I Was Actually …

Last night, I did something I almost never do now, to protect my sanity and psychological equilibrium:  I actually watched President Donald Trump speak.

Notwithstanding my recent forbearance, I, as you, have seen him speak many times.  Many times, I have been infuriated.  Many times, I have been terrified.  Many times, I have been both.

Last night was different.

As a political junkie, I have been watching Presidents speak for over 60 years.  Some have been soaring orators; others, not so much.  I have always rated Mr. Trump a compelling if offensive speaker.  Even so, his speech last night was, without doubt, the worst Presidential Address I have ever seen.  He was the quintessential crazy geezer spouting nonsense as everyone tries to edge away.  (I get it; at least you didn’t have to tell me; but I’m not president. 😉)  It was … awful.

His “I’m the best, Biden’s the worst, everything I’ve done is good, everything Biden and the radical left has done is bad, this is the greatest anyone has ever seen, this was the worst anyone has ever seen, nobody could believe how great I’ve done” schtick has, until now, been wildly annoying fabrication; this time, it seemed a pathetic careen between delusion and desperation.

I’m the only one either of us know who is enough of an idiot to admit that recently something I said has come back and resonated with me 😉, but it did.  In a post about a month ago speculating on Mr. Trump’s ultimate intentions for his Administration, I indicated, “His 2024 campaign was about avoiding jail, making money, and retribution.”  The significance of that observation, if true, didn’t strike me until later.  All his 2024 campaign may have been about for him was avoiding jail, making money, and retribution.  Winning was the thing – his goal would be accomplished the day he won — not governing.  While winning undoubtedly is the primary thing – and worrying secondarily about what they’re going to do if they win – is probably true for all major party presidential candidates, I would suggest that for Mr. Trump, winning was the only thing.  Granting that he has genuine feelings about a few policy issues – he hates immigrants of color, and loves tariffs, tax cuts, and low interest rates – inflation (now “affordability,” the new buzz word) – the key concern for the decisive segment of voters that put him over the top in 2024 — was just a talking point to him, and he neither knows nor cares what to do about it.  Anyone who takes a high school economics class will tell you that tariffs and lower interest rates spur inflation, not squash it, and if our experience through Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Mr. Trump has proven anything, it’s that cutting tax rates the way they did helps the rich a lot, while the relative pennies that trickle to those of lesser means haven’t come close to counteracting the crippling economic disparity we have seen rise among our people over the last 45 years.  When Mr. Trump won, those who voted for him for help on economic issues expected him to help them.  For him, when he won, he was done.  

An aside, regarding Mr. Trump’s announcement of a $1776 “Warrior Dividend” for, in the President’s words, “every soldier.”  In the short time before I turned the TV off, I saw one liberal pundit applaud the move.  On a substantive basis, I absolutely support the initiative.  (An aside within an aside, from anyone who has taken a sixth grade civics class:  “Doesn’t Congress have to approve this ‘Warrior Dividend?’  Answer:  Yes; but will any politician from either party running for reelection vote against it?  You take that one.)  That said, Mr. Trump does nothing that he doesn’t think will benefit him.  What I see is White House unease that given the wildly misguided, condescending session Mr. Trump and his moronic Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, recently had with our military’s top officers, and the Administration’s blowing up tiny boats in international waters that many military legal experts have called war crimes – potentially wantonly exposing soldiers who follow those and like orders to later prosecution – the military no longer trusts its the Commander-in-Chief and will not necessarily follow him down questionable paths.  He’s trying to buy back its loyalty. 

I expected to end last evening infuriated or terrified, perhaps both.  There were instead instances at which I laughed out loud at the patent buffoonery, the rapid-fire, scatter-shot, oblivious carnival barker delivery.  Not in any way discounting the fact that he remains the most powerful human on earth, or that he has and certainly will continue to try to subvert our democracy for his own gain, I was saddened for those financially stressed Americans who placed their faith in him.  For him, I was actually … embarrassed.

On the National Guardsmen Shooting and Its Aftermath

[Note:  “Guardsmen” is considered a gender-neutral term by the military, and will be so used here.]

With all of the recent controversy regarding the Trump Administration’s repeated striking of an allegedly drug-running boat in the South Caribbean Sea on September 2, the shootings of National Guardsmen U.S. Army Specialist Sarah Beckstrom, 20, and U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, in Washington, D.C. on the day before Thanksgiving have more or less dropped off the news feeds I see.  All are aware that Specialist Beckstrom has died.  As this is typed, Sgt. Wolfe is reportedly improving despite grievous wounds. 

I haven’t forgotten.  These shootings continue to resonate with me with a force that I now generally only feel as deeply – a sad reflection of the desensitization seeping into me in our violence-riven society — when hearing of school shootings.

But I’m not only heartbroken.  I’m livid.

Because it was so unnecessary.  Guardsmen Beckstrom and Wolfe didn’t have to be there.  They could have been home celebrating Thanksgiving with their families.

I consider two men responsible for their deaths:  Afghani Refugee Rahmanullah Lakanwal; and President Donald Trump.

Make no mistake:  Mr. Lakanwal – given the apparently indisputable evidence that he was the perpetrator — pulled the trigger.  It makes no difference that he may have saved American lives through his service in Afghanistan, or that he and some similarly-situated Afghanis may not have received as much federal assimilation assistance upon arrival here as might have been preferable, or that he fell prey to radicalization after arriving in this country, or noting any other explanation some rationalizer might attempt to dream up.  He killed Specialist Beckstrom.  He irrevocably altered Sgt. Wolfe’s life.  Assuming that he is found guilty of the shootings after a fair trial according him all the rights to which he is entitled under the United States Constitution, Mr. Lakanwal deserves whatever sentence he receives; if the death penalty is legally rendered, I won’t lose any sleep over it.

