TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME–THE INFECTION SPREADS

     The President, his lackeys, MAGA supporters, and followers apply the phrase Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) as one of disparagement to the rest of us, but it properly should apply, as I shall apply it, to them.  Indeed, as is typical of the TDS set, almost everything which they say is the reverse of the proper description of the state of affairs.  Shortly before the 2024 election, The Economist, a center-right weekly, declared the U.S. economy “the envy of the world”; shortly after that election, as reported in The Guardian, a center-left weekly, Trump declared that it “went to hell” under Biden.

     Total reversals of the truth are one thing; various perversions of the truth—falsehoods, distortions, misrepresentations, false imputations, malign insinuations, linguistic smears, etc.—which characterize the administration’s public communications are another.  To these and other rhetorical crimes, Karoline Leavitt, the White Press Secretary, adds a gratuitous snootiness and snideness which, all together, perfectly capture the administration’s ethos.  Ironically, in her 5 May letter to Alan Gerber, President of Harvard University, Linda McMahon, Secretary of Education, served as a model of not only the foregoing perversions, but also the semi-literacy of administration officials.  The letter has been widely mocked for its partisan stupidity and grammatical lapses quite apart from its factual infelicities.

So it is no surprise that, as I write today, Memorial Day, Trump demonstrated his vulgarity in an early morning, all-caps tweet on Truth Social:

 

HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY TO ALL, INCLUDING THE SCUM THAT SPENT THE LAST FOUR YEARS TRYING TO DESTROY OUR COUNTRY THROUGH WARPED RADICAL LEFT MINDS, WHO ALLOWED 21,000,000 MILLION PEOPLE TO ILLEGALLY ENTER OUR COUNTRY, MANY OF THEM BEING CRIMINALS AND THE MENTALLY INSANE,THROUGH AN OPEN BORDER THAT ONLY AN INCOMPETENT PRESIDENT WOULD APPROVE, AND THROUGH JUDGES WHO ARE ON A MISSION TO KEEP MURDERERS, DRUG DEALERS, RAPISTS, GANG MEMBERS, AND RELEASED PRISONERS FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD, IN OUR COUNTRY SO THEY CAN ROB, MURDER, AND RAPE AGAIN — ALL PROTECTED BY THESE USA HATING JUDGES WHO SUFFER FROM AN IDEOLOGY THAT IS SICK, AND VERY DANGEROUS FOR OUR COUNTRY. HOPEFULLY THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, AND OTHER GOOD AND COMPASSIONATE JUDGES THROUGHOUT THE LAND, WILL SAVE US FROM THE DECISIONS OF THE MONSTERS WHO WANT OUR COUNTRY TO GO TO HELL. BUT FEAR NOT, WE HAVE MADE GREAT PROGRESS OVER THE LAST 4 MONTHS, AND AMERICA WILL SOON BE SAFE AND GREAT AGAIN! AGAIN, HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY, AND GOD BLESS AMERICA! 

 

The characterization of “the federal judiciary as ‘USA hating’ and ‘monsters’ is particularly twisted; many members of the courts are Trump- or other Republican-appointed judges.  If taken seriously, the derogatory words raise the question why he and other Republican presidents nominated such judges in the first place.  When Trump goes on to claim that Biden wanted all manner of felons to enter the country and any number of judges wanted to keep them in the country so that they can repeat their felonies, he departs from the reality about a lifelong public official and educated, dedicated judges in favor of comic-book villains.  Such a mind invents “the scum that spent the last four years trying to destroy our country through warped radical left minds”—which leaves the rest of us wondering who is that “scum” whom he includes in his “Happy Memorial Day” wishes to all.  As CNN points out, “In the United States, Memorial Day honors those who died while serving in the armed forces; due to the holiday’s grave significance, it’s largely considered taboo to wish someone a “Happy Memorial Day.”  (Not in Las Cruces, where such greetings are an irksome commonplace; just how happy do people think the holiday happy to those honoring by remembering their sacrifice and their loss?  But they do not think.)

 

Trump the vulgarian’s rhetoric reached a remarkable low in the graduation address which he delivered in the formal ceremony at West Point.  Missing was his derogatory language, unless one includes his short diversion on “trophy brides,” a phrase self-consciously acknowledged, and the dangers which they pose (Melania, were you paying attention?).  Everything reflected his narcissistic reflections on episodes in his life which he thought apt for soon-to-be commissioned cadets dedicated, not to self-enrichment, but to public service.  Nothing addressed the principles, values, and aspirations of such service to which the cadets would commit themselves.  A more dispiriting speech was not possible.  Trump’s applause-expectant pauses were filled with a little perfunctory clapping or silence; the cadets were having none of it.

