The Standing of Labor

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital, producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor community exists within that relation. …

The prudent, penniless beginner in the world, labors for wages for awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself; then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires a new beginner to help him. This is the just, and generous, and prosperous system, which opens the way to all – gives hope to all, and consequent energy, and progress, and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty — none less inclined to take, or touch, aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which, if surrendered, will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they, and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them, till all of liberty shall be lost.”

Abraham Lincoln; Excerpt from the President’s Annual Message to Congress; December 3, 1861

Although many, including me, decry our seeming current descent toward autocracy, it is too easy to overlook that desperation spawns desperate measures, including the placement of hope in false Messiahs. I fear we have fallen into the trap that Mr. Lincoln warned about over 150 years ago. While there are obviously a number of factors that have contributed to our present dysfunctional political state, it is undeniable that almost a half century of policies encouraging greed over community have contributed mightily to where we find ourselves today. Former President Ronald Reagan started this transition. I consider Mr. Reagan a good man who truly believed that men, less regulated and less taxed, would do the right thing to ensure the betterment of all. He was wrong. I sincerely question whether our current president cares about the struggling millions, somehow blinded by calls of “freedom,” who follow him so ardently. May we see the adoption – under the next president, if not this one – of policies that will start to remedy the inequities that have so sullied the American experience. Let each of us take a moment during the coming weekend to remember and celebrate the efforts of those — both Americans and those from other lands — who toil, or yearn to toil, to make America stronger.

Enjoy the Holiday.

On California Legislative Redistricting

As all who care are aware, the MAGA-controlled Texas legislature recently enacted legislation redrawing Texas’ legislative districts in a manner that could net Republicans an additional five seats in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2026 Congressional elections, and the Democrat-controlled California legislature has responded with measures which, if approved by California voters, will redraw the state’s Congressional districts through 2030 in a manner intended to cancel out Republicans’ projected gains in Texas. Other states may join the fray. Commentators indicate that on the whole, these machinations favor Republicans.

Obviously, gerrymandering legislative districts at congressional and state office levels by both parties is nothing new, although computer analysis now enables unscrupulous legislators to eke out advantages previously unattainable. At the same time, as all who care are also aware, until this latest exchange by Texas and California, mid-cycle redistricting (i.e., between decennial censuses) has been uncommon.

I would suggest that it is difficult for any analyst to predict the final result of these maneuvers. Redrawing legislative boundaries seemingly narrows the controlling party’s advantage in previously “safe” seats, and Republicans could be running under fairly adverse political conditions as the Medicaid cuts in President Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” take hold and if his tariffs reignite inflation as many economists predict. Republicans currently hold a 7-seat advantage in the House of Representatives. Since World War II, the average midterm loss for the party in the White House is 25 seats. Democrats lost 50 seats in 2010 under President Barack Obama. Republicans lost 40 seats in 2018, the last time Mr. Trump was mid-term. If Mr. Trump’s initiatives sufficiently irritate the weakest segments of his 2024 electoral support, the Democrats may reclaim the House even if the California initiative loses.

I have seen different credible philosophical arguments about ethical redistricting. Wisconsin is a prime example: the state, with 8 House seats, has a citizenry divided almost evenly between Democrats and Republicans, but the vast majority of Democrat-leaners are heavily concentrated in the Milwaukee and Dane (Madison) County metro areas. While one can argue that congressional districts should be drawn to reflect the state’s even political divide, one can also argue that given the geographic confines of the Democratic strongholds, a 6/2 Republican/Democrat split – the current Wisconsin House composition – is not unreasonable.

That said, there is no philosophical underpinning to what the Texas Republicans have done. They have redrawn their state’s Congressional district boundaries because they perceive it to be to their political advantage, and because they can. It is a pure power grab.

Long prelude to a simple point: I support the California Democrats’ redistricting efforts. In the past, I wouldn’t have. I have generally been of the mind that if one stoops to the MAGA level, it’s hard to determine who the scoundrels are. But it has become glaringly apparent that in the struggle to maintain our democracy, there are few holds barred. I’m putting my scruples aside. If the California Democrats’ effort passes, it will be smarmy, but no smarmier than the Texas effort, or any other state legislature’s partisan mid-cycle redistricting efforts. All of these measures are apparently lawful, if unprincipled.

