Insurrection Act - Trump's First Resort

The Insurrection Act has been employed 30 times in our 230-year history for various reasons—some honorable and others questionable. Most recently, at the request of the California governor to restore order during the Watts riots in 1992.

The catalyst leading presidents to invoke the Insurrection Act has generally been threats to lives and property and usually comes as a last resort.

President Trump is threatening to use the Act, again.

He’s doing so after spending a lifetime extolling its virtues, calling for its use repeatedly and threatening continually and in varied situations to use it himself.

The Insurrection Act might be needed, he says, to prevent this year’s mid-term election year from being interfered with in Democratic states. He is quite aware that the last attempt to obstruct a national election was when he coaxed thousands of domestic terrorists—they were not patriots by any stretch of the imagination—to the Capitol on January 6, 2021. In that instance, as president, he refused to send in troops even as rioters called for the hanging of his own vice president.

Trump, as president, has the power to carry out his fantasies, but doesn’t have the willpower or insight to restrain himself or to understand the consequences of his actions. We see this in everything he does.

As a candidate, he ran on a peace platform denouncing foreign entanglements as contrary to his “America First” objective.

As president, he has authorized military strikes in seven countries: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen and Venezuela. Some were with cause, but none were with the consent or even acknowledgement of Congress. He may have been a peace candidate, but he has a lifelong reputation as an angry individual always willing to strike out at his perceived enemies.

He has recently threatened to take over Greenland—either the easy way, which I assume means Greenland just surrenders their sovereignty, or the hard way, which based on previous examples could mean missile attacks or invasion or whatever he feels is necessary to get the deal done.

Threats have always been Trump’s main weapon. Threats of attack, threats of tariffs, threats of lawsuits, threats of withholding support, threats of “I don’t know. We’ll have to see.” These threats usually appear in off-the-cuff talk with reporters or in his late-night social media posts.

America finds itself being led by an angry man who feels he has never received the respect he was due. He has made enemies throughout his adult life and been obsessed with destroying his enemies. He has always relished power and used it to his advantage whenever possible, mostly in the business world.

He continues to threaten using the Insurrection Act to send thousands of federal troops into Minneapolis where thousands of federal troops are already swarming the streets. Their presence is what is actually provoking the protests that Trump claims can only be stopped by more troops. The only death in the city has been at the hands of federal ICE agents.

Most recently he has sent investigators to Georgia to re-investigate the 2020 election while threatening federal intervention might be needed to ensure a free mid-term election.

Trump is like the boy who continually cries “Fire!” and then finds a book of matches and immediately sets fire to a building. For years, he is eagerly awaiting an opportunity, valid or otherwise, to enforce the Insurrection Act on his perceived enemies—generally minorities and cities and states with Democratic leadership.

And now he finds himself the most powerful man in the world with access to the world’s largest military on the world stage and an Insurrection Act in this country that gives him virtually all the authority he needs to do anything he wants. He also has a friendly Supreme court and arguably the weakest Congress in recent memory on his side.

In this the 250^th anniversary of our formal break from England, citizens need to forget for a moment all the issues that seem to consume our politics and instead reacquaint ourselves with the Declaration of Independence. It explains the grievances our forefathers had with a tyrannical King George, the last man who wanted to be king over us—grievances serious enough that we went to war to gain our independence.

That king’s rule divided the colonies much the way Trump is dividing the nation now, pitting one party against the other, states against state, and citizens against each other.

If we are not careful, Trump’s threats and possible invoking of the Insurrection Act, along with other attempts to rule by decree will push our nation to a place we haven’t been in since the Civil War.

On March 25, 2025, I had a piece published in the Baltimore Sun, that spoke to the issue of bad governments: https://www.baltimoresun.com/2025/03/20/tocqueville-would-be-wary-of-trumps-overhaul-of-government-guest-commentary/.

I wasn’t talking so much about a government that I didn’t agree with, which most of us would consider to be a bad government. I was talking about the damage a government with bad people in it, unqualified people, people with ulterior motives could do. The answer was provided by 19^th century philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville.

He answered the question “How bad can it get?” this way: “The most dangerous time for a bad government is usually when it begins to reform.”

Just recounting the names that have been in the news in recent weeks—Venezuela, Greenland, Davos, Minneapolis, Fulton County, Epstein—always Epstein, would seem to indicate that this administration is in over its head, and our nation will pay the price for their ignorance.

,

Oklahoma will require teachers from NY, CA to prove they back 'America First'

I just read where Oklahoma wants teachers from California and New York, as well as other “blue” states wishing to teach in Oklahoma to take a test proving they support America First. It should be noted that Oklahoma currently has a teacher shortage. It should also be noted that there are 30,000 certified teachers in Oklahoma who have chosen not to teach.

In the first place, why do they need a test? Couldn’t a prospective teacher simply wear a flag pin the way Republicans do in Congress to prove their patriotism or crucifixes around their necks the way they do to prove they value Christianity?

More importantly, shouldn’t prospective teachers, not to mention Oklahoma (rated fourth in literacy in U.S.), be aware of the bad reputation that the concept of “America First” has in this country. America First in the 1930s meant should we just let the Nazis destroy democracy and learn to live with them after they take control of Europe. Basically, saying that the threat to democracy was not our problem.

America First did not sit well in the 1930s and has not aged well in the 2000s. It is still nothing more than arrogant pride based on foolish fallacies.

America was not first when we drove the Indians from their homeland. We were merely common aggressors with better weapons.

America was not first when half the nation built its economy on the backs of millions of slaves. We were just a nation too lazy to do the work ourselves.

In the annals of history, the Jim Crow Era was just one more example of the powerful abusing the weak, the inhumane treating humanity badly to serve their own prejudices.

This isn’t to say we haven’t had our moments.

Our Declaration of Independence was a wake-up call to the world that kings could be defeated and that free men could and should decide their own destiny.

Our Constitution has for two hundred years been the envy of people everywhere.