That said, I was surprised to see Administration officials so quickly embrace the phrase, “targeted shooting,” to describe Mr. Lakanwal’s act – not because it wasn’t accurate, but because it so clearly was – and as such, a damning indictment of Mr. Trump.  Under any reasonable assessment, National Guardsmen – tragically for them, in the persons of Ms. Beckstrom and Mr. Wolfe – were Mr. Lakanwal’s targets.  Given the President’s ballyhooed deployment of National Guard to our nation’s capital, media reports of the areas they patrolled, and some simple reconnaissance, any unbalanced individual with much less than Mr. Lakanwal’s military background could easily project when and where Guardsmen would be.  These two Guardsmen, walking at midday on a highly-traveled city street blocks from the White House with no indication of imminent danger, were no match for someone with Mr. Lakanwal’s training and experience. 

Mr. Lakanwal simply shot the targets set up for him by Donald Trump.       

Too harsh, you say?  Consider the untaken alternatives:  Mr. Lakanwal undoubtedly had hundreds of people in sight between the time he set out that day and the time he opened fire on the Guardsmen.  One might surmise that at some point before the incident he had one or more D.C. police officers within easy range, who would have been no more prepared for his sudden assault than the Guardsmen were.  He passed them all up to target members of the American military — who were only on that street because they were ordered to take part in what the Trump Administration has called “a crackdown on crime” – i.e., to participate in a quintessentially local law enforcement activity outside their traditional mission as part of an Administration public relations stunt which obviously has as its primary purposes the intimidation of its political opponents and scoring propaganda points with its gullible MAGA base.

So, what of this sacrifice of these two young people who had volunteered to serve their country?

Well, that’s Show Biz.

I would wager that in stationing Guardsmen in “Blue Cities” – largely against the wishes of local officials — Mr. Trump has been hoping for an incident in which cameras caught protestors behaving aggressively toward Guardsmen.  I do not believe that he wanted or intended as tragic a result as has occurred – any more than a tavern patron who has had too many drinks wants or intends any automobile accident deaths that s/he ultimately causes – but anyone with the sense God gave a goose could anticipate that what did happen, might happen.  In fact, on November 26th, the New York Times quoted a California National Guardsman indicating, “he and his commanders worried that [their assignment to patrol Los Angeles] ‘increased our risk of us shooting civilians or civilians taking shots at us.’”  In the same piece, the Times recorded that last August, Guard commanders involved in its Capital deployments issued communications “… warn[ng] that troops were in a ‘heightened threat environment’ … that ‘nefarious threat actors engaging in grievance based violence, and those inspired by foreign terrorist organizations’ might view the mission ‘as a target of opportunity’ … and that the mission ‘presents an opportunity for criminals, violent extremists, issue motivated groups and lone actors to advance their interests.’”  The inherent risk was blatantly obvious.  The President and his cohort just didn’t, and don’t, give a damn.

In the days after the incident, I saw reports indicating:

Item:  Trump Administration claimed that Mr. Lakanwal was never vetted by the Biden Administration before being allowed to enter the country.  This has now been debunked by so many sources – including sources that indicate that Mr. Lakanwal’s latest clearance came this spring, from the Trump Administration – that I don’t know if the Regime is still spouting this; of course, anything is possible from an organization that loudly continued to repeat a uniformly-debunked lie about Springfield, OH, Haitian immigrants eating cats and dogs.

Item:  The Trump Administration has halted the processing of immigration requests from anyone from Afghanistan.  It’s not unreasonable to assume that many of these applicants are seeking refuge after aiding our efforts against the Taliban.  I have seen reports that since returning to power, the Taliban has brutally persecuted those Afghanis suspected of assisting us.  The Trump Administration halt is a monstrous overreaction to the evil act of one radicalized Afghani, which could well have fatal consequences for thousands of our Afghani associates ultimately abandoned as an outcome of a wrongheaded withdrawal agreement negotiated by the first Trump Administration.     

Item:  The Trump administration vowed to conduct a sweeping re-examination of “every Green Card” held not only by all Afghanis already admitted to our country but also those held by nationals from almost a score of other Middle Eastern, African and South American countries which the Regime has subjected to a travel ban.  I know – I’m wasting my typing and your eyesight to point out that there is no logical link between a tragically-radicalized Afghani and thousands of other immigrants from across the world legally here under other programs.  Given the “Ready, Fire, Aim,” Nazi Sturmabteilung approach the Regime has taken to immigration enforcement, perhaps thousands of unquestionably innocent people will be caught up in this surge.  To state the obvious:  if it proceeds with such an examination, the Regime will simply have used this incident as a pretext for indulging its racial, religious, and political biases.

Item:  That the Trump Administration is looking into the possibility of deporting Mr. Lakanwal’s family.  (Any competent criminal investigation will certainly explore whether others were aware of or complicit in Mr. Lakanwal’s act.  If there is evidence of others’ culpability, either within or outside Mr. Lakanwal’s family, those whose guilt can be established should be criminally tried and appropriately sentenced, not deported.)  Absent sufficient evidence of culpability of specific members of Mr. Lakanwal’s family members, deporting the innocents as a consequence of this incident is every bit as conceptually constitutionally sound as, say … holding Mr. Trump’s wife and children liable for the $88 million he owes E. Jean Carroll for sexual assault and defamation.

These measures, if carried out, smack of fascism – demonizing “others” for political gain with literally no factual foundation.

Are we done?  Not quite yet.  Let’s consider a potentially even more dire consequence of the assault upon Guardsmen Beckstrom and Wolfe:  that patrolling Guardsmen begin to view those walking around them as potential enemies – an approach necessary in foreign war zones, but frighteningly fraught on American soil (while at the same time seemingly becoming understandable).  (If you were a Guardsman, wouldn’t this incident make you view those moving around you with greater suspicion?)  Recall that the Times piece cited above quoted a Guardsman observing that the deployments increased the “risk of us shooting civilians.”     

