“We are in the hands of an adolescent”

The US is at the mercy of an immature, asocial, egotistical, angry, ruthless being of terrifying power.

In the first-season Star Trek (TOS) episode “Charlie X,” the Enterprise takes onboard a castaway teenager, Charlie Evans (played with lovely creepiness by Robert Walker, Jr). Long story short, it turns out the disembodied-nigh-god inhabitants of the planet he’d been marooned on as an infant had given him nigh-god powers over reality to help him survive — powers that, in the hands of an unsocialized, hormone-ridden, stereotypical teenager makes him an existential menace.

And, as that is becoming clearer — that Charlie can and will, with the power of his mind, control the ship, make things and people disappear (or change them into iguanas, or steal their faces), break bones, compel people to speak or be silent — Spock says to Kirk the line in the title of this post.

The US is in a Charlie X moment.

We have an elected president who does pretty much whatever he wants. If he has the people willing to do it, it gets done. If they aren’t willing, he fires them until he gets some who are. Law? He’s the president — law is something he uses as a weapon, not is hampered by as a restriction.

When you’re nigh-omnipotent, who can tell you no?
Ego-driven monuments and building renamings? Sure.
Enrich himself, his companies, his family? Naturally!
Lie, hyperbolize, exaggerate, without any apparent sense of shame, double down when corrected, and never, ever, admit you were incorrect? Sounds like a plan!
Militarize law and immigration enforcement? Sounds fun! Shit on international allies? Why not?
Throw decorum, tradition, civility, politeness, and norms out the window as irrelevant wussiness that keep him from doing whatever he wants to do? Tradition and politeness are for wussies!
Roll back a century of social and legal advancement, and securing of civil rights, by anyone who’s not a white Christian man? Hold my nuggets …
Look to fire anyone he doesn’t like, whether he has authority or not, and disassemble the civil service that was put in to keep government from operating on the spoils system? Gilded Age, baby!
Engage in wide-spread wielding of the Justice Department, et al., as weapons of vengeance? Damn straight.
Call for the imprisonment, banishment, or execution of his political enemies? Naturally!
Pander to any conservative wish list that comes from a person or group who sufficiently kow-tows and/or donates? Outstanding!

Declare anyone, or anywhere, he wants as “terrorists” or a “terrorist organization,” which he can then use his expansive “emergency” powers (granted to the President by successive generations of Congress) to outlaw, imprison, shoot, or bomb?

Who’s gonna stop me?

Ultimately, that’s Charlie X’s line — once he learns that he doesn’t have to follow the rules, that he doesn’t have to put up with Kirk’s advice, then orders. Who can stop him?

Who going to stop our nigh-omnipotent adolescent?

Not the Courts — not, ultimately, when he’s got a hand-picked Supreme Court majority that believes that the Executive gets to execute pretty much anything it wants, and that stare decisis is for suckers.

Not Congress — his GOP allies are either wildly enthused about how their ideological G-spots are being scratched, or else terrified of being primaried by his MAGA machine and its multi-billionaire backers. The only pushback from them has come where he’s bumped against their prerogatives, and even there it’s been hit or miss.

His Democratic opponents, meanwhile seem to feel that if they squawk nicely-worded protests and make pro forma (but always fragile) moves to provide a bit of publicity-worthy friction to his advance — well, that’s all they can be expected to do, amirite?

Did I mention Charlie doesn’t have good boundary awareness with women?

Trump’s often compared to a senile old man, and anyone who claims to not see his cognitive decline is, at the most charitable, simply not looking / wishfully thinking. But the comparison to an adolescent seems also compelling. An adolescent who has always lived a life of entitled privilege. An adolescent who has always bought or legally evaded any significant consequences to his actions, from stiffing contractors to fomenting mob violence. An adolescent raised by an abusive father to never apologize, never compromise, always go for the throat, that losers are anyone who doesn’t win everything, and losers should be curb-stomped to make sure they learn their lesson. An adolescent raised in “the power of positive thinking” — that you can make your own reality, your own truth, if you stick by it, deny anything that denies it, double down on it when in trouble, and never, ever, admit you were wrong.

An adolescent who is now arguably the most powerful person on earth, surrounded by minions who eagerly do whatever he wants and who stroke his ego that anything he wants is the right thing to do, while also surrounded by ego-stroking villains who see his willfulness and willingness to do whatever he wants can be steered to their own ideological ends, leaving him to think it was all his own idea.

And then, today …

And today he announced that he’d (a) kidnapped the leader of a foreign nation, and his wife, to be shipped back to America for a “fair” trial (note the word “fair” was never actually used; “show” may be a better word), and (b) meanwhile, the US would be running the country, with “boots on the ground,” so as to (c) build a new, democratic, and American-allied country, because that always works and was never criticized or run against by the guy now doing it, and (d) by the way, it’s open season for American (with priority) oil companies to move in and take over the petroleum resources there.

As a bonus, our Sect’y of State was out there ~~winning hearts and minds~~ telling the leadership of Cuba that they might be next.

Don’t be me wrong — Maduro is a piece of work. He’s a petty dictator who’s relished using American hostility as a way to leverage dictatorial power in his own country, and who’s arguably at best turned a blind eye to narcotics cartels shipping goods to a (ever-willing-to-consume) US. If he’d fallen over dead with a brain aneurism, I wouldn’t be mourning his passage.

This whole thing is quite different.

The US President, after saber-rattling and threats for quite a long time, decided to simply declare drug smugglers as an invading military force, and therefore subject to military force in return. Not surprisingly, the US Navy and Air Force and whomever else he wanted to show off were pretty effective at blowing up (what he said, with no evidence given, how dare you question his integrity?) narcotics boats. But not so effective that they couldn’t commit a few text book war crimes — denied, then angrily quasi-justified, then just handwaved off.

That got enough applause (or acquiescence) from the usual suspects to move on to declaring a shipping embargo on Venezuela. It wasn’t all that well-enforced, I’ve seen reported, but it did make for some big publicity moments, which was even more important to show Trump how big and powerful he was.

But no immediate craven surrender by Maduro was forthcoming, and our adolescent is an impatient adolescent — and one that really gets off on compensating for something by the size of his military. This is the guy who was jealous of all those military parades in other countries, so got one for his birthday. This is the guy who wants everyone to be cowed by his hand-designed battleships. This is the guy who’s happy to throw his “America First” isolationist campaign principles out the window in order to, yes, potentially start a foreign war (It’s not foreign, its on a continent named after our country!) with boots on the ground (such big boots! shoot to kill!) to do some hopefully-favorable nation-building (after attacking the very of nation-building for the last decade or more) (but I can do it right!).

I mean, this comes across as someone ~~sending Trump an article~~ buttonholing Trump at a Mar-a-Lago party and waxing lyrical about how in the ~~Gilded~~ Golden Age* the US used to invade Latin American countries all the time, overthrowing governments to put in friendly puppets, and installing American companies to extract everything they could.
*Though not just in the 19th or early 20th Century, of course.

