Author: mccoysnoise

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.

NO KINGS DAY:  Signs and Omens

We attended the NO KINGS Capitol rally in downtown Madison, WI, this past Saturday.  It was a large, enthusiastic crowd; media estimates place its participants at around 15,000.  With attendant rallies across outlying Madison areas – a close friend at a rally in nearby Stoughton, WI (population 13,000), estimated the crowd there at 500 – the total turnout in our environs probably approximated 20,000.  Probably not enough in our Congressional district to shake the White House, but we’ll get back to that.

There were almost as many clever signs as there were marchers.  A favorite:  a picture of President Donald Trump on a placard bearing the inscription, “Does this ass make my sign look big?”  Another sign with a complementary theme, more poignant:  a picture of Mr. Trump on a placard bearing the inscription, “Does this ass make my country look small?”

There were a number of signs mocking MAGA’s fear and loathing of “Antifa.”  I’m aware that there is a debate as to whether there is or is not an actual “Antifa” organization – Mr. Trump says there is, and has sought to declare it a terrorist organization, while I understand that former FBI Director Christopher Wray has formerly characterized it as more an ideology than an organization – but I believe that the word, “Antifa,” itself, is simply shorthand for “anti-fascist.”  Although no one on any part of the political spectrum should ever resort to violence, or be part of any group that is willing to resort to violence, since the arguably most evil regime in the history of the modern world – responsible for the murder of millions, including millions of Jews – was proudly fascist, these signs seemed to be asking:  What is wrong with being anti-fascist?  Call me dense, but aren’t we still free because Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill led their nations in a world war against the fascist creed?  (Clearly, I’m not consuming enough alt-right media to understand the MAGA angst.)

On to the omens.  A sign I saw during the march that I considered particularly telling and potentially counterproductive (clearly unintended by the wielder):  “Too Many Issues; Not Enough Signs.”  If you’ve read many of these pages, you realize that in the context in which we’re speaking, I’m a one-issue guy:  preservation of our democracy.  I consider all other policy issues we face, no matter how important, subordinate to protecting our way of life.  We heard several speakers and chants yesterday whose point I – and I suspect other moderates — might under other circumstances question or seek to qualify.  I consider NO KINGS to be brilliant branding because it brings all of those who oppose the autocratic inclinations of the Trump Regime under one roof.  To save our way of life they must stay together.  They cannot allow themselves to be divided or distracted by “too many issues.”

Finally, an encouraging omen that I would consider dangerously ominous if I were a MAGA:  the reported 1,000 NO KINGS marchers reported to have demonstrated in Janesville, WI.  Janesville has about 66,000 residents, meaning that about a percent and a half of its people stopped what they were doing on a beautiful Wisconsin autumn Saturday to demonstrate.  I pick Janesville for two reasons:  TLOML and I know it – we lived there for three years when early married – and because it is former U.S. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan’s hometown and in the WI First Congressional District he represented in Congress.  There were reportedly other significant NO KINGS demonstrations in other Wisconsin First cities.  The Wisconsin First is now represented by Republican U.S. WI Rep. Brian Steil, also from Janesville.  Mr. Steil held his seat by 2 points in 2024.  There were also reportedly notable NO KINGS marches in the Wisconsin Third, currently represented by Republican U.S. WI Rep. Derrick Van Orden, who won his seat in 2024 by 3 points.  

Referring back to my observation above, I truly doubt that the Regime cares about the Madison NO KINGS turnout; if there were only 50 Democratic seats remaining in the U.S. House of Representatives, Madison’s would be one.  At the same time, I am confident that the Regime does care about holding the Wisconsin First and Third Districts in 2026.  I don’t know whether political voter science has yet evolved to the point that analysts can project a candidate’s or issue’s overall popularity – or unpopularity – based upon the numbers of citizens who turn out at a rally, but clearly for every demonstrator who turns out at a rally, there are “X” more who don’t turn out but agree with – and will vote in accord with — the demonstrator.  If I were Mr. Steil or Mr. Van Orden – or any other MAGA member of the House of Representatives across the country who won his/her office in 2024 by less than 5 points in a district where there were notable NO KINGS rallies last Saturday – I’d be feeling a wee bit insecure in my seat today.

On we march (figuratively as well as literally  😊).

The Race is On

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”

  • Chinese General and Philosopher Sun Tzu (544 BC – 496 BC); The Art of War

I think we can confidently assume that President Donald Trump has never heard of Sun Tzu, but I would venture that a number of his strategists have.

The race to preserve the American way of life is beginning in earnest.

