Category: Politics

On the Wisconsin Democratic Gubernatorial Nomination

I rarely address Wisconsin state politics or substantive matters in these pages; I simply have much less interest in state than in federal issues.  That said, having voted for Republican Tommy Thompson each of the four times he ran for Governor in this state in the 1980s and 1990s (Mr. Thompson was conservative, but collegial, and understood how to emphasize and enhance Wisconsin’s strengths), over the last quarter-century I have been appalled by the Wisconsin Republican Party’s transition from Mr. Thompson’s governing approach to mindless tribalism and mean-spiritedness toward those it perceives its adversaries and its wholehearted embrace of ignorance and bias.  Today, the Republican MAGA-controlled state legislature more fittingly belongs in the Know Nothing Party of mid-1800s than to Wisconsin’s progressive tradition; it remains best personified by former WI Gov. Scott Walker, who was “Trump before Trump” in this state.

For the last eight years, Wisconsin has been led by Democrat WI Gov. Tony Evers.  Mr. Evers, the most inoffensive of personalities, defeated Mr. Walker by about a percentage point in 2018 and won reelection by 3 points in 2022.  He has been an effective counterweight to the Neanderthal nonsense that the Republican legislature would otherwise wreak upon Wisconsinites.  At 74, Mr. Evers has chosen not to seek a third term.

Wisconsin Republicans have already settled upon their putative Gubernatorial nominee:  U.S. WI Rep. Tom Tiffany.  A now ever-present “AI Overview” of Mr. Tiffany provides as follows:

“U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany has fully embraced Donald Trump, aligning with him on policies and securing Trump’s endorsement for the Wisconsin gubernatorial race. Tiffany has openly defended controversial Trump initiatives, such as the proposed anti-weaponization fund, and frequently appears at Trump events with Wisconsin voters.”

I don’t really think more needs to be said about the stakes here, not only for how Wisconsin local policies and politics will degrade if Mr. Tiffany wins and the Republicans maintain their control of the state’s legislature, but for the nation as a whole; having rabid MAGAs control of the state apparatus in the nation’s most purely purple state would not bode well for having free and fair federal elections in this state in 2028.  Wisconsin Democrats are currently trying to figure out whom to nominate to run against Mr. Tiffany.  I am more than a little fearful that these Democrats will do what they have done before – endemic to Democrats across the country nationwide – and shoot themselves in the foot.

Although I think my sentiments are pretty clear, let me make them, as they say, crystal:  while I intend to vote for whomever the Wisconsin Democrats nominate for the Wisconsin governorship unless that candidate can be shown to have engaged in behaviors that can be fairly described as degenerate (a challenge that the Democratic nominee for Maine’s U.S. Senate seat, Graham Platner, is now seeking to refute) – in which case, I won’t vote – my primary – indeed, my only — criteria for which candidate I think is best supported is whichever candidate is most likely to beat Mr. Tiffany.  

I don’t care which contender is the smartest.  I don’t care which contender is the nicest.  I don’t care which contender has the most detailed grasp of state policy issues.  I don’t care which contender is the best administrator.  I don’t care which contender is the most experienced.  I don’t care which contender would work best with a Republican-controlled legislature.  I don’t care which contender is the one who genuinely cares about me.

You get the idea.

What follows may be offensive to some; these might consider the observations below too cynical, unfairly stereotypic.  My response:  I think we’ve had ample evidence that a large share of our electorate casts its votes on stereotypes.  The notions below outline what this Wisconsinite believes is the type of candidate most likely to defeat a MAGA candidate in a Wisconsin statewide race.  Whether or not one agrees with these observations, I am hopeful that such will be accepted in the spirit in which they are offered – that it is vital that a Democrat win the Wisconsin Governorship this November. 

Elections are about matchups and the existing political atmosphere.  In a year in which the tide is strongly rolling in Democrats’ favor, they should simply pick a candidate who can ride the wave in.  No histrionics, appeals to identity, talk of revolution, or tricks are required.  Don’t give voters who have become disappointed in Mr. Trump but are by inclination Republican any reason to get mad, scared, or excited.  Just get out of the way, and let the tide carry you in. 

Let’s look at the field.

In a poll taken at the recent Wisconsin state Democratic Convention, seven candidates received preference votes for the gubernatorial nomination:  Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez; WI State Assemblywomen Francesca Hong; WI State Sen. Kelda Roys; Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley; former Secretary of the WI Department of Administration Joel Brennan; former WI Lt. Governor and 2022 Wisconsin Democratic U.S. Senate Candidate Mandela Barnes; and former secretary and chief executive officer of the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation Missy Hughes.  Ms. Hughes has since dropped out, and endorsed Ms. Rodriguez.

Let’s start with Mr. Crowley, an African American.  He may be a heck of guy, and a heck of a County Executive.   Politically, I don’t think it matters.  In an article about the Wisconsin Democratic Convention poll, he is quoted as saying, “‘… people always ask me, David, can a Black candidate become governor?’”  Mr. Crowley ultimately answers the question, “‘Yes.’”

I applaud Mr. Crowley for openly addressing the figurative elephant in his campaign room.  I wish I could agree with his conclusion.  I can’t.  Mr. Tiffany will simply use the same race and crime cards upstate against Mr. Crowley that U.S. WI Sen. Ron Johnson used effectively against Mr. Barnes in their 2022 Senate race.  I don’t think that any Black man not named Barack Obama (whom I voted for twice) can currently win Wisconsin, and frankly, I’m not sure that even Mr. Obama could win the state in today’s environment.  Although I’ve never heard Mr. Crowley speak, it still seems a fair surmise that he’s not the political athlete Mr. Obama is. 

On to Mr. Barnes.  In addition to being Black and having lost to Mr. Johnson in 2022, there is the legendary photograph of Mr. Barnes, after having been elected WI Lt. Governor in Mr. Evers’ first term, holding up an “Abolish ICE” tee shirt.  While the Trump Administration’s Nazi-like ICE activities have arguably made that less of a detriment than it was in 2022, I would submit that it is still a disqualifier in the Republican bastions of the state.  This race is not about winning the votes of those who want to abolish ICE; it’s about not scaring those who don’t.  The Republican propaganda machine is both ruthless and effective.  I have personally seen the physical unease of Wisconsinites in the center part of the state when Republicans harp on the “invasion” by illegal immigrants (notwithstanding the fact that Latinos picked pickles in the center of the state every summer for decades without notable issues.)  As irrational as these sentiments are, they exist.  There may be a number of moderate conservatives who are uncomfortable with what the Trump Administration has done and is doing, and they may be okay with reforming ICE practices; but they will be alarmed by anyone who seeks – or can be credibly propagandized to appear to be seeking — to abolish it.  Mr. Barnes couldn’t beat Mr. Johnson in 2022; should he really be given another try?  He kinda just looks like a professional politician who is looking for a job.  (Apparently, at least some Wisconsin Democrats share at least some of these reservations; Mr. Barnes finished sixth in the Convention’s straw poll.)