Of course, that’s why so many people in Latin America still think the US is an imperialistic power, driven by money and ego to attack them as it pleases. That’s why a lot of countries, no matter how much we have, at times, helped them, mistrust at best and hate at worst the US. And Trump seems determined to prove them right — indeed, to double down by not only doing this, but making it clear he has the personal right to do it because he can.

And for all the people warning about how this will drag the US’ reputation and any moral high ground it carries around the world down into the mud? He doesn’t care. Moral high grounds are for wimps. The US owns the Western Hemisphere, so it can do anything it wants there — just watch! As for the rest of the world, they’re all shit-hole or doomed or ego-stroking countries, so who cares about them. Letting Russia and China do what they will? As long as he looks good (put up another triumphal arch!), it sounds to Trump like a fabulous plan.

The follow-up with Cuba is meant to tell the entire world — from Cuba, to Greenland, to Iran, to the UK — that, if they don’t say nice things and give nice concessions, the nigh-omnipotent adolescent in charge of the US military machine might invade their place next.

Nice country you got here — shame if the Marines were to invade it.

Is that the might-makes-right, organized crime approach to foreign relations that we really want to represent as the norm for us, or for our enemies (who will be ever-growing in number?

Stray thoughts that my writing above might provoke (or that come to mind, since it’s been quite some time since I spoke broadly about Trump).

He was elected President

He sure was. None of that makes the above justified, or legally or morally defensible. People wanting a dictator doesn’t make having a dictator any more legal.

Yeah, but he’s better than Biden or Harris!

Even if so, see above.

He’s making America great again!

Only in a Hobbesian “nasty, brutish, and short” war of all-against-all sort of way. Which is not likely to end well for anyone, including America.

That said, I don’t think Trump cares about the long-term reality. He wants a strong/great America because he wants to be the Dear Leader of a strong/great America. It’s about him, not us. Sure, he’d love it if people put in statues and monuments and triumphal arches to him for centuries to come — but he’s much more into them doing it now, while he’s around to bask in the adulation.

If it all goes to shit the moment he’s dead? I don’t think he gives a damn.

What about the US invasion of Panama?

Yes, one could argue that 1989 attack to arrest Noriega and end his dictatorship had the same justification (or, on the other hand, lack of it) as Trump’s actions in Venezuela. One could handwave about how Panama had formally declared war on the US, that American citizens (in the Canal Zone) were in danger, or that the Panamanian Defense Force had killed an American Marine, but that’s not much.

But even so … so? I’m not sure a 37-year-ago precedent — and not a particularly admirable one at that — means much.

It’s all just Trump Derangement Syndrome!

I’m old enough to remember when Democrats dismissed wild, weird conspiracy theories about Clinton(s), Obama, and Biden as “Derangement Syndromes,” which seemed quite credible, given the utter craziness about what was being said (e.g., Pizzagate, Operation: Jade Helm, etc.).

Trump, of course, is always happy to project what he and his are doing onto others — thus now everything is dismissed as “Trump Derangement Syndrome” (no matter what sort of criticism or concern it is).

Indeed, the TDS label is just what Trump likes, because he can just say it, rather than countering arguments being made against his actions and plans. It’s a lovely ad hominem — one of his favorite things.

If it’s worthwhile, I don’t think this invasion was a Wag-the-Dog to distract from the Epstein Files. Or from the economy. I might be convinced that he’s looking for a topic for that big triumphal arch he’s having built in Washington for the 250th of American Independence (irony is not Trump’s strong suit).

I do think that the minor reason for all this is that Maduro didn’t bow down to him when he demanded it (adolescents want respect, earned or not), and the major reason is that he wants to be a War Leader and ride in a parade, and maybe make sure that it’s his name on that triumphal arch (adolescents love ego strokes).

Oh, he’s just joking about Subject X

This is commonly said by Trump’s enablers when he says something particularly grotesque, hurtful, threatening, or a bit cray-cray.

Never mind that some jokes just aren’t funny or appropriate, given his position. If I had my family over to your house and, on your way out, said, “Hope your granny doesn’t slip and break her hip and die a painful, lingering death,” would it become “okay” if the rest of my family (not me, of course) insisted it was just a joke, ha, ha, ha, he’s so high-spirited and outspoken …

For that matter, is there a single thing that Trump has joked about doing that, when he came to it, he didn’t actually do? Sometimes its to stroke his own ego, sometimes because its what he wanted, and/or sometimes because he knew it would outrage his impotent opposition. But way too many of those jokes have turned into a twisted, Joker-like reality.

Don’t worry, it’ll all be over soon

At best, Trump is President for another three years. He’s hinted enough times that he wants a third term, of course. Is he that to:

encourage folks to figure out a legal way to bypass the Constitution?
see how much popular support the idea draws (either as a way to make it happen or because of the ego stroking it provides)?
get off on making his opponents angry?
normalize the topic so that when he does it (emergency powers!) people won’t be shocked?

But even if he doesn’t make a grab at that brass ring (and if he does, do you think the other two branches, under his control, will really stop him, given their acquiescence and support to date?), he’s still around for three years (since we know, because he’s told us, he’s in Perfect Health, Much Better Than Has Every Been Seen Before).

How much more damage will he do in three years?

How much more pollution and climate damage and opening up of wilderness to mineral extraction? How many more civil rights will he take from how many more people? How much will he Make America White Again? How much damage will he do to our national reputation, or our national norms, or our national identity, or even the idea of us being a nation any more?

And that all assumes that we don’t get President Vance taking office in 2029.

Sitting back and trusting that things will snap back to “normal” in three years, if we just hold on … doesn’t seem like a smart idea. A lot of damage, pain, and death stands in the balance.

We’re in the hands of an adolescent. What are we going to do about it?

Charlie gets taken away (hopefully not returning four years later).

The Enterprise is only saved because the disembodied-nigh-gods realize their mistake and come to take Charlie away where he cannot hurt anyone, even if it means that he’ll be isolated from humanity for the rest of his life. In his case, it’s a tragic ending to the story.

In our case … I don’t think can’t count on that sort of divine intervention.

It’s annoying to think that I wrote a post with the same title — and about the same person — almost nine years ago.

Quotations on Elections and Character

Time for my quadrennial quoting of folk who have something to say about the US elections

I maintain a website of quotations, so once every four years or so I dip into the grab bag there for other people’s profound words about elections and voting and the like.

This year I had two classes of quotes I picked: ones about character (and, just to be clear, Donald Trump’s lack of anything that can be considered the sort of character you want to have in a US President, or even your McDonalds’ fry wrangler), and ones about voting and participation (and why it’s important).

Here’s what I had to say, cleverly covered up by other people saying it.

Character, and What We Do/Don’t Want in a President’s

If a public man tries to get your vote by saying that he will do something wrong in your interest, you can be absolutely certain that if ever it becomes worth his while he will do something wrong against your interest.