 

The hallmark of authoritarianism is its assault on reality in all of its dimensions: political, of course, but also intellectual, scientific, economic, social, and cultural.  Accordingly, Trump’s administration is attacking the media, students and faculty protesting and deemed likely to protest, major universities, and government agencies conducting basic research in medicine and other fields.  It cannot tolerate dissent or truth, which, aside from any resistance to its application of power, resides in a different  reality.  Part of that assault reflects a lack of respect for dissenting citizens as evinced, minimally, in personal abuse by derogatory insinuation or assertion.

 

Such was the practice of three holdovers from the six women councilors of the previous Council at the 19 May City Council meeting: Johana Bencomo, Becky Corran, and Yvonne Flores.  In their statements or insinuations, they attacked opponents of Realize Las Cruces who, they asserted without evidence, lied about, misrepresented, or distorted the truth, and implied were racist.  (I assume that Mayor Eric Enriquez agreed with the women because he did not enforce Council’s rules about respectful speech and conduct.).  Their abusive, disrespectful rejection of dissenters had the usual problems which such authoritarianism has: it rejected alternative ideas about reality and had no Plan B if its ideas about reality fail.

 

There is a larger context to this outburst of officials’ incivility.  At the few Council meetings which I have attended since that January 2022, I have heard several speakers deplore the deterioration in the quality of City Council.  They spoke to a Council of all female councilors.  At the time, I blogged, “I expect the male mayor to dominate and direct the six female councilors.  I expect that inoffensive mediocrity and mendacity by six female councilors to merely replace the past inoffensive mediocrity and mendacity by six male councilors.  I expect that such equivalence—call it equality, if you will—to make no difference to ordinary folk, much less be a cause for citizens to celebrate.  Still, I hope for better than I expect.”

 

Only in two respects do I find the all-women councilors different from the all-male councilors.  The women seem less able to address difficult topics (police reform, Public Works waste, antisemitism), they seem to defer to male leadership or groupthink, and they are less temperate in their language toward citizens whose views on important issues differ from theirs.  An excellent example is Tessa Abeyta’s intemperate attack on Peter Goodman, who was advocating for a citizen police review board, at a Council meeting some years ago.

 

Some columnists/commentators regard this conduct by councilors as worthy only of an apologetic footnote.  They simply do not appreciate that disparaging citizens and rejecting their dissents, with their possibility of reality and the truth, out of hand is dangerous.  What if Trump’s tariffs and his “big, beautiful bill” have dire consequences?  What are his fallback positions?  How does the country recover from the damage, much of it long-term?  What if Realize Las Cruces falters or fails?  How will the damage be undone?  Short of demolition, what does the city do about permanent buildings?  What if it divides the community into enduring hostile camps, today’s losers blaming today’s winners?  Do city councilors and city staff have a Plan B?

 

My point is a simple one.  Rhetoric is a clue to the political character of officials.  Politicians who are disrespectful to or abusive of citizens are also incipiently or currently authoritarian.  In their misuse of power by denigrating dissenters and dismissing their positions, they place the societies which they rule in self-harm’s way.  Trump Derangement Syndrome has spread to Las Cruces.

COUNCILORS’ ATTACKS ON CITIZEN PETITIONERS SEEKING A REFERENDUM HAVE RACIST INSINUATIONS

In its 19 May meeting, City Council rejected a citizens’ petition to withdraw the new zoning ordinance in favor of a referendum to be voted on in the fall.  Councilors were abusive or arrogant in their comments about the petitioners.  Noah Raess’s “Petition to stop new zoning ordinance fails,” The Bulletin (20 May 2025), reported:

 

After nearly an hour of divided public comment, City councilor Joanna [sic] Bencomo spoke saying that the petitioners were spreading “misinformation” about the integrity of the process and “exploited peoples [sic] worst fears about their neighbors” causing at least one person to leave the meeting angrily. Bencomo finished by saying that if you are against “diverse housing going up in good neighborhoods and with good parks, then I would ask you to reflect on where your segregationist tendencies come from.”

 

Raess did not report who or what caused an angry person to leave the meeting angrily.  He also did not report to whom Johana Bencomo addressed her remark.  Bencomo accused petition supporters of misrepresenting, lying, or fear-mongering about the city’s plan “Realize Las Cruces”—accusations later repeated by Becky Corran and Yvonne Flores.  Worse, Bencomo insinuated that the supporters were racists because of their “segregationist tendencies.”  Corran and Flores agreed, saying that supporters do not want to be close to people different from themselves.  Bencomo’s, Corran’s, and Flores’s personal attacks are at odds with the rules of behavior posted for the public at City Hall meetings; apparently, they do not think themselves bound to observe them.