In the summer of 1941, as Great Britain finalized an alliance with Communist Russia after Nazi Germany invaded Russia, Prime Minister Winston Churchill – always a strident critic of Communism – defended the pact in part with the observation, “If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.” Less elegantly, Baseball Hall of Fame Manager Leo Durocher is by legend reported to have declared, “Nice guys finish last.”

We have descended to the lowest defensible denominator. I feel that I no longer have the luxury of being fastidious.

On Frogs in Warming Water

[Note: This post was delayed until now because a note on the Ukrainian-Russian conflict, published on Monday, had greater immediacy (although not greater importance.) That said, I cannot overstate my chagrin as last Friday night we watched PBS NewsHour Commentators Jonathan Capehart and David Brooks discuss the danger I address below, citing many of the same incidents and using the same analogies – right down to referencing frogs 😉 . If you saw the NewsHour last Friday, accept my solemn pledge that what you read was saved before I saw the broadcast. If you didn’t see the NewsHour, if nothing else you’ll learn how we have underestimated the sense of a well-known member of the amphibian community. 🙂 On the substance of what follows: it’s being made in many quarters; what follows has very probably already occurred to you; but it cannot be repeated too often.]

On August 11, flanked by his Secretary of Defense, his Attorney General, and his FBI Director, President Donald Trump declared as he announced his deployment of National Guard troops to the nation’s Capital: “We’re taking our Capital back. … This [crime] issue directly affects the functioning of the federal government and is a threat to America, really; it’s a threat to our country. We have other cities that are bad, very bad. You look at Chicago, how bad it is. You look at Los Angeles, how bad it is. We have other cities that are very bad. New York has a problem. And then you have of course Baltimore and Oakland, you don’t even mention that any more, they’re so far gone. We’re not going to lose our cities over this. And this will go further. We’re starting very strongly with D.C. … You’ll have more police, and you’ll be so happy because you’ll be safe when you walk down the street. You’re gonna see police, or you’re gonna see FBI agents. We’re going to have a lot of agents on the street. You’re gonna have a lot of essentially military – and we will bring in the military it it’s needed, by the way [Emphasis Added].”

Note how adroitly Mr. Trump and his minions have shifted the goal posts of our sensitivities:

We’ve had the pardoning of those convicted of participating in the January 6, 2021, assault on our nation’s Capitol incited by Mr. Trump, including those convicted of violent and seditious activities. The pardons probably offended the majority of Americans, but even Mr. Trump’s critics concede that he has the Constitutional power to grant pardons and he was elected.

We’ve had the purge at the Justice Department and the FBI of those officials who took part in the investigation of the January 6, 2021, insurrection. These actions were offensive to many Americans, but even Mr. Trump’s critics concede that he has Constitutional authority over the Executive Branch.

Through Mr. Trump’s authorization to Industrialist Elon Musk’s “DOGE” squad, we’ve had the purge of career civil servants in those federal departments and agencies, from foreign policy to health to climate science, most likely to debunk the nonsense that the President and his supporters spout. But the federal government is not as efficient as we’d like, and even Mr. Trump’s critics concede that he has Constitutional authority over the Executive Branch. (Mr. Musk, who spent millions on Mr. Trump’s campaign, took the brunt of the bad public relations for these efforts and was then jettisoned by the White House – a true tour de force demonstrating who, after all, was indeed president.)

Recently, Mr. Trump fired Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics confirmed by the Senate on a bipartisan basis in 2024, when the Bureau issued a jobs report that reflected badly on the President’s stewardship of the economy. But there is a credible position that the manner in which the Bureau gathers and analyzes jobs data is flawed, and even Mr. Trump’s critics concede that he has Constitutional authority over the Executive Branch. (Put aside that Mr. Trump didn’t dismiss Ms. McEntarfer for incompetence, but said – without evidence as far as I am aware – that he thought that Bureau’s report was “rigged” against him. Also put aside that the financial markets continue blythefully upward, seemingly oblivious that accurate assessments of the economy require accurate – not Trump-sanitized – federal government data.)