Let’s end this overly-long rant with the most idiotic irony:  Mr. Trump’s announcement that given the shooting, he intends to deploy an additional 500 National Guardsmen to D.C.  One just has to sit back, pause, and blink before continuing.  As noted above, the pretext for this Administration grandstand is a “crackdown” on what let’s call, for purposes of this note, “commonplace” crime in D.C.  If the shooting of Guardsmen Beckstrom and Wolfe was indeed a shooting targeted at U.S. military – a rare point of agreement between the Noise and the Regime – it wasn’t even the type of “crime” that the deployment was intended to address.  Not only that:  I have seen reports that prior to embarking on his mission, Mr. Lakanwal was living in Washington state, not D.C. – so he could not conceivably even have been among the D.C. criminal element that Mr. Trump was intending to confront through the deployment.  If Guardsmen hadn’t been in D.C., there certainly wouldn’t have been as many or arguably as vulnerable military targets in the city as Mr. Trump’s order provided to Mr. Lakanwal.  Because of the President’s order, Guardsmen Beckstrom and Wolfe were in place to be shot while taking part in maneuvers beyond the proper military purview by a malign operator who wasn’t covered by the Regime’s expressed mission.  So, explain to me the logic of adding 500 additional targets to an already target-rich environment for deranged individuals in our gun-obsessed environment because of a heinous incident that wasn’t within the mission’s scope committed by somebody who wasn’t from D.C.

On the day they were shot, Ms. Beckstrom and Mr. Wolfe’s ages averaged to 22 – which, in turn, is only half of the average age of our three children.  These two young victims enlisted to serve their country – something I never did.  They had their whole lives in front of them.  They deserved a Commander in Chief worthy of them.  Theirs, and perhaps the lives of thousands of innocent immigrants, have been irrevocably altered — in sacrifice to a propaganda stunt. 

There is an episode of The West Wing in which Martin Sheen’s fictional President Bartlet makes a wrong decision, and a number of U.S. service members are killed as a result.  The episode – among the most poignant in a series that all who read these notes know that I consider the best television program in history – ends with Mr. Sheen’s Bartlet standing on the tarmac at the military airport where the deceased service members’ bodies have been flown back to the states.  Mr. Sheen is a great actor, and even without seeing the episode one can imagine the agony he shows as Bartlet as the caskets, draped in flags, are solemnly marched, one by one, by pristinely-uniformed, white-gloved honor guards, from the aircraft to where the President stands, with a brief pause in front of him, and then moved to a waiting inner chamber.

Mr. Trump is a father.  I wonder:  Does he ever think about the damage and destruction he has done to so many lives and careers with his deranged, malicious, shock-jock, made-for-TV machinations?  In what is probably the most awful suggestion I have ever made about Mr. Trump in all the years I have been posting in these pages:  He doesn’t.      

I pray that Specialist Beckstrom can rest in peace.

On Blowing Up Boats

What with Holiday preparations, general affairs (we’ve had A LOT of snow early in the winter in Madison), and working on another, still-unfinished post, I haven’t previously expounded – perhaps “ranted” would be a more apt description — on President Donald Trump’s Administration’s blowing up of allegedly drug-running boats in international waters.  What has caused me to take your time here is an observation that seems to me to be the most critical facet – and potentially the most supportive aspect for the preservation of our democracy – of the possible ramifications of the Regime’s launching of four strikes on a boat on September 2, 2025.  (I believe that it is undisputed that two occupants of the boat survived the first strike, but were killed in the second.  Two subsequent strikes – apparently to completely obliterate the vessel itself – followed.)  I feel it is appropriate to note that potentially supportive aspect here because it occurred to me before I saw any media commentator make it.

However, let’s first – as a client of mine used to say decades ago when reviewing the progress of an ongoing negotiation – review the bidding regarding these operations.

The Administration claims that its actions are justified because we are at “war” with “narco-terrorists.”  Note how skillfully Mr. Trump and his minions have moved the goal posts:  it seems that the majority of commentators feel obligated to start their commentaries regarding these actions with the proviso, “assuming we are at war.”  These talking heads might as well say, “Well, assuming Siamese cats are tigers …”  The Administration’s whole premise is absurd.  [The justification for the last two strikes on the boat on September 2 makes one blink:  “We had to make sure that the boat could no longer be used [as an instrument of war] against us.”  What?  Relative to our U.S. Naval strength, the boat was a canoe.  This is akin to calling a contest between the Los Angeles Dodgers and a West Madison Little League team, “a baseball game.”  We are not at war.   

Next.  The United States certainly has the right to use legitimate means to limit illicit drug smuggling into our country.  These Regime activities glaringly fail the legitimacy test.  First, as far as I know, no satisfactory evidence has been given that any specific struck boat was actually carrying drugs.  One of the primary premises of this nation is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.  Where did that go?  U.S. KY Sen. Rand Paul has noted statistics indicating that over the years our U.S. Coast Guard interceptions of suspected trafficking vessels have failed to discover drugs 25% of the time – from which one could infer that perhaps 20 of the 80 killed in these strikes have been innocent.  [I heard one pundit suggest a particularly sad nuance:  that cartels may be requiring otherwise law-abiding individuals to undertake drug runs upon threat that their loved ones will otherwise be tortured or killed.  (Such a scenario seems increasingly credible given the cartels’ now-understandable concern about the risk that the Regime’s actions pose to their personnel.)  Although these coerced individuals would, if apprehended, be guilty of drug smuggling, under such pressure either you or I would undertake these missions.]  Second, subject to your correction, I do not believe that drug trafficking offenses are generally characterized as capital crimes under U.S. law.  Mr. Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth are bullies who clearly just enjoy beating up on the weak and pandering their manhood to the gullible MAGA base.  Whether those operating these struck boats have been guilty or innocent, with every strike the Regime is arguably in violation of international law.