 

When I viewed the televised meeting, I knew next to nothing about the plan.  I had signed the petition only because I believe that a plan for city-wide zoning changes leading to major social and lifestyle changes is an issue which should be decided by the entire electorate.  Whatever else might be said about the plan or the petition supporters, they wanted only a vote by city residents.

 

Council had approved the plan “Realize Las Cruces” in February, and many citizens spoke favorably about it in Monday’s meeting.  Strictly speaking, their remarks were irrelevant.  For the issue before Council was whether to accept the petition and place the issue before Las Cruces citizens in a referendum.  Petition supporters argued that they had collected far more than the requisite number of signatures but that the city’s mishandling of the petition process, one not used for 10 years, and picayune technicalities led to the rejection of nearly 2000 signatures.  Both City Clerk Christine Rivera and City Attorney Brad Douglas assured Council that the validation or disqualification of petition signatures was entirely aboveboard.

 

From the exchanges, I could not tell who was right, who was wrong, or whether each side was a little of both.  Council members offered testimonials to the extensive time and effort to develop the plan and to the expertise of Ms. Rivera, recently voted the outstanding City Clerk in New Mexico.  Yet the process involved only those interested in the planning process, who might not have represented the perspectives or interests of most citizens.  And patrons of local media and my blog know that Rivera was the city official whose violations of the Inspection of Public Records Act were so egregious that the city settled my legal complaint against her and the city at a top-dollar cost of about $150,000.  If her transgressions reflected compliance with orders from higher authority, she might have received similar orders affecting the inspection of signatures to reach the desired outcome, rejection of the petition.  Councilors’ praise of this clerk was of the lady-doth-protest-too-much-methinks variety.

 

What most disturbed me was the councilors’ smearing petition supporters.  I do not know whether the councilors’ charges of misrepresentation, lying, or fear-mongering are true or false.  I do not dismiss those possibilities out of hand, but I do allow that different interpretations of the plan and brochures might be involved instead.  It hardly matters whether anyone can adjudicate the charges.  I doubt their validity because public officials resorted to smearing private citizens by insinuating that people who oppose mixed high-/low- income residential housing are racist.  Their attacks suggest animosity to dissenters and a defensiveness based on fear about a weak position, namely, that a referendum might lead to an overwhelming rejection of their plan.

 

Yet I heard no comment suggesting such prejudice.  I heard concerns that zoning changes would disrupt neighborhoods by intrusive, small-scale businesses like cafes, grocery stores, and gas stations, and result in increased traffic.  I heard concerns that these changes would adversely influence property values and unsettle established personal relations.  In themselves, these reasons are not racist and do not imply racism.  But councilors who pretend to be without prejudice probably heard that talk as reflecting racism.  In the absence of evidence, their remarks to that effect disgrace not only those who uttered them, but also those who tolerated them.  They offend citizens who expect their elected representatives to be respectful of citizens with whom they disagree and not to impugn motives.

 

Advocates of the plan spoke of affordable housing, diversity, and inclusion; and a different kind of neighborhood and community lifestyle.  There is much, but not everything, to be said for the plan.  Petition supporters represent those who do not want change or do not want its changes; they want to keep their present lifestyle.  City planners everywhere else expect such differences and know that responses to proposed large-scale plans vary.  In some cities, they are rejected; in others, they are accepted, but, even then, their implementation often has painful and persistent problems.  Anyone who wants some insight into the problems might read about my hometown in Laura Meckler’s Dream Town: Shaker Heights and the Quest for Racial Equity.  A rich and nearly all-white suburb in the 50s, it welcomed and encouraged integration.  Yet, since then, it has struggled to overcome cultural differences, and economic and educational disparities to achieve its goal.  There and elsewhere, these problems are difficult, and they are not abated or avoided by foisting change upon a population which is divided between those willing and those unwilling to accept it.  This plan, with little public input on its final form, imposes a kind of DEI-inspired plan on all citizens.

 

In developing this plan, city staff operated in contempt of citizens.  Its planning process, at least in this effort, was seriously flawed.  Its city planners mistakenly assumed that the citizens participating in the planning process represented the general populace.  They mistakenly assumed that those not participating would accept the results.  They should have known that many citizens would wait for the final version of the plan, want a chance to consider it, and take the opportunity to address Council and urge it to accept, change, or reject the plan.  One or two City Hall meetings and no District meetings were grossly insufficient for a plan of great impact, no matter how long and hard city planners and interested parties worked on it.  Citizens who were uninformed about or uninterested in the process are now likely to resent and might obstruct a plan quickly adopted.  Council’s rejection of the petition for a referendum might cause trouble.