Mr. Trump has deployed National Guard troops and Marines to the streets of Los Angeles, but such deployment was ostensibly done to protect ICE agents enforcing our immigration laws against illegal immigrants, and even Mr. Trump’s critics concede that he has Constitutional authority to protect Executive Branch officials exercising their responsibilities.

Mr. Trump has deployed National Guard troops and FBI agents to our nation’s Capital, but it’s undisputed that D.C. has a crime problem, and even Mr. Trump’s critics concede that the federal government – of which he is the chief magistrate — has the overall legal authority for managing the District.

Mr. Trump has indicated that the “homeless [in D.C.] have to move out, IMMEDIATELY,” and that his Administration “will give [the homeless] places to stay, but FAR from the Capital. [Emphasis Mr. Trump’s].” But it’s undisputed that homelessness is a serious problem in many of our cities, there are vagrancy laws, and even Mr. Trump’s critics concede that that the federal government has the overall legal authority for managing the District. (Put aside where and – from an Administration that enthusiastically embraced the notion of an “Alligator Alcatraz” for illegal immigrants — how hospitable these “places to stay” for the homeless – the majority of whom are American citizens, a tragic subset of them veterans — will be.)

Now, go back and look at Mr. Trump’s August 11 comments. Although I am confident that those in dangerous neighborhoods in Chicago, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Oakland, and countless other cities desperately and understandably want safer streets, crime – outside the nation’s Capital — is quintessentially a local issue. One Chicagoan or Angelino killing another in a grocery store, heinous as it is, is a local matter, not a federal one. If citizens in these cities don’t feel safe on their streets, they should by all means get new city officials. I am sick unto death with those who refuse to take Mr. Trump at his word: that his Administration intends to go further, that it is starting with the nation’s Capital, that it will bring in the military if it’s needed (i.e., if the Administration thinks it’s needed). No matter what trumped-up rationale (the adjective, of course, intentional) the Administration dreams up, any deployment of National Guard troops to enforce local criminal laws outside Washington, D.C. would involve federal troops acting beyond their legal purview – i.e., acting illegally — against American citizens. Some would welcome it — at least initially.

Mr. Trump is slowly, skillfully, turning up the burner. We are being warmed up.

It turns out that frogs have more sense than they’re given credit for. When I conducted an internet search to determine whether frogs will indeed stay in gradually warming water until they boil to death, the now-ever-present Google “AI Overview” indicated: “No, a frog will not stay in boiling water and will attempt to escape. The idea that a frog will stay in water that is gradually heated until it boils is a common myth, often used as a metaphor for how humans can fail to react to gradual changes. Scientific experiments and observations have shown that frogs will jump out of water that is heated to uncomfortable temperatures, regardless of whether the heating is gradual or immediate.”

While it is easier for those of us who live in safe areas to look at this issue dispassionately, I fear that too many of our people don’t have the sense God gave a frog.

Mr. Trump is deftly bringing us to a boil.

The Horns of a Dilemma

“It is an admirable dilemma. I have rarely seen one with so many horns and all of them so sharp.”

The fictional detective Nero Wolfe; Rex Stout; Fer-de-Lance

As all who care are aware, President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin met on Friday in Alaska – without Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – to discuss a resolution to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict precipitated by Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. Mr. Trump went in declaring that his primary goal was to obtain a ceasefire; such was not obtained. It was clear from the video of Mr. Trump’s fawning greeting to Putin that nothing positive would be achieved. When the meeting ended – with an uncharacteristic acknowledgement by Mr. Trump that he and Putin had failed to reach any agreement – I actually felt relief. Since I had expected nothing good to come from the meeting, I initially considered it a victory that Mr. Trump seemingly hadn’t done anything to worsen the Ukrainian cause.

Silly me. I understand that Mr. Trump has now, contrary to his position before the Alaska meeting and that of Ukraine and other NATO nations, abandoned his calls for a ceasefire – so Ukrainian civilians will continue to be killed by Russian missiles – and is instead seeking to persuade Mr. Zelensky to agree to Putin’s demands for Ukraine to cede certain Ukrainian territory to Russia — including some territory Russia doesn’t now even militarily control – in return for Putin’s written promise not to attack Ukraine or any European country again. Such is absurd. Not even the most gullible MAGA – save the President himself – would believe Putin’s promises.

