“The laws which I shall promulgate will not be complete in detail (that would be an endless task), but will present the gist and sense of the provisions.”

• Roman Statesman and Philosopher Marcus Tullius Cicero; The Laws

Over much of the last year, these pages have focused primarily on the threat to our republic presented by President Donald Trump and his MAGA acolytes.  While the Trump Administration has moved even more quickly than I anticipated to establish an American Apartheid, in this note and at times in the future, I intend to venture sentiments as to how we might address various issues I consider of concern to the future of our nation – whether or not there is any realistic possibility of their being enacted.  (The one addressed here would, given the Supreme Court’s decision, Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, require a Constitutional Amendment or a reconstituted Court.)  There may be points at which the suggestions I offer in one of these notes might be inconsistent with what I express in another; in a nation as complex as ours, there are always competing valid interests in need of reconciliation.  In these posts, I am going to try to follow the counsel of Cicero, and set forth a “gist and sense” of direction on an issue without delving into detail.  (We’ll see how well I succeed. 😉 )

“In order to achieve the widest possible distribution of political power, financial contributions to political campaigns should be made by individuals, and individuals alone.  I see no reason for labor unions – or corporations – to participate in politics. [Emphasis in Original]”

• The late U.S. AZ Sen. Barry Goldwater; The Conscience of a Conservative

Mr. Goldwater’s book, published in 1960, was the first book I reread after I retired.  Whether or not one agreed with him on all issues, he was a straight-talking, no-nonsense traditional conservative, not the MAGA variety.  Since our nation, assisted by a Republican-dominated Supreme Court, has gone in the opposite direction from that urged by Mr. Goldwater 65 years ago, we are confronted – as he in effect suggested we would be – with a concentration of political power in few hands.  The premise that money is speech is absurd.

I would suggest that our body politic would be better served by the following rules:

• Only natural persons can contribute to political campaigns.  (No corporations, no labor unions, no centralized political parties, no Political Action Committees, etc., etc., etc.)

• A natural person can only contribute to the campaign of a candidate for whom s/he can vote.  (This would eliminate the flood of money into state and local races by outside influences.)

• A natural person can only contribute to one candidate in a campaign.  (Limiting the ability to curry influence with both sides.)

• A natural person’s contribution limit is $3,500 per campaign, adjusted annually for inflation.

• A candidate and the candidate’s spouse can contribute up to $50,000 to the candidate’s campaign.

• Any campaign contributions a candidate retains at the end of his/her campaign (i.e., either as of election day or the day the candidate end/ceases active campaigning, whether or not the candidate formally ends or suspends his/her campaign) must be refunded on a pro-rata basis to the contributors (with appropriate sums from the cache deducted to pay the cost of returning the refunds).

• It shall be illegal for any person to give money to or receive money from another person with the intent that the recipient will contribute the gift to a candidate’s campaign.

• It shall be illegal for any person or organization to influence a natural person to contribute to any campaign.

• It shall be illegal for any organization to fund or publish works explicitly or impliedly endorsing or criticizing any candidate or political party.

I have undoubtedly missed points that have occurred to you; there are certainly loopholes in what has been suggested; but you get the “gist and sense.”  These notions may only be a start; but I would submit that instituting them would put us in a better position than we are now.  Feel free to add any suggestions — or indicate why you feel what is set forth here is entirely misguided Noise 😊.

Stay well.  

As all are aware, MAGA Activist Charlie Kirk, 31, was assassinated via long-range rifle shot on September 10.  A few impressions arise, none terribly unique.

The first is my realization that as I decry MAGAs for staying within their own media silo, I clearly remain within my own.  If you would have asked me on September 9 who Charlie Kirk was, I would only have been able to indicate that he was an alt-right influencer; I was not nearly as aware of him or of the outsized influence he apparently had on the MAGA movement as I am, for example, of Steve Bannon.

The second is the most important:  no one should be a victim of violence, in the political sphere or otherwise.  Mr. Kirk leaves a wife and two children.  The terrible atmosphere of violence to which we have devolved need not be elaborated upon here.  I understand that some on the right are loudly criticizing some on the left whom the rightists feel either haven’t shown sufficient remorse or perhaps indicated outright pleasure at Mr. Kirk’s demise.  I don’t follow much in the social media sphere (quite an admission for a blogger 😉 ), but any expression of pleasure or satisfaction at Mr. Kirk’s passing is more than callous; it is barbaric.  To the extent any such expressions have been made, those on the right are absolutely correct to condemn them.  At the same time, although it is only human nature to feel more deeply the loss of those with whom one feels kinship, I would suggest that the rightists criticizing those on the left are entitled to expect the same level of regret from the leftists regarding Mr. Kirk’s passing that they themselves felt regarding the hammer attack on 82-year-old Paul Pelosi, or the June shooting death of liberal Minnesota House of Representatives Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman, or the spring arson attack on PA Gov. Josh Shapiro.

The third impression is as ominous as it is predictable.  I have seen reported that in a video following Mr. Kirk’s death, President Donald Trump denounced the “radical Left” for rhetoric that he claimed to be “directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today” – while failing to mention the incidents involving Ms. Hortman and Messrs. Pelosi and Shapiro.  The President reportedly added, “It’s long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree day after day, year after year, in the most hateful and despicable way possible.”  (Mr. Trump’s hypocrisy is, of course, palpable.)  Also on the day of Mr. Kirk’s murder, the New York Times reported that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller tweeted, “All of us must now dedicate ourselves to defeating the evil that stole Charlie from this world.” [Emphasis Added]  Coming from arguably the most partisan member of the Trump Administration, such an expression was chilling.  It remains to be seen how aggressively the President and his acolytes will try to exploit Mr. Kirk’s assassination against their political opponents.  In these situations, one rarely goes wrong assuming that they will proceed the most shamelessly.

Since Mr. Kirk’s assassination, I have become acquainted through various sources with a number of his pronouncements.  Although Mr. Kirk was clearly an able, articulate, and bright man, I consider most of what I understand to be his positions to be abhorrent trash.  I have seen one of his 2023 declarations, dealing with gun rights, quoted in several quarters, presumably because it is considered ironic by those who have cited it:  “I think it’s worth [it] to have a cost of unfortunately some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.”

While I have now confirmed that I agreed with Mr. Kirk on very little, I will nonetheless take the liberty of paraphrasing him:  it is worth the cost of having those with whom we vehemently disagree speak and move safely among us so that we can all enjoy the First Amendment Right of Free Speech to protect our other God-given rights.  That Mr. Kirk was struck down is as great a danger to our democracy as the divisive views he espoused.  I understand that he frequently proclaimed his Christianity.  May he, as I pray I will, be judged by a merciful God.

[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.

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.

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:

1. Annex Texas
2. Claim the majority [of] the Oregon territory and California
3. Reduce tariffs
4. 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.