I have mentioned a couple of times in these pages since Mr. Trump was reelected that I presumed that Mr. Trump and his adherents recognized that on their best day, they only had the support of half of the American public, and understood that they needed to employ the Nazi model of the 1930s to quickly consolidate their control of our country if they were going to be able to reshape it to their vision.  They have certainly done so.  An exhaustive list of their nondemocratic activities since taking office would probably consume more life space that either of us have remaining, so let’s limit ourselves to just a few:

Deploying National Guard troops on the streets of Los Angeles and Chicago over the objections of local authorities, seeking to deploy them in Portland, OR (again, over the objections of local authorities), and threatening New York and other cities whose citizens clearly oppose the Trump Regime.  (Add to that the Regime’s recent assemblage of all senior military officers, in which Mr. Trump’s vaguely referred to use of our active military in American cities.  This was arguably intended to intimidate reluctant officers; these men and women are understandably worried about their careers like everyone else.)   

Promiscuously employing ICE agents across the country.  The incidents of ICE agents’ overzealous and at times unwarranted actions are too numerous to mention.  I speculated in a post after Mr. Trump pardoned the January 6, 2021, insurrectionists that the pardoned Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers might provide the President his own private Sturmabteilung (the “SA”; Adolf Hitler’s Brownshirts, who terrorized Nazi opponents before he took power).  ICE is arguably edging toward being the Regime’s quasi-legal Sturmabteilung.  (ICE agents were recently walking the streets of Madison, WI.  Madison’s “illegal” Latino population cannot be significant by nationwide standards; however, since Madison is the heart of anti-Trump sentiment in swing state Wisconsin, the Administration was laying a predicate.)

Blowing up small boats in international waters.  There has been, of course, no evidence presented that any of these boats were carrying illegal drugs headed for the United States.  The notion that we are fighting a “war” which justifies American use of deadly force without adjudication is absurd. This is rogue nation murder.

The Administration’s recently-commenced prosecutions of former FBI Director James Comey and New York State Attorney General Letitia James by some pretty former lackey lawyer of Mr. Trump’s for alleged crimes that career federal prosecutors were unwilling to pursue.  The Regime isn’t trying to hide its attempt to seek retribution against its enemies; it is reveling in it.  That is the point.

We don’t need to go back over the inaction of gutless Congressional Republicans, the complicity of the Administration’s Supreme Court, the Regime’s attempt to intimidate powerful universities that oppose it, and MAGA-controlled state legislatures’ current mid-cycle redistricting efforts to stave off the Administration’s otherwise historically seemingly almost certain loss of control of the U.S. House of Representatives in January, 2026.

Given Mr. Trump’s obvious dictatorial inclinations, all of these could be predicted.  What I have found yet more instructive is Mr. Trump’s approach to the government shutdown.

In a post a few weeks ago, I asserted that forcing a government shutdown was an ill-conceived strategy for Democrats in their battle for public opinion because “… the next time that Americans ultimately blame a government shutdown on the party in power … will be the first time.”  If reported polls are accurate, I have so far been wrong (I bet you find that shocking 😊); Democrats have been holding their own.  Having been wrong has obviously never deterred me from offering further opinions, so I will venture this:  Democrats have found such support among a wide swath of the Americans not only because their position against skyrocketing health care premiums has “broken through” to the public but because Mr. Trump’s marginal 2024 voters – the ones that put him over the top – have become uneasy with the Administration’s autocratic excesses, not what they expected (despite Mr. Trump’s clear campaign rhetoric; we always have to give him that) or wanted.

Mr. Trump is the savviest reader and manipulator of public opinion in our generation.  He can read the polls.  Account after account in the media has indicated that the increase in Affordable Care Act premiums and loss of Medicaid benefits projected to be wrought by his markedly unpopular “Big Beautiful Bill (the ‘BBB’)” will disproportionately adversely impact his voters.  At the same time, he is so much better at messaging than the Democrats that on any day, he could sweep in, tell his lickspittle Congressional Republicans to support the legislative measures Democrats want, and claim that he brokered the peace.  He clearly can’t give a damn about any increase to our federal deficit resulting from the Democrats’ measure; even his staunchest supporters would have to concede that he doesn’t care about debt.  And a year from now, his gullible supporters won’t recall that their access to affordable health care was preserved by the Democrats’ stand. 

So why doesn’t he deal?

I would submit that it is because his priority is consolidation of power, not policy or even popularity within his base.  I’ll venture that he sees this as a pivotal moment; if Democrats are perceived – not among hardcore MAGAs, but among independents – to have scored a victory, he will be weakened when he has not yet fully taken control of the American populace.  He is out to crush the opposition at this moment, when his autocratic measures are confronting increasing discontent in a citizenry that for 250 years has been accustomed to think and speak for itself.