Before we move on:  an aside about progressivism, democratic socialism.  While polls have shown that when issues are put before the voters without party labels, large segments of our polity agree with a number of the positions espoused by democratic socialists such as U.S. VT Sen. Bernie Sanders, U.S. NY Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, many moderate voters — where the Wisconsin gubernatorial election will be won – remain uneasy with the same positions when they are identified with “progressivism” or “democratic socialism.”  I have commented in previous notes that rank-and-file MAGAs believe that because Mr. Trump hates the same people that they hate, Mr. Trump loves them; he doesn’t.  I submit that perhaps emboldened by recent electoral successes in places like New York City, strident progressives may obliviously believe that because the moderate majority in places like Wisconsin has come to dislike Mr. Trump and his excesses, that moderate majority is eager to embrace the progressive, democratic socialist agenda labeled as such.

It isn’t.

Repeating from above:  the MAGA propaganda machine is ruthless and effective.  Repeating from above:  Don’t give voters who have become disappointed in Mr. Trump but are by inclination Republican any reason to get mad, scared, or excited.  Just get out of the way, and let the tide carry you in.     

Let’s move on to the progressive darling of the moment, Ms. Hong.  She has been endorsed by Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, who for some years now has obviously been the poster child for progressive demonization in the alt-right media.  Progressive media darling U.S. CA Rep. Ro Khanna has come in to campaign for her.  In her past, she has published tweets calling for the defunding of the police.  At one point, she was reportedly sued for failing to pay her credit card bill.  (Obviously, many millions of Americans have financial difficulties; the issue is whether a majority of any given state’s voters will be willing to elect a Governor who has had financial problems.)  She is from Madison.  She’s even Asian, for God’s sake.

I would guess that Mr. Tiffany is drooling at the prospect of taking on Ms. Hong.  What I find incredible is that progressives with national profiles don’t realize that their endorsements may help a Democrat win a party nomination, but in a state as closely divided as Wisconsin, their endorsement is probably the kiss of death in the general election.  I recall David Halberstam noting in one of his books that in 1960, the Kennedys had little regard for the Adlai Stevenson wing of the Democratic Party – the forebears of today’s democratic socialists – because the Stevenson Democrats seemed to prize Mr. Stevenson’s graceful, witty election night concession speeches more than they did winning.  The Kennedys were about winning.  Winning the general election – as long as such is done within the bounds of law by a candidate with some bounds of decent character — is what counts. 

This has been long enough.  (That, I know you agree with.  😉)  Ms. Roys is from Madison, and been around a long time.  Mr. Brennan, as a former top aide to Mr. Evers, has experience near the top of the Wisconsin political pyramid.  I understand why either would continue if s/he truly believes that s/he has a chance to win the nomination and if s/he truly believes that if nominated s/he can beat Mr. Tiffany, but if either of those qualifications seem doubtful, they should get out – as Ms. Hughes has – and endorse the candidate s/he believes most likely to beat Mr. Tiffany. 

All that said, and as noted above, if Messrs. Crowley, Barnes or Brennan or Mses. Hong or Roys win the Democratic nomination – and again, absent any significant verified character issues hereafter coming to light – I will vote for any of them.

That said, I’m pulling for Ms. Rodriguez.  She’s the sitting Lt. Governor; she’s from, lives and won election to the Wisconsin state assembly in a purple district, which if she is nominated may enable her to syphon off some of the support Mr. Tiffany will probably need to counteract what will be overwhelming Democratic turnout in Milwaukee and Madison; she served in the Peace Corps; she’s trained and has served as a nurse; she’s worked in the public and private sectors.  She’s married and the mother of two.  Since we’ve spent much of this note dealing in stereotypes, it must be noted that she’s (obviously) female and has a Latino last name – her husband is a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Mexico – both of which may raise concerns among some conservative voters in a state which has rejected two female presidential candidates and is in some quarters uneasy about Latino immigration; but of the likely nominees, in the current environment she seemingly presents the least that would give voters who have become disappointed in Mr. Trump but are by inclination Republican any reason to get mad, scared, or excited. 

It’s the way Mr. Evers narrowly beat Mr. Walker in 2018.

If you can persuade me that one of the other Democratic gubernatorial candidates has a better chance to beat Mr. Tiffany than Ms. Rodriguez, I’ll switch my allegiance to him/her; but persuade me.

Let’s hope whomever Wisconsin Democrats nominate to run for Governor this fall is successful; Wisconsinites deserve more on election night than a local version of Mr. Stevenson’s long ago witty and graceful odes to a lost cause.

Where Do You Draw the Line?

As all who care have now become aware, Graham Platner, an early-40s oyster farmer and Marine Corps veteran who is the presumed Democratic Party nominee for Maine’s U.S. Senate Seate to run against U.S. ME Sen. Susan Collins, has in recent weeks run into more than what our British friends would call a small spot of bother.  First, Mr. Platner was found to be sporting a tattoo which was apparently a one-time Nazi symbol.  I understand that Mr. Platner claimed that he didn’t know it was a Nazi symbol when he got it, and has recently gotten a tattoo over the Nazi symbol to hide it.  More recently, there have been reports that after marrying, Mr. Platner exchanged sexually suggestive texts with a number of women.  Most recently, the New York Times has run an account that a number of the women Mr. Platner dated in the past have claimed that he was physically aggressive and intimidating in his behavior toward them, one alleging that he left marks on her shoulders.

At the same time, I have heard Mr. Platner – who looks like he could be a model in a MAGA recruitment ad – described by a Republican political operative as an incredible political athlete.  I have never heard him speak (save for a few recent clips in which he is defending himself against various allegations lodged against him).  Mr. Platner boasts the active support of progressive icons U.S. VT Sen. Bernie Sanders and U.S. CA Rep. Ro Khanna (the latter’s support seemingly particularly ironic, given his aggressive efforts for disclosure of the Epstein Files), which means he must spout all of the right progressive ideals.  I have heard others say that his is a story of redemption. 

Those supporting Mr. Platner clearly are doing so because he is (in their view) right on the issues, and is apparently a dynamic candidate.  I have heard more than one liberal talking head note that in the current political environment wrought by President Donald Trump, voters care less about a given candidate’s personal characteristics, as long as s/he supports their positions on the issues.  I have heard one liberal commentator assert in effect that Maine voters should disregard any skeletons in Mr. Platner’s closet given the demonstrated failings of Mr. Trump. 

I don’t think too many Trump supporters read these pages.  😉  It would be accordingly be interesting, if a poll could be taken, to determine the overall sentiments of those who read this note regarding Mr. Platner’s candidacy.

Here is mine. 

