https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

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)

Eisenhower quote

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)]

Machiavelli quote

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)

Solnit quotation

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)

Ames quotation

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

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.

Stress Brain word cloud
This is my brain on stress. Any questions?

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.

snyder.substack.com/p/the-pitc

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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”]

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.

washingtonpost.com/politics/20

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.

thehill.com/homenews/senate/43

[visual-link-preview encoded=”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”]

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.

thehill.com/homenews/lgbtq/438

[visual-link-preview encoded=”eyJ0eXBlIjoiZXh0ZXJuYWwiLCJwb3N0IjowLCJwb3N0X2xhYmVsIjoiIiwidXJsIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly90aGVoaWxsLmNvbS9ob21lbmV3cy9sZ2J0cS80MzgyODA0LXRydW1wLWhpdHMtb2hpby1nb3Zlcm5vci1vdmVyLXZldG8tb24tcHJvcG9zZWQtZ2VuZGVyLWFmZmlybWluZy1oZWFsdGgtY2FyZS1iYW4vIiwiaW1hZ2VfaWQiOi0xLCJpbWFnZV91cmwiOiJodHRwczovL3RoZWhpbGwuY29tL3dwLWNvbnRlbnQvdXBsb2Fkcy9zaXRlcy8yLzIwMjMvMTAvdHJ1bXBkb25hbGRfMDkxNTIzZ24xOF93LmpwZz93PTEyODAiLCJ0aXRsZSI6IlRydW1wIGhpdHMgT2hpbyBnb3Zlcm5vciBvdmVyIHZldG8gb24gcHJvcG9zZWQgZ2VuZGVyLWFmZmlybWluZyBoZWFsdGggY2FyZSBiYW4iLCJzdW1tYXJ5IjoiRm9ybWVyIFByZXNpZGVudCBUcnVtcCB3ZW50IGFmdGVyIE9oaW8gR292LiBNaWtlIERlV2luZSAoUikgZm9yIHZldG9pbmcgYSBwcm9wb3NlZCBiYW4gb24gZ2VuZGVyLWFmZmlybWluZyBoZWFsdGggY2FyZSBmb3IgdHJhbnNnZW5kZXIgbWlub3JzIFNhdHVyZGF5LiDigJxEZVdpbmUgaGFzIGZhbGxlbiB0byB0aGUgUmFkaWNhbCBMZWZ0LOKAnSBUcnVt4oCmIiwidGVtcGxhdGUiOiJ1c2VfZGVmYXVsdF9mcm9tX3NldHRpbmdzIn0=”]

The Early Post-Midterms View

Things actually went pretty well in Colorado, and a lot less dire than expected nationally.

So looking at Colorado’s races, I’m pretty happy. the Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer, and AG, all went pretty strongly blue.

On ballot measures … most of what I voted for (link and link) passed. Some important ones, like school meals funding were a pretty resounding success.

Of course, we also cut the income tax rate. 🙄

The three liquor bills look like they are going down to defeat, although 125 is still very close at this moment.

Dems won for the US Senate seat (soundly), and US House Districts 1, 2, 7, and my own 6 (go, Jason!). The usual gang of idiots took 4 and 5. The new district 8 looks like it might go blue, but it’s pretty tight.

Most importantly, from a state reputation basis, House District 3, a West Slope country-conservative area, just might be sending Boebert home, which would be a real relief no matter how the House overall goes. We’ll see.

On a national level, it’s still unclear how the House and Senate will end up — very tight in each chamber, which will hamper either side from extremes. Still, I’ll hate to see Jim Jordan and MTG doing their committee chair zaniness with even the barest sliver of a majority.

It’s clear, regardless, that the people who kept it from being the predicted “Red Tsunami” were, on the one hand, Donald Trump and his coterie of sycophants who not only endorsed some of the worst candidates out there, but forced all the others to bravely nod in support of his daftness. And, on the other hand, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court, through their Dobbs ruling, mobilized a lot of turnout against GOP candidates who were, at best, trapped into being stridently anti-abortion (or who were).

Democracy, and our nation, are by no means out of the woods. But things are looking quite a bit less bleak than they were a day or two ago.

Yes, Putin is acting because he sees weakness. But …

… it’s not the weakness that the GOP is nattering about

After decades of on-again, off-again muttering, Vladimir Putin has sent his Russia (and his Belarus) to invade his neighbor, Ukraine.  There are a lot of internal reasons for him to be doing this — NATO expansion is not one of them, but his own sense of mortality and history more likely are — but the result is arguably the largest military operation on European soil since the end of WW2. And it’s a conflict that will not only mean blood and suffering in the Ukraine, but further weaken the bonds of the international order and trigger further wars, if not in Europe then elsewhere.

One of the most amazing elements of the whole tragic affair so far, though, has been this sort of thing:

House GOP weakness tweet
Stay classy and patriotic, House GOP

I mean, clearly, the era of “partisanship stops at the water’s edge” is long over (if it ever really existed), but the Republican Party’s eagerness to score whatever political points they can, in any way, under any circumstances, has reached new depths.

(Not to mention nonsensical ones: how is the President, leaving the podium and exiting the room, after briefing the press, a sign of weakness? But, following the rules of the Big Lie, the GOP simply repeats its Trump-led mantra of “Sleepy Joe” and pretends it’s being witty.)

As the situation around Ukraine worsened, the GOP had a single message: that Vladimir Putin was moving in his perceived national self-interests (which Fox folk like Tucker Carlson say seem perfectly legit to them!) because Joe Biden’s “weakness” was taunting him on. Or, put another way: This never happened under Donald Trump’s presidency! Putin respected Trump’s strength and resolve, and would never have dared do such a thing! Biden’s weak! Trump is strong! [insert sounds of beating on chest here]

Trump strong! Trump smash!

Leave aside for a moment the lack of merits as to Putin’s casus belli here (which many in the GOP and GOP-adjacent seem to be flirting with simply accepting, out of some slavish devotion to Putin as a Strong Man who is anti-“woke” and pro-Christian and anti-LGBTQ and pro-“family” and therefore rings all those chimes for the far Right). Leave aside that, even if Joe Biden had literally invited Russia to invade Ukraine, invading another sovereign nation is Not Cool, and is still an action that Putin — who has previously invaded other parts of Ukraine, not to mention Georgia — still decided to do, on his own initiative. Leave aside a degree of American hypocrisy about sovereignty and flimsy justifications for invasion.

Did Joe Biden’s “weakness” contribute to Putin’s terrible (or, if you listen to Donald Trump, “clever”) decision to invade Ukraine?

Yes. But not the way yahoos like Trump and Cruz and Tucker will have you believe.

But Putin didn’t invade while Trump was Prez. That shows Putin doesn’t respect Biden!

Is it actually a bad thing that a murderous, anti-democracy autocrat, someone who beats, jails, assassinates, or disappears his opponents and critics while retaining supreme power for decades, on behalf of himself and his kleptocratic buddies, doesn’t respect the sort of person Joe Biden is?

That actually strikes me as a good thing.

Well, what I mean is that Putin respected Trump’s strength and resolve! 

Hardly. Putin got nearly anything he wanted from Trump. Trump went along with the fait accompli of Crimea annexation. Trump did his darnedest to roll back those “worthless” sanctions that had been placed on Putin’s regime because of them. Trump weakened Ukraine’s defenses, removing a GOP plank to send arms to Ukraine, and then delaying and leveraging arms shipments to get the Ukraine government to politically damage Joe Biden (you might recall there was an impeachment about it and everything). Trump weakened NATO, trying to recast it as a transactional, mercenary arrangement, downplaying the value of that alliance and, in fact, of any alliances, and casting doubt that, if another NATO country were attacked, he’d actually fulfill US Article 5 obligations to step in. Trump showed over and over again, from Iraq to Syria to Afghanistan that he’d pull troops out of anywhere because he wasn’t interested in world order or commitments or principle, only in his own ego and what made him look good. Trump raised Putin’s image on the world stage, calling him strong and smart and ruthless and powerful. Meanwhile, at home, Trump divided America, taking partisan gaps and wrenching them further open with a crowbar.