Although I may be grasping at straws, the only heartening report I have heard about recent developments is that at least NATO and European leaders, who obviously understand the precariousness of the situation not only for Ukraine but for their own nations if Mr. Trump capitulates to Putin, are going to join Mr. Zelensky in Washington today as he meets with Mr. Trump. It will be psychologically much more difficult for Mr. Trump – who, like any bully, shrinks from conflict when he does not have overwhelming advantage – to abandon Mr. Zelensky and Ukraine in the face of united European opposition.

We all know what should happen to resolve the conflict. (Well, what should happen from a pragmatic standpoint. What should happen from a moral standpoint is that Putin and his cohort spend the rest of their lives in an international prison for war crimes, with Russia paying reparations to the families of those killed or injured through Russian aggression and for the restoration of Ukrainian infrastructure.) You are familiar enough with the map of conflict that a depiction need not be displayed here (even if I had the technological acumen to do so 😉 ). I would suggest that from a practical perspective, the following components might form the basis for a settlement (I’m undoubtedly missing a number; feel free to comment):

Russia keeps the Ukrainian territory it currently controls, and Ukraine recognizes these lands, Crimea and the other Ukrainian territory taken by Russia in 2014, as Russian territory.
Russia recognizes Ukrainian sovereignty and renounces all claim to Ukrainian territory not within the territories ceded to the Russians.
All Ukrainians (particularly including children) and all prisoners of war on both sides are immediately exchanged.
Establishment of a border zone similar that maintained by Finland and the Baltic States on their Russian borders, to be initially policed by a United Nations peacekeepers.
For a period of one year following the date of the settlement, any residents of the conceded-Russian territories who wish to move to Ukraine can freely do so; any residents living in the Ukrainian territory recognized by Russia that wish to move to Russia can freely do so. The ability for such residents to freely elect such a choice is also to be monitored by the UN.
Ukraine is granted immediate admission to NATO and to the European Union, with it thereby assuming all the responsibilities and receiving all the security guarantees of every other NATO member. It is specifically declared that any attempt by Russia to hinder Ukraine’s access to the Black Sea will be considered an offensive action against NATO.
The U.S. and the E.U. agree to lift their sanctions against Russia.
Russia and Ukraine release all claims for reparations against the other.

The above can be achieved – and can only be achieved – through American as well as European dedication of the military and financial support to Ukraine sufficient to convince Putin that his brutal invasion has no greater hope of success than that he has already achieved. Obviously, such American dedication will not occur while Mr. Trump is President of the United States. I understand why the European leaders feel they have no choice but to coddle and placate this man in order to protect Western democracies and their own people, but it turns my stomach to watch, and suspect that it makes some of them privately want to vomit.

[An aside: I don’t know why leading Democrats aren’t denouncing any capitulation by Mr. Trump to Putin with a simple message: “If Ukraine falls, it will be Trump who lost Ukraine.” Repeating endlessly: “It will be Trump who lost Ukraine.” That is the kind of message that “breaks through” in the public consciousness that MAGAs are great at, and that Democrats (there is no kinder way to put it) suck at. (I’d normally like to see former President Barack Obama make the case, but since he took no meaningful action when Putin took Crimea in 2014, Mr. Obama is, let’s say, a wee bit out of position.)]

From the time Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 until the present – from the day Mr. Zelensky responded to an offer of safe passage for him and his family out of his country with the reply – apocryphal or not — “The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride” – the defense of Ukraine has rested on his shoulders, on his steadfastness. Anyone with any sense has realized that given his people’s sacrifices, while the struggle continues Mr. Zelensky cannot signal any willingness to give any concessions to the Russians unless Ukraine – what remains of it – is admitted to NATO; if he did, his people’s morale would collapse. Any lesser security guarantee is worthless. (I’m aware that U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff said over the weekend, “The United States is potentially prepared to be able to give Article 5 security guarantees, but not from NATO — directly from the United States and other European countries.” Mr. Witkoff’s representation sounds good; but recall that in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia agreed that if Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons – which it did – they would respect Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty, and existing borders, and refrain from the use of force against Ukraine. With that history, is it reasonable for Mr. Zelensky to trust any security assurances he receives that leave Ukraine outside the parameters of the NATO alliance? Would you?)