 

In pushing this plan, Council members have also been contemptuous of citizens.  They blame tens of thousands of citizens for not participating in the planning process.  Council gave citizens little time to consider the final version because their fear of rejection was great.  So they rushed to approve a plan which can easily be deferred at little or not cost until consensus is reached.  If they wanted citizen participation, they could have had it with a referendum. But, no, for a selfish reason: they would be embarrassed if they discovered that a majority of citizens did not approve of the plan in which staff and they had invested so much time, effort, and ego to develop.

 

In addition to the councilors smearing petition supporters to discredit or silence them and manufacture the appearance of consensus, two councilors—Becki Graham more than Corran—pontificated about representative government.  Graham claimed that Council members were elected to make decisions based on due diligence.  She then commended herself for all the work which she had done and concluded by declaring this plan to be the work of representative democracy in action.  Both councilors forgot two things about democratic processes: one, the First Amendment guarantee of the right to petition; and two, the provision in state and city law for referendums, which enable the enactment of law by a vote of the people—direct democracy.^#

 

On a major issue like the redesign of the city and the reshaping of citizen lifestyles, the only way to get consensus (not to be confused with unanimity) is to get “the consent of the governed” by persuasion, not by political power plays to impose the plan on an unknown, but probably large, number of the unwilling.  If they truly cared about public participation, Council members, if they were smart, civic-minded, and unselfish, could have rejected the petition, yet reconsidered their approval of the plan, and moved for a referendum.  Instead, they doubled-down to avoid a democratic process adverse to its members’ sense of their righteousness and importance.

 

 

^# NOTE: Democracy Docket (23 May) reports on Republican efforts in several states to hinder direct democracy.  Lots of people otherwise regarded as Americans do not like democracy and do not respect those who do like it. 

THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM WILL NOT RESCUE DEMOCRACY

      It is time to get real about what the judicial system is doing to help Trump.

 

Like the autocrat who he is, Trump is ruling by executive orders.  He has issued hundreds, most of them illegal or unconstitutional.  His strategy is to establish fait accompli as facts on the ground.  Departments, agencies, and individuals are acting on them.  Meanwhile, organizations and individuals are opposing them by bringing suits against them.  Judges at the district and appellate levels have ruled against most of Trump’s executive orders.  While decisions are being appealed, they are not being enforced; the courts might be pausing, but are not actually stopping, Trump from doing as he pleases.  So Trump defies the courts, his orders remain in place, and their damage continues and is not undone.  Notwithstanding, the commentariat clings to the hope that the courts are the last line of defense of democracy.

 

Many important cases have not yet arrived at the Supreme Court, and the Left pins its hopes on decisions preserving democracy as we know it.  But there is no realistic reason to believe that a court led by John Roberts, a shallow, weak, privileged preppie, has the integrity and courage to defy Trump’s wishes.  In fact, his and the court’s record even when Trump was not in office is one of egregious rulings, many in defiance of common sense, reality, or precedent—all with their anti-democratic bias in favor of authoritarianism.

 

Four major decisions, with many others also decided on political, not legal, grounds, have already damaged the standing of the rule of law.  Many have already damaged democracy

 

Its Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission decision (2010) ruled, in effect, that money equals speech; therefore, the First Amendment permits unlimited campaign contributions by corporations and unions.  The result has been the flooding of campaigns with contributions of millionaires and billionaires deciding many election results.

 

Its Shelby County v. Holder decision (2013) eliminated preclearance under the Voting Rights Act and weakened that act because the decision held that racism no longer influenced elections in pre-cleared jurisdictions.  Immediately, those jurisdictions began to restrict the franchise and skew or hinder voting.  The decision has eroded “the consent of the people” in this democracy.

 

Its Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision (2022) overturned the constitutional right to an abortion established in Roe v. Wade (1973).  Three Trump nominees—Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh—testified that Roe v. Wade was “settled” law yet supported the decision.  Their perjured testimony, added to the misleading disclosure statements of Justices Thomas and Alito, has tarnished the court’s reputation for honesty.

 

Its Trump v. United States decision granted the president presumptive immunity from criminal liability for official acts and absolute immunity for some “core” official acts.  The result virtually exempts the president from legal accountability and places him (or her) above the law.

 

A fifth major decision now pending  on birthright citizenship might make it difficult, if not impossible, for courts to restrain presidential power, according to a brief account from Democracy Docket:

 

SCOTUS mulls limiting judges’ authority to block Trump’s power grab

SCOTUS heard oral argument in the birthright citizenship case that could greatly limit federal judges' ability to block President Donald Trump from expanding presidential powers. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson described the government's stance as a "catch-me-if-you-can" regime that would make it virtually impossible to use the courts to block government actions.