I truly hope that Mr. Platner is sorry for his past behaviors; he has expressed regret for those to which he admits.  I desperately want the Democrats to take control of the Senate in 2027; while their controlling the House of Representatives – assuming for purposes of this note that such comes to pass – will provide a partial check on Mr. Trump’s intent to impose an American Apartheid upon us, their gaining control of both houses of Congress will be a substantially more effective roadblock.  Furthermore, in notes posted here over the last year I have come off my high horse on issues such as Democrats’ partisan midcycle redistricting efforts in states such as California and Virginia, indicating that when democracy is at stake, given Republicans’ partisan activities manifestly demonstrating that they are determined to impose their views on America no matter what its majority thinks, one must occasionally become less fastidious.

But apparently, my stomach for whataboutism only goes so far.  I think that the comparisons that liberal pundits are trying to draw between Messrs. Trump and Platner in order to rationalize Mr. Platner’s admitted and alleged behaviors fail practically and morally.  First, the politically pragmatic:  Mr. Platner isn’t running against Mr. Trump.  He’s running against Ms. Collins, who looks like everybody’s grandma (she’s younger than I am 😉) and has won – wait for it – in 1996, when President Bill Clinton was winning reelection convincingly; in 2008, when President Barack Obama was first elected at the depth of President George W. Bush’s unpopularity; and in 2020, when President Joe Biden carried Maine by over 8 points.  (I realized quite a while ago that Maine is my kind of state – electing Mr. Biden and Ms. Collins in the same election by almost the same margin.  Now, that’s independent thinking. 😊)  Given Ms. Collins’ impressive electoral record, to win Mr. Platner needed the race to be about Mr. Trump.  Now, Ms. Collins will be able to make the race about him.

From a moral perspective, MAJOR CAVEAT:  I have not delved into the details of any of the allegations lodged against Mr. Platner.  If I were a citizen of Maine, I would feel obligated to examine the allegations against him in detail and determine their substance.  As it is, I am currently heavily influenced by the comments of former New York Times Columnist David Brooks on the PBS Newshour of June 5th.  There is no pundit in America whose views I hold in higher esteem.  Of Mr. Platner, Mr. Brooks – usually more temperate in his language and tone, and no fan of Mr. Trump — said this:

“[A] moral degenerate.  The abuse of women, the sexting, the Nazi tattoo.  I don’t even need to say anything beyond his Reddit posts – which are not in the past, by the way; he did that for a long time.  Abusing people who might have been raped, diminishing rape in the military, insulting fellow military officers. … It’s a pathetic, empty guy who postures in a way that’s kind of repulsive.  There are 330 million Americans, and there are 100 Senators.  We can’t have a decent human being in those hundred?  We’re gonna settle for this? … The Democrats are supporting Platner for the same reason the Republicans are supporting Trump. … Now, if Democrats side with Platner, I don’t want to hear too much about Trump in the future and his moral degeneracy.”   

As I said, if I were a Mainer, and despite my high regard for Mr. Brooks’ views, I’d feel a responsibility to examine the allegations about Mr. Platner myself, and form my own conclusions.  However, if my own investigation indicated to me that the totality of the allegations against him had substance, I wouldn’t vote for him.  I wouldn’t vote for Ms. Collins.  I’d sit it out.

Somewhere in there is where I draw the line.

You may well feel differently; you may well consider me too squeamish, considering the imperiled state of our democracy; such differences of opinion are, as my sainted mother sometimes said, what make horse races.  However, I will be disheartened from both ethical and practical perspectives if, as now seems highly likely, Mr. Platner wins the Democratic nomination for the Maine Senate seat.

I think virtually all commentators agree that Democrats must overcome long odds if they are going to take control of the U.S. Senate in 2027.  A few months ago, Ms. Collins’ seat looked like the easiest Democratic pickup; she is the only Republican Senator remaining in New England, she’s already been there a long time, and Maine voted not only for Mr. Biden in 2020 but for former Vice President Kamala Harris by almost 7 points in 2024.  It’s the Democrats’ year, and I suspect that Ms. Collins’ support even among Maine Republicans has weakened – she’s presumably irritated Trump MAGAs by not supporting the President vehemently enough while offending traditional Republicans by not sufficiently standing up to his excesses.  I nevertheless fear that Democrats are about to do what they do best – snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  If Maine Democrats do indeed nominate Mr. Platner and he is elected, I hope that he, despite his baggage, thereafter forms part of a Senate bulwark against Mr. Trump’s excesses; but it is hard not to suspect that Ms. Collins will be mounting Mr. Platner’s scalp in her office in 2027 next to the scalps of her previous five Democratic opponents.

We’ll see what happens.

Memo to:  Xi Jinping: Part I

[Sometimes, life’s realities intrude upon life’s avocations, and such has been the case for us in recent weeks; what follows is the majority of a hypothetical memo that I had intended to finish before U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping met this week.  (I wrote both leaders an email asking that they postpone their summit so I could finish this post, but they each declined.  😉)  I will post the remainder at some point in the future, but you’ll undoubtedly get the gist – and, will, like Mr. Xi, no matter what you think of the substance, also be grateful for the break.  😊]

Memo to:  Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China (the “PRC”)

From:  Really Low Section Level Civil Servant Zhāng Sān (Chinese equivalent of “John Doe”)

Great One, if this memo has reached you, it means that it has passed through many hands, from my Section Leader up through his Area Leader, and ultimately to a Politburo member who arranged for it to reach your enlightened gaze.  If my name is still on it, it means that all of these highly-esteemed Comrades find merit in what I offer, but want to be sure that I am the one who is shot if you are offended by my suggestions.  (In deciding my fate, hopefully your most Merciful and Understanding Benevolence will take into account my youthful exuberance and that I sleep with my copy of Xi Jinping Thought under my pillow every night.)     

This week, you will be participating in a Summit Meeting with Donald Trump, the President of the United States.  It takes no acuity to observe that America is currently exhausted, in chaos, riven by acrimony.  Hon. Trump has become increasingly unpopular over his first year and a half in office – somewhat surprisingly, not because of his moral turpitude, his obvious self-aggrandizement in a country that claims to eschew royalty, or his 2021 assault on the American democracy — but because of his mishandling of the American economy and his more recent grossly misguided foray against our ally, Iran.  Even so, inexplicably, approximately a third of Americans still support him.  It can be predicted that the toxically polarizing divisions now existing in the American electorate will not recede when he departs, because free speech has allowed partisan broadcasters espousing views from both sides of the American political spectrum, motivated by profit, to continue to stir animosity and discord.  America is facing the pressures of an aging population while inexplicably forfeiting its appeal to immigrants – a geopolitical advantage we wish we had.  America is deeply in debt, propped up by American, China and other international U.S. bond holders because America has been perceived as the safest place to invest.  This will change.  We can help it change.