All who read these notes are aware that we regularly tune in to MSNBC’s Morning Joe, and that my inclinations frequently align with the show’s host, former U.S. FL Rep. Joe Scarborough.  That said, I have recently been raising an eyebrow at Mr. Scarborough’s observations about the ultimate political ramifications of the Trump Regime’s increasingly autocratic measures; his comments have frequently been in the vein, “What goes around comes around; they should be worried about the next time, when Democrats take control of the White House and Congress.”  My attitude is different, formed from the approach that I took toward negotiating commercial arrangements for almost 40 years:  assume that the other guy (in a genderless sense, of course 😉) is at least as bright as you are, and knows at least as much as you do.  So if s/he’s acting in a way that seems contrary to his/her interest, what does s/he know that you’re not factoring in?

I would suggest that the answer is straightforward, certainly supported by Regime actions during its first nine months seemingly contrary to its own political popularity:  MAGAs don’t intend to let it “come around,” or that there will be “a next time.”  To suggest otherwise defies what is right before our eyes.  Too many have spent too much of the last decade underestimating Donald Trump and the MAGA movement.     

The next federal midterm elections will be held on November 3, 2026, obviously just a little over a year distant.  When Mr. Trump was reelected, I thought that the struggle for the American way of life might be put off until the 2028 presidential election; now I think the upcoming election is the key.

Remember Sun Tzu.  While all demonstrations against the Regime must be peaceful – to do otherwise plays into its hands – don’t be subdued.  Hopefully, you will have the opportunity to participate in a NO KINGS rally today.  Although we have seen any number of truly witty signs over the last nine months, I plan to carry the ultimate symbol of protest and freedom – an American flag. 

Disparate Impressions

First, something I should have added to the recent post relating to the passing of former Wall Street Journal Personal Financial Columnist Jonathan Clements:  although Vanguard founder John Bogle, legendary investor Warren Buffett, and Mr. Clements all believe/ed that the American stock market would rise and individuals would reap satisfactory returns over the long run by investing in no-load, low-cost index funds tracking the markets, Mr. Buffett has famously said that he has no idea what the stock market will do tomorrow, and Messrs. Bogle and Clements would have undoubtedly agreed.  Accordingly, any funds one requires for an impending purchase should be safely harbored until spent in a federally-insured cash account.  There – my Irish Catholic conscience is clear (at least on this score 😉).       

It appears that President Donald Trump is brokering an end to the Israeli-Hamas conflict.  Whether any settlement will last – at the time this is typed, the shooting reportedly continues, and Middle Easterners have been warring for as close to forever as you can get in this finite existence – Mr. Trump may be achieving what I consider the most important immediate priority relating to the conflict:  ending the brutal slaughter of Palestinians, particularly children.  Although Israel’s activities were obviously precipitated by the Hamas attack, its response has been savagely disproportionate.  This is no reflection on the Israeli people, but on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who should be in an international jail for life.  Although I am not the first to say this, I acknowledge that Mr. Trump’s intervention was pivotal.  The “only Nixon could go to China” analogy is grossly overused, but it is accurate here.  The leaders of the cooperating Arab nations trust him because he thinks like they do.  Although the objective terms of the announced pact overwhelmingly favor Israel, Mr. Netanyahu could have suspended his military operation in Gaza long ago had he wished to do so.  When Mr. Trump pressured Mr. Netanyahu, as he reportedly did, to cease his military assault, Mr. Netanyahu was undoubtedly mindful that Mr. Trump was the only American president since the founding of Israel who could if he chose cut off aid to Israel and get away with it politically.      

Putting aside the moral dimensions and looking at the assassination of MAGA Activist Charlie Kirk in cold political terms, it is arguable that the only things that the deranged young man who assassinated Mr. Kirk achieved through his heinous act was to drive all reference to Mr. Trump’s relationship with convicted Child Trafficker Jeffrey Epstein – the one area in which Mr. Trump had seemingly been vulnerable with his MAGA base – out of the media consciousness, and to provide Mr. Trump and his MAGA minions a pretext upon which to more aggressively harass and stifle the free speech of Mr. Trump’s critics.

With the return of the NFL season, I have been spending more time with sports media.  This may just now be registering with me, but growing up in a family plagued by addiction – albeit a different one — I am appalled at the emphasis placed on gambling in these telecasts.  I have noted repeated ads by FanDuel, by DraftKings, by BetMGM, am aware that there are many other online betting organizations, and hear plenty of betting talk among the commentators.  So let’s take a bunch of immature, unmoored, desperate, mostly impecunious, mostly male young Americans and constantly wave the temptation to bet in their faces, make it easy to bet, make it look easy to win, and see what happens.  I have not read the 2018 Supreme Court decision that enabled widespread online sports gambling and concede that this decision is not the most injurious to the American way of life that the Court has or will issue, but that doesn’t mean that easy-does-it online sports betting hasn’t and won’t lead to the ruination of quite a few (disproportionately young) lives.