 

Such a ruling would amount to a death knell for constitutional democracy in America and an orchestrated peal for authoritarianism.

 

But it is not only the Supreme Court which supports many of Trump’s executive orders and administrative actions.  The federal judicial system as a whole is doing likewise by failing to enforce decisions against the Trump administration.  It is acting slowly and cautiously while the damage of those orders and actions continues at an alarming rate.  Abrego Garcia was illegally deported to El Salvador shortly after 15 March; two months later, despite court rulings and orders, he remains there.  The Trump administration is defying the courts, and the courts are doing nothing to effect Garcia’s return to the United States or to address the administration’s defiance.  Meanwhile, his administration is on a rampage of arrests, jailings, and deportations of students, children, citizens, judges, and, possibly soon, congressional representatives.  The courts have stopped none of these offenses, for not one court order on immigration has been obeyed.

 

In short, the federal judiciary, although ruling against almost all of Trump’s executive orders, is taking no enforcement or corrective action.  It is helping Trump by failing to recognize the damage done and being done, ignoring the threat of greater damage to come, tolerating his non-compliance or defiance, and disregarding the urgency of the moment.  It is thus abetting his conduct and eroding not only its own authority, but also the rule of law.  The constitutional crisis, which many claim is approaching, is already here.

 

So, sadly and scarily, the courts have shown that they will not be the last line of defense of democracy.  Which means—to get real—that “We the People” must be that last line or accept the status of second-class or even uncertain citizenship.  But that line of defense is being resisted by Republicans at both federal and state levels who are hard at work to manipulate the 2026 state, House, and Senate elections to ensure GOP wins, to deny the validity and legitimacy of elections, and to support Trump’s authoritarian rule.  Trump might, if his actions continue to rouse the citizenry, prompt protests, and threaten widespread GOP defeats, label demonstrations as insurrections, declare martial law, suppress protests with federalized national guard troops, or even suspend elections.  If so in 2026, no better in 2028. 

SEXY ISSUES: SEX, GENDER, AND PRURIENT SCOLDS

      When I was a boy (and thought of myself as a boy and did boy things), my parents taught me that one did not talk about politics, religion, or sex in polite society.  I think that they meant with others on social occasions.  For dinner table talk almost always involved politics and religion and, on weekends, inevitable, tedious accounts of their weekend rounds of golf.  But not sex.

Until high school, there were two, and only two, sexes.  There still are only two, biologically speaking.  But there were whispers about one or two high-school classmates that some boys and some girls did not do the usual—today, “straight”—things.  There were even hushed comments to the same effect about family and friends.  I had no taste for the salacious, so the gossip went in one ear and out the other.  But there were moments.

 

I remember coming home from third grade in the middle of the afternoon and going up the front instead of the back stairs to my room, and encountering my mother and a young woman, a daughter of family friends, leaving my parents’ bedroom.  It seemed odd to me at the time, even when I was only nine.  I said only “hello” as I passed by them; I never asked my mother about it. Years later, I understood that she was bisexual in relationships outside marriage.  I remember her concern when a gay family friend, the social columnist of one of the city’s two major papers, needed a ride home.  He was drunk, and I could tell that my mother was afraid that he would make a pass at 18-year-old me.  I knew better, and I was right.  At lunch many years later, a client and friend came out to me.  I nodded, resumed our previous topic of conversation, and irritated him because I did not acknowledge how much it meant to him at the time, in the 90s, to come out.  I apologized that my detachment showed insensitivity to, not appreciation of, what he had done.  I added that I had had no experience to sensitize me and hoped that my detachment foretold the indifference which he hoped all straights might someday achieve.  He agreed.

 

Decades later, what used to be private is flagrantly public, and what used to be personal is heatedly political.  Worst of all, matters of sex and gender give CINOs (Christians in Name Only) the excuse to be both hateful and self-righteous in the name of a divinity whom they call their lord, who had nothing to say about the LGBTQIA+ members of society, and who, if we give him credit according to the Good Book, preached love for all, including one’s enemies.  Let me be clear: I do not think of LGBTQIA+ as enemies.  For millions and for me, they are family, friends, neighbors, teammates, co-religionists, family doctors and lawyers and accountants, co-workers, public servants, etc.  All are citizens of the United States and have the right to equal treatment under the law.  I would sooner dispense with CINOs than LGBTQIA+s.

 

The issues which have outraged CINOs concern transgender issues, namely, issues arising from the discrepancy between a person’s sex as determined by anatomy and a person’s gender as reflecting “socially constructed roles, behaviors, expressions, and identities of individuals,” including “how individuals perceive themselves and how they are perceived by others, including societal expectations related to how to act, talk, dress, and interact” (AI).  The particularly inflammatory issues are about bathrooms and sports.