Let’s step back a minute.  I can’t resist.

As all who care are aware, in November six Congressional Democrats with military or national security backgrounds released a video in which they advised our current members of the military that they had the right to disobey “unlawful orders.”  Mr. Trump quickly fired back with posts on his social network proclaiming that the members’ behavior was “seditious behavior, punishable by death,” indicated that these members should be arrested and tried, and forwarded a post asserting that the members should be hanged.  Aside from the fact that Mr. Trump’s accusations were wholly baseless, the depth of irony of such declarations, coming from a man who lied about losing an election and incited a seditious attack on our nation’s Capitol, is literally nauseating.

As this is typed, Messrs. Trump and Hegseth are in the process of shifting all of the responsibility for the second strike on the boat in the September 2 incident — the strike that killed the two individuals who survived the first strike – to Adm. Frank Bradley (who is currently reported to have ordered the second strike after Mr. Hegseth, apparently undisputedly, had given the order to “Kill Them All” before the first strike) – while disingenuously appearing to support the Admiral’s action.  Such is obviously a despicable abdication of responsibility.  Former President Harry Truman – who coined our most pithy, well-known description of presidential responsibility, “The Buck Stops Here” – must be rolling over in his grave.  (Of course, Mr. Truman, a man of rectitude, has probably already figuratively drilled at least halfway to China beneath his gravestone throughout the Trump presidencies; this latest outrage has probably just made him spin a little faster.)

I haven’t done any research on Adm. Bradley; I have no idea whether he was by nature a willing participant in this operation or merely acting as a reluctantly-obedient subordinate when he ordered the second strike (if he indeed did).  If there is any substance to the opinions being voiced by military legal experts seemingly across the political media spectrum – and even accepting the baseless premise that we are at war with drug cartels (see; even I’m doing it 😉) – there may well be grounds warranting the Admiral’s placement under court martial for a war crime (as well as the personnel who actually executed the strike).  A vital reminder:  all the evidence is almost certainly not yet in, and the Admiral is scheduled to meet with members of Congress today in confidential sessions.  That said, if he and his involved subordinates do suffer severe consequences for the actions they took on September 2 – while at the same time the Trump Administration seeks to exonerate Mr. Hegseth and distance Mr. Trump from the incident – I would submit that the incident potentially provides a silver – nay, gold – lining for the preservation of our democracy:  by their unscrupulous, gutless behavior, Messrs. Trump and Hegseth will have alienated the entire American military.

If in the future Mr. Trump or Mr. Hegseth orders military personnel to move against peaceful American protestors – recall that Mark Esper, the last Secretary of Defense in the first Trump Administration, related in his memoir, A Sacred Oath, that when demonstrators protested in Washington, D.C., after the murder of George Floyd, Mr. Trump asked authorities, “Can’t you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something?” — do you think they’ll obey the order?  Would you?

The most instructive aspect of this incident will be how Mr. Trump reacts.  It was clear from the day Mr. Trump nominated Mr. Hegseth that he was an atrociously stupid choice as Secretary of Defense.  However, when challenged, the President ALWAYS doubles down, considers admission of mistake an indication of weakness, pushes through – and with his core supporters, it has worked for the last decade.  I wonder how such an approach will work with the military, which has maintained a fiercely nonpartisan tradition – while being acutely aware of its own position and prerogatives –throughout this country’s existence.  I was never in the military, so anything I venture is obviously the broadest speculation; but one can question how much support Mr. Trump will retain with the military if he reflexively clings to and protects Mr. Hegseth.

You can’t be a dictator without controlling your citizenry.  You can’t control your citizenry without a military that obeys you.

I am well aware that my notes of optimism in recent posts are no more than slivers of reassurance in an era of tragedy.  Still, they’re better than nothing.

Stay well – and for those in the north, stay warm.   😊

On American Kindness: Redux

[While there is currently so much in our national and global situation to concern us, it seems fitting at this Holiday to republish a note I posted some years ago about the help TLOML and I received on a dangerously cold night in Milwaukee — from an elderly African American gentleman who was, demographically, probably a traditional Democrat and from young Caucasian auto mechanics, at least one of whom, demographically, probably voted for President Donald Trump – as a reminder that most of our people have good in them.  May you and your loved ones have a warm and healthy Thanksgiving.]

Over the weekend, we were in Milwaukee for a family gathering, and our fairly new Prius was struck, opening a gash on the left rear side that we were pretty sure when we discovered it was at an angle such that wind shear would cause some of the rear fender to rip off if we tried to drive back to Madison without having it attended to.  (No note was left.)  From an engine standpoint, the car was completely drivable.  We were able to make an appointment at a nearby service center (more on the shop below), and at a few minutes past 5 on a Friday night, set off to drive about 4 miles in significant winds and bitter, bitter cold with the dark coming on.

We didn’t make it.  About half way to the shop, we heard a bang and realized that part of the fender had flipped back due to the wind.  We pulled over in the now almost-dark to retrieve what had come loose, cars moving around us, fairly concerned about what we were going to do.

A van slowly pulled up behind us and stopped.  Its motor kept running, its headlights stayed on, and its emergency flashers came on.  An African-American gentleman, in his mid-50’s – warm, friendly, reassuring — got out of the van, came up, and — with cars continuously going by us and in temperatures and wind cold enough to numb your bare hands in a couple of minutes — helped us put the pieces temporarily back in place, and with duct tape he provided, we got the fender patched sufficiently so we could finish the drive.  Then we exchanged names, we thanked him – I don’t think it was possible for us to thank him profusely enough – shook hands, and … he bid us good night, and went on his way.