Our laws have protected workers by giving them better wages, better working conditions, and a means of enjoying the fruits of their labor once they retired. Our laws allowed children to go to school instead of working in mills.

As alluded to earlier, helping to save Europe from the threat of Nazi totalitarianism in World War II is something we can be rightfully proud of.

Unfortunately, the things we have been first in are not always the things that “America First” prides itself on. Or shouldn’t pride themselves on if they were paying attention.

America has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world with 120.5 guns per one hundred people, more guns than people. Just as we have a bigger military than the next ten countries combined, our lead in gun ownership is not even threatened by the second-place nation, Yemen, with sixty guns per one hundred people. And Yemen is at war with its neighbors and has been for years.

Much of the world has less than one gun per hundred people, so yes, America, we’re first by a long shot.

While not on top, we are close to leading the world in infant mortality rates. Only four OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) nations have higher infant mortality rates than America. So, we are close to America First in this category. If it is any consolation, Mississippi, with a rate twice the OECD average is ranked with those four countries ahead of us. Mississippi First!

America has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world followed by nations like Russia, Rwanda and Cuba—generally thought to be nations where simply speaking out against the government will get one thrown in jail. To our credit, with only 4.4% of the world’s population, we do have over 20% of the world’s prison population. America First.

One has to wonder why Republicans keep reviving the America First concept, when as Woody Guthrie sand, “When they say America first, they mean America last.”

Economics Ain’t Electricity

 

I was having a difficult time in a college physics course when we got to the ins and outs of how electricity works. Until then, all I understood about electricity was that if I wanted something to work, all I had to do was plug the cord in.

My roommate introduced me to the water analogy where I learned that water and electricity behaved pretty much the same way so long as I didn’t drop the radio into the bathtub. I won’t go into detail, but you can look it up.

In the 1980s, the Reagan administration tried to sell their tax cut bill by applying the same water analogy to economics when they introduced their “trickle-down theory.” They would enable the rich to get richer by giving them tax cuts, eliminating burdensome regulations that stifled business, and enacting legislation that would promote business and increase profits. In time, they said, this new wealth would—and here’s where the water analogy comes into play—trickle down to those at the bottom of the money chain.

There are several reasons why this analogy fails.

That small trickle begins as a tiny drop (consumer dollar) and combines with other tiny drops to become an exceptionally large body of water (Gross National Product). This remarkably large body of water then shrinks to but a trickle when water (money) is removed in abundance.

So, who takes it out?

This is where the second problem with the water analogy arises.

Imagine it is an extremely hot day, stifling hot if you are a poor worker in a construction crew or a migrant worker in a shade less strawberry field. Not so hot if you are a rich CEO in an air-conditioned office.

There is a glass of water and there are two people who want this glass of cool, cool water.

One is rich and powerful, and the other is not. I know what you’re thinking. Why would these two individuals even be in the same time zone much less close enough to be wanting the same contested glass of water? In the real world, they wouldn’t be, but fantasy is alive and well in the world of economics.

The rich and powerful individual doesn’t really need water but having it would be nice.

The not so rich and not so powerful individual really could use the glass of water because it’s hot out there.

Anyway, if the not so rich and virtually powerless individual were to receive the glass of precious water there is a good chance that he would share it because, in general, his group is more accustomed to sharing. They mostly have no choice and usually just want enough.

On the other hand, the rich and powerful usually want it all. An example of this is when in the 1980s the Hunt brothers, at the time three of the riches people in the world, tried to corner the silver market because, as any rich man will tell you, you can never have enough. Coincidently, you can never have enough is what the not so rich who just want enough will also tell you.

So, I think people can agree that the rich want it all. How else would millionaires become multi-millionaires and then billionaires and then multi-billionaires? For the last forty years, because the rich and powerful have friends in high places—put there with their money, these glasses of water have been going to the rich and powerful.

Let’s look at what happens to the water in that glass as it navigates its way down the money chain. Remember that in our analogy, water represents money. Where does that water go so that it might someday trickle into that stream where the not so rich and powerful individual might scoop out a measly handful to quench his thirst?

The rich man drinks the water and after his body has taken out all the good stuff, he pisses the bad water into his fancy toilet. He then flushes the toilet, sending that bad water into the sewage system where it meets up with other bad water and who knows what else. This now horrible water is treated at a water treatment plant and released back into the environment where it enters into the natural water cycle. It will eventually become part of the water supply that is purified and sent to a water tower and eventually delivered to our taps and into a glass where anyone might drink from it—assuming a rich and powerful person is not there to claim it first.

This process could take weeks, or it could take eons. The poor and powerless are used to waiting. What we know is that the trickle-down theory doesn’t hold water, at least not for those who aren’t rich and powerful.

But this is all theory. How has it worked out in the real world?

In 1950, after the Depression and World War, our economy was booming, and it was booming for everyone, workers and investors. The rich saw their tax rate decreased to 70% from a wartime high of 90%. They probably wanted more, but the middle class that this boom economy produced insured there would always be buyers for the goods they were producing.

There were roughly 17,000 millionaires in 1950 and two billionaires. By 1960, there were around 80,000 millionaires and the same two billionaires. The economy was working for everyone, but the rich thought they were getting the short end of the stick. They were still paying that 70% tax rate.

By 1980, the number of millionaires had grown to 500,000 and billionaires to thirteen. The middle class had also grown since the 1950s. But something happened when Reagan came into office. Air traffic controllers went on strike, and he used the opportunity to give the wealthy class what they thought was a well-deserved break. He fired the controllers and began working on legislation that would reroute money to the wealthy first, from where it would then trickle down to the working class.

In the next forty years, the number of millionaires would shoot up from 500,000 to 24 million, and the number of billionaires would go from 13 to over 900. The rich were getting richer rapidly while the poor and middle class became stagnant.

Of course, a million isn’t what it used to be.

What still is what it used to be is the minimum wage. In 1968 it was $1.60, or $14.42 in today’s economy, when taking inflation into account.