Why on Earth would Vladimir Putin ever endanger that? After investing in monkeywrenching the 2016 presidential election and, to his great surprise, being rewarded with a Donald Trump winning the damned, thing, why would he ever do anything that might antagonize or weaken his greatest global ally, witting or unwitting?

Putin and Trump
BFFs

No, no, Putin knew Trump was strong and resolute and would strike out at anyone who crossed the US. He’d never admit it, but he feared Donald Trump.

If Putin feared Trump, it was to this degree: Trump is, even if you have him accurately pegged as an unprincipled narcissist, unpredictable and savage. Crossing him too publicly, in a way that offended his ego, affected his support, endangered his chance of being carved into Mount Rushmore, was to risk not only an ALL CAPS EARLY MORNING TWITTER SCREED!!!!!! but possibly something even more damaging.

Does anyone doubt that Trump would be willing to threaten — if not carry out — lobbing nukes if he took it into his head (and his sycophants suggested it was a good way to look strong)? A man who was so bound up in his pride that he was willing to sit by while a violent mob stormed the US Capitol on his behalf, and seriously considered deploying the military to overthrow the 2020 election?

Yeah, even a bad guy fears a crazy desperado with a gun. That’s still not a good thing.

Not a real photo but part of a real quote

But Biden is clearly weak. He didn’t prevent the invasion of Ukraine. Putin knew Sleepy Joe’s weakness would let him do whatever he wanted.

It’s worth noting that those who make this argument are extraordinarily vague about what should have been done to prevent Putin’s act of war. They simply wave their hand and say that it would never have happened under Trump, without even bothering to suggest what Trump would have done to stop it.

(They don’t have to because, of course, it’s not a rational argument.)

But there is one nugget of truth, at the last, in their accusation.

Joe Biden is weak.

Because America is weak.

McCarthy & McConnell
Party over Nation

Joe Biden is hobbled by the profound partisan divisions in the US, divisions led by a GOP that is still dominated by Trump and Trumpism, and who are more interested in pulling down Joe Biden than in stopping Vladimir Putin. Putin knows this. Indeed, he’s actually done what he can to engineer the whole situation.

What are the chances that the US will stand firm and united in doing what it can to stop, mitigate, or punish Putin’s actions? Zero. Nobody is actually going to suggest sending in US troops. That leaves economic and political retribution, and the effect of that will take years, even assuming it is maintained for that long. And the GOP will be right there, unwilling to offer realistic solutions, just claiming that Biden “lost” Ukraine (or even that Russia was justified in their actions and that Biden was a loser anyway for not realizing that).

Putin, whatever his reasons for invading Ukraine, has to have seen this as the perfect moment, not because Joe Biden is a weak man, but because he oversees a government that is weakened by internal division, by an opposition party that sees Biden as their real target and Putin, if not an ally, then a tool to use against him. Which makes them tools in Putin’s hand for long-term success.

Putin wink
Beyond his wildest dreams

And if the GOP hamstring Biden from systemic, sustained action against Putin, and manage to put Trump (or whoever is the Trumpiest candidate they can agree upon) in the White House in three-plus years, will that person simply do what Trump did, shrug and work to lift any remaining sanctions? Write off NATO as a bad and expensive idea and let it shift for its own?

What will that weakness encourage Putin to do next? What will it encourage the rest of Europe to do to appease him?

What will it encourage China to do?

What will it encourage any nation around the world who see a richer, weaker neighbor, and knows we’re lurching backwards a century or more, to an era of “spheres of influence” and “might makes right.”

The GOP is correct in saying that Putin is emboldened by weakness.

But they’re the source of it. And the consequences will extend long beyond the Russian conquest of the Ukraine.

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?

A News Report from a Banana Republic

The troubled democracy faced new challenges of terrorist violence today.

Today a radical mob proclaiming “revolution” stormed the nation’s parliament, shutting down the legislative session attempting to settle the recent elections according to constitutional norms. The crowd was incited by the embattled current chief executive, El Presidente, whose term ends in a few weeks after a serious re-election defeat two months ago.

Election observers, as well government officials, many of them from the embattled president’s own party, have validated the results of the election as fair and free of systemic fraud. Challenges by El Presidente have been rejected by the judiciary, including by the nation’s constitutional court.

The outgoing president met with protesting supporters before the attack, many of whom had traveled from outlying provinces to show their allegiance to the popular politician, who has held large rallies around the nation. El Presidente vowed to the crowd to never concede defeat, once again claimed massive fraud and conspiracy in the election, and encouraged the protesters to march on the parliament building to support his allies in that legislative body.

The mob, arriving at the parliamentary building, quickly pushed past police lines and briefly scuffled with security forces within the rotunda, as members of parliament were quickly evacuated to protected shelters. The insurrectionists broke into both legislative chambers and the offices of parliamentary leaders, sending grinning selfies as they ransacked the building, before being finally forced out of the building by late-arriving police forces.

When called upon by national leaders to call his rioting supporters off, the current president, sheltering in the executive mansion, issued video and text messages in social media expressing his love and appreciation for the
“great patriots,” and justified their actions based on his re-election being “stolen” by “evil” people. He called on his supporters to “remember this day forever!”A

Supporters of the current president immediately went to national television, asserting without evidence that the attack on parliament was actually the work of anarchists and anti-government rebels, not supporters of the defeated chief executive.

Parliament met later that evening, in defiance of the defeated insurgent mob, to confirm the results of last year’s election. It remains uncertain whether El Presidente would continue to foment domestic violence to overturn the election results, and, if so, whether the nation’s institutions would be able to address the threat to democratic processes.

Quotations about the Presidency

What do I want from a President? A lot of stuff I haven’t gotten from Trump.

As mentioned in the previous post, I collect quotations at my Wish I’d Said That (WIST) site. Here are some quotations I’ve picked up over the years on the presidency, and leadership, in consideration of what I think of as being a President, of being presidential.

It will not surprise you to discover I find a tremendous contrast between Donald Trump and these ideals. To me it’s a reminder of what we’ve lost the last four years, and have an opportunity to regain.

Links go to the original quotation on WIST, which may have additional sourcing information or notes.

Every man is said to have his peculiar ambition. Whether it be true or not, I can say for one that I have no other so great as that of being truly esteemed of my fellow men, by rendering myself worthy of their esteem.

Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) American lawyer, politician, US President (1861-65)
“To the People of Sangamo County,” speech running for Illinois state legislature (9 Mar 1832)

A politician, for example, is a man who thinks of the next election; while the statesman thinks of the next generation.

James Freeman Clarke (1810-1888) American theologian and author
“Wanted, a Statesman!”, Old and New Magazine (Dec 1870)

Although in our country the Chief Magistrate must almost of necessity be chosen by a party and stand pledged to its principles and measures, yet in his official action he should not be the President of a part only, but of the whole people of the United States. While he executes the laws with an impartial hand, shrinks from no proper responsibility, and faithfully carries out in the executive department of the Government the principles and policy of those who have chosen him, he should not be unmindful that our fellow-citizens who have differed with him in opinion are entitled to the full and free exercise of their opinions and judgments, and that the rights of all are entitled to respect and regard.

James K. Polk (1795-1849) American lawyer, politician, US President (1845-1849)
Inaugural Address (4 Mar 1845)

You cannot be a leader, and ask other people to follow you, unless you know how to follow, too.

Sam Rayburn (1882-1961) American lawyer and politician
Quoted in The Leadership of Speaker Sam Rayburn, Collected Tributes of His Congressional Colleagues, House Doc. 87-247 (1961)

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 Fitzgerald Kennedy (1917-1963) US President (1961-63)
Address to the Massachusetts legislature (9 Jan 1961)

It is part of the price of leadership of this great and free nation to be the target of clever satirists. You have given the gift of laughter to our people. May we never grow so somber or self-important that we fail to appreciate the humor in our lives.

Lyndon B. Johnson (1908-1973) American politician, educator, US President (1963-69)
Letter to the Smothers Brothers (Nov 1968)

The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to  obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust.

James Madison (1751-1836) American statesman, political theorist, US President (1809-17)
The Federalist #57 (19 Feb 1788)

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 net world. 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)
Address, Des Moines, Iowa (30 Aug 1951)

Ultimately, a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus, but a molder of consensus.

Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968) American clergyman, civil rights leader, orator
Speech, Labor Leadership Assembly for Peace (Nov 1967)

PRESIDENT, n. The leading figure in a small group of men of whom — and of whom only — it is positively known that immense numbers of their countrymen did not want any of them for President.

Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914?) American writer and journalist
The Cynic’s Word Book (1906)

The measure of leadership is not the quality of the head, but the tone of the body. The signs of outstanding leadership appear primarily among the followers.

Max De Pree (b. 1924) American businessman and writer
Leadership Is An Art (1987)

Your public servants serve you right.

Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965) American diplomat, statesman
Speech, Los Angeles (11 Sep 1952)

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 (23 Mar 1950)

The legislative job of the President is especially important to the people who have no special representatives to plead their cause before Congress — and that includes the great majority. The President is the only lobbyist that 150 million Americans have. The other 20 million are able to employ people to represent them — and that’s all right, it’s the exercise of the right of petition — but someone has to look after the interests of the 150 million that are left.

Harry S Truman (1884-1972) US President (1945-1953)
Speech, Press and Union Club, San Francisco (25 Oct 1956)

To serve the Public faithfully, and at the same time please it entirely, is impracticable.

Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) American statesman, scientist, philosopher
Poor Richard’s Almanack (Oct 1758)

The politician in my country seeks votes, affection and respect, in that order…. With few notable exceptions, they are simply men who want to be loved.

Edward R. Murrow (1908-1965) American journalist
Address at London Guildhall (19 Oct 1959)

I believe that the public temper is such that the voters of the land are prepared to support the party which gives the best promise of administering the government in the honest, simple, and plain manner which is consistent with its character and purposes. They have learned that mystery and concealment in the management of their affairs cover tricks and betrayal. The statesmanship they require consists in honesty and frugality, a prompt response to the needs of the people as they arise, and a vigilant protection of all their varied interests.

Grover Cleveland (1837–1908) American President (1885–1889, 1893–1897)
Letter accepting Democratic nomination for President (8 Aug 1884)

When I ran for Presidency of the United States, I knew that this country faced serious challenges, but I could not realize — nor could any man realize who does not bear the burdens of this — how heavy and constant would be those burdens.

John F. Kennedy (1917-1963) US President (1961-63)
“Radio and TV Report to the American People on the Berlin Crisis” (25 Jul 1961)

The first rule of democracy is to distrust all leaders who begin to believe their own publicity.

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. (1917-2007) American historian, author, social critic
“On Heroic Leadership,” Encounter (Dec 1960)

I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people. Let us all here assembled constitute ourselves prophets of a new order of competence and of courage. This is more than a political campaign; it is a call to arms. Give me your help, not to win votes alone, but to win in this crusade to restore America to its own people.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945) US President (1933-1945)
Presidential nomination acceptance speech, Chicago (2 Jul 1932)

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
Personal interview with Edgar Puryear (15 Feb 1963)
Quoted in Edgar Puryear, 19 Stars : A Study in Military Character and Leadership (1981).

You have heard the story, haven’t you, about the man who was tarred and feathered and carried out of town on a rail? A man in the crowd asked him how he liked it. His reply was that if it was not for the honor of the thing, he would much rather walk.

Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) American lawyer, politician, US President (1861-65)
When asked how he enjoyed being President. (Attributed (1861))

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)

The worst error a president can make is to assume the automatic implementation of his own decisions. In certain respects, having able subordinates aggravates that problem, since strong personalities tend to have strong ideas of their own. Civil government operates by consent, not by command; the President’s task, even within his own branch of government, is not to order but to lead.

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. (1917-2007) American historian, author, social critic
The Age of Roosevelt: The Coming of the New Deal, ch. 33, sec. 3 (1959)

The second office of this government is honorable & easy, the first is but a splendid misery.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) American political philosopher, polymath, statesman, US President (1801-09)
Letter to Elbridge Gerry (13 May 1797)

The task of leadership is not to put greatness into humanity, but to elicit it, for the greatness is already there.

John Buchan (1875-1940) Scottish novelist, poet, and politician; Governor-General of Canada (1935 -1940)
Montrose and Leadership (1930)

All presidents start out to run a crusade, but after a couple of years they find they are running something less heroic and much more intractable: namely, the presidency.

Alistair Cooke (1908-2004) Anglo-American essayist and journalist
Talk About America, ch. 6 (1981)

He serves his party best who serves the country best.

Rutherford B. Hayes (1822-1893) American attorney, soldier, politician, US President (1877-81)
Inaugural address (5 Mar 1877)

The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality. The last is to say thank you. In between the two, the leader must become a servant and a debtor.

Max De Pree (b. 1924) American businessman and writer
Leadership Is An Art (1989)

You can lead an organization through persuasion or formal edict. I have never found the arbitrary use of authority to control an organization either effective or, for that matter, personally interesting. If you cannot persuade your colleagues of the correctness of your position, it is probably worthwhile to rethink your own.

Alan Greenspan (b. 1926) American economist, bureaucrat
“Federal Reserve’s Chairman Blends Eye for Politics with Economic Skills,” New York Times (26 Jul 1990)

The Presidency is not merely an administrative office. That’s the least of it. It is more than an engineering job, efficient or inefficient. It is pre-eminently a place of moral leadership. All our great Presidents were leaders of thought at times when certain historic ideas in the life of the nation had to be clarified.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945) US President (1933-1945)
In The New York Times Magazine (11 Sep 1932)

If we do not lay out ourselves in the service of mankind whom should we serve?

Abigail Adams (1744-1818) American correspondent, First Lady (1797-1801)
Letter to John Thaxter (29 Sep 1778)

I despise toadies who suck up to their bosses; they are generally the same people who bully their subordinates.

David Ogilvy (1911–1999) British advertising executive
Confessions of an Advertising Man, ch. 1 (1963)

Do you know what makes a leader? It’s the man or woman who can persuade people to do what they ought to do — and which they sometimes don’t do — without being persuaded. They must also have the ability to persuade people to do what they do not want to do and like it.

Harry S Truman (1884-1972) US President (1945-1953)
Speech, Annapolis (24 May 1952)

The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.

Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919) US President (1901-1909)
“Sedition, A Free Press, and Personal Rule,” Kansas City Star (7 May 1918)

You convey too great a compliment when you say that I have earned the right to the presidential nomination. No man can establish such an obligation upon any part of the American people. My country owes me no debt. It gave me, as it gives every boy and girl, a chance. It gave me schooling, independence of action, opportunity for service and honor. In no other land could a boy from a country village, without inheritance or influential friends, look forward with unbounded hope. My whole life has taught me what America means. I am indebted to my country beyond any human power to repay.

Herbert Hoover (1874-1964) American engineer, bureaucrat, President of the US (1928-32)
Letter to George Moses (14 Jun 1928)

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.

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

Widespread intellectual and moral docility may be convenient for leaders in the short term, but it is suicidal for nations in the long term. One of the criteria for national leadership should therefore be a talent for understanding, encouraging, and making constructive use of vigorous criticism.

¶ Carl Sagan (1934-1996) American scientist and writer
Billions and Billions, ch. 14 “The Common Enemy” (1997)

The intoxication of power rapidly sobers off in the knowledge of its restrictions and under the prompt reminder of an ever-present and not always considerate press, as well as the kindly suggestions that not infrequently come from Congress.

William Howard Taft (1857-1930) US President (1909-13) and Chief Justice (1921-1930)
Speech, Lotus Club (16 Nov 1912)

The leader holds his position purely because he is able to appeal to the conscience and to the reason of those who support him, and the boss holds his position because he appeals to fear of punishment and hope of reward. The leader works in the open, and the boss in covert. The leader leads, and the boss drives.

Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919) US President (1901-1909)
Speech, Binghamton, New York (24 Oct 1910)

The culture of any organization is shaped by the worst behavior the leader is willing to tolerate.

Steve Gruenert and Todd Whitaker, School Culture Rewired, ch. 3 (2015)

Leadership is a potent combination of strategy and character. But if you must be without one, be without the strategy.

Norman Schwarzkopf (b. 1934) American military leader
(Attributed)

Leadership is solving problems. The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help or concluded you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership.