I am disgusted with justifications frequently put forth to defend those Congressional Republicans who allegedly deplore Mr. Trump’s policies – and him – behind closed doors, but through their subservience enable Administration activities.  Those seeking to rationalize these Republicans’ behaviors note that these officeholders fear being “primaried” by other MAGAs professing greater fealty to Mr. Trump, and/or that they fear literal physical retribution against themselves or their families if they don’t adhere to the MAGA line.  I don’t buy it.  These Republicans — if such do exist — are in the Congress of the United States.  Nobody made them run for Congress.  Under the Constitution, they each get a vote as to whether the United States should declare war on another nation – and if they so vote, thousands of military families, whether or not they agree with the declaration, will find loved ones in harm’s way.  So these gutless Republicans fear losing a seat in Congress?  As to the fear of physical retribution, they should, given the responsibility they have voluntarily chosen, be placing their own physical safety below that which they consider good for the nation and their constituents.  While all can sympathize with a member’s concern for the wellbeing of his/her family, my reaction here is:  send your family to live where they cannot be easily located by MAGA zealots while you finish out your term, announce that you are stepping down at the end of your term, and then do what you believe is right during the remainder of your term.  If you can’t do that, take the simpler approach, and resign right now.  Grow a … er … spine.  You’re not in high school, the frat, or the sorority any more.

Enough impressions for one note.  Nationwide NO KINGS rallies are scheduled for Saturday, October 18.  Judging by the national website, there will be one near you, no matter where you are.  If you plan to participate, anticipate that ICE or other Administration agents will establish a presence.  STAY PEACEFUL.  NEITHER PROVOKE, NOR BE PROVOKED.  In the meantime, enjoy the fall weekend upon us.

On the Passing of Jonathan Clements

I suspect that all who read these notes have been approached at some time or other – and likely multiple times – by persons or organizations wishing to serve as their financial advisors.  I have invariably responded to these inquires over the years with the reply, “I already have the two best financial advisors one could ask for – John Bogle and Warren Buffett.”

We’ll get to how Mr. Buffett figures into our personal financial equation at the end of this note; the late Mr. Bogle, less well known to the American public, founded Vanguard, was perhaps the first advocate of index investing and certainly the most influential:  the premise that if one believed that American Business, taken as a whole, would succeed over the long run, the results of low-cost index funds that tracked the financial markets’ performance would over time exceed the performance of virtually all managers of actively traded mutual funds and financial advisors.  (Vanguard’s S&P 500 Index Fund remains the organization’s flagship fund.) 

Messrs. Bogle and Buffett weren’t our original financial advisors.  Around 1990, feeling out of our depth and aware that we needed to begin investing, we employed a financial advisor recommended to us by friends.  However, by 1995, I had decided that although our advisor certainly wished us to prosper, he was necessarily seeking to serve two masters – his financial services organization [which offered actively-managed mutual funds with front-end loads (sales charges)] and us.  [Many of us will recall the Lord’s observation that no one can serve two masters (Matt 6:24), although He was admittedly speaking in a somewhat different context. 😉]  I decided to take the time to learn the barebones of the investment field so I could better assess our advisor’s performance.  Once I started concentrating on it, the overwhelmingly most practical and understandable advice I received in those formative years was provided by Wall Street Journal Personal Finance Columnist Jonathan Clements.  For years I kept a notebook filled with Mr. Clements’ late 1990s “Getting Going” columns.  It was through his reporting that I became acquainted with the efforts and theories of Mr. Bogle.  In pieces that ran during the years I was most actively developing my investment notions, Mr. Clements cited statistics demonstrating that Mr. Bogle’s theories were correct:  (1) active fund managers’ and active individual investors’ costs were consistently significantly higher than index funds while at the same time they consistently trailed the index funds’ performance; and (2) that if one was willing to devote the effort, one could effectively “do it yourself” through a big fund house like Vanguard (Vanguard was not the only option), which provided excellent service, indexing acumen, and a wide variety of no-load, low-operating cost index funds.  Mr. Clements also noted data that refuted active fund managers’ claim that their efforts better mitigated losses in “down markets” than index funds.  He preached (this, again, was the 1990s) that medical statistics were beginning to indicate that one should plan on living longer than retirement analysts were then projecting and that one should spend, if not sparingly, at least not profligately – and invest the savings.