Today, it is $7.25, which obviously is $7.25 in today’s economy. So, worker’s wages have literally been cut in half while the number of billionaires has grown from 13 to 900.

I think it is safe to say that trickling down doesn’t work, neither theoretically nor realistically. The middle class that grew out of a government caring about workers is dying as government bends over backwards to give the rich even more money, because unfortunately, the water is drying up before the folks at the bottom ever get a drink. 

 

 

 

 

                               

Why do they need more money?

 

 GOP-led House approves Trump's big bill with trillions in tax breaks and Medicare cuts

 

Finally!

And I don't mean they passed the bill.

Those were my thoughts today when I pulled this month’s issue of New Republic from the mailbox and looked at the cover. Who needs that much money?

My question, which I had been trying for weeks to get into some paper’s OP-ED page, “Why do the rich need more money?” was slightly different from theirs. It was, however, a question that I thought needed to be asked, and answered, since all the cuts in the proposed budget bill would enable Congress to give the rich the tax cuts they desired.

Maybe it was a mistake opening with a Professor Corey skit from years ago, but I thought interjecting a little humor into an otherwise boring economic piece would be welcomed. Anyway, this is the question I've been asking and am still looking for an answer to.

 

* * *

Yes, but Why

 

Professor Corey, the world’s foremost authority on everything, had a skit where people asked him, “Why do you wear sneakers?”

“This is a two-part question,” he’d say, and go on to describe all the philosophical implications of the word Why. Then he’d answer the second part, “Do I wear sneakers?”

“Yes, I do.”

Congress is currently negotiating a trillion-dollar budget bill that if passed will cut numerous social programs designed to help the needy and less fortunate. The resulting savings I keep hearing will pay for tax cuts for the rich.

My question is, “Why do the rich need more money?”

Professor Corey wasn’t a member of Congress. If he were, and was working on a bill like this one, and was asked this question, he’d go into his convoluted explanation on the word why and then answer the second part, “Yes, they do.”

Will Rogers also wasn’t a member of Congress, and he didn’t think much of politicians. “With Congress,” he said, “every time they make a joke it’s a law, and every time they make a law it’s a joke.

But government isn’t a joke, or at least it shouldn’t be, although sometimes those in government seem to work damn hard at being a joke. While this bill if it passes might be considered a joke by many, its consequences are no laughing matter.

Serious questions are being posed about this bill and serious people are stepping up to answer them. Authorities from every field are explaining in detail why disadvantaged children need school lunches, why low-income folks need Medicaid to help with rising health costs, why scientists need grants to produce new vaccines and discover new cures for diseases, why the broken immigration system needs more judges, why we need less lead in our pipes and more and better water treatment plants, why social security needs to be stabilized not defunded, why college students do need assistance, why veterans have earned and do need better care, why people hit by natural disasters need all the help they can get, why agriculture and food-processing plants need more and better inspectors, why airports need more controllers and airplanes need to be made safer,  why foreign nations do need our assistance because when they do well we do well, why the arts are as necessary as arms, and why a whole host of other programs that are being threatened need to be funded because real people depend on them in so many ways. Most of all, our government needs people because problems don’t solve problems, people solve problems.

What I don’t hear is anyone explaining why the wealthy need more money.

They have found ways to legally reduce their tax bill. They have found ways to legally get around paying their taxes, often zero taxes on mindboggling wealth. When push came to shove, many resort to illegal means to get more money, and have enough wealth to avoid the consequences.

A key to their plan has been to use their money to acquire a louder voice in government. When the Supreme Court declared that their money was a legitimate voice, the game was over. The wealthy now do have the loudest voice in government and the representatives they have put in want to kill or weaken as many programs designed to help the needy as they can to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy.

So, my question to anyone in Congress, the president, or to any of the millionaires and billionaires whose money put these politicians in office is, “Why do the rich need more money?”

And the answer better not be a long dissertation on the word Why followed by a quick throwaway response, “Yes, they do.”

* * *

So, this is my answer to New Republic’s question: Who needs that much money? 

No one.

And the answer to my question: Why do the rich need more money?  

They Don’t.

I hope every voter in America is asking and answering these two questions and remember them when they vote in the 2026 and 2028 elections.

 

 

 

Tocqueville would be wary of Trump's overhaul of government

When a government, or for that matter, a corner grocery store, fires one employee for incompetence that is good management. When that government fires 5000 employees, without cause or the flimsiest of cause, that is targeted domestic terrorism. When it does so to many departments and agencies, that is bad government. It might possibly be a sign of worser things waiting down the road.

America has had its share of bad government. We've seen incompetence, corruption at times, and sometimes, leaders who just weren't up to the job. We've gone through periods when, because of the times we lived in, we as a nation behaved badly, and that was regrettable but was at least excusable.

So, the question becomes, as is always the case when dealing with bad: How bad can it get?

Alexis de Tocqueville answered the question in 1789 while observing the early days of the French Revolution. The monarchy of Louis XVI was clearly bad, and the citizens were obviously mad, but the eventual outcome could not have been sadder. The beheading of the king was not the reform France needed. Changing the calendar by making 1792, Year One also was not helpful, although most people seemed pleased in the short term.

The new governments, there were several, were created by well-intentioned revolutionists aware of what had taken place just a few years earlier in America. But there were more. There were radicals, activists, intellectuals, as well as common criminals, the usual power brokers, and always a mob lurking in the background.

Clearly, the government replacing the bad government(s) was itself a bad government.

Alexis de Tocqueville answered the question; how bad can it get? this way. "…the most dangerous moments for a bad government…is when they set about reform."

Trying to do too much, trying to change things too fast is difficult in any situation, but for a bad government, the results can be disastrous.

In just his first weeks, and in some cases first days, Trump has set out to reform what has taken us over two hundred years to accomplish.

Was it perfect? No.

Was it working? Yes.