Colin Powell (b. 1937) American military leader, Secretary of State
My American Journey, ch. 2 (2003)

I praise loudly, I blame softly.

Catherine II (1762-1796) Russian empress [Catherine the Great]
Letter (23 Aug. 1794)

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 (28 Feb 1997)

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary.

John F. Kennedy (1917-1963) US President (1961-63)
Speech, American Newspaper Publishers Association (27 Apr 1961)

We need leaders not in love with money but in love with justice. Not in love with publicity but in love with humanity.

¶ Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968) American clergyman, civil rights leader, orator
“The Birth of a New Age,” speech, Alpha Phi Alpha banquet, Buffalo (11 Aug 1956)

The President must be greater than anyone else, but not better than anyone else. We subject him and his family to close and constant scrutiny and denounce them for things that we ourselves do every day. A Presidential slip of the tongue, a slight error in judgment — social, political, or ethical — can raise a storm of protest. We give the President more work than a man can do, more responsibility than a man should take, more pressure than a man can bear. We abuse him often and rarely praise him. We wear him out, use him up, eat him up. And with all this, Americans have a love for the President that goes beyond loyalty or party nationality; he is ours, and we exercise the right to destroy him.

John Steinbeck (1902-1968) American writer
“America and Americans” (1966)

Divide and rule, the politician cries;
Unite and lead, is watchword of the wise.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832) German poet, statesman, scientist
Sprüche in Prosa (1819)

The function of leadership is to produce more leaders, not more followers.

Ralph Nader (b. 1934) American attorney, author, lecturer, political activist
Time Leadership Conference, Washington, DC (Sep 1976)

You can judge a leader by the size of the problem he tackles — people nearly always pick a problem their own size, and ignore or leave to others the bigger or smaller ones. The chief executive should be thinking about the long-term changes which will bring growth or decay to different parts of the enterprise, not fussing over day-to-day problems. Other people can cope with the waves, it’s his job to watch the tide.

Antony Jay (b. 1930) English writer, broadcaster, director
Management and Machiavelli: An Inquiry into the Politics of Corporate Life, ch. 17 (1967)

For a man of sensitivity and compassion to exercise great powers in a time of crisis is a grim and agonizing thing.

Richard Hofstadter (1916-1970) American historian and intellectual
The American Political Tradition: And the Men Who Made It, Part 5, ch. 7 (1958)
Referring to Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War.

It is loyalty to great ends, even though forced to combine the small and opposing motives of selfish men to accomplish them; it is the anchored cling to solid principles of duty and action, which knows how to swing with the tide, but is never carried away by it — that we demand in public men, and not sameness of policy, or a conscientious persistency in what is impracticable.

James Russell Lowell (1819-1891) American diplomat, essayist, poet
“Abraham Lincoln” (1864), My Study Windows (1871)

Never hire or promote in your own image. It is foolish to replicate your strength. It is idiotic to replicate your weakness. It is essential to employ, trust, and reward those whose perspective, ability, and judgment are radically different from yours. It is also rare, for it requires uncommon humility, tolerance, and wisdom.

Dee W. Hock (b. 1929) American businessman
In M. Mitchell Waldrop, “Dee Hock on Management,” Fast Company (Oct/Nov 1996)

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)

Our loyalty is due entirely to the United States. It is due to the President only and exactly to the degree in which he efficiently serves the United States. It is our duty to support him when he serves the United States well. It is our duty to oppose him when he serves it badly. This is true about Mr. Wilson now and it has been true about all our Presidents in the past. It is our duty at all times to tell the truth about the President and about every one else, save in the cases where to tell the truth at the moment would benefit the public enemy.

Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919) US President (1901-1909)
Kansas City Star (7 May 1918)

Your position never gives you the right to command. It only imposes on you the duty of so living your life that others can receive your orders without being humiliated.

Dag Hammarskjöld (1905-1961) Swedish diplomat, author, UN Secretary-General (1953-61)
Markings (1955) [tr. Sjoberg & Auden (1964)]

The job of getting people really wanting to do something is the essence of leadership. And one of the things a leader needs occasionally is the inspiration he gets from the people he leads. The old tactical textbooks say that the commander always visits his troops to inspire them to fight. I for one soon discovered that one of the reasons for my visiting the front lines was to get inspiration from the young American soldier. I went back to my job ashamed of my own occasional resentments or discouragements, which I probably — at least I hope I concealed them.

Dwight David Eisenhower (1890-1969) American general, US President (1953-61)
Speech, Republican State Chairmen, Denver (10 Sep 1955)

You can’t do the biggest things in this world unless you handle men; and you can’t handle men if you’re not in sympathy with them; and sympathy begins in humility.

George Horace Lorimer (1867-1937) American journalist, author, magazine editor
Letters from a Self-Made Merchant to His Son (1901)

The high sentiments always win in the end, the leaders who offer blood, toil, tears, and sweat always get more out of their followers than those who offer safety and a good time. When it comes to the pinch, human beings are heroic.

George Orwell (1903-1950) English writer [pseud. of Eric Arthur Blair]
“The Art of Donald McGill” (Sep 1941)

Oh, if there is a man out of hell that suffers more than I do, I pity him.

Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) American lawyer, politician, US President (1861-65)
(Attributed (1862))

Our trouble is that we do not demand enough of the people who represent us. We are responsible for their activities. … We must spur them to more imagination and enterprise in making a push into the unknown; we must make clear that we intend to have responsible and courageous leadership.

Eleanor Roosevelt (1884-1962) First Lady of the US (1933-45), politician, diplomat, activist
Tomorrow Is Now (1963)

God give us men. The time demands
Strong minds, great hearts, true faith, and willing hands;
Men whom the lust of office does not kill;
Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy;
Men who possess opinions and a will;
Men who have honor; men who will not lie;
Men who can stand before a demagogue
And damn his treacherous flatteries without winking;
Tall men, sun-crowned, who live above the fog
In public duty and in private thinking ….

J. G. Holland (1819-1881) American novelist, poet, editor [Josiah Gilbert Holland; pseud. Timothy Titcomb]
“Wanted” (1872)

The 2020 Election and Dark Fantasies

Donald has damaged the nation by damaging the election, and it may get worse.

Of all the awful things Donald Trump has done, his teeing up this election to be a shit-show that his pet Attorney General will litigate to the bitter end is arguably the worst. I know that list has bitter contention for top billing, because the nominees are legion. But I believe it so, because Donald’s actions, attitude, and announcements have fractured a keystone of our democracy / representative government: that election results can be trusted.

(Yes, for some populations in the US, that’s hardly new news. But we’re potentially talking here about a majority of Americans having that faith called into question.)

Everything stems from belief in election results. From the Constitution to the courts, from effective governance to crisis management. Taxes, obeying the law, basic societal bonds — all are affected by that basic trust. Because, as Donald’s own behavior shows, a lot of our society runs on a degree of confidence in the system, and voluntary compliance to civil norms.

Donald is damaging that. He’s setting things up so that confidence will be –already is — rattled, and so compliance becomes something for suckers because it’s every person for themselves. The social contract we have in this country is at stake.

So what’s the worst that could happen?

There are no electoral scenarios where things necessarily end well, because Donald has already called the whole process into question, and seems ready to continue to do so regardless of the outcome.

If Donald wins “bigly” (he will make any win into a “bigly” one, no matter the actual numbers), his and the GOP’s shenanigans regarding mail-in votes, on top of the (reprehensibly) usual GOP voter suppression, will further erode the idea of elections meaning anything. Even among his supporters, it will enforce the idea that winning depends on who’s willing to be the most cut-throat, regardless of traditions or even the law.

If Donald barely loses, he will fight tooth and nail in court, abetted by his pet AG, to call into question enough of the votes (mail-in or in-person, through his already asserted claims of massive fraud and illegal voting) to get the results changed enough to win. And then do his damnedest to make sure that the party (and his) advantage so gained is codified in law, as supported by a judiciary of the same persuasion.

(I have no faith that Donald, should he win, will not attempt to get the Constitution changed to allow him to run for another term. Or get SCOTUS to rule that so much of his first term was tied up in the “FAKE RUSSIA HOAX AND IMPEACHMENT HOAX TOO” that it doesn’t count. In either case, he will have a personal stake in making vote suppression even a bigger thing.)