Got to the service center.  The shop is for engine repair, not body work, but the rep and a couple of the technicians came over and when they heard that our goal was simply to make the car secure enough to get back to Madison, they said they thought they could attach a couple of fasteners that would hold the left rear together, and told us to go to dinner (we had family with us in another car) and come back in about an hour. 

When we got back, the car looked like it had a few stitches, and was clearly sturdy enough for us to get it home.  We asked what we owed; we heard:  One of the guys had some time.  No charge.  Glad we could help.

For those of us that tend to focus on the seemingly paralyzing political acrimony we have at home and the serious issues we face here and internationally, it’s good to recall:  There exists, as there always has, a good will, a kindness, a generosity of deed and spirit in America.

On the Passing of Vice President Richard Cheney

The funeral of former Vice President Dick Cheney is taking place today in the National Cathedral. 

Lawyers are loath to say, “Never” or “Always,” but if you would have asked me in early 2009 whether I would declare what follows here, I would have given you 99 – 1 against.

On the most important national challenge of Mr. Cheney’s life, he got it right.

May he Rest in Peace.

Will He Be a Dictator or Music Man?

“That [i.e., President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Great Gatsby-themed party on Halloween as food assistance benefits were cut off for millions, including millions of children] once and for all shows that Donald Trump doesn’t give a f—k about even looking like he gives a f—k.  He doesn’t give a f—k – at all.”

  • Jon Stewart; Comedy Central’s The Daily Show with Jon Stewart; Emphasis provided by Mr. Stewart’s tone.

You and I know:  I will never achieve that level of insight or eloquence.   

After over a year of consistently pessimistic notes, let me put forward at least a ray of optimism – at least of a type – at the end of this note.

The chances that our democracy will survive exist in a two-word paradox:  Donald Trump.

While those of us who are sufficiently economically secure have been pondering the dangers that the MAGA movement presents to our republic, the vast majority of our fellow citizens continue to confront daily financial pressures.  The political ramifications arising from the challenges they face are perhaps best captured in the axiom famously expressed over thirty years ago by former President Bill Clinton’s legendary campaign advisor, James Carville:  It’s the Economy, Stupid.  For too long, I didn’t viscerally appreciate how the decisive segment of 2024 Trump voters, who had no autocratic sympathies or dominant prejudices while seemingly having an inkling of the danger that Mr. Trump presented to our democracy, could vote for him over “the price of eggs.”  Now, belatedly, I get it.  (I know – it frequently takes me a while to catch on.)  (At the same time, I have noted that the progressive media that was stressing the overall strength of the American economy while President Joe Biden was in office is now focused exclusively on the economic plight of the American majority. 😉)

The painful irony for the current MAGA Administration – of which its cohort is undoubtedly privately well aware — is that the economy is, practically speaking, in exactly the same place as it was during the last half of the Biden Administration:  Inflation about 3%; the most-advantaged 20% of Americans ever richer; the other 80% of Americans ever poorer; a “real” unemployment rate that I’ve seen one economist place closer to 25% (due to millions receiving inadequate compensation for less-than-full-time work) than to the federal-government-reported 4% (the latter figure derived from decades-old, arguably no-longer-relevant methodologies); and generally rising stock market indices, driven by a few stocks whose core – the advance of Artificial Intelligence – seems poised to deprive as wide a swath of Americans of jobs as did manufacturing outsourcing during the last half-century.  During its first ten months in office, the Trump Administration has done nothing to improve the American majority’s economic struggles.  Since it is still relatively early in the term, I would guess that if the Administration had thus far positioned itself differently, a significant segment of our citizens would have been willing to provide Mr. Trump a longer runway on affordability issues, but as Mr. Stewart has noted, the President hasn’t even tried to look like he’s doing anything about the majority’s financial difficulties.

From a purely political handicapping perspective, I have frankly been shocked by the scope and breadth of Mr. Trump’s political blunders during his second term (here let’s put aside the more important perspectives, such as humanity, morality, and the rule of law).  While his ICE agents’ Nazi Sturmabteilung-like activities, his stationing National Guard and active duty military in American cities whose local officials didn’t want them, his aggressive tariff policies, and his blowing up small boats in international waters without due process might sit equably with his most ardent and ill-informed supporters, they have clearly offended a larger swath of Americans; and it certainly appears that he has touched nerves across the political spectrum by literally ripping down part of the White House to build what wags are aptly calling a “Marie Antoinette” ballroom, staging a Great Gatsby party as his Administration was denying food assistance to millions of children and adults (including Trump supporters); ramrodding through the law extending tax breaks for the wealthy while cutting health care assistance to millions (including Trump supporters); and aiding a right-wing Argentinian government to the detriment of overwhelmingly Trump-supporting western cattle ranchers.  These are the kinds of oblivious botches that a first-time Town Council candidate would know enough to avoid. The President’s missteps have been particularly stunning given his heretofore impeccable political instincts.  It has seemed as if he wants to antagonize as many Americans as he can.

The resoundingly anti-Trump voting results occurring in early November – buttressed by many Trump Latino voters’ evident recognition and repudiation of the Regime’s fascist designs – indicate that the majority of Americans are deeply distressed by one or more Trump actions.  I recall a report on Americans’ political preferences from not so long ago that our citizens now currently divide themselves into thirds:  about 33% Democrat, 33% Republican, and 34% Independent.  There has been a widely reported recent poll that placed Mr. Trump’s approval rating around 37%.  If those respective reports are reasonably accurate, even I can do the math:  as of right now – a key qualifier — Mr. Trump has lost the support of roughly 90% of independents.  I will venture further:  as election analysts decided in retrospect that they underestimated Mr. Trump’s popularity in 2016 because many poll respondents were embarrassed to admit that they were going to vote for him, I sense that a percentage of those respondents who today tell pollsters that they approve of Mr. Trump’s presidency are unwilling to admit publicly that their support is wavering.  The President is arguably teetering on becoming a lame duck – at least under the patterns of traditional American democracy — less than a year into his term.  The issue is how Mr. Trump proceeds from here – both tactically and substantively.