Trump has set out to reform: the military—by deciding who can and cannot serve and who should lead those who serve; the Justice Department—by pardoning convicted criminals who attempted a coup and who threaten to do so again, while at the same time attacking prosecutors who prosecuted him for the crimes he committed; the Treasury—by firing IRS workers because he doesn't like to pay taxes; the Commerce Department—by enacting senseless tariffs because it makes him look tough; the Department of Health and Human Services—by replacing scientists and health specialists with non-medical partisan idealogues; by cutting off aid to needy countries; cozying up to foreign dictators while attacking our allies; by running roughshod over the media and attacking the freedom of the press; plus a lot of just plain stupid stuff like changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, and suggesting we make Canada our 51^st state.

More is going on behind the scenes.

These are clearly the workings of a bad government trying to enact reform badly. Even worse, much of it seems to be done for publicity purposes to his base. Maybe de Tocqueville was right and the worst thing a bad government can be doing is making so many reforms so quickly.

After blaming Ukraine for Russia's invasion and calling Ukraine President Zelinski a dictator just a week ago, President Trump and Vice-president Vance behaved shamefully today in the Oval Office in a meeting that ended without the traditional joint press conference.

This wasn't US delegate Adlai Stevenson dressing down Russia at the U.N. during the Cuban Missile crisis. This wasn't President Reagan in Berlin saying, "Gorbachev, tear down this wall."

This was just a bad president and vice-president throwing an ally under the bus to please a Russian dictator thousands of miles away.

I don't know if this is what his supporters were looking for when they voted for him. Sadly, I think many of them are getting what they wanted.

I don't think America looked great today in the Oval Office. I think we are in for many more dangerous moments like what we witnessed today. This is what happens when we elect bad people who go on to form bad governments and expect them to do good things.

Alexis de Tocqueville warned us, but that was 200 years ago. Who pays attention to history?

 

This article appeared in the Baltimore Sun earlier this year. The problem has only gotten worse.

Ukraine-location, location, location, timing, timing, timing

 Realtors tell us it’s all about location, location, location.

They also tell us timing is everything.

Political analysts, I’m sure, would agree.

When my daughter was in college she became friends with a fellow student, who our family quaintly refers to as, Mary from Ukraine, to distinguish her from Mary from Princess Anne High School. Since graduating, they correspond regularly and have visited each other on several occasions in Ukraine, France, Morocco. The two are on similar journeys that began as college students and has continued as they’ve become single working girls, newlyweds and now with their own families.

Had either gone to another school or enrolled in different semesters they never would have met, and both would have missed what looks to be a lifelong friendship. Life certainly is all about timing and location.

That is what I told Mary’s father in my only correspondence with him. When Jessica returned from her visit to Ukraine she delivered a gift to me from him—a pewter glass holder. Before sending him a thank-you letter I researched the significance of the image portrayed on it.

It seems that in the 1600s, Poland was a powerful nation controlling much of Eastern Europe. The people of Ukraine resented living under what they considered to be a repressive regime, much the way a century later we would resent being under England’s thumb.

In 1648, under the leadership of Bogdan Khmelnitsky, Ukraine Cossacks successfully revolted and gained their independence from Poland, just as we would one day do from England. His image is the one on the glass holder. He was Ukraine’s George Washington before there even was a George Washington.

Ukraine wanted what the American colonies would later desire and they were willing to put everything on the line to gain their independence. Like the American colonies, they were successful. But unlike the American colonies, Ukraine was unable to sustain lasting independence, mostly because of its location and 1650stiming.

It was a different time and a different place. The politics of the day demanded they align with a bigger, stronger nation or risk falling back under Poland’s control. By the mid-1650s, Ukraine was under the protectorate of Tsarist Russia. In the end, their fight for independence had resulted in merely escaping the grasp of one European powerhouse only to fall into the repressive realm of another. Their alliance with Russia would, in the long run, prove more destructive than if they had remained with Poland.

In the first few years after our victory over England, we experienced many hardships of forming a new government, but our independence was never threatened. Again, timing and location made the difference.

As a nation, we had room to breathe. Our borders weren’t at risk.  Something else existed in 1776 America that did not exist in 1648 Ukraine—fresh ideas.

In the period between Ukraine’s revolt and the American Revolution, something happened. Something that changed the world.

John Locke was born in 1632 and in his lifetime, he would propose doctrines that would change the world and the way people thought about themselves. He, along with Rousseau, Voltaire and others would shape politics and the approach to governing.

Before these men, revolutions were about replacing repressive governments with similarly repressive ones. But the American Revolution was about revolutionary ideas like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—ideas first put forward by John Locke. In 1648, Ukraine did not have these forward-thinking ideas as a resource.

That is what I wrote to Mary’s father when I thanked him for his gift. At the time Ukraine, like many other former Soviet states, had broken away from the Soviet Union and seemed to be making a move into mainstream Europe. But as we watch the pictures coming out of Independence Square in Kyiv, we realize the Ukrainian people are again at a crossroads and faced with the same problems it had in 1648—whether it will align with Europe and gain a greater degree of independence or return to being a Russian satellite.

This time it has the benefit of revolutionary ideas, but it must also overcome 400 years of Russian influence. The struggle is also being fought in an area of much unrest and turmoil and at a time when where they wind up will have major repercussions for all the nations involved.

No one knows where this current struggle will end, but again, as always, the times and the location will play a major role.  

This was written in 2014 at the time of Ukraine’s last struggle with Russia. Putin was Russia’s leader then and continues to be today, so again, Ukrainians find themselves at war with a man willing to destroy them in order to control them. Maybe now is the time and place to finally gain the independence they’ve been fighting four centuries for.

And now is the time for Bogdan Khmelnitsky to be replaced by Volodymyr Zelenskyy as Ukraine's latest hero in its fight for independence.

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legitimate Political Discourse

 

Stop shouting. I can barely hear myself think

People died, were injured, and/or were terrorized by all that “talking” that Republicans are now calling legitimate political discourse. Yelling “fire” in a movie theater is still wrong and not protected by the first amendment, but something that can get you killed is legitimate political discourse.