¶ Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919) American politician, statesman, conservationist, writer, US President (1901-1909)
Speech (1910-04-23), “Citizenship in a Republic [The Man in the Arena],” Sorbonne, Paris

The supreme quality for leadership is unquestionably integrity. Without it, no real success is possible, no matter whether it is on a section gang, a football field, in an army, or in an office. If a man’s associates find him guilty of phoniness, if they find that he lacks forthright integrity, he will fail. His teachings and actions must square with each other. The first great need, therefore, is integrity and high purpose.

¶ Dwight David Eisenhower (1890-1969) American general, US President (1953-61)
(Attributed)

The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact. Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity, every crack in the common front against fascism. They use every opportunity to impugn democracy. They use isolationism as a slogan to conceal their own selfish imperialism. They cultivate hate and distrust of both Britain and Russia. They claim to be superpatriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.

¶ Henry Wallace (1888-1965) American politician, journalist, farmer, businessman
“The Danger of American Fascism,” New York Times (1944-04-09)

Since the beginning of our American history, we have been engaged in change — in a perpetual peaceful revolution — a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly adjusting itself to changing conditions — without the concentration camp or the quick-lime in the ditch.

¶ Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945) American lawyer, politician, statesman, US President (1933-1945)
Speech (1941-01-06), “State of the Union [Four Freedoms Speech],” Washington, D. C.

Justice requires us to remember that when any citizen denies his fellow, saying, “His color is not mine,” or “His beliefs are strange and different,” in that moment he betrays America, though his forebears created this Nation.

¶ Lyndon B. Johnson (1908-1973) American politician, educator, US President (1963-69)
Speech (1965-01-20), Inaugural Address, Washington, D. C.

Dependability, integrity, the characteristic of never knowingly doing anything wrong, that you would never cheat anyone, that you would give everybody a fair deal. Character is a sort of an all-inclusive thing. If a man has character, everyone has confidence in him. Soldiers must have confidence in their leader.

¶ Omar Bradley (1893-1981) American general
Interview with Edgar Puryear (1963-02-15)

A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.

¶ John Paul Stevens (1920-2019) American lawyer, US Supreme Court Justice (1975-2010)
Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) [dissenting]

Because power corrupts, society’s demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.

¶ John Adams (1735-1826) American lawyer, Founding Father, statesman, US President (1797-1801)
(Attributed)

If you don’t understand that you work for your mislabeled “subordinates,” then you know nothing of leadership. You know only tyranny.

¶ Dee W. Hock (b. 1929) American businessman
“Unit of One Anniversary Handbook,” Fast Company (1997-02-28)

The best foreign policy is to live our daily lives in honesty, decency, and integrity; at home, making our own land a more fitting habitation for free men; and abroad, joining with those of like mind and heart, to make of the world a place where all men can dwell in peace.

¶ Dwight David Eisenhower (1890-1969) American general, US President (1953-61)
Inaugural Gabriel Silver lecture, Columbia University (1950-03-23)

For of those to whom much is given, much is required. And when at some future date the high court of history sits in judgment on each of us — recording whether in our brief span of service we fulfilled our responsibilities to the state — our success or failure, in whatever office we hold, will be measured by the answers to four questions:
First, were we truly men of courage — with the courage to stand up to one’s enemies — and the courage to stand up, when necessary, to one’s associates — the courage to resist public pressure, as well as private greed?
Secondly, were we truly men of judgment — with perceptive judgment of the future as well as the past — of our mistakes as well as the mistakes of others — with enough wisdom to know what we did not know and enough candor to admit it.
Third, were we truly men of integrity — men who never ran out on either the principles in which we believed or the men who believed in us — men whom neither financial gain nor political ambition could ever divert from the fulfillment of our sacred trust?
Finally, were we truly men of dedication — with an honor mortgaged to no single individual or group, and comprised of no private obligation or aim, but devoted solely to serving the public good and the national interest?
Courage — judgment — integrity — dedication — these are the historic qualities […] which, with God’s help […] will characterize our Government’s conduct in the four stormy years that lie ahead.

¶ John F. Kennedy (1917-1963) US President (1961-63)
Speech (1961-01-09), Massachusetts legislature, Boston

You can tell the size of a man by the size of the thing that makes him mad.

¶ Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965) American diplomat, statesman
Speech (1952-08-28), “Faith in Liberalism,” State Committee of the Liberal Party, New York City

You see the thing you have to remember. When you get to be President, there are all those things, the honors, the twenty-one-gun salutes, all those things. You have to remember it isn’t for you. It’s for the Presidency, and you’ve got to keep yourself separate from that in your mind. If you can’t keep the two separate, yourself and the Presidency, you’re in all kinds of trouble.

¶ Harry S Truman (1884-1972) US President (1945-1953)
In Merle Miller, Plain Speaking: An Oral Biography of Harry S. Truman, ch. 15 (1973)

Dishonor in public life has a double poison. When people are dishonorable in private business, they injure only those with whom they deal or their own chances in the next world. But when there is a lack of honor in Government, the morals of the whole people are poisoned.

¶ Herbert Hoover (1874-1964) American engineer, bureaucrat, President of the US (1928-32)
Speech (1951-08-30), “Concerning Honor in Public Life,” Iowa Centennial Celebration (national radio broadcast), Des Moines

The only way of really finding out a man’s true character is to play golf with him. In no other walk of life does the cloven hoof so quickly display itself.

¶ P. G. Wodehouse (1881-1975) Anglo-American humorist, playwright and lyricist [Pelham Grenville Wodehouse]
“Ordeal by Golf,” Collier’s Magazine (1919-12-06)

Precisely in trifles, wherein a man is off his guard, does he show his character, and then we are often able at our leisure to observe in small actions or mere mannerisms the boundless egoism which has not the slightest regard for others and in matters of importance does not afterwards deny itself, although it is disguised. We should never miss such an opportunity. If in the petty affairs and circumstances of everyday life, in the things to which the de minimis lex non curat applies, a man acts inconsiderately, seeking merely his own advantage or convenience to the disadvantage of others; if he appropriates that which exists for everybody; then we may be sure that there is no justice in his heart, but that he would be a scoundrel even on a large scale if his hands were not tied by law and authority; we should not trust him across our threshold. Indeed, whoever boldly breaks the laws of his own circle will also break those of the State whenever he can do so without risk.

¶ Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) German philosopher
Parerga and Paralipomena, Vol. 1, “Aphorisms on the Wisdom of Life [Aphorismen zur Lebensweisheit],” ch. 4 “Counsels and Maxims [Paränesen und Maximen],” § 3.29 (1851) [tr. Payne (1974)]

Something of a person’s character may be discovered by observing when and how he smiles. Some people never smile; they grin.

¶ Christian Nestell Bovee (1820-1904) American epigrammatist, writer, publisher
Intuitions and Summaries of Thought, vol. 2 (1862)

We can have no better clue to a man’s character than the company he keeps.