I would pose that Hon. Trump’s undeniably erratic behavior has presented the PRC with an unprecedented opportunity to set a new world order over the remaining two and a half years of the Hon. Trump’s term.  I set forth here what I see, from my very lowly position, may be the avenues for spreading the China Dream throughout the regions of the world.  The regions are listed in terms of immediacy. 

The Middle East.  It is clear, given Hon. Trump’s mental degradation, brief attention span and the unpopularity of his Iran incursion, that he is looking for a way to extricate America from the quagmire he has created.  Hon. Trump has created a mess.  He appears to be a puppet of the Israelis, and gives every indication that he will walk away from the conflict with the region must more unstable than it was before he launched is war.  If he does so, we have two advantages:  the Iranians will listen to us – and no other nation — if we wish them to tamp down hostilities; and America’s heretofore allies in the region will be irate at the manner in which Hon. Trump has abandoned them to greater Iranian terrorism and economic risk than they faced before the war.  Credible reporting indicates that Hon. Trump’s apparent half-heartedness in pursing his initiative has already significantly impaired America’s relationships with its allies in the region.  America and Hon. Trump have lost face in the region because the Iranian regime has withstood America’s assertion of its military power and as a consequence of Hon. Trump’s inconsistent messages and unfulfilled threats.  Hon. Trump’s obvious unwillingness to deploy ground troops – presumably because the inevitable resulting American casualties in an unpopular war will decimate whatever political support he still has – has shown him to be a paper tiger.  China, because of its influence with Iran, can replace America as the arbiter of stability in the Middle East.  In the meantime, China should continue whatever covert assistance to Iran it is now providing to enable Iran to continue its struggle.  During the upcoming summit, Your Uniqueness might consider demanding that America immediately begin to let oil tankers bound for China proceed through the Strait of Hormuz, and, if insufficient American concessions are not forthcoming, threaten to embargo American produce (disproportionately adversely affecting Trump supporters) and its access to our rare earth minerals.  (Hon. Trump’s predictable response will be to threaten to increase tariffs on Chinese goods.  If he does so, such measures will hurt China temporarily, but will undoubtedly impair America’s ability to maintain its defensive capabilities, alarm global financial markets, and increase America’s inflation rate; Hon. Trump currently can’t politically afford these outcomes.)  

Europe, Russia, and Ukraine.  Here again, Hon. Trump’s inexplicable disregard for America’s traditional strategic allies has provided us with an unexpected opportunity to expand our global influence.  The American president’s trade wars with the European Union, his boorish and imperialistic behavior – his threat to annex Greenland by force will never be forgotten by the other NATO nations — and his willingness to essentially abandon the other NATO nations as they face what they consider a real Russian threat to their own security has created a rift, a distrust between the European nations and America, that many experts have opined will never be entirely repaired.  America’s unwarranted Iranian incursion has exacerbated this ill will among Europeans by driving up their energy costs with the likelihood that an extended conflict will materially and significantly damage their economies.  Our approach needs to be subtle.  I will humbly suggest that despite our intent to maintain solidarity with Russia, with whom you have indicated that we have an unbreakable bond, expansion of Russian political control into western Europe is not in China’s interest.  While true democracies provide an image of political freedom which the PRC must effectively counteract in messaging to our people, China needs an economically strong Europe to buy our goods.  Without wishing to offend Your Uniqueness with being too candid, Comrade Putin, with whom I am sure you have the warmest relationship, leads the hollow shell of a once-proud nation; besides nuclear weapons — which you have seemingly made it clear to the Comrade that he cannot employ in his struggle against Ukraine – and admittedly sophisticated intelligence capabilities, Russia has limited geopolitical assets and few prospects of generating them.  Its army has been embarrassingly exposed by the Ukrainians.  While China would of course outwardly applaud a Russian conquest of Ukraine, and China clearly has an interest in covertly assisting Russia because our own prestige will be degraded if Russia is perceived to have been defeated by Ukraine, our interests are arguably best served if the struggle continues in its current status – depleting both Russian and European assets – which will make the former more dependent upon us for military assistance, and the latter more amenable to any trade proposals we will wish to make in the future.  We should surreptitiously provide Russia the aid it needs to keep it going, but not enough to enable it to overpower the Ukrainians.  In retrospect, Comrade Putin’s Ukraine invasion might be interpreted not only as an effort to reestablish the USSR but also as an attempt to achieve a greater level of parity with China among those nations choosing to be led by enlightened leaders rather than by their people; if so, its abysmal strategic failure has reduced Russia to a position of China’s favored supplicant.  If necessary, we should make it absolutely clear to Comrade Putin – similar to the manner in which America asserted its precedence among western democracies by instructing Great Britain and France to cease and desist in their Middle East invasion during the 1956 Suez Crisis — that China does not consider it in China’s interest for Russia to attempt any further reestablishment of the USSR, and that any Russian expansionist designs will HALT at the current NATO border.  One may suggest that over the coming decade Europeans will become increasingly desirous of dealing with us economically because they’ll be seeking a counterweight to America – as long as they see China as a check on Russian expansion, and China’s actions do not cause European leaders to view China as a national security threat.

South America and Africa.  These continents are obviously somewhat less important geopolitically and each includes too many countries to enable each to be dealt with specifically in this memorandum, but again, Hon. Trump’s obviously racist and one-sided mercenary instincts provide us with opportunities.  Hon. Trump’s attempt to maintain a sphere of influence over South America to the exclusion of China – his so called, “Donroe Doctrine” – is a joke.  In Brazil, his feud with its leftist leader, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and his willingness to interfere in Brazilian domestic affairs and legal and democratic processes in support of “the Trump of South America,” Brazil’s former rightest president, Juan Bolsanaro, has alienated South America’s largest and most powerful country.  I will also suggest that even America’s recent deposition of Venezuela’s leftist president, Nicolás Maduro, will backfire on the Americans.  While America’s capture of Sr. Maduro was originally viewed by ordinary Venezuelans as an act of liberation, by Hon. Trump leaving the entire Maduro regime in place – deferring popular elections, turning his back on and thus insulting the opposition leader Maria Corina Machado, after she agreed to share her Nobel Peace Prize with Hon. Trump — in return for Sr. Maduro’s minions’ willingness to provide America access to Venezuelan oil (which Hon. Trump somehow, inexplicably, considers “American oil”) will ultimately turn Venezuelan public opinion against America, making it a fertile ground for us.  Likewise, one of the first initiatives of Hon. Trump’s Administration – “DOGE” — cut out aid programs to Africa considered vital to protect Africans’ health, and Hon. Trump’s well-publicized racist reference to African countries as “Shithole Countries” has undoubtedly created sufficient disfavor among African nations that China, through deft diplomacy and economic aid, can establish primacy on the African continent as well.