Can we now use the word deplorable to describe those who defecated on the floors and walls of the Capitol? For those who don’t like reading about sh*t in their morning newspaper, how would you feel about walking into your office tomorrow and finding sh*t on your desk next to your nameplate?

How does “Hang Mike Pence” even begin to equate with legitimate political discourse like “I don’t think I can vote for that?” Don’t even try to write it off by declaring “Democrats say nasty things, too.” Trump blew that defense out of the water by declaring there were good and bad people on both sides in Charlottesville. Nazis? White supremacists? Good people?

How does “We have to fight like hell” not be a call for violence when the resulting action becomes a violent, no-holds-barred, inflict-as-much-pain-as-possible insurrection?

Republican leaders continue to defend the big lie. They think the only good Americans are Republicans in good standing. What should we expect from a party always demanding loyalty oaths?

Trump, who speaks for all Republicans—at least the good ones (sorry Pence), call Democrats un-American traitors? No Republican said this was wrong. Even “Some Democrats are un-American traitors, and some are not,” would have been a step in the right direction.

Republicans continue to defend the “big lie” because they are, and have been for some time, big liars, tying themselves up in knots trying to explain their behavior. They stand by a man who says, “…if we don’t stand up and fight, we will lose our country,” when this same man is literally destroying our country.

How deplorable must a Republican leader be to cower to this immature coward? How deplorable must voters be to support these leaders?  

Ask someone who says, “I’d rather die than get vaccinated.”

Giving Ideas a Voice & Room to Grow

 

These are front and back covers of book I'm currently working on.

Now they are Deplorable

As a Democrat, I have to say I’m getting a little tired of the constant criticism that Republican leaders are being subjected to, for simply being Republican leaders. This goes for everyone from Trump to Cruz and McConnell, Rubio and Hawley, Ron Johnson, the ever-ridiculous Louie Gohmert, and a whole lot more.

True, they are all hypocrites, clueless and idealess, which is a whole lot more problematic than being an idealist. They stand for nothing other than self-preservation in a dog-eat-dog world of politics, which is why it has become easier than it’s ever been to make fun of them or box them into a corner by throwing their own words back at them.

Nevertheless, ridiculing Republican leaders has become all too easy, because they are simply doing the only thing they feel they must do to hang on to their jobs—appeal to Republican voters by being loyal Republicans. They are wrong of course. They could be leaders, but leadership is not what Republican voters look for in their leaders. Trump won in 2016 because he said what Republican voters wanted to hear, not what they needed to hear.

For this reason, while media fatigue has allowed me to let Republican leaders off the hook, and because they deserve our pity more than our scorn, I am disgusted with Republican voters. Not just because more  of them seem to be white supremacist, racists, bigots, religious fanatics, law-and-order enthusiast who don’t respect the law, Constitutionalist who don’t respect the Constitution, and in many cases, may not have ever read the Constitution, or just plain folks who simply don’t care about anyone other than themselves.

I’m disgusted with them because they just don’t seem to be that smart.

I’ve listened to QAnon conspiracist rationalize why they supported and continue to support Trump and it’s mind-boggling—not only for what they think they know, but what they honestly don’t know, and make no mistake, QAnon conspiracist vote Republican.

So do a lot of other crazies—Proud Boys, boogaloo boys, that old standby KKK, those people who think masks aren’t necessary, or the ones who think guns are not only necessary but vital to our survival.

Too many of these not-so-smart Republicans think a debate on healthcare or wages or the economy or politics can be won by throwing out the words Socialism, traitor, un-American, fake news, Soros and lately Hunter.

They are so ill-informed, and willingly so, that Republicans were able to run in the last election on a platform completely devoid of ideas or policies, other than, we’ll do whatever Donald Trump wants us to do. This was the Republican platform and 74 million Republican voters said, “Sounds good to me.”

When Hillary Clinton declared Trump supporters were deplorable, and was rightfully called on it, she immediately apologized and admitted that not all of the 60 million people who voted for Trump in 2016 were deplorable, only many of them. Of course, she was talking about the white supremacists, bigots, racists, fanatics, conspiracist and extremists, but not every Republican voter fell into these categories.

Some were just lifelong Republicans, probably born and raised in Republican households, just as many Democrats are lifelong Democrats born and raised in Democratic households.

Close elections are generally not won or lost by these voters, but rather by those in the middle who tend to lean one way or the other depending on the year, the issues, or the candidates.

For any number of reasons, 60 million voters chose Trump in 2016, and while they were not a majority, they were strategically well placed to secure an Electoral College win for who turned out to be, the worst president ever.

Twenty-twenty was a different ballgame entirely. Democrats picked up 17 million votes, which wasn’t surprising considering Trump had spent four years bashing Democrats as Socialists and un-American traitors.

What was surprising, was Trump picking up 14 million more votes after a presidency that should have only pleased James Buchanan, a presidency that included a public love-fest with a Korean dictator and murderer, a tax law that benefitted millionaires and billionaires and very few middle class Republicans, two impeachments and the groundwork for numerous lawsuits once he left office. There was also a wall that Mexico never paid for because it was never built, an immigration policy that separated hundreds of children from their families, and a response to a world-wide pandemic that was disastrous for the nation and fatal to 500,000 and counting Americans.  

The events of January 6, 2021, as well as Trump’s behavior in the two months after the election, only solidified for me that Trump is not qualified to be president, and yet, he appears to have lost little support among his base. Seventy-four million Americans voted for Trump in 2020, after a presidency that gave him a leg up in the race for worst president ever. I shudder to think what those voters saw in Trump’s presidency that made them want to go down that road again.

The devotion of Republican politicians to Trump was evidenced recently by their behavior at CPAC, where they publicly proclaimed what we all knew they were doing privately—pledge their allegiance before a cartoonish golden Trump mannequin. I don’t expect them to behave any differently than they do. I’d like to think they answer to the Constitution, but I’m not naïve. They only answer to voters, Trump voters.