If Donald loses big-time (doubtless with an accompanying drubbing of the GOP in the House and Senate), he’ll just switch to the Big Lie and use it as proof of massive fraud (“The only way I could lose is if there’s huge fraud, because everyone loves me, and the Dems always cheat, and this is proof of it” kind of thing).

Does anyone actually think he WON’T claim massive vote fraud, regardless of the outcome?

Again, massive court fights will ensue. And remember, he has as potential allies not just the executive branch, and half of Congress, but a massive fraction of federal judges he’s gotten appointed, plus 2-3 SCOTUS justices he’s named.

Even if Roberts declines to damage SCOTUS’ rep by supporting a perceived coup, if the Trump nominees and Thomas & Alito vote as a bloc, they win 5-4 vs Roberts and the remaining liberal justices. And I have no question in my mind that this, far more than any sentiment about abortion, is why Donald is pushing his SCOTUS nominee so fast. He’s admitted it. And that Mitch is supporting that raises even more grave doubts about outcomes.

And, to that end, there have already been discussions with GOP-run statehouses about how state legislatures could override the popular vote. (The Constitution gives the selection of electors to the lege, not to voters; it’s just a norm, under the law, that the voters get to make that decision. And we all know about the fragility of norms under the Trump presidency.)

Or for that matter, it might only take a GOP-run state to declare that there was massive fraud and they cannot select electors reliably. SCOTUS might rule the same. If the neither side ends up with 270+ electoral votes … then under the Twelfth Amendment, the election goes to Congress.

In that case, the House elects the President — but each state only casts one vote, as polled within its delegation. And there happen to be 26 states with a majority of GOP Representatives, vs 22 with a majority of Dems (one state, PA, is tied, and one state, MI, with has half Dems, an Independent, and the rest GOP). That means the House, if everyone follows party lines, chooses Trump for President. (And you thought the Electoral College was bad.)

(The VP is chosen in the Senate, where each Senator has a vote, so we know how that goes.)

Even if he’s finally stopped in court, and we don’t get state legislative shenanigans — however long that whole process would take — the spectacle itself would itself be a shock to the nation’s confidence and trust, and Donald’s inevitable rallying of the public (and the counter-rallying done by his opponents) further fracture the country. And it would, as importantly, firmly set the precedent first dabbled with in 2000: elections will be appealed and settled in court, not the ballot box, no matter the apparent result.

Way to be a bummer, Dave

So, yes, all of that is very depressing, and I sincerely hope against hope that the only Donald outcome we get is his leaving the White House grounds in January for good.

But that he’s made such dark fantasies even half-plausible demonstrates the damage he’s already done in four years, abetted by the news networks and pols and pundits who’ve been willing to deny reality and show undying loyalty, even in the face of regular zany behavior, in exchange for a cut of continuing power. They’ve all, collectively, called into question for coming decades, if not longer, how stable and reliable and honest our elections are.

And, by extension, our democracy, our government, and our society.
 
“It can never happen here” is itself a pleasant fantasy. Donald’s proven that to us in four short years.
“MINE!”

No, nobody is enjoying the COVID-19 crisis

I don’t enjoy wearing masks. But I do so anyway, because I’m a damned grown-up.

This started as a Twitter thread, but I wanted to get it down in my blog for the longer term.

There seems to be this weird myth going along amongst the anti-maskers, anti-distancing, anti-treating-#COVID19-as-a-serious-public-health-threat crowd, that their “opposition” are getting some special joy out of forcing people to obey all these restrictions, regulations, and shutdown activities that they are doing themselves.

Image
Because the Founders, who regularly evacuated big cities during the summer, would have found mask-wearing a terrible, existential affront.

The idea that we’re all chortling over people being forced to wear masks, shut down businesses, and juggle questions of safety for ourselves, our kids, our parents, our friends, our communities … that idea is not just wrong, not just insulting, but this is maddeningly offensive.

I hate this. I hate all of this. Wearing masks. Treating my mom and in-laws like precious china and restricting myself to things that won’t, in passing, threaten them. Not traveling on vacation. Not having folk over for game day, or BBQs, or (99% likely) Thanksgiving. I HATE it.

Image
Not knowing what is happening next, or when things will return to normal, or what normal will look like, is pretty awful, too.

And I say that as an introvert who, normally, would just as soon cocoon from the world and recharge my batteries. That little green “recharge is complete, better unplug or else you’ll damage the circuits” light is blinking.

This needful isolation is driving even me bats. So I sympathize with those who hate it even more than I do.

Image
Too much of an often good thing.

Y’know what I hate more? People taking the measures I feel are moral imperatives to protect my family, my friends, myself … and spitting on them as some kook conspiracy, as some libtard craziness, as a hoax, as a political ploy.

Image
Yeah, NOW they want to “be like Sweden.” Which only pursued its strategy because it had a robust, publicly funded, universally available health care system that it thought couldn’t be overwhelmed.

Spitting on science AND my own sacrifices as some unbelievable plot to steal some kindergarten sense of FREEDUMM! from people. And, in so doing, making this problem worse, and last longer.

Tantrums are unbecoming a nation that prides itself on strength and a history of resolve. Yet, here we are.

I have screen savers and digital frames of photos of the cool things our family has done: fun travel, enjoyable parties, get-togethers and the like. And I love those pix for the memories they recall, but they also taunt me because I can’t do things like that right now, because they are DANGEROUS to myself and my loved ones.

Image
Probably not revisiting Greece any time soon. Assuming they’d let Americans back in the door in the first place.

And, again, introvert talking here. I am not the party-three-nights-a-weekend type. But even I need more direct social contact than I am getting.

For various folk to take having to wear a mask to visit their local Costco as some intolerable personal offense, when I am watching the clock run out on being able to travel with my mom to some of the places she’s always wanted to go … is infuriating.

Image
Tantrums are unbecoming for [see previous caption]
Nobody wants this. Everyone hates this. And in some cases that translates into redirected hate, or at least anger, against people who are making the situation worse, by being self-indulgent, rebelling against sensible measures, and helping further spread this disease. Throwing away the sacrifices already made. Killing and crippling more people, and forcing shut-downs to last longer.

Image
Yes, please, record your stupidity for posterity. Assuming you have one.

Or worse, those who encourage such irresponsible behavior in their words and deeds, to politically benefit themselves at the cost of goddamned freaking HUMAN LIVES.

This guy. THIS guy.

I am an adult. As such, I acknowledge I cannot do everything I want, and, in fact, am at times morally restrained from doing things that are attractive, things I want to do, things that would be fun, because the cost to myself and (most importantly) others would be too high.

Image
A lesson we all learn. Sometimes repeatedly.

And sometimes, when temptation is too high or the risk too great, we actually restrict people from doing things. Sometimes temporarily — closing a road because of a possible slide, taping off a crime scene, check-points to find drunk drivers on a holiday weekend — and sometimes permanently.

That’s what being a mature adult is about. Not about stamping one’s foot and demanding “FREEDOM!” from restriction. That’s what six-year-olds do, because their worldview is strictly about them and their wants. Adults are supposed to be different.

We all do, honey. Now shut up and go to your room.

Liberty is not libertinism. Freedom is not about ignoring the freedom of others. We live in a society, not some Libertarian / Hobbesian war of all-against-all. Unless we want our lives to be nasty, brutish, and short.

Ah, the social contract. What we agree to do for each other, for mutual safety and prosperity. I remember those days. Good times, man, good times.

Argue, if you care to, about the facts. About what is actually needed. About how we get to the point where the survival-needful restrictions on our liberty (and economy and convenience and pleasure) can be eased. Have an honest, serious, greater-good discussion about that.

But don’t act like this is a cosmic battle between the Defenders of Liberty and the Right to Party Hearty vs. the Cackling Evil Hordes of Burka-Mandating Authoritarianism. Because you are not only profoundly wrong, but you are being profoundly insulting.

Image

Small town evangelicals talk about why they support Trump

He offers them power against the scary cultural tide

Fascinating, disappointing, interesting, and concerning article, talking with people in Sioux Center, Iowa, where Donald Trump gave his famous “Fifth Avenue” shooting comment during his 2016 campaign, but where he also promised his evangelical Christian audience that, under his presidency, “Christianity will have power.