I see an approaching dilemma for Mr. Zelensky: Mr. Trump will seize upon any concession made by Putin as a way to claim a public relations triumph. Mr. Zelensky will recognize that Putin’s empty gesture affords no safeguards for his nation, and that any agreement to it by Ukraine will inevitably result in Russia’s annexation of Ukraine. At the same time, Mr. Zelensky will also recognize that offending Mr. Trump – for example, expressing doubt that Mr. Trump, no matter what he says now, will commit American forces to defend Ukraine if Russia reinstitutes hostilities — will almost certainly cause Mr. Trump to blame Ukraine for the continuation of hostilities and angrily withdraw American aid from Ukraine. Most military observers opine that any such withdrawal — no matter how robust the assistance of the European NATO nations – will ultimately enable Russia, through its continued inexorable brutal slaughter of Ukraine’s civilians and soldiers, to annex Ukraine.

I suspect that Mr. Zelensky’s and his aides’ response to any empty offer by Putin will be similar to that expressed by Winston Churchill in May, 1940, as Britain faced the Nazi Wehrmacht alone: “[L]et it end only when each of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground.” That said, on that occasion Mr. Churchill wasn’t addressing the British people, but other government officials. Does one knowingly sentence thousands more of one’s own people, including thousands of children, to die in what will appear a hopeless battle?

I can think of no dilemma with horns as sharp as that which Mr. Zelensky and his advisors could soon be confronting.

We’ll see what happens. Let us pray for the best.

On Lady Liberty

We have recently returned from an east coast trip that created a series of cherished memories. However, one is particularly worthy of note here: our 8-year-old grandson was on his first adventure to New York, and he specifically asked to see the Statue of Liberty.

Given my New York roots and regular visits with family on the east coast while raising our own kids, before this latest trip we had been to the Statue quite a number of times. For those who haven’t made the journey, it is a ferry circuit during which visitors stop at both the Statue and Ellis Island – now a museum — through which approximately 12 million immigrants speaking at least 30 different languages were processed between 1892 and 1954.

I recall admiring the Statue in past visits, but being more interested in Ellis Island Museum’s exhibits and artifacts.

This time was different.

It wasn’t that Ellis Island had any less meaning – given the assault on our immigration heritage now being wrought by President Donald Trump and his minions, it perhaps had more – but I noticed that as our ferry approached the Statue, a hush fell over the crowd. Nobody – and there were a lot of people on this boat – said anything. I expected to be primarily focused on our grandson’s reactions, but was surprised to find that I was just as much taken up by my own. We all looked up with reverence, with wonder.

We have been to a lot of federal parks and monuments. While for me a couple stand out — one cannot visit Gettysburg National Military Park without feeling that you tread upon sacred ground, nor visit the Lincoln Memorial without viscerally experiencing the somber and ponderous weight one man bore upon his shoulders to preserve our union – each of these commemorate our past. The Statue of Liberty is about our future – the promise, the dream of America.

As I gazed upward I realized that Lady Liberty symbolizes the American dream not only for the “tired … poor … huddled masses … wretched refuse” from other shores that Emma Lazarus described in her 1883 poem, but for all of us, no matter how many generations of our forebears may have been here, who are “yearning to breathe free.”

Let us persevere so that she is never reduced to an ironic mockery. May God Bless America.

NO KINGS on Flag Day: A Post-Postscript

In this original post published early in June, I observed that while Republicans have for decades sought to figuratively claim our American flag, it has been during the Trump Era that MAGAs have aggressively attempted to make it a trademark of their vision of a culturally homogeneous America. In the event that you are not already aware of it, immediately below you will find a link to a YouTube presentation, “Reclaim the Flag,” in which its producers brought together a large number of members of the LBGTQ+ community and, after interviewing them regarding their views of the current state of America, provided each with a small American flag and asked for a response. The video consists of their impromptu reactions. One need not be a member of that particular community to identify with their responses – feelings of vulnerability, isolation, dispossession. They reflect despair – but also, heartening for me, hope. The video approaches 30 minutes, but I urge you to take the time to watch it.