¶ Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) Italian politician, philosopher, political scientist
The Discourses on Livy, Book 3, ch. 34 (1517) [tr. Thomson (1883)]

Voting and Democracy and Participation and Elections

Build movements. Vote with your values, but vote strategically. Voting isn’t a Valentine. It’s a chess move.

¶ Rebecca Solnit (b. 1961) American writer, historian, activist
Facebook (2016-10-17)

If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too. And when a nation has to fight for its freedom, it can only hope to win if it possesses certain qualities: honesty, courage, loyalty, vision and self-sacrifice. If it does not possess them, it has only itself to blame if it loses its freedom.

¶ W. Somerset Maugham (1874-1965) English novelist and playwright [William Somerset Maugham]
Strictly Personal, § 30 (1941)

Of course I vote! If you’re a woman, or a person of color, or a person who doesn’t own property, or even a white male who doesn’t belong to the nobility, centuries of struggle and many deaths have bought you the right to vote. I vote to keep faith with peasant rebels and suffragist hunger strikers and civil rights workers braving the lynch mobs of the South, if for no other reason. But there is another reason — because who we vote for has an enormous impact on real peoples’ lives.

¶ Starhawk (b. 1951) American writer, activist, feminist theologian [b. Miriam Simos]
Blog post (2016-11-07), “Pre-Election Day Thoughts”

Monarchy is like a sleek craft, it sails along well until some bumbling captain runs it into the rocks. Democracy, on the other hand, is like a raft. It never goes down but, dammit, your feet are always wet.

¶ Fisher Ames (1758-1808) American politician, orator
(Attributed)

The people — the people — are the rightful masters of both Congresses, and courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it.

¶ Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) American lawyer, politician, US President (1861-65)
Speech (1859-09-16), Columbus, Ohio

Another point of disagreement [with Lesser Evil Voting] is not factual but involves the ethical/moral principle […] sometimes referred to as the “politics of moral witness.” Generally associated with the religious left, secular leftists implicitly invoke it when they reject LEV on the grounds that “a lesser of two evils is still evil.” Leaving aside the obvious rejoinder that this is exactly the point of lesser evil voting — i.e. to do less evil, what needs to be challenged is the assumption that voting should be seen a form of individual self-expression rather than as an act to be judged on its likely consequences. […] The basic moral principle at stake is simple: not only must we take responsibility for our actions, but the consequences of our actions for others are a far more important consideration than feeling good about ourselves.

¶ Noam Chomsky (b. 1928) American linguist and activist
“An Eight Point Brief for LEV (Lesser Evil Voting)” (2016-06-15) [with John Halle]

Bad officials are elected by good people who do not vote.

¶ George Jean Nathan (1892-1958) American editor and critic
(Attributed)

The punishment which the wise suffer who refuse to take part in the government is to live under the government of worse men.

¶ Plato (c.428-347 BC) Greek philosopher
Republic, Book 1, 347c

Plato quote

I am a democrat because I believe in the Fall of Man. I think most people are democrats for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that everyone deserved a share in government. The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they’re not true. And whenever their weakness is exposed, the people who prefer tyranny make capital out of the exposure. I find that they’re not true without looking further than myself. I don’t deserve a share in governing a hen-roost, much less a nation. Nor do most people — all the people who believe advertisements, and think in catchwords and spread rumours. The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.

¶ C. S. Lewis (1898-1963) English writer, literary scholar, lay theologian [Clive Staples Lewis]
Essay (1943-08-27), “Equality,” The Spectator

CALVIN: When I grow up, I’m not going to read the newspaper and I’m not going to follow complex issues and I’m not going to vote. That way I can complain when the government doesn’t represent me. Then, when everything goes down the tubes, I can say the system doesn’t work and justify my further lack of participation.
HOBBES: An ingeniously self-fulfilling plan.
CALVIN: It’s a lot more fun to blame things than to fix them.

Bill Watterson (b. 1958) American cartoonist
Calvin and Hobbes (1992-05-18)

Calvin and Hobbes comic

Colorado Ballot Initiatives 2024 (and how I’m voting on them)

Ballot initiatives are direct democracy. Here’s how I’m voting.

I’ve been doing these sorts of analyses for several years here on the (woefully under-uitilized) blog. So let’s look at what’s on the ballot in the way of Amendments and Propositions this year.

So two things first:

One, the idea of the legislature referring issues to the citizenry to approve (and, better yet, letting citizens themselves propose such things) was one of the great Progressive reforms from over a century ago, along with statewide votes for US Senators and women’s suffrage.

Has putting up measures been an unalloyed success? Certainly not. It has, in fact, led to state constitutions full of clutter and cruft, badly written laws and amendments, and too often, populist measures that hamstring government’s abilities to deliver services to those that need them.

That said, this limited effort at direct democracy helps break lawmaking out of the hands of partisan politicians who are most interested in what their more wealthy lobbyists want to see in the way of law. That’s a good thing, far outweighing cases of human frailty, to which the citizenry at large is no more prone to than their elected representatives.

Second — boy, howdy, do we have a lot of measures on this year’s ballot in Colorado: seven Constitutional amendments and seven propositions for new laws. So … we’d better get started.

As a guide, ballot proposals with a letter were put there by the legislature (cowards). Those with numbers were put on by citizen initiative.

Constitutional Amendments

Amendment G: Modify Property Tax Exemption for Veterans with Disabilities: NO?

I feel a deep, but not unlimited, appreciation for veterans, especially those whose service has left them unable to work. This proposition would expand an existing homestead-style property tax exemption (on the first $200K value of their house) to vets with a disabilities as judged under an alternate VA criterion, impacting some 3700 veterans int he state.

But … I’m not seeing it. It seems to complicate property tax matters significantly, to the tune of some $1.8M a year. Seems there should be a better way here. I’m not sure of my NO vote — I want to do a bit more research — but that’s the way I’m leaning.

Amendment H: Judicial Discipline Procedures and Confidentiality: YES

In current judicial discipline proceedings, matters are handled by other judges, and the proceedings themselves stay confidential unless the disciplinary panel of judges selected by the state supreme court decides on public sanctions. That just feels a little too cozy and self-adjudicating to me.

The new arrangement would have an independent board consisting of judges, lawyers, and citizens, and charges would be made public at the beginning of processes — which sounds like sauce for the gander to me.

Amendment I: Constitutional Bail Exception for First Degree Murder: YES?

I swung from maybe-no to maybe-yes for this. My initial reaction was to not go along with something that further cracks down on bail, which is the reverse of (good) current trends.

(Bail is a one-size-fits-all way to let rich people get out of jail while awaiting trial, and to keep poor people in jail, getting more poor because they lose their jobs because they are in jail, and making them desperate to get things done with.)

But this one requires a bit more reading before treating it as a straightforward bail question.

Colorado law already allow judges to deny bail for particularly heinous crimes such as first degree murder where (a) the death penalty could be imposed, and (b) “the proof is evident and the presumption is great” of guilt.