North America.  Since the continent is America’s direct sphere of influence, and the economies of Canada and Mexico rely heavily upon trade with America, there is only so much that can be done within this region, but even here, there are opportunities.  Hon. Trump’s imperious approach to Mexico – recall his highly offensive attempt to rename the Gulf of Mexico, the “Gulf of America,” and that not long ago America was accused by the Mexican government of conducting operations against Mexican cartels without the Mexican government’s knowledge – taken together with his offensive trade policies and his disparaging and obviously racist attitudes and references to Latin peoples have alienated Mexico sufficiently that I would suggest that deft Chinese diplomacy may enable us to establish greater economic ties with Mexico, which will be eager to have some counterweight against America.  Canada, of course, will be the most difficult.  Although Canadian Prime Minister Carney clearly has no use for Hon. Trump, and is seeking to link Canada more closely to the EU and establish even deeper ties for Canada within NATO, the Canadians’ geographic, ethnic, and cultural proximity to America enable Canadians, more than any other people, to conceptually separate Hon. Trump and his administration from “America” and the American people.  Even so, Hon. Trump’s offensive calls to make Canada America’s “51st state” and one-sided trade policies have undoubtedly increased anti-American sentiment among some Canadians, and Canadians have now undoubtedly recognized that a large share of the American electorate is gullible, easily persuaded by demagogues.  Their government may well embrace deeper exchanges of commodities with China as a counterweight to future American instability and unreliability.  We should encourage these sentiments by granting as favorable a trade status to Canadian products and produce as our own domestic circumstances can afford.

Your Uniqueness, if you have found any merit in what I have placed before you, I will beg your sufferance for my delay in providing you with my additional very low and obviously very uninformed and unworthy views supplementing those I have had the temerity to place before you; if you haven’t, I am confident that I will have no need to further ponder how China might manage the nations with which we share our own immediate sphere of the world, and our runaway province Taiwan.  Just keep in mind:  You are a Manchester City fan.  Amazingly, so am I!  Go City!         

Just a Surmise

This is posted on a whim. 

As many are aware, the White House Correspondents Association holds an annual black tie dinner on the last Saturday every April, and for many years it was attended by Presidents of the United States of both parties.  These affairs generally involved gentle jibing by Chief Executive at the White House Press Corps covering him, and the Correspondents’ (generally) good-natured ribbing of the President in response.

President Donald Trump did not attend any of the four Correspondents’ Dinners during his first term, and skipped last year’s, the first of his second term.

He’s going tonight.

Here’s the surmise – one that if it hadn’t already occurred to you when you started reading this note a few seconds ago, probably has now:  

Mr. Trump wants to start a fight.  He knows that except for perhaps the few days after he incited the January 6, 2021, attack on our nation’s Capitol building, he is as unpopular with the entirety of the American people as he has ever been, he’s mired in a war of his own making that is exacerbating Americans’ financial straits, and he wants to be attacked by the Correspondents – whom he recognizes are no more popular than he is — in a manner that can be portrayed as disrespectful in the alt-right media silo inhabited by his now-wavering supporters.  I am confident that Mr. Trump and his media advisors well recall that at the 2018 Dinner, the ribbing of then-White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders (now the Governor of Arkansas) was not good-natured, was considered in retrospect personally disrespectful, was described by even left-leaning observers as “over the line,” a “take down.” It was not a good look for the press.  I expect Mr. Trump to attempt to provoke the media in his remarks with the full litany of his normal attacks – “fake,” lying,” “failing,” “enemies of the people,” etc., etc. etc.

While Mr. Trump’s potential ploy is readily predictable, I hope – and have some confidence – that the Washington Press Corps will be too savvy to take the bait.  It probably regretted (as I recall, it should have) the treatment Ms. Sanders received at the 2018 Dinner, and the correspondents undoubtedly recognize what Mr. Trump is more than likely to be up to.  In the moment, a tongue lashing from Mr. Trump will be uncomfortable, but it’s hard to conceive of him saying anything he hasn’t said before; if the reporters don’t respond provocatively, his speech is a one-day story – tomorrow, a Sunday in spring when nobody watches media anyway – and it’s gone Monday.  If they take the bait and respond combatively, that becomes the story, and gives him the rallying point – the distraction — for his supporters that right now he desperately needs.

We’ll see what happens.   

This Weekend, It’s Hungary

As the news media trains its spotlight this weekend on the efforts of Moe, Larry, and Curly … er … Vice President J.D. Vance, U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff (a real estate developer by trade) and Presidential Son-in-Law Jared Kushner (a real estate developer whose true specialty has seemingly become exploiting his relationship with his father-in-law) to reach an enduring peace settlement with the Iranian regime in Pakistan, I suggest that the weekend event having the greatest impact on the future of human democracy is not there – where I am willing to wager there will be a lot of diddling around, with very little progress — but rather in the outcome of the election taking place tomorrow – April 12 — in Hungary, in which Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his party, democratic in name, autocratic in fact, are in what has been reported to be a close contest against challenger Péter Magyar and his supporters.  (Apparently, if it is indeed a close race, Mr. Orbán and his people haven’t yet gained the level of control over his nation’s voting processes mastered by Russian President Vladimir Putin and the lately-deposed Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.)

[An (long) aside on the Iran talks, nonetheless.  There has been a fair amount of speculation in the press as to why President Donald Trump disregarded one of the primary tenets of international diplomacy by choosing Moe … er, Mr. Vance to lead the American delegation in the talks with the Iranians; the conventional wisdom is that using a high level emissary in preliminary negotiation raises the risks and ramifications arising from any failure.  One might also have the concern that Mr. Vance was a poor choice because he has been in politics about a minute and a half and obviously has no meaningful background in the nuances of Middle East politics, even compared to Larry and C … er, Messrs. Witkoff and Kushner.  My guess:  Mr. Trump, who even as he degrades, undoubtedly retains very sophisticated instincts of self-preservation, is well aware that as his Iranian adventure has clearly gone sideways, Mr. Vance, in an effort to maintain his standing with the MAGA base for a 2028 presidential run, has leaked to whomever will listen that he was against the invasion from the beginning (such a leak, even is such was the case, is the primary No-No of presidential – vice presidential relations in any administration).  Now, Mr. Vance has been roped in to the Trump policy.  If the talks succeed, the success is Mr. Trump’s; if the talks fail, the failure is Mr. Vance’s; and if Mr. Trump doesn’t like what Mr. Vance achieves, the President can disown it and publicly politically emasculate Mr. Vance.  As little sympathy as I have for Mr. Trump, if that’s what he’s thinking by sending Mr. Vance to Pakistan, pretty clever.  A longer post on Mr. Vance will hopefully appear in these pages before too long, but right now, if I have ventured accurately, what the President is doing to his Vice President couldn’t be happening to a more-deserving guy. 😉].     