RECLAIM THE FLAG by Alexis Bittar & Bruce Cohen

I mentioned in the initial June post that I’ve never been inclined to fly the flag in front of our house or wear a flag pin, feeling patriotism resides in your heart, not on your chest. After listening to the last few clips of this production, I’m reconsidering.

By One Measure, Mr. Trump Gets an A: A Postscript

I have previously indicated here that I am not sure whether anyone but me gets the benefit of comments to entries. I have received a comment relating to the above post that should be shared; the pertinent excerpt follows:

“[Y]ou slander Polk, without a doubt one of the most consequential presidents of our history. He had four goals:

Annex Texas
Claim the majority [of] the Oregon territory and California
Reduce tariffs
Establish an independent treasury.

He achieved all four in one term. An extremely consequential president.”

Although the entry’s main thrust addressed how presidents are rated in connection with our present day circumstances and not Mr. Polk specifically, and I noted therein that labeling a certain standard for determining presidential greatness that I disagreed with, the “Polk Approach,” “… probably unfairly denigrates Mr. Polk’s achievements,” it is only appropriate to publish this comment to expand Noise followers’ (and my own) knowledge about Mr. Polk. Since Mr. Polk died in 1849, he himself probably isn’t too concerned about the initial post, but the Noise hereby seeks to correct any misimpression it may have left. My Irish Catholic conscience is now clear (at least on this issue 😉 ).

Stay well.

By One Measure, Mr. Trump Gets an A

When I developed an interest in American presidential history during my high school years, I learned that historians had different yardsticks for rating our past presidents. One measure ranked a given president according to how well he fulfilled his campaign promises. I recall that our eleventh president, James K. Polk, fared very well under this scheme because he apparently got done – I don’t recall what he did – whatever he had pledged to do during his campaign. I felt then and still do that such a standard – let’s call it the “Polk Approach,” although I acknowledge that so labeling it probably unfairly denigrates Mr. Polk’s achievements — obscured what I consider the true measure of a given president’s worth: the severity of the challenges s/he faced – whether or not s/he addressed them or even was aware of them during the campaign — and the success with which s/he handled them.

Yesterday, July 20, President Donald Trump concluded six months back in office, the one-eighth mark of his second term. During his first six months, we have seen a whirlwind of activity: the pardoning of insurrectionists whom he incited to attack our Capitol on January 6, 2021; the terrorizing and dehumanizing tactics he has employed against immigrants of color (including Latin citizens); the deployment of our active duty military on the streets of an American city; the wanton dismissal of federal employees and dismantling of our federal structure according to his partisan whims and aberrant policy views on such as foreign humanitarian aid, the environment, science, and education; the ramrodding of a law enriching the wealthy, depriving the impoverished, and increasing the federal debt; the emasculation of Congress (admittedly, he had some assistance from the cowards over there); the coopting of the federal courts; the browbeating of institutions of higher learning; and the intimidation of independent media sources. (I know; I beg your pardon for omitting some you would have added, but my typing fingers and your eyes only have so much strength.) It’s all flown by so fast that it has literally been impossible to keep track of it all, even if you haven’t – as I have – tried to maintain some emotional remove.

I ventured in a post a couple of months ago that Mr. Trump and his adherents recognized that at best, 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 began immediately, have moved with alacrity, and proceeded ruthlessly. They have achieved more of their mission more quickly than even I imagined they could – and we both know that’s saying a lot.

So, what’s Mr. Trump’s current grade? Well … it depends on the standard you prefer.

If you take my preferred method for assessing president’s performance — the severity of the challenges s/he faces, and the success with which s/he resolves them – it would be difficult for Mr. Trump to fare well, since his and his acolytes’ actions are the severe challenge we face.

By that standard, he gets an F.

On the other hand, given the President’s clearly expressed intent during his campaign to transition the United States from the democracy we have known for the last quarter of a millennium to a white, Christian, straight, oligarchic American Apartheid, he’s done extraordinarily well.