That’s how things stood since the state became a state … until in 2020 the state (appropriately) abolished the death penalty. Good move, state, but, oops. Suddenly a vicious axe murder where the accused was found standing over the body with a bloody axe in their hand became a case where judges were required to offer bail because no crime could incur the death penalty.

This measure basically restores the bail status quo ante.

On that level, I’m inclined to vote Yes. There is the potential for miscarriage of justice (they only seem guilty) to occur, but I think the overall rule feels sound.

Amendment J: Repealing the Definition of Marriage in the Constitution: YES!

In 2006, Colorado (back in its red-leaning days) passed a “Definition of Marriage” constitutional amendment: one man + one woman = Constitutional Marriage!

In 2015-2015, both the state supreme court and SCOTUS ruled (correctly) that bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, invalidating that amendment … which still remained on the books.

The current SCOTUS seems to be licking its chops to overturn that Obergefell precedent, which could suddenly make that wretched Colorado DOMA provision take effect again. Bah.

And the only argument presented against this new amendment is … well, gay marriage is icky and sinful and wrong, so we should await SCOTUS to get rid of it so we can go back to respecting good, pure, honest, different-sex, Christian marriages like those celebrated at the Church of Elvis in Reno, Nevada.

Double bah.

Amendment K: Modify Constitutional Election Deadlines: NO?

Basically requires various election filings and public publication of ballot measures in newspapers to happen sooner. The argument is that it will make life more convenient for election officials. To me, it’s just feels designed to make it more difficult for citizens to impact elections. I’m unconvinced it’s necessary or beneficial, thus No.

Amendment 79: Constitutional Right to Abortion: YES!

The 2022 SCOTUS Dobbs ruling basically said there was no federal protection for abortion, so states could do what they wanted. So here’s where Colorado can follow that guidance. Not only does this amendment establish the right to an abortion in the state constitution, it gets rid of language that prohibited the state from covering it under Medicaid or state employee health insurance.

There are basically two arguments offered against this:

It might make it hard to pass new laws restricting abortion! Duh.
People shouldn’t have to pay taxes to cover things they object to! Please try that argument with the IRS as to why you shouldn’t have to pay taxes to support “welfare queens” (or the “military-industrial complex”).

Amendment 80: Constitutional Right to School Choice: NO.

This would enshrine the right to K-12 “school choice.” It would not immediately change any laws, but would clearly lay the groundwork that parents should get paid for homeschooling, or that religious schools should get my state tax dollars (see #2’s argument in the previous amendment — I’ll admit to my inconsistency if they admit to theirs).

As a former public school teacher, and as someone whose kid went through public schools — I just say No.

Ballot Propositions

Proposition JJ: Retain Additional Sports Betting Tax Revenue: YES

This state (under the insidious influence of Douglas Bruce) fell into the trap of tax measures being required to refund any taxes above certain limits. In the case of the (I didn’t vote for it) legalization of sports betting a few years back, any tax revenues brought in over some voter-approved limit get refunded to the casinos. This proposition keeps the money and sends it to where the rest of it is sent to: water conservation and protection projects.

I am not a fan of “sin taxes” to support things that the government should be paying for. But sending tax refund checks to casinos and betting parlors is ridonculous. Yes.

Proposition KK: Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax: YES

Again, sin taxes are often sketchy (if it’s worthwhile funding crime victim services, mental health services for vets and youth, and school safety programs, then pony up and do so without using a whipping boy to make it more attractive and thereby incent the state to keep that revenue flowing as well as incenting bootlegging).

That said a 6.5% tax on guns and ammo isn’t going to break anybody’s bank.

So sure, as reinforced by the Arguments Against of “GUNS! FREEDOM!” and “I will be killed by Venezuelan dog-eaters because I won’t be able to afford an AR-15!”

Proposition 127: Prohibit Bobcat, Lynx, and Mountain Lion Hunting: NO?

This would make Bobcats and Mountain Lions (Lynx are already protected) illegal to hunt.

I’m not a hunter, and tend to feel a bit queasy about the whole subject, but neither Bobcats or Mountain Lions are endangered species, so that would tend to make me think that current hunting/culling of those predators is working pretty decently. We do have a surplus of deer in the state, so increasing those predator populations some might not be a bad idea, but I’d rather see the state wildlife folk gauge that based on, oh, science, rather than “Oh, it will be fine if we let mountain lions increase their populations and not worry about hunters any more.”

(As a note, 500 mountain lions are successfully hunted — I won’t use the awful term “harvested” — each year, of an estimated 4,000 stable population.)

Proposition 128: Parole Eligibility for Crimes of Violence: NO.

Basically this tweaks the formula of what percentage of a sentence for violent offenses must be served, and how earned time impacts sentences. It will probably pass because it is a “tough on crime” proposition, which are always popular, but basically it means that someone sentenced to a 20-year sentence will most likely serve 17-19 years instead of 14-19 years …

… which seems a fairly trivial difference, esp. as it removes some incentives for convicts to behave and better themselves.

Proposition 129: Establishing Veterinary Professional Associates: YES?

This would create a new category of veterinary workers, basically working off of a Masters degree rather than a Doctorate, with an eye to increasing access to veterinary services in rural and less populated areas. It’s sort of like the proliferation of different types of nurses / physician’s assistant categories.

That said, there seems to be some value here, and the “Against” argument that “the state board that would oversee this hasn’t given specific criteria for the role, so who knows what crazy thing might happen?” seems kind of weak.

Proposition 130: Funding for Law Enforcement: NO.

This proposition slices off $350M as a one-off fund to go to recruiting more police and retaining the ones they have (i.e., increase salaries), with the feel-good addendum of the state paying a $1M death benefit to the family of state or local law enforcement offices who are killed in the line of duty.

Despite the advocates’ cry of impoverished police departments, I haven’t seen any actual numbers presented. In general, I don’t think the state should be funding local law enforcement. This just seems like a money grab for law enforcement without any demonstration that it will actually impact crime.

Most law enforcement have pensions that pay out to surviving families, or death and disability insurance that does same. If that’s not adequate, then address that in a more coherent way. And I mean, $1M for the family of an heroic police officer who does in the line of duty sounds great, but why just limit that to cops? Are there no other valuable and/or dangerous professions where the state should start paying out big dollars upon the death of a worker?

Proposition 131: Establishing All-Candidate Primary and Ranked Choice Voting General Elections: YES.

The current system basically guarantees that either the person the Democrats nominate, or the person the Republicans nominate, will win the state or federal position they are running for … and the two-party partisan constituency of electoral districts makes that, in too many cases, a partisan slam-dunk.

Ranked Choice Voting lets people vote for the person they actually like most, rather than being forced to choose between the D and the R, without the fear that they are “throwing their vote away.” And the accusations that it is “difficult to understand” or that it will cost zillions of dollars to explain seems highly patronizing to me.

I am less sanguine about All-Candidate Primaries — I feel it’s less necessary if RCV is in play — but I’m not strongly opposed to it.