This is where the paradoxes begin.  If Mr. Trump still cares what his supporters (if not the majority of Americans) think, he may want to do something to satisfy them – and given his past political track record, one cannot count him out — but I would submit that it is not within his compass to actually help them.  All along, his rank-and-file MAGA supporters have believed that because Mr. Trump hates the same people and movements they hate, that he cares about them.  He doesn’t.  This may — finally – be starting to dawn on them. 

The Administration is accordingly attempting to run plays from the old play book – falsehood, distraction, and denial. 

“It was a con job.  It was a con job – affordability they call it – was a con job by the Democrats. … The reason I don’t wat to talk about affordability is because everybody knows that it’s far less expensive under Trump than it was under Sleepy Joe Biden.  And the prices are way down.”

  • Mr. Trump; November 7, 2025

They’re not.

I understand that Vice President J.D. Vance has recently blamed rising real estate prices on illegal immigrants, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has blamed rising beef prices on mass migration.  Mr. Trump has ordered his Justice Department to investigate Mr. Clinton’s ties to Child Sex Trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

I don’t think it’s going to fly.  When you’re in charge, and your supporters are still struggling, trying to satisfy them by inciting old prejudices will only work on the most gullible.  Mr. Clinton has been out of office 25 years, and I seriously doubt that the vast majority of Americans care what any DOJ investigation uncovers about him.  They will certainly not be deterred by any revelations regarding Mr. Clinton from thoroughly exploring Mr. Epstein’s ties to Mr. Trump, who’s still here.

In a couple of posts over the last year, I have noted TLOML’s observation, based upon her years providing therapy to seniors, that one’s core characteristics do not soften with age, but instead become more evident while one’s capacity to temper regrettable tendencies diminishes.  This will be even more pronounced in Mr. Trump, who has arguably never attempted to temper his distasteful characteristics.  Throughout his life, he has been obsessed with appearance, prestige, and riches.  He’s going to be 80.  He’s reverting to his unvarnished core – the gilded Oval Office, his love as a builder of ostentatious renovation (the ballroom, posting pictures of the gold fixtures in the Lincoln Bedroom), grand parties with himself as the guest of honor.  Our experience over the last 45 years seemingly indicates that he cannot improve the economic fortunes of struggling Americans without significantly altering the current American economic and tax structure favoring our well off.  He won’t.

If Mr. Trump’s apparent current unpopularity continues and/or increases, he will perhaps soon be left with one of two choices:  to become a Dictator, or a Music Man.  Either fits within his visceral profile.

The first option is obvious, and has been described here in numbing detail in past posts:  The President clearly believes that everyone who opposes him, no matter how loyal in the past, is his enemy; he declared at the memorial service of MAGA Activist Charlie Kirk that he hates his opponents; he strikes back at, and seeks to destroy, his enemies.  Under this scenario, Mr. Trump will seek to install a de facto autocracy by fabricating an emergency and usurping greater power to himself than he already has, manipulate election laws and procedures, put more military on the streets of “Blue Cities,” intimidate opponents, limit his adversaries’ access to the ballot box in the upcoming midterm elections, perhaps invoke Martial Law and/or suspend elections.

My response to anyone who considers this option unthinkable:  You’ve been asleep for the last decade.

On the other hand, there is a rosier scenario, which I would submit is also in keeping with Mr. Trump’s psyche:  that in the last analysis, he was simply the Music Man.

All will well recall Professor Harold Hill, made immortal by the late Robert Preston (and if you don’t, your time will be better spent watching the film, The Music Man, than reading this note 😊), who enters River City, Iowa (of course, “Eye-oh-way”) and persuades its worthy citizens that its pool hall will lead its youth astray – that the pool hall means Trouble — right there in River City – Trouble with a capital “T” and that rhymes with “P” and that stands for “Pool.”  Prof. Hill persuades the River City residents to pay for instruments and uniforms to start a youth band, which will keep them on the straight and narrow.  He declares that the youth will learn to play their instruments through his revolutionary “Think Method.”  His plan – without giving away the plot for the one person continuing to read this who doesn’t know the story – is to leave town on the last train after he collects the money for the uniforms and instruments before the River City citizens realize … that the kids can’t play.

Mr. Stewart’s observation brought me back to what I believed about Mr. Trump back in 2015 and early 2016:  that he launched his presidential campaign as a branding exercise; that his campaign was a con all along; that he neither expected nor wanted to win.  His 2020 campaign was about fragile ego; he mustn’t lose.  His 2024 campaign was about avoiding jail, making money, and retribution.  Maybe he doesn’t want to be a dictator.  Under this interpretation, although Mr. Trump shares the sentiments of true MAGA believers like Stephen Bannon, he doesn’t care about policy, or about the tens of millions he has scammed into believing in him, or about the Republican officeholders and officials whose party he has hijacked and careers he has ruined, or about what happens when he’s departed to his rabid disciples such as White House Deputy Chief of Staff (and de facto Anti-Brown-Immigration Czar) Stephen Miller, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, or to the truly hapless lickspittles he’s kept around for amusement such as Mr. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.  His Supreme Court has rendered him almost immune from any action he takes while in office.  His first two impeachment proceedings have proven that there will never be 67 Senate votes to remove him from office no matter what he does.  When he takes Marine One out of Washington, D.C. in January, 2029, he’ll have Secret Service protection and health care for the rest of his life, a taxpayer-funded bunkerlike Mar-a Lago to live in, friends from Saudi Arabia to Moscow, and the riches he has always claimed but didn’t have.