By the Polk Standard, I award him an A.

That said: let’s see where we go from here.

The Triumph of Politics

The title of this post is drawn from a 1986 book of the same name by David Stockman, most of which I’ve reread during the months since President Donald Trump began pushing the passage of his now-enacted “Big Beautiful Bill” (sometimes referred to as the “BBB”). For those with shorter memories, Mr. Stockman was the Reagan Administration’s first Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and probably the most responsible Executive Branch official, aside from President Ronald Reagan himself, for Americans’ initial plunge into our current escalating deficit-financed maelstrom. The tag line to Mr. Stockman’s The Triumph of Politics was, “Why the Reagan Revolution Failed.” I expect to refer to Mr. Stockman’s book in future posts; although the federal budget numbers and the ratio of budget deficit to GNP with which he was dealing over 40 years ago are incredibly small compared to those we now face, his book is a useful primer on the innards of the federal budget (with one exception: Medicare is now a much larger percentage of federal spending than it was in the early ‘80s). In 1981, the newly-elected Reagan Administration got its tax cut – those with the lowest incomes received a 14% rate reduction, those with the highest incomes as much as a 28% rate reduction — in large part because Mr. Reagan put all of his political weight (at its zenith, given his then-recent survival of an assassination attempt) behind the cut, since he believed, based upon his years in the movie industry, that the tax rates existing when he took office were an impediment to productivity.

Interestingly, in his initial chapters Mr. Stockman described how intense a political struggle it was to get the tax cut through Congress. Members of Congress of both parties initially opposed the drastic revenue reduction; they didn’t believe (as it turned out, obviously correctly) the claims of some Reagan Administration economists that the tax cuts would “pay for themselves” through increased economic growth. Mr. Stockman related that he himself never believed that the tax cuts would pay for themselves; his conception of the “Reagan Revolution” included tax cuts and a corresponding reduction in federal spending. His mistake, as he ruefully acknowledged in the book’s concluding chapters, was that he didn’t realize until too late in the process that members of Congress didn’t have the political stomach for spending cuts, so Mr. Stockman’s envisioned complete overhaul of the New Deal federal funding framework was left to drown in red ink. (Even Mr. Reagan, despite his rhetoric, was never as committed to spending cuts as he was to tax cuts.) It was … the triumph of politics.

Let’s move to the BBB. (I have it on highly credible authority that Brazilians following American political affairs were confusing the bill with an apparently-oft-performed Brazilian surgical procedure, the “Brazilian Butt Lift,” commonly referred to as, the “BBL.” Perhaps they think Americans will apply whatever tax relief they receive from the law to the adjustment of our … er … booties. 😉 ) All who care are already aware of the law’s primary components; it is generally undisputed that the law will increase our burgeoning federal debt by trillions due to its extension of Mr. Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, which disproportionately favor the well-to-do, while at the same time it cuts about 1 trillion dollars in Medicaid and other food and health care benefits for millions of impoverished. There are certainly circumstances that warrant affirmatively increasing our deficit spending – COVID a recent example – but we are not currently facing such a challenge. (To be fair, until we have the opportunity to right-size our taxing scheme – perhaps, I say Pollyannishly, under our next president — I would have favored extending the Trump tax rates for the first $100,000 of household income, which as far as I can determine through clumsy internet searching, would completely cover the majority of American households but affect less than 20% of overall U.S. income tax revenue.) The law is cruel and stupid. It is clear that a substantial majority of Congressional legislators knows it. Many Medicaid recipients projected to be adversely affected voted for Mr. Trump. The increasing deficits will seemingly ultimately result in higher U.S. treasury interest rates that impede our real estate sector and overall economy and perhaps hasten the need to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits beloved by seniors, the majority of whom voted for Mr. Trump in 2024. Any such accelerated permanent reduction in these benefits could in retrospect make many voters’ extended tax breaks a painfully poor exchange.

The BBB’s passage was, as in 1981, the triumph of politics; what I find intriguing is the shift in political dynamic over the last 40+ years.