Bottom line, this weakens political parties (who are the folk most vigorously opposing it), encourages people to vote for who they want (vs. who they think is likely to win), and arguably promotes more moderate candidates. Those are all good things.

Net-Net

So, there we are: 8 I am inclined to vote for, 6 I am inclined to vote against. I’ll be doing a bit more research on some of those; if I change my mind, I’ll let you know.

Oh, yeah, I have a blog, don’t I?

Yes, the chirping crickets are real

Wow. I’ve been doing a piss-poor job of updating the blog here.

Yeah, yeah, all the normal reasons. Job really stressful. Busy with stuff at home. But ultimately it really is about prioritization: I’ve doing plenty of stuff with my quotations blog, and even my gaming blog has been getting some love.

What I usually do here has traditionally been “my life” (boring), “my pop culture stuff” (uninspiring of late), and “my politics”.

Aha.

Politics has been — a wildly stressful hot mess. Trump & Co. are simultaneously terrifying and fury-inducing in their smug proto-fascism and very direct threat to people I love (and, hell, to me under certain not-necessarily-the-worst-case scenarios). Biden’s problems filled me with existential dread (since somewhat alleviated by Harris — but that’s a whole other set of posts). And, with everything else going on, it’s just hard to write about and face that terror and dread and fury in a way that isn’t just incoherent keyboard smashing.

Sigh.

(And, yes, feel free to mutter “Trump derangement syndrome” … and keep walking on.)

Can’t promise I’ll be more active here, but it’s bubbled to the top of my attention again, so … let’s hope for the best.

Catering to the torches and pitchforks encourages more torches and pitchforks

And weakening the rule of law out of fear doesn’t make anyone any safer

Timothy Snyder has a good piece here on the dangers involved in the “commentariat” pushing SCOTUS to a “pitchfork” ruling on Colorado ‘s pushing Trump off the ballot. By saying Colorado Supreme Court should be overruled because its ruling is “divisive” or will “inflame” the January 6th folk who were carrying around virtual torches and pitchforks, the politicos and pundits on both sides of the aisle would fundamentally weaken the rule of law … and simply encourage the folk waving pitchforks to wave them more, knowing they will get their way.

https://snyder.substack.com/p/the-pitchfork-ruling

The Pitchfork Ruling

The Trap the Commentariat Sets for the Court

snyder.substack.com/p/the-pitchfork-ruling

The Pro-Active Pardon

Haley and DeSantis belittle the rule of law by preemptively declaring they would pardon Trump were they elected President

Is it must me, or is there something deeply unserious about both Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis pledging they would, of course, pardon Trump of any federal convictions. Regardless of any further evidence. Regardless of what judges and/or juries decide.

Sure, DeSantis insists it’s just akin of Ford pardoning Nixon to help “re-unite a divided country.” Except, pardoning Trump wouldn’t reunite anything. For Trump opponents it would be seen as complete and utter politics. For Trump, and his mob, it would be taken as an exoneration. And Trump would be stirring up the next insurrection, unabashed and emboldened.

Ford could barely get away with pardoning Nixon — and, in fact, it sank his chances of a second term — because he was respected and liked going into the job, and wasn’t seen as being part of Nixon’s corrupt coterie. He was deeply criticized for poor judgment in pardoning Nixon, but it wasn’t seen as as partisan corruption. That would hardly apply to either Haley or DeSantis doing the same thing for Trump — especially, in the circumstances they describe, he would already be convicted, something Nixon never was.

Do I really think that Haley and DeSantis think Trump shouldn’t be punished for what he did, or that they are seeking some sort of cleansing national unity? Of course not. At the most obvious, they are hoping to garner presidential votes by appealing to the Trumpist mob. More likely, they simply want to tee themselves up as being part of the MAGA movement that, however the election in November turns out, will propel them to future power.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/12/31/desantis-haley-pledge-pardon-trump-if-hes-convicted/

The Unbearable Lightness of Being Kim Jong Un

“People aren’t paying attention to me? How rude! Better make some new threats!

Sounds like Kim is feeling a bit neglected. Like his favorite former US President, he hates it when people aren’t paying him attention.

To be fair, he doesn’t sound much different from … Ron DeSantis?

North Korea’s Kim says military should ‘thoroughly annihilate’ US and South Korea if provoked

The North Korean leader has vowed to boost national defense to cope with what he called an unprecedented U.S.-led confrontation.

apnews.com/article/north-korea-kim-us-missiles-nuclear-6c8834f71ac43bb9d0addc404fe00f18

Ron DeSantis keeps talking about blowing up The Bahamas

Ron DeSantis is curiously talking about “flattening” the Bahamas on the campaign trial, prompting the US Embassy in Nassau to respond.

www.businessinsider.com/ron-desantis-keeps-talking-about-blowing-up-the-bahamas-2023-12

Lindsey folds. Again.

Lindsey Graham deserves to either be remembered forever, or forgotten forever.

As Lindsey Graham takes the last, squishy bits of spine he had left, carefully places it in Ziplok bag, and leaves it in the back of Trump ‘s fridge, somewhere between 2003 KFC leftovers and a container of Putin’s favorite borscht.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4383307-graham-backtracks-on-earlier-jan-6-criticism-of-trump-it-depends-on-what-the-conduct-is/

Graham backtracks on earlier Jan. 6 criticism of Trump: ‘It depends on what the conduct is’

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Sunday appeared to backtrack on earlier criticism of former President Trump’s actions on Jan. 6 and suggested instead that his presidential immunity defense was “a l…

thehill.com/homenews/senate/4383307-graham-backtracks-on-earlier-jan-6-criticism-of-trump-it-depends-on-what-the-conduct-is/

Trump just likes being mean to people

Trump’s rule: If you don’t have something nice to say about someone, say it even louder.

I find it difficult to believe that Trump has particular feelings, one way or the other, over care and treatment of transgender kids, except that it makes a convenient cudgel for him to rile up the troops.

“DeWine has fallen to the Radical Left. No wonder he gets loudly booed in Ohio every time I introduce him at Rallies, but I won’t be introducing him any more. I’m finished with this ‘stiff.’ What was he thinking.”

I mean, DeWine is about as reliably Right as you can find. But after taking the time to look at what the Ohio lege’s gender-affirming health care ban would do, he took a principled stand and said, “No, this is going to hurt people.”

Which just teed him up for Trump’s criticism because, hey, hurting people is what Donald is all about.

https://thehill.com/homenews/lgbtq/4382804-trump-hits-ohio-governor-over-veto-on-proposed-gender-affirming-health-care-ban/

Trump hits Ohio governor over veto on proposed gender-affirming health care ban

Former President Trump went after Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) for vetoing a proposed ban on gender-affirming health care for transgender minors Saturday. “DeWine has fallen to the Radical Left,” Trum…

thehill.com/homenews/lgbtq/4382804-trump-hits-ohio-governor-over-veto-on-proposed-gender-affirming-health-care-ban/

Nikki Haley tries to dance around Slavery and the Civil War

Because the only acceptable answer in the GOP is that the Civil War was about Big Government!