Not a bad result for a branding exercise.

This is my Rosy Scenario, you say?  Really?

I do.  I am terribly concerned about what Mr. Trump and his cohort have already wrought for the generations of our children and grandchildren – irretrievable loss to American global standing and influence, a majority of our people remaining terribly economically challenged, a worsening environment, the AI challenge, lost intellectual capital, a spiraling deficit, the enhanced danger to democracies across the world, etc., etc., etc.  Even if Mr. Trump doesn’t attempt to install an autocracy, another three years of his generally retrogressive policies will place our future in even greater peril than it already is.  That said, if we emerge from this nightmare with our democracy intact, perhaps with the most strident segments of our citizenry on both ends of the political spectrum a bit chastened, focusing on issues of equality and economic prosperity for our citizens, we’ll still be the United States of America, and we’ll still have a better chance of righting ourselves than any nation in the history of the world.  We can always scrape the garish gilt off the walls of the Oval Office.

I concede that you may well have concluded that I have succumbed to Prof. Hill’s Think Method 😉.  Even if so, the notion that Mr. Trump might simply take the money and run provides me with some solace.  In any event, perhaps this note’s reference to a classic American film has brought you a smile – and made you register a mental note to enjoy it again in the near future.  😊

The Canary in New Jersey

As all who care are aware, there are three elections of national interest occurring tomorrow:  the mayoralty race in New York City and the gubernatorial contests taking place in the states of Virginia and New Jersey.

Unless pollsters are wildly inaccurate – manifestly not an uncommon occurrence – the outcomes of two of these races are foregone conclusions:  NY State Rep. Zohran Mamdani, a self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist, will become New York mayor and former U.S. VA Rep. Abigail Spanberger will become Governor of Virginia.  From a purely political handicapping perspective, liberal New York is obviously becoming ever more so in the Trump Era, giving Mr. Mamdani his opportunity, and although Ms. Spanberger is an impressive public servant, either you or I could win the state’s governorship as the Democratic nominee given the Trump Administration’s layoff of so many Virginia-based federal workers.

I would submit that the key race is in New Jersey.  That said, I don’t consider the election’s outcome its most important factor from a national perspective, although MAGAs will trumpet any upset victory by Republican MAGA Trump-Sound-Alike Jack Ciattarelli, who is trailing his Democratic opponent, U.S. NJ Rep. Mikie Sherrill, in most polls.  (I’ve heard liberal-leaning pundits opine that Ms. Sherrill hasn’t run a very effective campaign.)

It’s about the Latino vote.  I’m going to be at least as interested in the relative percentage of NJ Latino citizens that vote, compared to Latino turnouts in recent NJ statewide elections, as in how they vote. 

I have mentioned in previous posts that I engage in a volunteer activity that involves mostly immigrants at a facility in Madison, WI.  Over the years that I have been involved, about half of the participants have been from Latin America.  Since the early months of the Trump Administration, attendance has been WAY, WAY down.  It is easy to see why; the activity I volunteer for isn’t life-sustaining, like a food bank.  Although no immigrant participant has said so – they have just stopped showing up – it’s hard not to conclude that given the indiscriminate Trump Administration ICE activity, many have decided that no matter how legal their status, it’s simply not worth the risk of being swept up in an ICE raid to engage in a nonessential exercise.  I can’t say that I blame them.  Based upon my anecdotal understanding, many Latino citizens fear being swept up in an ICE raid.

For each citizen, voting is obviously a nonessential exercise.

By this time, one might suppose that a significant segment of Latino Trump voters who believed the President’s claims that he would only deport illegal immigrants if they were guilty of additional crimes have realized that they were had – that the entire Latino community is under attack simply for its hue and its accent.  (If they don’t get it by now, they are seemingly beyond persuasion.)  If Latino voter participation is significantly depressed in the New Jersey gubernatorial race – almost without regard to how Mr. Ciattarelli fares amongst the Latinos who do vote – Democrats nationwide had better recognize that the depressed turnout is the canary in the coalmine for the 2026 and 2028 elections (the 2026 midterms are exactly one year from today), and develop strategies to both encourage Latino citizens to turn out in the next federal elections and – equally important – to combat the overwhelming likelihood that ICE will establish a presence in the vicinity of heavily Latino polling places, purportedly to catch “illegals” seeking to commit voter fraud, but in reality to intimidate Latino citizens from casting ballots.

We’ll see what happens.

A Visit to Mr. Rodgers’ Neighborhood

Let’s take a short break from our struggle to maintain the American way of life and consider a subject thoroughly irrelevant:  the fortunes of the Green Bay Packers.

A glance at the NFL NFC Conference standings at the time this is typed shows that if the playoffs were to begin this weekend – a silly notion, but stick with me – Green Bay would hold the top seed in the NFC.  Having seen the Green and Gold play a few times – not all of their games, mind you, but most – one thought immediately comes to mind:  that if the playoffs did start this weekend, Green Bay would be the team that all the other playoff teams would most want to play.  To say that the Packers have seemed less than a juggernaut thus far … well … sums it up.

I did watch (on tape delay, of course) Green Bay’s recent victory over the Arizona Cardinals.  Looking at the Cardinals’ record and not being aware of their back story, one might assume that the narrowness of Green Bay’s victory underscores my case.  Here, I would differ.  Arizona has apparently had a bunch of close and tough losses, and the Cardinals played hard.  They’re a significantly better team than their record, and the Packers can be proud of their victory.  Arizona backup quarterback Jacoby Brissett had a truly impressive performance, but watching the game made me feel in one respect that it was déjà vu … all over again.