“I will tell you, Christianity is under tremendous siege, whether we want to talk about it or we don’t want to talk about it,” Mr. Trump said.

Christians make up the overwhelming majority of the country, he said. And then he slowed slightly to stress each next word: “And yet we don’t exert the power that we should have.”

If he were elected president, he promised, that would change. He raised a finger.

“Christianity will have power,” he said. “If I’m there, you’re going to have plenty of power, you don’t need anybody else. You’re going to have somebody representing you very, very well. Remember that.”

What struck me in reading this was the irony that a religion whose founder was killed by those in power, and who taught the virtue demonstrated and grace given when refusal to compromise principle for power leads to persecution, has so many followers who just want to be the ones “in charge.” To have Caesar promise them power in exchange for their support at the ballots.

Not necessarily malicious power (though clearly there are some), but just comfortable power. Their scripture in all public places. The assumption that they are “normal”. Laws that adhere to their religious code. And those who aren’t of their belief, left on the margins, at best.

And if their perceived rights conflict with those of others? Women who want equal treatment, or those of other races, or sexual orientation or gender expression or religious faith? Well, the advantage of firmly believing God is on your side is that you don’t worry about others who don’t believe as you do. You can argue that you need the power to have the nation do what you want, but frame it as making sure someone isn’t oppressing you.

Explained Jason Mulder, who runs a small design company in Sioux Center: “I feel like on the coasts, in some of the cities and stuff, they look down on us in rural America. You know, we are a bunch of hicks, and don’t know anything. They don’t understand us the same way we don’t understand them. So we don’t want them telling us how to live our lives.”

One has to consider some are projecting concerns that they will find themselves being treated as poorly on the margins as Jews, or Muslims, or atheists, etc.

The irony is that the nation’s history shows that when Christianity “has power,” it turns on itself as much as on those outside. Along racial lines. Wealth lines. Most importantly doctrinal lines. Catholic vs Protestant. Evangelicals of different flavors. James Madison grew up seeing Baptists tarred and feathered, which led to his pressing for protections against the church being entangled with the state.

When Christians “have power,” it’s not all Christians, ever.

“Obama wanted to take my assault rifle, he wanted to take out all the high-capacity magazines,” Mr. Schouten said. “It just —”

“— felt like your freedoms kept getting taken from you,” said Heather’s husband, Paul, finishing the sentence for him.

Is Christianity “under siege”? Well, it’s losing numbers. And it’s losing (to coin a phrase) the “special rights” of being the assumed norm, of having the presumed power when push comes to shove, of having its values be the values everyone has to adhere to (in theory).

And, weird thing, as that norm has faded, some people in some groups who have been pushed around by Christians following what they think is Christian doctrine, when they get a chance, they speak out. They verbally attack Christianity. Sometimes they push back, too.

She worried that the school might be forced to let in students who were not Christian, or hire teachers who were gay.

“Silly things. Just let the boys go in the boys’ bathroom and the girls go in the girls’,” he said. “It’s just something you’d think is never going to happen, and nowadays it could. And it probably will.”

“Just hope nobody turns it upside down,” he said.

“But we feel like we are in a little area where we are protected yet,” she said. “We are afraid of losing that, I guess.”

And it all feels so much like a zero-sum game. That the only way for someone to get freedoms, liberty, rights, is to take them from someone who already has them. The idea of rights being a universal pool to which only some people have been invited, and that those people were now insisting on their fair share … doesn’t matter to them, maybe because they don’t know or acknowledge some of the groups insisting on their freedom, liberty, rights.

The years of the Obama presidency were confusing to her. She said she heard talk of giving freedoms to gay people and members of minority groups. But to her it felt like her freedoms were being taken away. And that she was turning into the minority.

“I do not love Trump. I think Trump is good for America as a country. I think Trump is going to restore our freedoms, where we spent eight years, if not more, with our freedoms slowly being taken away under the guise of giving freedoms to all,” she said. “Caucasian-Americans are becoming a minority. Rapidly.”

But if Christianity is diminishing in the US, it’s not because of those attacks. It’s not because of Hollywood, or liberals, or Satan whispering in the wings. It’s ultimately because Christians, in all their different flavors, are not being persuasive that theirs is the better way, the right way. That the salvation they trust is coming, and the peace and joy they claim to feel in their lives, and the righteousness of their cause, is worth it as a belief system and lifestyle.

Taking a shortcut by having power in secular terms doesn’t seem to fit into any of the New Testament teachings I can find. And the more they grasp at that, the more they drive people away,

They want America to be a Christian nation for their children. “We started out as a Christian nation,” she said.

“You can’t make people do these things,” he said. “But you can try to protect what you’ve got, you might say.”

One might think, if this were simply a matter of faith, the folk talked with here would be focused on their beliefs and their relationship with God. They would bear the insults and slights as signs that they’re doing something right. (They might also consider any justice of the accusations against them, but one step at a time).

Instead, what we hear about is all about Us and Them, and fear, and discomfort, and change, and Donald being the guy who will Restore Our Power, take away the insecurity, the questioning, the (gasp) marginalization, the laws and culture that say they’re “wrong” or “silly” or “hurtful.” He’ll keep them safe, their religious schools pure, their bathrooms binary, their neighborhoods white … just like they’ve always been.

“Trump’s an outsider, like the rest of us,” he said. “We might not respect Trump, but we still love the guy for who he is.”

“Is he a man of integrity? Absolutely not,” he went on. “Does he stand up for some of our moral Christian values? Yes.”

The guys agreed. “I’m not going to say he’s a Christian, but he just doesn’t attack us,” his friend Jason Mulder said.

It’s a transactional scam on Donald’s part — he’s no more pro-Christian than my cat is — but they don’t see it, or they don’t care. They’re terrified, they feel that power, power from the modern Caesar, is the only cultural salvation for them in the short run, and they don’t care what it is costing them in the long run.

The Projecting President

“I know you are, but what am I?”

Always remember, when Donald Trump says something negative about someone else, he is, at least 95% of the time, projecting about his own behavior.

“How can you possibly support Candidate B?”

Because the alternative is President T.

Even before Warren’s dropping out, I’ve been beating the drum for quite some time about the need to, eventually, whichever way the chips fall, vote for the Democratic nominee … whether it’s Bernie or Biden.

“But Dave! How can you possibly support Candidate B, who is obviously such a bad candidate?”

Let’s make it clear I understand some of the obvious weaknesses of each significant Dem candidate still in the race.

Image result for joe biden

Joe Biden …

  • has a long political record, and a lot of it has aged poorly. His actions as US Senator don’t align with what we want from a President today.
  • says a lot of self-aggrandizing things about his history that are untrue.
  • is definitely not progressive. He’s made some interesting proposals during this race, but mostly he’s a candidate of “Hey, things were great during the Obama era.”
  • has a poor filter, thinks faster than he can talk, and possibly has cognitive issues.
  • overly relies on his Obama legacy, glossing he was brought in as a more conservative (and white) balance to the the ticket.
  • came into this race with an entitlement chip on his shoulder, and has never quite gotten over that.

Image result for bernie sanders

Bernie Sanders …

  • is angry, shouty, accusatory.
  • has a long record of not working and playing well with others.
  • has big goals without any real sign of detailed policy or practical political ways of achieving them, beyond shouting and pointing and getting his supporters to shout and point, too.
  • talks and argues in absolutes.
  • is also old, and has a history of cardiac problems, including a recent heart attack.
  • clearly feels entitled to the nomination.
  • has (despite his protests and condemnations) a cadre of supporters who are just as mean-spirited and absolutist as Trump’s, even if for an arguably better cause.
  • regardless of “socialism” not really being a dirty word, has a background of radical rhetoric over many years that will provide a lot of fodder for Trump in the fall.

And there’s more for both. And whoever is the nominee, you’ll hear about it in lurid detail from Donald Trump and Fox News. It’s depressing.

So, yeah, I know neither candidate is perfect. So how can I support one over the other?

Well, my state primary is done. And my vote wasn’t for either of them. So I’m not supporting either of them over the other. If I was backed to the wall as to which one I’d vote for … I’d be a resident of another state. In other words, I’d rather not square that circle.