It makes little difference what Nikki Haley actually believes. She simply cannot be trusted. She has shown herself adept at saying things that sound relatively sane one sentence, and then making appeals to the MAGA Right with the next.

She is either a fanatic herself, or (my belief) disingenuously willing to glibly court the fanatics.

And she is still arguably the least-worst of the folk at-all-possibly-getting-the-GOP-nomination-for-President .

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/27/haley-slavery-cause-of-civil-war-00133254

Haley declines to say slavery was cause of Civil War

The former South Carolina governor instead said it was a dispute over how ‘government was going to run.’

www.politico.com/news/2023/12/27/haley-slavery-cause-of-civil-war-00133254

UPDATE:

Aaaand … Nikki Haley backtracks, admits that, yeah, slavery was the cause of the Civil War … which will doubtless draw more criticism from both sides.

She then deflects and says the person who asked the original question was a “Democratic plant” … which is altogether possible, but doesn’t address her inability to give the answer she knows is true in the first place.

So Haley is willing to tell the truth about the Civil War when forced to, but not when she isn’t. Got it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/anafaguy/2023/12/28/nikki-haley-backtracks-on-civil-war-comments-says-of-course-slavery-was-the-cause/?sh=41062d6c622a

Nikki Haley Backtracks On Civil War Comments, Says ‘Of Course’ Slavery Was The Cause

In a town hall Wednesday, presidential contender Nikki Haley omitted slavery as a cause of the Civil War.

www.forbes.com/sites/anafaguy/2023/12/28/nikki-haley-backtracks-on-civil-war-comments-says-of-course-slavery-was-the-cause/

Boebert bails on her Congressional District

If you can win in your own district … move to another!

So, scared (and rightfully so) that she will lose next year if she stays in her own CO-3 district, given how much folk have grown to dislike her shenanigans there, Lauren Boebert is carpet-bagging over to CO-4, where old school reactionary Ken Buck is retiring from.

That makes the Dem running again in CO-3 less likely to win that solid-red district… but I doubt the CO-4 GOP are going to be any more tolerant of Boebert’s bad behavior.

https://www.9news.com/article/news/politics/lauren-boebert-colorado-fourth-district/73-2a351d4e-54df-4d84-8c08-af71b62467ef

Boebert to run in Colorado’s 4th Congressional District

The Republican lawmaker currently represents the 3rd Congressional District.

www.9news.com/article/news/politics/lauren-boebert-colorado-fourth-district/73-2a351d4e-54df-4d84-8c08-af71b62467ef

“Presidential Immunity for me but not for thee”

Trump says that if he doesn’t get full immunity, he’ll prosecute Biden without it. “Merry Christmas”

Short Trump: “Presidents get total immunity. But only me. Biden I will totally prosecute for shit.”

What an asshole.

“Trump rails against special counsel Jack Smith in Christmas Eve posts”

The former president said Biden would be prosecuted without presidential immunity for the way he handled the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 and his handling of the U.S. southern border.
Trump said in another post that Smith is one of Biden’s “misfits and thugs” who are going after him “at levels of persecution never seen before in our country.”
“It’s called election interference. Merry Christmas!” Trump said.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/4376510-trump-rails-against-special-counsel-jack-smith-in-christmas-eve-posts/

Trump rails against special counsel Jack Smith in Christmas Eve posts

Former President Trump railed against special counsel Jack Smith again in Christmas Eve posts on his Truth Social account. Trump claimed in one Truth Social post that he is “fully entitled” t…

thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/4376510-trump-rails-against-special-counsel-jack-smith-in-christmas-eve-posts/

The sublime bullshit of “a growing sense of regret”

So NOW the GOP is sad that they didn’t “contain” Trump. Sort of.

After four years of tolerating Donald Trump’s behavior, rhetoric, and vindictive, transactional nature, in exchange for an all-you-can approve buffet of judges, tax breaks, and executive orders … suddenly GOP leadership finds it has a case of buyer’s remorse.

Kinda-sorta.

One Republican senator who requested anonymity to discuss his conversations with GOP colleagues acknowledged GOP lawmakers should have served as a stronger check on the president over the past four years.
“We should have done more to push back, both against his rhetoric and some of the things he did legislatively,” said the lawmaker. “The mistake we made is that we always thought he was going to get better. We thought that once he got the nomination and then once he got a Cabinet, he was going to get better, he was going to be more presidential.”

Okay, that gets you up to February of 2017. Where have you been the last four years?

But now there’s a sense among a growing number of GOP lawmakers that Trump may have inflicted long-term damage on their party, an anxiety heightened by the debacle of a pro-Trump mob storming and occupying the U.S. Capitol building Wednesday as Congress was meeting to finalize Biden’s election as the nation’s 46th president.
“There’s more concern about the long-term damage to the party than losing two Senate seats in Georgia,” the GOP senator said.

Oh, so the concern isn’t the actual damage Trump has done to the nation, to minorities, to women, to LGBTQ folk, to the environment and climate, to our natural resources, to education, to our standing and alliances abroad, to the social contract, to our health care, to our health, to all these things over the past four years … it’s concern about how that might hurt the Republican party.

Cry me a freaking river.

A second Republican senator who requested anonymity said Trump had inflicted serious damage on his party.

Such concern … that it can only be passed on via anonymous Senators.

Dear Senator Whitefeather: you know how you start to heal/fix the damage to the party? By actually standing up in public and talking about it, not whispering in a parking structure to a reporter from The Hill.

“Every time you think the president has done everything he could possibly do to fuck things up, then he comes out with a tweet, like the election was invalid and the one in Georgia would be invalid,” said the lawmaker, referring to Trump’s tweets Friday declaring the runoff elections to be “illegal and invalid.”

Big talk from someone supposedly in one of the highest offices of the land … afraid to lend their name and face to their words.

The feelings of remorse are only now being expressed privately after Republican senators spent much of the past four years dodging questions about Trump’s controversial tweets, statements and decisions.

They still are dodging.

As to what actual public defiance of Trump has looked like, well, we have this sad example raised up as an exception:

There were exceptions though, such as when Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), said Trump appeared “unsympathetic” after peaceful protesters were pepper sprayed in front of the White House in June so the president could pose with a Bible in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church.

Oh, yes. Clucked tongues and mildly “concerned” rebukes from Susan Collins have been soooooo effective in restraining Trump.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Thursday said Trump had “tarnished” his legacy by not condemning Wednesday’s “debacle” at the Capitol.
Graham defended his support for Trump over the past four years as being driven by constituents at home who wanted him to work with the president.

“My constituents made me do it” would be more meaningful, Lindsey, if you hadn’t not just worked with him, but become his most outspoken supporter and enabler. Or maybe reading a bit of Burke would be in order.

