves it open to doubt if he understood the actual workings of congress.

On the other hand, Lyndon Johnson was a consummate politician. He cut his teeth watching the Texas legislature in action, accompanying his father to sessions as a small boy and a teenager. He was in his mid-twenties when he went to Washington as secretary to a congressman. Johnson knew how congressional government operates – quite possibly no one has ever known it better. But his presidency illustrates woeful areas of ignorance – his Great Society nearly bankrupted the nation and his foreign policy got us embroiled in an unwinnable war.

Andrew Jackson, in contrast, was knowledgeable about war. He was sixteen when he began fighting in the Revolutionary War in the Waxhaw Mountains. He learned how to strike the redcoats and disappear as a soldier, becoming a backwoods farm boy. Later, he was in the swamps in Florida in the Seminole War and he knew about fighting a foe who could blend into the background, leaving no target to attack. He would never have made the mistake of fighting a high-tech war in a jungle or a desert where guerilla tactics trump technology. But Jackson knew very little about finance and banking and wasn’t interested in learning. His distrust of bankers and financiers caused him to lead the country into a depression.

Ulysses S. Grant was a man of honor, yet his presidency is considered one of the most corrupt in our history. Partly, this is the result of the yellow journalism of the day. Newspapers disclaimed any responsibility to print truth and did not flinch at publishing flagrant lies. It was Grant’s ignorance of finance, politics and the congressional process that allowed him to be victimized. Had he been more knowledgeable about scoundrels and the way they operate, he could have protected himself and his reputation.

The American presidency requires a person with a wide range of interests and knowledge. One-dimensional persons may cause a great deal of harm, not by intent, but by ignorance. There is no checklist for voters to use in assessing the qualifications of candidates so, by default, the ability to be elected becomes the primary qualification of an American president.