In 1981, the Reagan Administration couldn’t get its spending cuts through Congress because legislators wouldn’t risk invoking the wrath of their constituents by depriving them of cherished programs. This month, the Trump Administration was able to obtain passage of its welfare cuts – although they will adversely affect a significant segment of Mr. Trump’s 2024 voters – because Congressional Republicans feared invoking the wrath of Mr. Trump. Put another way: their constituents now follow and accept what Mr. Trump wants – i.e., tells them what is good, what is in their interest, whom they should vote for, whom they should not vote for – without critical assessment. In 1981, Reagan voters supported the President, but members of Congress understood that these citizens would still independently determine whether a law was in their best interest; in 2025, members of Congress have come to understand that a significant segment, perhaps a significant majority, of Trump voters have outsourced their thinking to Mr. Trump and alt-right media. It is a stunning demonstration of the power of decades of propaganda. Arguably the most insightful assessment of the Republican – now, very largely MAGA – base was a comment reportedly made by former Republican Senate Majority Leader U.S. KY Sen. Mitch McConnell in reassuring his Republican Senate colleagues concerned that Medicaid cuts would outrage their supporters: “They’ll get over it.”

They will. By the time the BBB’s provisions adversely impact the MAGA base, they will be convinced by alt-right media either that the losses they are feeling are caused by something former President Barack Obama did in 2010, or they’ll be distracted by some provocative fable about immigrants. At the time this is typed, I understand that many MAGAs are incensed at the Trump Administration for declaring that it has no client list of Jeffrey Epstein, the financier child sex trafficker, after being told for years in their media silo that the government was staging a cover-up to protect Epstein’s powerful (whom they presumably believe to be left-wing) clients. Although in recent days I’ve developed a better understanding why MAGALand is so obsessed with the Epstein case, I still consider it ironic that while MAGAs bellow about Epstein – a matter which, no matter how evil the truth, has absolutely no bearing on their wellbeing – and revel in the Administration’s implied if not explicit promotion of their “freedom” to disdain vaccines and fluoride, they utter not a murmur of protest about the BBB’s Medicaid cuts that will hinder or preclude their access to health care — including that they’ll need to treat the diseases and cavities inevitably resulting from the exercise of their “freedom.”

As legendary CBS Anchor Walter Cronkite used to say: That’s the way it is.

What Did They Declare?

As all are aware, tomorrow we celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776, the birthdate of our nation. The scope of what the Founding Fathers envisioned and achieved in terms of principle and undertaking cannot be overstated; keep in mind that although on that day the leading members of what had theretofore been British colonies declared they were independent, such pronouncement was the beginning, not the end, of their struggle; when British King George III heard of it, he saw it simply as an act of rebellion (which from his perspective, it was) and I am confident that he fully expected to squash the movement as past English Kings and other rulers of great empires had crushed thousands of other seemingly-similar uprisings that followed similar declarations throughout the ages.

When one goes back and looks at the document, it is longer and more legalistic than one might suspect from the few touchtone phrases that have resonated through our almost 250 years. Its signatories were men of education, means, and standing; they were not a bunch of wild-eyed crazies; they understood that they were all going to be hanged and their assets forfeited if they lost. They were accordingly moved not only to recite the principles upon which they were founding a new nation and government, but to set forth what was in effect a bill of particulars – in effect, an indictment – listing more than twenty reasons why they felt it necessary to take the drastic step to renounce the sovereignty of a King.

I would suggest that either over the weekend or soon thereafter, it would be worthwhile to read the entire Declaration of Independence. In light of our political situation, I have the temerity to quote here a few passages, a couple known to every school child, several perhaps not as frequently cited:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness …

…

The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

…

He has endeavored to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither …

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

…

He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.

…

He has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us …

…

We, therefore … solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES …

[W]e mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

You can, as Hall of Fame New York Yankee Manager Casey Stengel used to say, look it up.

We certainly don’t need a new Declaration or a new nation; we can’t improve on what they did almost 250 years ago. We do need a broader and better collective memory and understanding of the types of monarchical behaviors that our Founding Fathers felt warranted repudiation at the risk of their lives and their fortunes.

Happy Holiday. When not reading or pondering the Declaration 😉 , may you have the opportunity to enjoy the company of family and friends this weekend. Watch our flag wave with pride.