But there’s something far more important going on.

In nearly every one of those categories and criticisms, of both candidates, Donald Trump is far, far worse. He’s worse than Biden. He’s worse than Sanders. Categorically. Unequivocally.

Image result for donald trump

Donald Trump …

  • has a personal and business record that are the stuff of dark comedy.
  • lies about himself (and everything else) all the time.
  • Has politics that are not principled, but opportunistic and transactional, to which end he’s hitched himself to the reactionary wing of the GOP.
  • has no filter, says whatever will benefit him most (truth or not), and almost certainly has cognitive issues.
  • overly relies on his business background, glossing over or lying about his huge early support from his dad (and then his dad’s business) and his serial bankruptcies and stiffed creditors.
  • lies continuously about his accomplishments.
  • has built a cult of personality and surrounded himself with yes-folk because he only values the loyalty of others toward him, not their advice or experience.
  • disdains experts and scientists because they too often tell him (and, worse, others) things that are inconvenient, unpleasant, or unprofitable to him.
  • is a bully, mean-spirited, a name caller who is always, always eager to punch down.
  • will turn on any one who he considers disloyal, a failure, or just disagreeable, fire them in the most cruel and humiliating way possible, then tweet insults at them.
  • swaggers on the world stage, alienating allies, making kissy-faces with dictators, and destroying any shreds of American credibility.
  • panders to big money, theocrats, and anyone else whose support will benefit him, unhindered by any ideology other than what benefits him — his business, his political success, his historical legacy.
  • has no idea of how a constitutional republic works, and treats government like a private company, raging at or simply ignoring legal restrictions.
  • constantly attacks people (falsely) for doing things he’s actually done or wants to do, for reasons he has
  • is a xenophobe and white nationalist (though he’s happy to pretend he’s not if it helps him, just as he’s happy to pretend he’s a devout Christian if it helps him).
  • is inept as a politician and collaborative partner, the only thing that has kept his first term from being far worse, as at least half the time he steps on his own shoelaces while trying to get away with stuff. All he knows about leadership is  bluster and bullying and shamelessness.
  • has coarsened public discourse and society as a while.
  • teaches our children that being without shame gets you ahead. He has normalized and boosted bullying, racism, sexism, and nationalism. He has shattered norms and both encouraged and partaken in corruption.
  • has no respect for the Constitution, except where it gives him power to do stuff.
  • has supported GOP efforts to suppress the votes of their opponents, and himself been happy to take advantage of foreign interference in our elections where it benefitted him, and then lie to the American people about it and obstruct justice in investigating it.
  • has taken actions have directly harmed people of color, immigrants (legal or otherwise), women, LGBTQ folk, the poor and economically vulnerable.
  • has taken actions that have less directly increased the risk of war, the risk of catastrophic climate change effects, and, most recently, the risk of a lethal pandemic in the US.
  • would be perfectly happy to see abortion banned, LGBTQ folk thrown back in the closet, unions abolished, unfriendly journalists and political opponents jailed, and a daily military parade in front of the White House. And if he were offered the chance to be President-for-Life, I have very little doubt he’d jump on it.

Against that partial track record — which I state here much more baldly than is my usual wont — the weaknesses and flaws of either Biden or Sanders pale in comparison. They are real, yes, harmful and hurtful in their ways, but trivial compared to Trump.

Sure, arguing that someone is less bad than Donald Trump is a very low bar. But it’s an important one. (And, for what it’s worth, I would still consider both Bernie and Biden significantly better than their GOP competitor. Despite the litany above, both have what I consider positive aspects as well; this is not just a matter of lesser of evils.)

Regardless, the reality is, one person will be elected in November, and it will either be Donald Trump or the nominee of the Democratic party. Which one would you rather live under? Which one will leave the country better (or worse) than the other? It’s not — it’s never — a question of which candidate is going to usher in the new utopia. Even if my favorite candidate had gotten the nod, and won in November, it wouldn’t have been utopia. But it’s going to be better (or worse) with one or the other.

The question is not which Candidate B I support, but what am I going to do when it’s one of those Candidate Bs vs President T.

Those are the two choices. Pretending that not voting or voting for some protest third party candidate isn’t contributing, negatively, to the outcome is sophistry. Saying T is awful, but B has some flaws, so you won’t vote for either is … well, it’s basically supporting T. Because there’s no moral equivalence here. Not acting to defeat Trump, even with whatever ill effects might come along with Candidate B being elected, is to condone and support Trump’s re-election, and the doubling down on what has gone on in his first term.

(“I live in a state that will definitely go to the Democrat, so I don’t need to compromise by voting for a Democrat I don’t like.” Except that nobody really knows the narrowness of that margin — a sliver of votes in a set of states got Trump an electoral college majority even if he lost the popular vote — and it’s already clear that Trump will protest any electoral loss in November, so the vote against him has to be overwhelming.)

So argue about which B is better or less bad now, during the nominating process. Cast that primary vote; wax eloquent in your caucus; tweet your tweets; speak out on street corners. But realize your candidate might not get the nomination, and you might need to vote for someone you’d rather not have to.

Biden supporters might need to vote for that radical shouty guy who wants to get rid of private health insurance and raise taxes. Sanders supporters might need to vote for that big money centrist who opposes legalized pot and will only incrementally improve health care access.

Deal with it. Because the alternative is supporting that existential threat to America and the world, Donald Trump.

Image result for donald trump

Whether Sanders or Biden get the nomination, I am all in on them.  I can firmly support their candidacy without agreeing with everything about them or pretending they are perfect or even having either of them as my first choice. Because we cannot afford another four years of Donald Trump, even if that means four years of Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders instead.

It’s like arguing about having to pick the cold soup or the stale sandwich,  when the alternative is a plate of shit laced with polonium.

That’s why I’ll support Candidate B. Whichever one it is.

Image result for biden sanders

I, the Jury

Mitch McConnell, the jury foreman in the impeachment trial is admitting that he’s collaborating with defense counsel.

Sure, everyone sort of expected that the GOP Senate would never actually convict Trump in an impeachment trial, and that Mitch McConnell, as Republican Majority Leader in that chamber of congress would make certain it never happened.

On the other hand, it’s kind of shocking that he’d actually, publicly confess / brag that he’s in the bag for Trump.

Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with White House Counsel. There will be no difference between the President’s position and our position as to how to handle this … in total coordination with the White House Counsel’s office and the people who represent the President ….

Can I just note how … profoundly wrong this is?

The US Constitution — you know, the thing Mitch (and other federal officials) swore an oath to uphold and defend — the Constitution dictates that the Senate serves as the place for an impeachment trial. The House indicts (with articles of impeachment), and the Senate acts as jurors (with the Chief Justice of the United States serving as judge).

Mitch McConnell, effectively the jury foreman, just proclaimed he’s coordinating with the defense counsel.

And if that oath to uphold and defend the Constitution isn’t enough, there’s an additional oath Mitch will be taking, along with every other Senator.

I solemnly swear … that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald J. Trump, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.

I don’t see how he can possibly do that, if he’s already confessing his coordination with Donald Trump’s counsel.

McConnell’s statements are emblematic of the ultimate corruption of the Republican party, whose sole purpose has become, it seems, to protect and defend the presidency of Donald Trump, regardless of what he says or does.

Given that, it’s unlikely that the impeachment trial will result in a conviction, not because there is  (or isn’t) sufficient evidence to convict, but because the GOP majority (as led by Mitch McConnell) simply are disinterested in “impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.”

Indeed, there are loud rumors that Mitch will simply push through a vote to acquit, without any witnesses being heard (this after the GOP spend the last month or two complaining about not being able to call witnesses, even as the White House forbade any of its people to respond to subpoenas to act as witnesses).

Through such tactics, they can ensure that Donald Trump won’t be convicted under the articles of impeachment. But history — assuming it is written by Americans — not be kind to their dereliction of duty, and their being forsworn of their oaths.

 

 

 

Tweetizen Trump – 2019-10-07 – “My Great and Unmatched Wisdom”

Trump’s betrayal of the Kurds is just another step in dismantling US foreign policy and reputation

And when people ask, “Why do other countries not trust or like the US,” it’s because we pull shit like this.