 

The first issue is just silly.  Unisex bathrooms cause no real problems.  The sounds and smells from stalls are much the same.  If men move to stand a little closer to wall urinals when a woman walks by, they are not embarrassed, and she is not disappointed.  I cannot imagine how a transgender person changes the situation.  If a born female becomes a transgender male, he is going to use the men’s room as men use it; if a born male becomes a transgender female, she is going to use the women’s room as women use it.  What is the problem?

[Post-posting note.  I limited my discussion to unisex bathrooms.  But the use of separate sex bathrooms is going to be for the usual purposes no matter what a person's gender.  We must laugh to scorn the prurient scolds who fantasize to the contrary.]

 

The second inflammatory issue is not silly, but it is not unsolvable.  The key is the difference between sex and gender, that is, the capabilities of abiding sex after a change of gender.  If sex confers an advantage after a change in gender, it should be the basis of disqualification.  If a born female becomes a transgender male and wants to play men’s sports, he probably puts himself at a disadvantage because he likely lacks the biological capabilities of men.  Without any advantage, he should be allowed to play with men if he wishes.  But, if a born male becomes a transgender female and wants to play women’s sports, she probably enjoys a biological advantage which the change in gender does not nullify.  If denied the opportunity to compete with other women, she will likely believe herself—rightly—excluded because of the sex which she had abandoned, but, if she is not denied, her female competitors will believe that she has denied them fair chances.  No one thinks that a team should include a “ringer.”

 

CINOs imagine non-existent problems.  Despite their fears of LGBTQIA+ people as sexual perverts and predators, media coverage of incidents of the sexual aggression imputed to them is rare because such incidents are rare.  Problems posed by sexual deviants are mostly limited to those who do not have or cannot be allowed to have sexual relationships.  I am thinking of the involuntarily celibate (incels) and Catholic priests (no nuns?) whose abuses are shameful, harmful, and known to be such by the perpetrators, the abuses by priests made worse by the Church’s efforts to conceal them, regardless of long-term damage to the victims.

 

My rule in matters of sex and gender is a simple one: do as you please with anyone who is legally capable of giving informed consent and shares your proclivities and preferences, but do not meddle in others’ relationships.  Having been content in straight relationships, I have had no prurient obsessions about others’ relationships.  Indeed, I suspect that third-party scolds who worry about others’ relationships unwittingly reveal that theirs are less than satisfactory and require lurid distractions.  I even speculate that a little envy might play a role in their censures.

 

 

NOTE on sexy literature in the public schools.  School teachers and especially librarians have expertise in age-suitable literature.  There is no educational, only politically ideological or personally theological, reasons for challenging their judgment.  The social and informational environment in which children live educates them in matters of sex and gender before they even get to classroom or library bookshelves.  Instead of scratching their itch or virtue signaling, parents should provide guidance at home, in sober, informed discussions of sex and gender.  But I fear that such discussions are precisely what parents who would be book censors cannot have.

 

Such discussions can be fraught.  At a local rock concert, my daughter, a rising high-school senior, met a Naval Academy cadet, a rising senior soon to be, he claimed, commander of cadets.  He asked her for a date.  After a discussion, my wife and I gave her our consent to the usual movie, snack, home-by-midnight evening.  When he arrived, I stated the curfew and gave him a wordless message about the proprieties.  When he called for a second date, I sat my daughter down for a father-daughter chat.  I told her—she surely knew what I went on to tell her, but, as I liked to say, it made me feel good to say it—that he was older and more experienced than she.  I said that I preferred she draw the line at the neck and insisted that she draw it at the waist.  To which she responded, “Oh, Dad, I’m so embarrassed.”  “Better,” I said, “than being pregnant.”  She arrived home early from the second date, strode straight and silently to her room, and slammed the door.  Days later, she thanked me for the advice enabling her to say “no: my Dad will kill me.”

A LETTER TO MY FOREIGN FRIENDS

      I have heard from many of you about the decline of the United States since Trump’s election, emphatically since his inauguration.  Some of you are sad, others mad, no one glad.  I am right there with all of you in all of the above.  I have meant to reply to each of you for some time, but I find it difficult to be clear and coherent about so many diverse and difficult thoughts and feelings which change almost on an hourly basis.

I am a loyal American, and I love my country.  But I make no apology for Trump’s vicious actions or vulgar behavior in the conduct of his office, either as an expression of contrition or a justification for it.  Instead, I assert that his vision of America, if Trump can be said to have one, is a betrayal of this country and a travesty of this great experiment in democracy.  I am ashamed that the conduct of many elected officials, not to mention the mavens of the media and the once-called “captains of industry” makes America appear to be no longer “the land of the free and the home of the brave,” as our national anthem would have it in conclusion.  In the highest political circles of both parties, it is the land of the fear and the home of the craven.