On to Hungary.  As all who care are aware, Mr. Orbán came to power by democratic means well over a decade ago but since that time has taken extensive measures to close off any challenge to his right-wing party, and reporting is too extensive not to conclude that he has made Hungary – a member of NATO and the European Union – a tool of Russian President Vladimir Putin and done all he can to hinder NATO’s and the EU’s assistance to Ukraine’s attempt to hold off the Russian invasion.  (There are credible reports that high Hungarian officials under Mr. Orbán’s command have been communicating the details of NATO’s strategies to defend Ukraine to Russian officials.)  (On a less strategic note, I also think that one can fairly surmise that during Mr. Orbán’s years in power, while he has espoused Hungarian nationalism and railed against the fall of Western Civilization, progressives and immigrants, he hasn’t let too many helpings of goulash pass him by.  😉)   

There are obviously sufficient concerns about the election’s outcome in the Orbán camp and among the world’s autocratic regimes that the Trump Regime dispatched Mr. Vance to campaign for Mr. Orbán.  (We’ll let that maneuver, an unthinkable diplomatic faux pas in any other administration, par for the course for the Trump Regime, go by).  I am most struck by the irony and hypocrisy in reports that Mr. Orbán is claiming that Mr. Magyar’s campaign is being assisted by sinister outside forces – when he clearly has the forces of the Putin and Trump Regimes on his side.  Now, that takes some chutzpah.

From reading I did some time ago, but concede have not confirmed for this note, I understand that neither NATO or the EU have mechanisms for expelling any member once admitted.  If that is indeed the case – speaking as someone who spent a lot of his career drafting commercial agreements, for which exit clauses were almost the first issues one considered – such were colossal oversights.  That said, I understand that no matter what the level of frustration that Mr. Orbán’s obstructive behavior is causing NATO and the EU at this juncture, no move could be made by these organizations at this time to expel Hungary; such would be all the pretext that Mr. Trump – such an obvious supporter of Mr. Orbán — might need to pull the United States out of NATO (in fact, if not in law).    

What transpires if Mr. Magyar and his supporters do prevail – I suspect that the polling done in the race, which I understand favors the challengers, is probably less than truly precise – remains to be seen.  Some observers are declaring that such a victory would be a significant blow to alt-right movements across the globe. That said, the first step is to see if they do indeed prevail.  I have seen commentators opine that even if it is clear that Mr. Orbán loses, he will not go quietly; he certainly has a seditious roadmap to follow, provided by a kindred spirit across the ocean.  (Ironically, as much as Putin will want to help Mr. Orbán stay in power, I’m sure that the Russian President sees that Russia cannot overtly attempt to maintain Mr. Orbán in power; such would be considered an attack on a NATO nation.  😊) 

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

The Noise Yields Its Time to Mr. Walsh

Yesterday, one of the panelists on MSNOW’s The Weekend was former U.S. IL Rep. Joe Walsh, a traditional Republican who has joined the Democratic Party during the Trump Era.  As part of a discussion of the widespread anti-Trump Regime sentiment evidenced by the large turnout at the NO KINGS rallies across the country this past Saturday, Mr. Walsh said this:

“This is a really important point – and again, this is scary to say.  The current president of the United States is doing everything he can to mess with – I watch my language – the midterms, to cancel the midterms, to never accept the results of the midterms.  Jackie [Alemany, a The Weekend host], you asked at the top, ‘What next, what next, No Kings?’  We have to make sure there are midterms … these protests have to keep growing.  … [The results need to be] ‘Too Big to Rig.’ [Emphasis Mr. Walsh’s, from tone.]”

Mr. Walsh continued later:

“Look, a lot of people voted for Trump in ’24 who are not MAGA.  They voted for Trump because the Democrats suck or because of the border or because [they] want[ed] things to cost less.  Those people are fleeing from him and that’s why there’s going to be a blue tsunami if we have midterms, if we have free and fair midterms.  The other thing is – can we just; we don’t talk about this enough – he’s [i.e., Donald Trump] whacked. [Emphasis Mr. Walsh’s, from tone.]”

And finally, the former Congressman added:

“I think we have to assume that there will be [free and fair elections]; we have to prepare like there won’t be.  Like we never envisioned – ‘Oh My God’ – a president can lose an election and then try to overturn the election and that happened and then January 6th happened.  He’s doing it right now, again.  We have to prepare for the worst.  [Emphasis Mr. Walsh’s, from tone.]”

The national NO KINGS turnout shows that we have a lot to work with in the contest to preserve our democracy.  That said:  The struggle has barely begun.

On Ms. Noem and Mr. Mullin

Let’s reflect just very briefly on the political demise of former Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem.  The first reflection is one I’ve already made here, and with regard to Ms. Noem, to me the most important:  I was genuinely sorry to see her go.  She had become such a caricature for the Trump Regime’s Nazi-like immigration enforcement activities that I considered every day she remained at her post a day in which millions of moderate Americans would be reminded that they had to vote against Republicans in the upcoming November elections, thus strengthening the chances for American democracy to survive.  I had never seen the $220 million ICE recruitment video starring Ms. Noem that was reportedly pivotal in getting her fired before the furor over it erupted during her recent Senate hearing; now that I have, my primary reaction was sympathy for Ms. Noem’s horse, who had to be both chagrined at being part of such an embarrassing spectacle and worried that Ms. Noem would shoot it when the video was completed, although at the same time being heartened that it wasn’t the biggest horse’s a– … er … behind …  in the production.

On to U.S. OK Sen. Markwayne Mullin, whom President Donald Trump is nominating to replace Ms. Noem as Homeland Secretary.  First, I truly wonder whether Mr. Mullin’s parents simply couldn’t decide whether he looked like a “Mark” or a “Wayne” when he was born.  Based upon what we’ve seen of and learned about him since Mr. Trump put his name forth, it would appear that the Senator’s parents would have been closer to the mark (so to speak 😉) had they named him, “Rocco,” “Spike,” or “Hugger,” but all of us parents understand that no one can predict these things in advance.  😊     

There are those who might rationally oppose Mr. Mullin’s confirmation as Homeland Secretary based upon his comments on Fox News about Alex Pretti the day after ICE Agents murdered Mr. Pretti in Minneapolis:  “A deranged individual who came in to cause massive damage with a loaded pistol was shot and killed.”  For Mr. Mullin to make such a declaration after there was sufficient video available to establish that such was false propaganda would, in a rational world, be sufficient to give any ethical Senator considering Mr. Mullin’s nomination concerns about Mr. Mullin’s judgement and veracity, but given the Trump Regime’s Rogue’s Gallery Cabinet, such a misrepresentation simply means that Mr. Mullin will fit right in.  If I were a Senator, I’d vote to confirm Mr. Mullin.  I still believe in the principle I first articulated in these pages years ago:  any nominee of a President to a senior Administration post should be confirmed, subject to two criteria:  whether the candidate is objectively qualified for the position; and the absence of any other objective disqualifying criteria (prior criminal conviction, demonstrable drug abuse problem, etc.).  Although Mr. Mullin reportedly has no background in homeland security issues, it is seemingly likely that he is no less qualified than any other nominee that Mr. Trump might put forward, and he is arguably less abjectly ill-suited for Homeland Security than Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard are for their offices.  Additionally, as we are all well aware, immigration policy is set by Mr. Trump and his (let’s be gentle) autocratically-inclined Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller; whomever they put in the Homeland Security seat is simply going to execute their bidding.  The nominee’s subjective leanings – e.g., in this instance that he is arguably going to be too hardline on immigration policy – shouldn’t, in my view, be part of the assessment.  I hope that Democrats don’t spend too much emotion trying to contest a confirmation which, given Republican control of the Senate and Mr. Mullin’s being a sitting Senator, is a done deal.