I was hooked.  Here was a simple approach, apparently statistically sound, that an untutored guy like me could use to seek financial security over the long run while keeping his costs down:  embracing the notion that one would never “win big” in the market by picking an individual stock like Amazon but, if one believed in the long term success of American Business, facilitate reasonable financial growth while hopefully limiting the chances of “losing big” by spreading one’s risk over hundreds or thousands of stocks.  It is an approach that we have generally maintained over the last three decades – through the “Dot.Com Bust,” the Great Recession, and the brief but precipitous COVID crash — while in the initial years gently weaning ourselves from our advisor and the actively-managed funds in which we had been invested.

Sadly, Mr. Clements himself didn’t get the long life he advised his readers to plan for.  He died of cancer on September 21st at the age of 62.  (When reading his columns, I intuitively sensed he was a young man, but didn’t realize that he was then in his early 30s, a full decade younger than we were.)  Because of the impact he had on our financial life, I felt a true pang at his passing, and consider it appropriate to mark it in these pages. 

So where does Mr. Buffett come in?  He was a close friend of Mr. Bogle’s and is, of course, the world’s most accomplished and acclaimed investor – whom I am sure Mr. Bogle would have acknowledged was the exception to Mr. Bogle’s rule.  (If there was an unstated core to Messrs. Bogle’s and Clements’ advice, it was:  “There is only one Warren Buffett, and you ain’t him.”)  Even so, in his 2014 letter to his Berkshire Hathaway shareholders, Mr. Buffett, given his record and renown, provided perhaps the best endorsement for the approach espoused by Messrs. Bogle and Clements, I suspect then sending shockwaves through the financial advising community:

“If wise, [most investors] will conclude that they do not know enough about specific businesses to predict their future earning power.  I have good news for these non-professionals.  … [Their] goal … should not be to pick winners – neither [the individual investor] nor his helpers can do that – but should rather be to own a cross-section of businesses that in aggregate are bound to do well.  A low-cost S&P 500 index fund will achieve this goal. …  [B]oth individuals and institutions will constantly be urged to be active by those who profit from giving advice or effecting transactions. … So ignore the chatter, keep your costs minimal, and invest in stocks as you would in a farm.  My money, I should add, is where my mouth is:  What I advise here is essentially identical to certain instructions I’ve laid out in my will. … My advice to the trustee could not be more simple:  Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund.  (I suggest Vanguard’s.)  I believe that the trust’s long-term results from this policy will be superior to those attained by most investors – whether pension funds, institutions or individuals – who employ high-fee managers.”

Many of those who follow these pages are either in or close to retirement, and their investment approaches are probably already pretty well cast.  However, for those at the beginning or middle of their careers, I recommend buying one of Mr. Clements’ books and absorbing his insights.  (Since I read Mr. Clements “real time,” I never bought any of his books; in a recent quick internet search, I did note one title, The Best of Jonathan Clements, that I might first consider if intending to buy one of his volumes.)  Even if one is more comfortable maintaining a relationship with a financial advisor, Mr. Clements’ notions might offer you another perspective that will better enable you to assess your financial advisor’s approach and performance.

In reflecting on Mr. Clements’ passing, I have come to realize that my laconic response to financial advisors’ inquiries over the years has been grossly derelict.  When I am next approached by a financial organization or advisor seeking to provide me with investment advice (“when,” not “if,” I am approached – such organizations and advisors are ubiquitous), I will and forever after amend my response to indicate that I already have the best advisors that anyone could ask for:  John Bogle, Warren Buffett … and Jonathan Clements.

Congratulations to the Brewers

Although their pace slowed a bit in the last month of the season, as all who care are aware, the Milwaukee Brewers managed to maintain the top seed in this year’s National League playoff structure with the best record in Major League Baseball.  A little later today, they host the Chicago Cubs in the first game of the second round of the National League playoffs.  Preoccupied with the toxic state of our political environment, I haven’t seen an inning of Brewer baseball this season.  Since old baseball fans are as superstitious as old baseball players, I don’t intend to start watching now.  I venture no opinion as to how they’ll fare against superstar-laden, heavy-payrolled clubs in the playoffs.  That said – and being well aware that more than a few diehard Cub fans read these notes – I think every baseball fan can agree that given its relatively limited resources, the Brewers’ performance this year has been mighty impressive.  I don’t expect to add anything further here about Milwaukee’s fortunes unless the Brewers reach the World Series, and I will find it completely charming if they do.  (But then I certainly won’t watch 😊).

Go Crew.