 

I think that worse than all of the inane and shifting policies; incompetent and corrupt actions; and dishonesty and crudity of Trump and his minions is the failure of so many elected officials across the political spectrum to resist Trump by asserting and supporting the country’s basic principles: the equality of all people, the consent of the governed, and the rule of law.

 

But I do not despair; the Republican’s attempted coup as outlined by Project 2025 is stalling.  More and more judges—the Supreme Court has yet to be heard from—, law firms and media outlets, and institutions of higher education are erecting a defense of democracy and thwarting Trump.  Local efforts are attracting people of all political parties to protest his efforts.  “We the people” are bringing this administration to a halt.

 

Meanwhile, Trump will cause millions to suffer hunger, disease, and death here and abroad.  They will do a great deal of damage to this country, other countries, and the international world order.  Some effects will be long-lasting, some permanent.  Even reforms of the wisest kind are unlikely to fully restore the trust which America had earned over generations and its generally benign leadership exercised for 80 years after the end of World War II.

 

I hope that the Democratic Party will not only overwhelmingly triumph over the Republican Party, but also take steps to prevent the recovery of this neo-fascist party and a recycling of Republican Party coup attempts.  Those who have been involved in this attempted coup against American’s constitutional democracy—Trump did not act alone; he acted with their consent—must be held accountable.  Under the law and the rule of law, they must be subject to vigorous investigation, rigorous prosecution, and maximum punishment, including incarceration.  The success or failure of such efforts will depend on whether they purify or putrefy the body politic.

 

Not many years after the end of World War II, I imagined that America could become a fascist state.  In my early years, I understood that excrescences like Joseph McCarthy, Roy Cohn, The John Birch Society, the KKK, Strom Thurmond, George Wallace, Richard Nixon, and others of their ilk represented millions of Americans.  Now, at the close of my life, I understand that excrescences like Newt Gingrich, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Donald Trump, the Steves Bannon and Miller, The Proud Boys, The Oath Keepers, and others of their ilk also represent millions of Americans.  I am puzzled that a persistent third of my fellow citizens reject the promises of America's principles.  If America’s success does not appeal to them, I have to fear that its failure will—a phenomenon beyond my comprehension.  I want to say, as—I cannot resist saying—another Jew said long ago, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”  But I cannot.  Many more than one man’s life is at stake.

 

I hope for something better for us and wish for everything best for you.

WHAT TO DO ABOUT TRUMP AND HIS ENABLERS?

      On April 9, 1865, when Robert E. Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia, Ulysses S. Grant made a generous gesture; he allowed the defeated soldiers—traitors to their country—to keep their horses and sidearms.  In the aftermath, they, their fellows, and, in the decades since, their sympathizers simmered in resentment at the liberation of slaves and their loss to the richer, better educated, and more tolerant victors of the North and West. They spread their hatred of blacks and the federal government wherever they went: after the war, by the Oregon trail to the Northern Rockies and the Pacific Northwest; during the Depression, to the industrial North.  (The proposed state of Jefferson is named, not for Thomas Jefferson, but for Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy.)  The line connecting the dots—Ku Klux Klan, Tea Party, MAGA Republican Party—is white Christian nationalism, with its fundamental doctrines of white supremacy, bigotry, nativism, and economic inequality (deserving rich versus undeserving poor). 

The Republican Party, under the control of Donald J. Trump, embraces and implements those antidemocratic positions at federal and state levels.  It violates peoples’ rights and government laws in policies and practices defying the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the provisions of the Constitution.  It tolerates Trump’s on attacks free and fair elections, the courts, law firms, colleges and universities, and the media.  It tolerates his efforts to weaken, corrupt, or destroy government agencies like FEMA and NOAA, and to reduce or eliminate government programs like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, SNAP—all of which benefit millions of Americans. Its control of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of the federal and many state governments makes their political officeholders responsible and thus accountable.

 

The aftermath of Trump’s disastrous reign and Republican rule has received little attention.  But it must receive it.  If democracy is to recover from the wreckage which they have wrought and to avoid a repetition, three conditions must be met.  One, Democrats must prevail by large numbers in 2026 and 2028 despite Republicans’ antidemocratic attempts to corrupt or coerce state and federal elections in their favor.  Two, the Democratic Party must rouse and purge itself of its dead weight: lethargic leaders who, instead of resisting the Republican coup, demonstrated a lack of convictions or courage.  Three, Democrats, despite accusations of political revenge, must accept the necessity of holding federal and state Republican officeholders and their major supporters accountable to revive democracy and restore it to a healthy and enduring condition.