Two final impressions:  the first – a parallel if not a repetition of the comment above regarding Ms. Noem — is that Mr. Mullin’s replacement of Ms. Noem, taken together with the Regime’s ICE’s recent withdrawal from “Blue Cities,” will almost certainly release some of the pent-up steam against the Regime’s thuggish immigration enforcement policies that has built up during the first part of this year. I consider this release, this far from November, to be an unfortunate outcome for our democracy. 

Second, if I could make any recommendation to Mr. Mullin, it would be this:  the Regime’s attack on Iran, no matter how one views it from a foreign policy perspective, has changed the fundamentals of your job.  Spend less of your and your staff’s energy on chasing down illegal immigrants who haven’t committed crimes following their initial illegal entry, and immediately bring back any experts in Middle East terrorism that Elon Musk’s moronic DOGE purges may have terminated from the federal government.  Start consulting Homeland Security veterans from the George W. Bush and Obama Administrations about how to best to detect and keep Americans safe from terrorist activities within the U.S. by Iranian sleeper cells.  To anyone who doesn’t believe that such quiescent cells haven’t been here for years, awaiting instructions from the Iranian Regime:  I envy you your life in CandyLand.  Hopefully, Mr. Mullin recognizes that he doesn’t have that luxury.

We’ll see what happens.

Two Impressions on the Epstein Files

[It has occurred to me, given little NPR’s recent reports that the Trump Regime’s Justice Department has failed to release an Epstein victim’s witness statements allegedly describing that victim’s encounters with President Donald Trump, that the mighty New York Times had to be a bit disgruntled at being scooped.  I share a bit of the Times’ chagrin. 😉  What follows was substantially completed before NPR’s recent publication, deferred for other posts.  In entering it now, I’m supposing:  Better late than never.]

You certainly don’t need a recitation of the facts surrounding the evil perpetrated by the late Jeffrey Epstein and those who collaborated with him.  Nor do you need a rundown on the continuing rank hypocrisy and obstructionism – most glaring under the Trump Administration, but certainly not confined to the Trump Administration – of the various law enforcement agencies over many years who have professed sympathy for Epstein’s victims while mostly doing nothing to enable them to obtain justice.  Only two impressions. 

At the time this is typed, in excess of 3 million of what has been reported to be between 5 and 6 million records in the Trump Regime’s Department of Justice’s investigative files on Epstein have been released, and the Department has announced that it will not release the last 2 million.  It’s hard to see how release of these last remaining records can be compelled; Congress could pass a law, but it’s already done that, and the Regime clearly couldn’t care less.  I have also seen it reported that President Donald Trump’s name appears in the files over 1000 times.  Although it is undisputed that he maintained a relationship with Epstein over quite a span of years, the President has vigorously denied that he ever engaged in any illicit activities with Epstein’s underage female victims (or, let’s call them what they were:  girls).  At the same time, it’s clear that Mr. Trump’s toadies at the Department of Justice will follow whatever he orders.  The crux of it is that Mr. Trump – his own savviest media advisor – knows – he knows – that stonewalling on this issue is terribly politically damaging.  If the President was confident that he would not be hurt too badly by the files’ full disclosure, one can tenably surmise based upon his past behavior that the last 2 million records would have been released by now.  So I ponder:  what is the one thing that a man might fear who has been able to maintain the rabid support of his base despite his audio-taped indication that he could “grab [women] by the p—y,” despite his negligently causing hundreds of thousands of unnecessary COVID-related American deaths, despite his inexplicably obsequious relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, despite his 34 felony convictions, and despite his incitement of an traitorous attack on our nation’s Capitol?  What is the one revelation that a man, who has politically survived his undisputed commission of so many detestable actions with his core base intact, might fear would finally turn his rabid supporters against him?

I’ll leave that one to you.

As to the second impression:  I never thought I’d say this; anyone who knows me or reads these notes may well understandably consider me oblivious, paranoid, senseless as a goose, or dumber than a rock – or all of the above, plus dozens of other similar apt descriptions — but neither you nor I have probably generally considered me to be … naïve.  But I was.  All these years, I scoffed at conspiracist groups who maintained that the world was being run by a global cabal of elite pedophiles.  The Epstein files that have been released seemingly indicate that there does indeed exist an international group of wealthy business and government elites across the political spectrum who have and do indeed believe that they are entitled to abuse and destroy the lives of the vulnerable for their own pleasure.  Although it is still uncertain which of the powerful men coming into Epstein’s orbit exploited the women trafficked by Epstein, it seems clear that given the number of men named and the number of Epstein victims that have come forward, that many, many men were involved.  While these conspiracists were clearly wrong with regard to some vital particulars – the pedophilia cabal they warned against obviously does not include all of the globally politically and financial powerful, it is certainly not limited to left wing elites, and (wait for it) Donald Trump is most certainly not the man who is going to bring it to justice for the victims — arguably one must concede that this particular conspiracy theory was not entirely without a grain of reality.

I never believed it.  One or two megarich and powerful monsters, sure; we have constant evidence of the evil in the world.  But the kind of concerted and broad ring that Mr. Epstein appears to have developed and serviced?  I never thought that such could actually exist.  I was confident that these conspiracists were entirely wacked out, howling at the moon about global pedophilia rings while standing in a Los Angeles parking lot waiting to prove that the 1969 lunar landing was a hoax or scanning the sky for Italian lasers altering voting machines.

It would appear that their claims of the existence of an international pedophilia ring weren’t entirely wrong, after all.

The State of the Union I’m Hoping For

This post runs contrary to my general rule against writing and posting on the same day; it arises from an email exchange I had with a close friend earlier today.