Again, maybe not all of those voters are deplorable. It’s possible that some might just be foolish, but the fourteen million new Trump voters, if they had been paying attention—and how could they not have been paying attention—surely they are deplorable.

No one in their right mind could have witnessed the last four years, listened to Trump speak, read about his missteps—no not missteps, but rather crimes since even Republicans attest to his guilt—and not realize that he is a dictatorial demigod, and totally unfit to be president.

As sensible, thinking Republican voters continue to jump ship, making the party less sustainable than a Trump casino, Republican leaders are not the problem so much as Trump voters, the deplorable ones are, and they are not just a problem for the Republican Party, but for the nation.

 

 

...I will support and defend the Constitution...

I am watching the Trump Impeachment hearings with interest. I watched the events unveil on January 6, and concluded that day, because I had been paying attention for the last four years, that President Trump was obviously responsible for inciting the insurrection. He has spent his entire personal life courting conflict, and devoted his one-year campaign and four-year presidency to provoking, condoning and relishing in violence. Trump is not a difficult man to understand.

At the same time, the big question surrounding his impeachment seems to revolve around what Republicans will do. Actually, this isn’t the big question. The big question is why won’t Republicans do the right thing—and again, the answer appears obvious.

No attempt has been made to hide this fact that Republicans are expected to vote for acquittal because they fear political retaliation from Trump supporters, should they do the right thing and stand up to Trump by condemning the January 6 insurrection. This apparently outweighs the fear the rest of us have of the damage their dereliction to duty will do to our democracy should they give Trump a pass.

I think House managers are doing an excellent job—an effort, we are told, which is being missed by many Republican senators who are behaving childishly, as Trump has often been accused himself, by refusing to pay attention.

Overall, I think most senators are paying attention. As with Trump’s election in 2016, setting a low bar is oftentimes what we do best in this country.

One thing does bother me about the hearings, and I don’t know if changes will be made down the road. I hope so, but fearful they won’t.

Despite the fact that most Republicans appear to have made up their minds to acquit, House managers are proceeding as if they are dealing with impartial jurors, who will ultimately do the right thing.

The nation can count on fifty Democratic senators voting to convict, not because they are biased, un-American traitors as the ex-president suggests, but because they were at the Capitol on January 6, witnessed the violence, and don’t need to be told what an insurrection looks like, or who provoked it.

This impeachment is all about convincing 50 Republicans that what they saw really happened, and that they must do the right thing so that it never happens again. Republicans would have us believe that now is the time to come together and respect President Biden’s call for unity, and question whether Congress can work as a unified branch if Democrats insist on going forward with, not one, but now the second impeachment of Donald Trump.

Democrats, despite their desire to work with Republicans, know they are taking this unprecedented action because Donald Trump has not once, but twice, committed impeachable offences. Democrats are not the villains. Donald Trump is the villain.

Neither are Democrats the jurors everyone is questioning whether they will do their duty.  

House managers should stop addressing the Senate as a whole and start aiming their case directly at the Republicans. This cannot be another, “there were good people on both sides,” or “no harm, no foul.” When the argument is between right and wrong, justice can only be on one side.

There was real harm done on January 6, physical harm and psychological harm, and our democracy was threatened, and continues to be threatened.

Whether this crime is punished rests not with the Senate, but with Republican senators, and House managers need to stop ignoring the elephant—pun intended— in the room, and forcefully and unequivocally address their case to the only people in the room that matter.

It is not a question of, can we allow the president’s actions to go unpunished, but can you, Republican senators, allow the president’s actions to go unpunished.

It is not a question of, can we honor the oath we took and stand up for democracy, but rather, can you, Republican senators, stand up and protect democracy.

It is not a question of, can we muster the courage to stand up to Donald Trump and say no, no more, enough, but rather can you, Republican senators, stand up, finally, and say no, no more, enough.

No effort has been spared to point out that impeachment is not a trial. That is not to say a trial isn’t taking place. Make no mistake; the Republican Party is being put on trial—the trial of public opinion, which I would remind them is where election are won and lost.

There can be no doubt how history will look upon this impeachment effort, and at the behavior of Senate Republicans. History is full of accounts of heroic individuals standing up for what they believed to be right, as well as cowards who for political expediency did what they knew to be wrong.

The senators should be aware of this, but for those that aren’t, House managers should make the case, so that there can be no doubt, that this impeachment will not be decided by the Senate. The decision to convict will be determined by Republican senators, and history will hold them accountable, and the accountability in question might very well be, who was responsible for the fall of democracy in America.

  

The Life, Times & Adventures of Hoag Franklin: Indian Scout, Buffalo Hunter, Lawman & Vaudeville Entertainer

Like many of the people who settled  the old west, Hoag lived a full and adventurous life, which would have gone unnoticed had an unpublished manuscript telling his story not been discovered in an antique store.

Hoag crossed paths with many of the people, whose names we recognize—Calamity Jane, Annie Oakley, Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull and a host of lesser known individuals, each of whom played vital roles in settling the west and creating the nation we know today.

He fought alongside the legends of his time—Buffalo Bill, Kit Carson and Bat Masterson.

Yet, no one has ever heard of Hoag Franklin—until now.

His story begins when, as a young man still in his teens, he rides off on his first buffalo hunt before joining a wagon train as a scout, and eventually heading off to California in search of gold. For the next fifty years, he did almost everything a man could do as the nation expanded from the Mississippi to the Pacific Ocean. He even did things few men ever do.

These are his adventures, in his own words, written in the seaside town of San Pedro, California at the turn of the last century, a town he visited regularly during his Salt Lake City to Los Angeles stage coach run.

My latest novel, The Life, Times & Adventures of Hoag Franklin: Indian Scout, Buffalo Hunter, Lawman & Vaudeville Entertainer, with illustrations by Danielle Grandi.  