 

My consideration of the post-Trump scene proposes steps, first to ensure the accountability of those who have done so much to diminish and damage democracy, then to restore and enhance it.  My steps of accountability are stern, as befits the gravity of the attempted Republican coup against the country.  Republicans who have weaponized government powers against their enemies will claim that their enemies weaponize those powers against them—tit for tat.  Not so.  Trump’s Executive Orders aim to abuse individuals or organizations, in or out of government, for disagreeing with his policies or opposing his interests; or to eliminate or pervert the purposes of duly established agencies serving long-established public interests.  Much legislation in the Republican-controlled Congress aims to curtail the political rights of, or impose hardships on, millions of Americans.  (A Democratic president and a Democratic Congress would act and legislate differently.)  Accordingly, my steps of accountability include violations not only of established laws, but also of what I call “crimes against country,” for which the processes of justice are appropriate.  My tacit analogy is to “crimes against humanity” applied retroactively at the Nurenberg Trials, which assumed that Nazi officials knew, without formal laws, that, say, mass murder is wrong.  Likewise, Republicans know that their efforts are damaging and wrong.

 

The first steps deal with the president.  Trump should be impeached.  Even if he is not convicted, his impeachment and trial will inform the public of the depth and breadth of his criminality.  The political risks of a third impeachment will be greatly reduced if Trump’s approval ratings have continued to plummet into 2026.  Congress should pass legislation to undo the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision exempting the president from criminal liability for any official acts by enacting a narrow definition of the word “official” and overriding Trump’s veto.  It should also approve three proposed Constitutional amendments.  One would declare the president never above the law and liable to prosecution for Constitutional violations or felonious crimes while in office, with standing limited to victims or members of Congress.  Two would address Executive Orders and presidential pardons; each should require approval in advance by a majority of the leadership of both chambers yet liable to disapproval by a majority of members in either chamber within thirty days.

 

The second step involves the impeachment of all Cabinet members, and criminal and tax investigations of them, other political appointees, policy-making staff members, and their non-government consultants/advisors.  Those pardoned by Trump should be charged with crimes against country.

 

The third step deals with Republicans in the House and Senate who have supported Trump even though he violated the Constitution and federal laws, arrogated Congressional powers to himself, and, in the case of the Senate, approved the least competent and most compliant cabinet officials in the history of the country.  All Republican House and Senate leaders, and all leaders and prominent members of the Freedom Caucus during Trump’s administration should be expelled.  Governors should be advised that neither chamber will seat their appointees who have been MAGA/Trump supporters or sympathizers.

 

The fourth steps are the impeachment of Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who discredit the Court because of ethical lapses and conflicts of interest; and the censure of Supreme Court Justice John Roberts for failed leadership.

 

The fifth steps are investigations of organizations like the Federalist Society, the Heritage Foundation, and the American Legislative Exchange Council for potential tax code violations, with prosecutions, convictions, and sentences as appropriate; and, given their political activities, consideration of their tax-exempt status.

 

The sixth step is Congressional approval of the following four additional Constitutional amendments, which:

 

• Mandate the unqualified right and unfettered access of all citizens and all permanent residents, including those incarcerated, to vote.

• Establish criteria for voting districts without regard to race, sex or gender, religion, national origin, or political orientation; and uniform administrative criteria for election procedures and schedules in federal elections.

• Give standing to any citizen or permanent resident, or groups of citizens or permanent residents to pursue a legal grievance respecting their voting rights.

• Establish the independence of the Department of Justice and all agencies created by Congress from any official in the Executive Branch, excepting the President’s nomination of officials requiring the Senate’s confirmation or rejection; and require the Senate’s confirmation or rejection of any president or cabinet member advisor or consultant with management, personnel, or policy-making authority.

 

In addition to these Constitutional amendments, Congress should pass legislation which restores the status quo ante of departments, agencies, and their programs, with adjustments as necessary.

 

I am not—no one should be—disposed to leniency for Republican officeholders who have tolerated, supported, or participated in any way in the Republican coup against democratic government.  Contrary to their oaths of office, they have shown little willingness to protect the Constitution, to preserve and promote democracy, or to accept the will of the majority.  They have shown a disregard for the “domestic welfare” of the American people.  They should be subject to investigation, prosecution, and, if convicted, subject to the severest penalties allowed by law and, under no circumstances, spared incarceration.  Administration lawyers, if not criminally implicated, should be investigated for unprofessional conduct, including dishonesty and contempt of court, and treated no less severely.  Justice must be done if injustice is not to be repeated with grievous consequences for the country and its people.