President Donald J. Trump delivers his Presidential State of the Union Address to Congress this evening.  All who care are aware that Mr. Trump’s conduct of the presidency during the first year of his second term has been so disreputable that his approval rating has plummeted among all voter segments save his hardest-core supporters, and in even that segment he has sustained erosion.  I have heard commentators opine in recent days that because the speech will be watched by a wide swath of Americans across the political spectrum, the President’s advisors see this State of the Union Address as perhaps his last opportunity (think about that; he’s only been back in office a year) to right his sinking popularity and at the same time provide a campaign lifeline to Republican candidates representing swing areas (and possibly not-normally-swing areas) who seemingly currently face the prospect of a political bloodbath.  To achieve the result that Mr. Trump’s advisors and his terrified Republican officeholder supplicants hope for, Mr. Trump will need to project a reasonable tone, acknowledge the majority of Americans’ fears about their economic circumstances and the country’s future while laying out specific proposals to address these Americans’ financial plight, express regret about the Supreme Court’s recent ruling vitiating his tariff policy without descending into vituperation, point out the way his administration has shut down the border while perhaps indicating that ICE will be adopting a lighter touch in its activities within our cities, etc., etc., etc.

I am confident that these Republican worthies (obviously using that term loosely) fervently hope he will avoid a harsh, combative tone of denial, or claim that America is in a golden age, or claim that America is loved around the world, or any declaration that affordability is a hoax, or any declaration that his administration intends to take steps to prevent widespread voter fraud in the 2026 elections, or personal attacks on Democrats, or racially-tinged attacks on immigrants, or above all, personal attacks on the Supreme Court – including the two Justices he appointed — that recently struck down his fairly unpopular tariff policy.  (I admit that I felt perverse amusement when following the adverse decision, Mr. Trump referred to the three Republican-appointed Justices who rejected his claim to broad tariffing authority as “lapdogs”; I considered his comment an unwittingly indictment of the three Republican-appointed Justices who did vote to uphold his tariffing authority – Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh – who are, indeed, lapdogs.)  

You and I are both sufficiently aware of my fallibility, but I am nonetheless going to make a straightforward pronouncement here:  Mr. Trump is at this point congenitally incapable of performing in the manner his advisors wish and his Republican supplicants need to politically survive.  He will claim that under his leadership, that our union is strong; that the economy is strong; that the world is more secure, and he alone has been able to bring peace in about 100 countries (none of which actually seem to be at peace 😉); that he does intend to take steps to avoid voter fraud in certain areas (all Democratic strongholds); that ICE has made the country safer; and that the Supreme Court has acted shamefully and hurt our country by its recent tariff ruling, and he intends to impose more tariffs.  In short, he will adopt the combative tone and say all the things that his advisors and fellow Republicans want him to avoid. 

Although I have continued with my recent months’ habit of not watching or listening to Mr. Trump’s lies and loathsome diatribes – my heart is not that strong – I intend to watch the address tonight, hoping for the best – the best being that Mr. Trump will indeed perform as I have predicted.  Although one is heartsick at the hardship, the lost and ruined lives, the irreparable damage to innocent children’s psyches that this Regime has cruelly wrought, it is seemingly clear that each report of a new despicable outrage by the Regime – from its ICE’s Nazi-like activities and the murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, to its continued refusal to even acknowledge let alone address many Americans’ economic plight, to its continued refusal to provide impoverished Americans with healthcare financial assistance, to its refusal to follow the Epstein law and provide justice to the Epstein victims, to its threats to invade Greenland, to its attacks on its own Supreme Court (which must make even some semi-perceptive MAGAs wonder if he’s acting legally), to its plastering Mr. Trump’s name on and flying banners with Mr. Trump’s picture from various federal buildings, to … you get it (I apologize if I have left out any of the Regime’s shameless activities you find the most offensive) – has, at one level, become means to an end.  As British Prime Minister Winston Churchill told the House of Commons in June, 1940 – and I make this analogy intentionally, and not lightly – “We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering.” At this point, I don’t want to see Attorney General Pam Bondi, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., or Epstein-implicated Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick fired; they serve the same emotive rallying point for Regime opponents as MAGAs used to point to former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.  If Mr. Trump was savvy enough to jettison some of these subordinates, it would take some of the steam out of the Regime’s opposition.    

Returning to a theme you have heard me repeat here endlessly: given the majority of American voters’ selection of Donald Trump in November of 2024, I – like our European allies — have lost and will probably never regain confidence in the good sense of the majority of American citizens.  It is clear that in order to get the pivotal segment of our citizens who inexplicably thought Mr. Trump was the solution to their difficulties to continue to see reality, they must be regularly confronted with Regime outrages.  Ironically – and at the same time unfortunately and happily — Mr. Trump seems willing to accommodate this need.

I would suggest that we must face the fact that at this point there is no chance – zero — that we as a nation are in a position to face the myriad of pressing substantive problems we should be addressing – the economic insecurity of a large percentage of our people, what meaningful work can be developed for our citizens whose skill sets may be less well suited to the automated future, our federal debt, climate change, artificial intelligence, progress in the health sciences, the improvement and broadening of our education systems, a coherent immigration policy, our proper role in world affairs, you name it – until we manage to stifle the Regime of ignorance, denial and autocracy now governing our country.  We need to put our substantive concerns aside, and for the present absorb the future Regime outrages that seem likely to further distress the pivotal middle segment of our citizens as setbacks that might ultimately enable us to preserve our democracy.  Let the President continue to blithely deny that many Americans are suffering economically.  Let him idiotically withhold vaccines, moronically declare Tylenol unsafe for pregnant women.  Let him impose more illegal tariffs.  Let him withhold the last 2 million Epstein documents.  Let him fly his picture from every building in Washington.  Indeed, let him bulldoze the West Wing, erect a castle, and paint his face on it.  These are arguably means to an end. 

There are, of course, two exceptions to this rule.  The first is that we don’t want any more people’s lives sacrificed to Regime violence.  The second involves the measures that the Regime is almost certainly going to attempt to subvert free and fair 2026 federal elections.  These must be contested by all legal and peaceful means available.  I’ll venture that the culmination is likely to arrive this summer when Mr. Trump knows — when it absolutely sinks in – that a fair election will be a tidal wave against him; that he will be facing circumstances, unlike his loss in 2020 — which, although clear, was undeniably close in states such as Georgia and Wisconsin – where most citizens will intuitively know from their own feelings that despite Regime claims, Republican defeats weren’t “rigged,” weren’t due to “voter fraud.”  

That will be our most dangerous period.  At the start of the Regime’s term, I thought the struggle might be coming in 2028; as I’ve indicated more recently, I think that it will be upon us in 2026.  (Get ready to attend your next local NO KINGS rally on March 28.  😊)  In a positive statement in which I wholeheartedly believe:  if we can get through it, we are still the United States of America, the most democratic nation in the history of the earth, which despite its faults has through its goodwill, industry, and initiative done more good for more people than any other nation in history and solved the greatest number of the greatest problems humankind has faced.  The substantive and political challenges we now confront can be addressed – if not entirely during my generation’s lifetime, during the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren — if we manage to secure our democracy.

We’ll see what happens tonight.