I have lamented more than once in these pages over the years that the Brett Favre Packers should have won more Super Bowls than the one they claimed, but they had a weak link that for years the Dallas Cowboys exploited:  in the 1992 NFL Draft, then-Green Bay General Manager Ron Wolf drafted Cornerback Terrell Buckley out of Florida State University rather that Cornerback Troy Vincent out of the University of Wisconsin, and while Mr. Vincent went on to have a distinguished career, Mr. Buckley didn’t experience the success that the Packers had hoped for.  In crunch time in big games between the Cowboys and the Packers, then-Cowboy quarterback Troy Aikman would seemingly simply pass to whichever of his talented wide receivers Mr. Buckley was trying to cover.  The results were predictable.  The Green and Gold didn’t finally win a championship, despite having Mr. Favre, Reggie White, and a host of other talented players, until they drafted Craig Newsome, who took Mr. Buckley’s place.

And again:  in 2010, although the season ended in the only Green Bay Championship in the Aaron Rodgers years, at midseason the team was going virtually nowhere; a primary reason was that a truly remarkable cornerback and classy guy – Charles Woodson – had reached the point that he no longer had elite corner cover skills.  He was regularly being beaten.  Out of desperation, the team moved him into the slot – where, with his football smarts, he proceeded to wreak havoc on opposing offenses – and threw the completely unheralded Sam Shields, who had been a wide receiver in college, into the corner spot.  Mr. Shields unexpectedly proved to have truly elite cover corner skills.  With their Aaron Rodgers offense and a Woodson-in-the-slot, Clay Mathews-led defense, Green Bay morphed from a marginal playoff contender into a World Champion.

Since I spend little time on Green Bay during the offseason even when we’re not struggling to save American democracy, I wasn’t sorry when I heard some time after the fact that the team had parted ways with its celebrated cornerback, Jaire Alexander.  When healthy, Mr. Alexander is a premier corner, but he wasn’t healthy often enough.  That said, Linebacker Micah Parsons’ entrance – Mr. Parsons has been truly impressive — and Mr. Alexander’s departure has flipped the script for the Packers’ defense; last year, the secondary was the team’s defensive strength, its pass rush its liability; this year, Mr. Parsons has galvanized the Packers’ “front seven” while the secondary has been less impressive.  Against the Cardinals, Mr. Brissett went after Cornerback Nate Hobbs, whom the team signed to replace Mr. Alexander, with impunity.  Perhaps he was just having a bad day – it happens, and I haven’t seen all of the Packers’ games – but Mr. Hobbs looked a lot more like Mr. Buckley than he did like Mr. Alexander.

All that said, let’s move on to Green Bay’s upcoming visit to Pittsburgh for its Sunday night matchup against the Pittsburgh Steelers.  (Packer fans – y’all know where I’m goin’ with this😉.)  While any game against the Steelers, given the team’s outstanding pedigree, is a formidable challenge, this one will be … different.  We know now-Steeler Quarterback Mr. Rodgers.  He’s a fr… well, we know him 😊.  Although he left Green Bay under seemingly-less acrimonious conditions than did Mr. Favre before him, and has said that he holds no animosity toward Green Bay, that this Sunday’s game will not be “a revenge game” for him, we know that he gets up for particular challenges, and that he will be ready to go on Sunday evening.  He’s now two years into the rehab of his Achilles injury.  I haven’t seen him play a down this year, but don’t have to.  I’m guessing that between his injury and his age, he’s not as mobile as when he was the most accurate passer on the run in NFL history, but I’ll venture that he can still move around under pressure when he has to.  There is no savvier quarterback in the NFL.  No matter what Mr. Rodgers says, I am confident that he well recalls that in his first matchup against Mr. Favre after Mr. Favre left Green Bay, Mr. Favre won

I fear that Mr. Hobbs might as well take off his normal Packer jersey and wear one with a big, red X on it.  Given Mr. Parsons’ and the rest of the Packers’ pass rush, the Steelers will have to keep back additional pass protection, but that ball is going to come out quick (speaking fan-speak, rather than grammatically 😉 ) or be thrown away.  You know it.  I know it.  I am confident that the Packer Defensive Braintrust and Mr. Hobbs know it.

Because of Mr. Rodgers, I will venture that this Sunday’s game, although the Steelers are in the AFC, will be as big a test for Mr. Love and the Packers as any they face this season.  If there is any good to be gleaned from Green Bay’s performances against the Cleveland Browns and the Dallas Cowboys, it’s that the team must realize that it can’t afford to be overconfident.  I’m not sure I accept the slim odds currently favoring the Pack.

We’ll see what happens.  This one will be fun.  If the Packers win, maybe they have something.  If they don’t, I’m guessing that despite their current record, they probably don’t.  (Since the game is in the evening, I’ll watch it live, perhaps even past my Medicare-aged bed time 😊 ).

Enjoy the weekend.

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

I know; a hardly original post title.  Also, that you’ve heard plenty from me lately.  Even so, a short one I can’t resist.

Earlier today, I saw a picture of the destruction of part of the outside edifice of the White House, apparently part of President Donald Trump’s plan to alter the structure.  I had been vaguely aware that Mr. Trump had announced White House remodeling plans, but have been so focused on his authoritarian actions that although the notion of his refashioning the structure rankled – in the same manner in which I’m offended that he’s turned the Oval Office into a gold-trinketed stage – it hadn’t really registered with me.  (As to the Oval Office, every new president decorates it a bit differently; I had expected Mr. Trump’s successor – if there was one – to simply get rid of the inappropriate, garish gold).

A picture of the President’s ripping at the outside of the White House – literally, destroying part of the structure – was viscerally jarring to me.  I would submit that it will be instinctively repulsive to a wide swath of Americans, even striking a chord with part of the MAGA base.

If Democrats don’t start running ads displaying pictures of the destruction of the White House edifice with captions such as, “Look at What He’s Doing,” using those as the symbol of authoritarian takeover now being undertaken by Mr. Trump and his minions, they’re even more politically inept than I thought.