That’s the US telling Turkey, “Hey, you feel free to go in and attack the Kurds that we convinced to disarm because we would protect them while they helped us fight ISIS, but you guys have always (and not without some reason) considered them terrorists and know that the Kurds have aspired for an independent state for over a century, so, hey, it’s all yours, we’re out of here because nobody’s paying us to be here.”

In the face of people worried about the folk we took under our wing and promised to protect, Donald was right there with a more egomaniacal statement than is normal even for him.

“In my great and unmatched wisdom.”

Humility has never been one of Donald Trump’s strong points. Though usually even he doesn’t end up writing like one of Kim Jong Un’s publicists.

It’s also a laughable way to try to disarm grave and bipartisan concerns (heck, even Lindsey and Mitch seeming peeved) about his throwing our Kurdish allies once more to the wolves.

(I can imagine the Senate GOP actually using this as a cover to convict on Trump if they need to, even if it’s not one of the Articles of Impeachment. I can also imagine them using it as a cover to say, “How dare you suggest I am a lackey of Donald Trump? Look, I expressed sincere reservations about his Syrian policy, even though I didn’t really do anything about it.”

I’m sure the Trump Tower Istanbul has nothing to do with Trump’s caving to Erdogan’s desires to wipe out the Kurdish areas in Syria. And I’m equally certain Trump’s threat to “totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey” is as empty as … well, when he … did it before? (When was that, precisely, and how long did it take Turkey to recover in the last three years?)

Trump’s casual assertion that the US “captured 100% of the ISIS Caliphate” would probably irk some of those allies that assisted at great cost, like the Kurds, if they weren’t facing an attack from a Turkey that has longed to destroy their separatist aspirations.

(I’ve been reading a history of the post-WWI Paris Peace Talks, and it’s probably only one of those weird coincidences of history that it was a century ago this year that the West sold out the Kurds to the Turks, too.)

Finally, as Donald takes some well-deserved mockery for the ego, pomposity, and zaniness that is involved in referring to one’s “great and unmatched wisdom” ….

(Also waiting for the Trump fanatics to say, “Well,  you know, he is pretty darned wise!”)

Meanwhile, the one thing Donald is probably not worried about:

He’s not worried because Pat and his Christianist cronies have been more than happy to support Donald up to the gills, regardless of what he’s done, in order to get all the juicy anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-religious-freedom-trumps-everything laws and regulations and Justice Dept., and they’re not about to actually turn on him now.

 

Independence Day

What is the meaning of July 4? Hint: It’s not about showing off tanks and jets.

When does the United States celebrate on July 4, “Independence Day”? What is it that John Adams wrote would be celebrated?

I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.

Is it the first noteworthy conflict with soldiery of the nation we rebelled against? Nope, would be the Boston Massacre, September 13.

How about the first defined military conflict with the British, at Lexington and Concord? Nope, that’s April 19.

Any other major Revolutionary War battles? Bunker Hill? Crossing of the Delaware and Trenton? Saratoga? Nope, those are June 17, December 26, October 17.

The British surrender at Yorktown? Nope, October 19. The Treaty of Paris, where Great Britain and the United States formally ended the armed conflict, recognizing American independence? Nope, September 4.

Unlike a lot of other countries, we don’t celebrate our national birthday based on a battle or war or even a violent protest. We have different days set aside to celebrate our military (Veterans Day, Memorial Day, etc.). We even have a different day set aside for the patriotic symbol of the US Flag.

Nor is it a date chosen to celebrate great individuals and their accomplishments, even among that generation. Presidents Day (the conglomeration of Washington and Lincoln’s birthdays) shows up in February. Not many still celebrate Thomas Jefferson Day (April 13), though it was once a big thing.

July 4 represents something special, transcendent of any one battle, any one enemy, any assertion of martial power, any one individual. It celebrates the ratification of the Declaration of Independence.

And the Declaration isn’t about the force of arms, but a document — a political document, a philosophical document.

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

It declares those human rights and, as a ramification of them, the right of a people to change or throw off a government that commits offenses against them, a government in which the people have no voice, no ability to consent in how they are governed.

It’s an imperfect document, if only for the compromise of removing a clause condemning slavery in order to get the required unanimity from the Southern states. But even that omission does not change the overarching message of human equality and human rights.

The Declaration is not a statement of military might. It is not about how we have the strongest army, the shiniest cannon, the pointiest bayonets, the fiercest soldiers, the most powerful ships of war. It is, instead, about values, about what is important, about the natural rights of human beings. It isn’t a screed against a specific foe so much as it is a statement of principle as to what political truths we stand by, what is important to us, transcending all national boundaries and political divisions.

It could have been a document about military conflict and war. It could have talked about how we’d beaten the British, how we were all taking up arms, how we would fight to the last man. It could have been about Us vs. Them, centering on that as its basis for declaring revolt against the Crown. Instead, it spoke of a higher set of principles, principles that applied no matter who was the strongest, who was the most powerful, indeed, no matter who actually won the conflict already begun.

As Lincoln wrote in 1859:

All honor to Jefferson — to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that to-day, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression.

That’s what we celebrate today. And those who seem obsessed with making it about military power, a display of our our might making us right, about how this day makes is bigger and better and more important than anyone else … it seems to me that they’re not only missing the point of the Declaration of Independence, and the day celebrating its ratification, they’re actively opposing it.

Casting about for a casus belli

The Trump Administration’s “proof” about Iran attacking ships is far from convincing.

Despite Trump and his Administration baldly asserting that Iran is behind the tanker attacks in the Straits of Hormuz this week, there remain far more open, unconfirmed, and even weird questions about attacks and their aftermath. To name just a few …

  1. Why would the Iranians attack a Japanese tanker while hosting the Prime Minister of Japan, who was there on a peace mission?
  2. Why does the crew of the Japanese tanker say that the ship was hit by flying objects, not mines?
  3. If you’re sneaking up to a ship to remove a limpet mine you put there which didn’t go off for some reason, do you have all your crew crowd around while you’re removing the unexploded mine?
  4. If those were the Iranians doing that, why did the UN Navy just let them do so and and then sail off without, apparently, tracking where they went?
  5. How do the Iranians benefit from all of this?

That last one is key in this. Cui bono?, “To whom the benefit?” is an old Roman legal maxim. When seeking suspects, figure out who gains an advantage, who has a motivation.

Analyzing motivations is by no means foolproof, of course, as it assumes a certain level of rationality, enlightened self-interest, command and control within all the parties involved, and that you have sufficient facts on hand. On the other hand, just making assumptions based on biases toward an end you are seeking is even more of a mook’s game.

So how does Iran benefit by attacking these ships, at this time?

One semi-rational suggestion I’ve read about this (beyond vague “They’re crazy religious fanatics, go figure?”) is that by causing oil prices to surge, Iran’s restricted oil exports are worth more.  That seems a very high stakes way for a short term gain.

Another suggestion is that Iran is sending (while denying the attacks for international sensibilities) a veiled signal that it could cause significant economic damage, if it chose to, and if it is in fact attacked by the United States. The risk calculus there still seems dodgy, but the Iranians (among others) might not see it that way.

So, yes, these attacks certainly could be Iranian. That might even be the most likely answer. Or they could be by Iranian proxies, enough at arms length for plausible deniability.

Or, alternately, they could be Saudis or Emirate forces, looking to get the US to attack their regional enemy (and, hey, drive up oil prices, too!). For that matter, I have full faith in the Israelis being able to stage this, should they choose to see this as a way of taking down by proxy what they consider an existential enemy.

And that doesn’t even count the terrible possibility that it was actually perpetrated by US forces under a false flag.

Given US history, and our willingness to rush to war on mistaken or intentionally fabricated facts (the Maine, the Lusitania, the Gulf of Tonkin, the war in Iraq), and given the staggering cost in blood and money that war  incurs, we should always question the proof provided as a casus belli, and call for it to be of the highest transparency possible. We need convincing evidence, presented by convincing representatives.

In this case the scanty proof (mostly assertions) given us by a US Administration whose leaders have made it clear they are itching for a reason to take down the Iranians, and whose penchant for dishonesty on matters small and great is staggering, is as yet unconvincing.

Do you want to know more?