“The reason I’ve been close to the president is I think he’s done tremendous things for this country. I think the judges he’s nominated have been outstanding choices,” he said. But he said “it breaks my heart that my friend, a president of consequence, were to allow yesterday to happen, and it will be a major part of his presidency.”
“It was a self-inflicted wound, it was going too far,” he added.

Just note that Lindsey actually seems to love all the stuff Trump did. It was just this last froth of post-election paranoia and delusion, leading up to violence in Lindsey’s sacred workplace, that went a bit “too far” and will “tarnish” Trump’s rep.

Asked if he should have spoken out more when Trump crossed the line during his four years in office, Graham acknowledged he could have but also deflected blame on the media for not covering the president more fairly. […] “Could I have done better? Yes. The question: Could you have done better? Could those of you who cover the White House done better? You need to ask yourself that,” he told reporters.

Yes, if only the media had covered Trump “better” and more fairly, he wouldn’t have been driven to incite a riot.

Senate Republican Whip John Thune (S.D.) on Wednesday said Trump’s rhetoric created a political headwind for Sens. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.) and David Perdue (R-Ga.), who both lost races that GOP senators had expected them to win. […] “When your most effective argument is you’re going to be a check and balance against a Biden/Pelosi/Schumer agenda but you can’t acknowledge that Biden won, it puts you in a really difficult position,” he later explained.

Again, the regret is not anything Trump did regarding policy, but how he hurt the GOP by hurting them in the Georgia run-offs. And, indirectly, how Trump is now talking about trying to defeat Thune in his next primary.

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), who has been a strong Trump ally during his first term …

“First term.”

… late on Wednesday said he does “think the president bears some responsibility” for the violence and chaos on Capitol Hill, which disrupted the Electoral College vote count. “I do think the president bears some responsibility. Certainly, he bears responsibility for his own actions and his own words, and today in watching his speech, I have to admit I gasped,” Cramer said.

A tip of the hat to Sen. Kramer for speaking out loud and laying “some responsibility” on Trump.

Though, to be fair, Cramer — who’s frequently called Trump the “best President of his life” — doesn’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

What really seems to be frustrating Cramer is that the events at the end of Trump’s term in office will overshadow the accomplishments on tax policy, energy and agriculture regulation, and foreign policy that he’s proud to have helped the president enact. “As Republicans distance themselves from Donald Trump, the person we have to hold onto his ideas,” Cramer said.

No regrets over policy, just that Donald turned out to be, um, unstable.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), another staunch Trump ally, said he later spoke with Pence, whom he described as furious over the president’s treatment. “I’ve known Mike Pence forever,” Inhofe told the Tulsa World. “I’ve never seen Pence as angry as he was today.”

Ah. We’re regretful and upset because … Donald was mean to his normally-fawning VP. Well, hold the presses.

Inhofe also said that Trump should have done more to stop the rioting. “He’s only put out one statement that I’m aware of,” he said. “This was really a riot. He should have shown more disdain for the rioters. I don’t want to say he should have apologized — that’s not exactly accurate — but he should have expressed more disdain.”

Not apologize but … “express more disdain.”

For all there may be shock, regrets, and (for the most part mild) criticism, Republican politicians remain terrified of Donald Trump — thus the anonymous quotes above.

National Republicans interviewed by The Hill said Trump may have permanently alienated millions of center-right voters who were disgusted by Wednesday’s ugly scene.
But they acknowledged that the president retains enormous political power at the moment, a dynamic that was on full display when a majority of House Republicans voted to throw out Arizona’s Electoral College results hours after their evacuation.
“Trump has less power now, but he could still probably win a primary today, so does he really have less power?” asked former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele.

Yesh, they really think he could still win a primary. Which says more about the rest of the GOP political class than it does about Donald Trump. Regardless, since they think he would win a primary — their only criterion for power and, thus, permission to criticize — they are still treading lightly.

Some pointed to the president’s fervent base of supporters outside of Washington to make the case that Trump’s influence would continue to dominate the party for years to come — as well as the House votes on the Electoral College. The president reportedly received a warm reception Thursday morning when he briefly called into a Republican National Committee members meeting.
Some Republicans argued that people have short-term memories and that the transactional nature of politics would give Trump space to rebuild his image and throw his weight around either as a candidate in 2024 or as a kingmaker in GOP primaries.

So the principled thing to do is … speak off the record, keep your head down, and not publicly criticize Trump. It appears that “regret” isn’t all that strong an emotion.

But the violence in Washington, one former Trump campaign official said, “caused him to lose even loyal supporters.” “Trump is a lonely man today,” the person said.

But not so lonely the anonymous official was willing to go on the record about it.

One Republican operative said that the events drastically diminished Trump’s hold on the party, describing the current dynamic as an “emperor with no clothes” moment because GOP lawmakers are publicly pushing back on Trump at a time when he can’t even respond on social media in usual form. The person expected Republicans to be more willing to publicly push back against Trump going forward, especially if he urges primaries against sitting GOP officials.
Still, the GOP operative acknowledged the potential for Trump to split the party and characterized it as “dangerous,” observing that even if Trump only keeps a grip on 20 percent of GOP voters, Republicans who break with Trump would lose general elections even if they make inroads with independents. […] Republicans undeniably benefit from the enthusiasm Trump generates, particularly in rural parts of the country where the GOP must maximize turnout to be competitive.

So, again, even if Trump’s power plummets to only holding onto a fraction of the GOP, they are so close to losing outright against the Dems that they politically can’t afford to offend him.

I guess that qualifies as “regrets.”

But not, apparently, enough “regrets” to actually do anything differently.

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) on Friday dismissed calls to impeach President Trump in the wake of riots inside the U.S. Capitol, signaling that the effort will ultimately fall short. […] “You don’t have the time for it to happen, even if there was a reason. So there’s no reason to debate this except just pure politics,” Blunt added. […] Blunt added in a separate interview with KSHB, another Missouri TV station, that impeaching Trump was “not going to happen.”
[…] Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) accused Democrats of throwing politics into the aftermath of the Capitol attacks, adding that impeachment “would not only be unsuccessful in the Senate but would be a dangerous precedent for the future of the presidency.”
[…] Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), who dropped his plans to support challenges to the Electoral College after the attacks, said calls for impeachment are “unhelpful.” “We’re 13 days away from inauguration. This is not the time to keep taking the temperature up. So let’s stand together and govern for the next 13 days,” Daines told a Montana TV station.

Yeah, GOP Senators might have “regrets” over how they failed to “restrain” Trump from damaging their party (if not the nation) … but they certainly have no intention of doing anything about the next few weeks of his increasingly erratic behavior, or back down over the long haul as long as they think Trump may run again, let alone if kicking him and his mob to the curb might mean (gasp) “lost” elections.

I mean, clearly, it’s too late now. If only they’d had another opportunity, even over the last year, to exercise some restraint over Trump.

Oh, well. I’m sure they’ve learned their lesson for when the next mob-darling authoritarian pops up in the party. Right?

Do you want to know more?