ThemVersUs

Historically, the roles of the Republican and Democratic parties seem to hinge on blaming the other party for everything that goes wrong and taking credit for everything that goes right—and staying as far away as possible from working together to find real solutions to real problems.

This is harsh, but justified criticism for two groups that somehow manage to bilk American citizens out of millions, billions, and soon to be trillions of dollars every election cycle. For what? Balloons, yard signs and annoying and harmful 30-second divisive, fear-mongering ads.

The one thing both parties can ever seem to agree on is American Exceptionalism, not because they have done exceptional things, but rather because they believe the American people have done exceptional things, and the parties aren’t above taking credit for what the people have done.

In reality, the only exceptional thing we have done was when 56 men assembled in Philadelphia in 1787 to create a government, which had probably been imagined but never before seen. Everything after that—the Civil War, the land grabs, racism, labor struggles, self-interest infighting and deceit has been more or less standard fare.

As human beings, Americans haven’t behaved much differently than the ancient Persians or Egyptians, the feudal societies of the Middle Ages, the Conquistadors of imperial Spain, or the European opportunists who divided Africa up in the late 19^th century. A basic flaw in humanity has defined our behavior from the earliest days of the Stone Age right through to the Space Age we now live in. Again, instances of exceptionalism such as what occurred in Philadelphia in 1887 have been rare.

This flaw in the human condition, which keeps both individuals and, by extension nations, not only in constant conflict, but prevents them from being truly exceptional, is the Us/Them factor, which after watching a lot of TV and being subjected to too many pharmaceutical ads,  I’ve reduced to one word, ThemVersUs because it is so basic to understanding humanity.

We (us) have always been suspicious, fearful, or threatened by them—anyone who isn’t us. This isn’t an American problem. Just as we are not exceptional, neither are we the only culprits in the world. Neither is ThemVersUs a political problem, which government can fix—no matter how many balloons and yard signs political parties buy, to convince us they are the solution.

The ThemVersUs problem, as basic as it is, manifests itself in many different ways, both between nations and within nations. Obvious in this country is racism, but it also surfaces in class struggle, labor relations, economics, health care, housing, education, and anything else where there are two positions creating us versus them situations—even mask wearing during a pandemic. Rural communities and large cities distrust each other, as do sparsely populated states and heavily populated states, and people owning guns thinking people without guns are going to take their guns away—by, I dunno, twisting their arms.

Taken to the extreme, Middle America fears the inhabitants of the two coasts are conspiring against them and vice-versa. Our forefathers couldn’t have foreseen this because Middle America back then were the coastal states of Maryland, Virginia and the Carolinas.

There’s an old Woody Guthrie where he takes on one job after another in order to convince his girlfriend what a hard worker he is, to the point where he just about wears himself out. If we truly want to lay claim to being exceptional, we don’t have to do a whole lot of things, but each individual acting in concert with other individuals will actually have to do something exceptional—something that historically has rarely been done. Namely, deal with the ThemVersUs by learning to get along with them, which ironically, will actually entail less effort than attacking them, and be easier on everyone in the long run.

As I’ve said, this is not a political issue so much as a humanity issue, but the divisions created do prevent the exceptional government designed by our forefathers from working, and even threatens to bring about its collapse as in 1861, and again more recently on January 6 when us/them went after them/us.

If Americans truly want to lay claim to the title of exceptionalism, we will have to do something truly extraordinary, learn to live with and not fear them who surround us, or we will suffer the same fate that has plagued every other society and cursed humanity from its earliest days—a never ending struggle that has no winners.

It won’t be easy. Being exceptional has never been easy, certainly not as easy as being predictable, which requires no special talent or effort. It wasn’t easy for those 56 men in Philadelphia, but despite their differences, they understood that ordinary people can do exceptional things, once they stop doing the senseless things they think they’re expected to do.

The conflict between us and them cannot be won in the courtrooms, or in Congress, or on the battlefield where the war has been waging continuously ever since Cain first determined Abel represented a threat and needed to be killed. It can only be won when we stop fearing them, and learn to live with them—or even better, when we learn that there is no us and them, but only us. 

How to Win a Propaganda War

We are in the midst of a propaganda war in this country where misinformation abounds and credibility is being put to the test. We are all combatants in this war and our brains are both the weapons we fight with and the targets we must defend from attack.

Common sense, back when it existed in meaningful quantities, gave us the simple axiom, “Garbage in, garbage out.” This suggests that good things in, will result in good outcomes.

Superior education, research and technique result in superior products. Putting a man on the moon began with an inspiring goal that was followed by gathering accurate data, understanding it, analyzing it and building on it. Many would call this the American way.

Conspiracy theories are called conspiracy theories because they are based on—well they are not based on anything. They are baseless. In the past, conspiracy theories existed only in the world of cranks. Intelligent people looked down on both the theories and the cranks, but fortunately, there were no enough of either to threaten the rest of us.

Today, we are living at a time where more and more people, especially people in powerful positions—men and women in the Senate and Congress, governors, state and local leaders are looking at nonsense and concluding that if it works for them, it’s okay. The biggest piece of nonsense being floated is that the recent election was corrupted by election officials, fixed to favor Democrats, and must be overturned. Mind you, they don’t necessarily believe the nonsense. In many cases, they don’t. They are simply evaluating nonsense in terms of how it works for them. They are even willing to look like cranks themselves, if there is something to be gained for them personally.

These leaders are playing into the hands of people who would like to see our government fall because if government falls, democracy falls. Thus far, too many Republicans have refused to stand up to these conspiracist.

Our country has always been able to deal with a small minority of cranks who were out of touch with reality. It cannot deal with a sizable number of leaders unwilling to stand up to them.

Republicans don’t have to do much. They have to simply admit, publicly and en masse that the last election was fair, that Trump lost, and that trying to overturn a free election is the most un-American thing any individual, especially a president can do.

They have to use their brains to fight, not surrender their brains to fear—especially the fear that Trump will somehow punish them for doing the right thing.

Again, our brains are the only weapon we have against ridiculous propaganda, and they are the only things we must protect when they are being attacked. Propaganda is the enemy of democracy. Accepting and promoting propaganda is no different than working with the enemy in a hot or cold war. It is treasonous.

Herd Immunity, Herd Mentality, Whatever

 

Leader of the Herd

 Trump has been all over the herd immunity   issue, for it, against it, understanding it, not   understanding it. He has behaved almost like   a herd of buffalo on the open range—all over   the place.

 Herd immunity in the face of a pandemic is a   good thing in the same sense that winning a   war is a good thing. It is not so much a time of joy as it is a moment of relief. A long nightmare—and that is what all wars are, even ones we win—is over. It is the point a nation arrives at only after a period of suffering, destruction and unnecessary loss of life.

There have been leaders in the past who were victorious because they were willing to sacrifice wave after wave of their own citizens against the enemy. Good leaders seek victories that come with minimal casualties. Winning at all costs is not a goal, only a last resort. Reaching herd immunity is gaining victory through attrition because all else has failed.

Yes, herd immunity in a pandemic is a good thing when a nation arrives at that point, but it comes at a high price. It’s a victory not attained through smarter, less destructive means, but rather by senseless inaction.  

Trump has been promising since day one that the coronavirus will go away—first in a few days, then by Easter, and most recently when we reach a state of herd immunity.

Actually, what he said was, "And you'll develop, you'll develop herd—like a herd mentality. It's going to be—it's going to be herd developed—and that's going to happen. That will all happen," Trump said.

I can’t imagine what Trump would say if Biden explained herd immunity this way.

Maybe it will happen, but there are things we can do, more pro-active measures that make more sense than waiting around for herd immunity.

Wearing a mask and social distancing might push the moment of herd immunity further into the future, but it would save lives until a possible vaccine provided a victimless herd immunity.

In my book, Trump Dismantles Washington, there is a chapter where I describe Trump as the laziest man in America. His need for slogans, nicknames, easy solutions to complicated problems point to Trump, at his core, being a very simple man too lazy to rise to any occasion. For him, an insult is always preferable to an idea.  

Waiting around for herd immunity, while at the same time ridiculing mask wearing and social distancing is probably the laziest thing a leader can do. It takes no courage, no strategy, and no particular skill. Someone who, when talking about the pandemic says, “It is what it is,” will also conclude herd immunity is our only way out. He’ll wave his hands around, as if he were holding a wand and say, “It will go away like magic.”

What do we say to a man so lazy, so ignorant, so out of touch?

We could say, “You’re fired.”

We tried that a month before coronavirus landed on our shores. In fact, we were told at the time that if we didn’t get rid of him, things would only get worse. That was way back in the good old days of January.

We couldn’t fire him then because the Republican Party was suffering from herd mentality and Trump was leading the herd.

Wear a mask, social distance, be safe. Don’t wait for 250-million Americans to become infected to take a victory lap.

 

Democracy is about building

No one believes for a minute that Trump understands how Constitutional Democracy works. This is evident in his questioning of elections and his obvious suggestions that he might not vacate the office should he lose the election, or worse that he might not allow the election to take place.

The constant hope is that if push comes to shove, Republicans will push back. Unfortunately, Republicans have been silent in the wake of so many Trump atrocities that one has to question their own understanding of Constitutional Democracy, including the role of Congress.

I’ve been reading John Bolton’s book, The Room Where It Happened. My takeaway so far has been there was enough ego in that room to embarrass and de-feather the most self-respecting peacock.

Just as the peaceful succession of the presidency is key to our democracy, so too is the idea that one administration builds on the work of the previous one, and in the process, the country will move forward—always toward a more perfect union.

Making things better is what good governments do.

A perfect example of this, coming in a crisis no less, was the efforts of Bush, Obama and McCain, along with Republicans and Democrats in the closing days of the 2008 election when the country was falling into a recession. That may have been the last time our nation worked as one.

On the night that Obama won that election, Republicans in Congress essentially declared, “We’re out of here. Anything you do, you’ll have to do without us. Furthermore, we’re going to make doing anything as difficult as possible.

So Obama moved ahead on his own—not because he was a dictator as Republicans claimed, but because they had relinquished their responsibility to do anything except obstruct. They claimed he was an illegitimate president, not quietly in back rooms but as loudly as they could, not because the election was rigged, but because they didn’t think he was a naturalized citizen.

First was the Affordable Health Care Act, which made health care available to millions of Americans.

Then came the Paris Accords, which enabled the world to speak with one voice against a global problem of climate change that will spare no one.

This was followed by the nuclear pact with Iran, signed by every industrial country in the world, but never approved by the Republican Congress.

DACA was an attempt to ease the pain of millions of young immigrants, who everyone agreed, at least publicly, deserved a break because they had done no wrong. Again Republicans passed.

President Obama was continually forced to go it alone, and then roundly condemned for going it alone.

The thing is, none of these actions resulted in perfect fixes. They were initial steps toward solving big problems. As our forefathers noted, we only strive for perfection, nothing more, and nothing less.

Republicans however, who tend to treat the founding fathers as if they founded the Republican Party, see things differently. More and more, they seem to strive for something less.

Trump, with the support of Republicans has killed one Obama initiative after another rather than try to build on them. Treaties, regulations, programs, even his strategy for dealing with a pandemic have been abandoned.

The only time they even pretended to make something better was their “repeal and replace” approach to Obamacare, which failed miserably because Republicans at their core, and Trump despite his boorish bragging, are not builders.

Democracy is dependent on builders if it is to succeed.

Anarchy—something Trump seems obsessed with—centers on destruction.

If there is one thing we can expect from anarchists, it’s that they will deny they are anarchist.

Four years of Trump and the last ten years of Republican control have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of what America stands for.

To think Republicans will protect us from a destructive Trump is foolish thinking. We have repeatedly seen that they are not up to the task. Why would they be? He is only walking along the path of destruction they have laid out.