ATROCIOUS EDITORIAL, MISGUIDED POLICE RECRUITMENT, AND CLASS WARFARE

      In its discretion, The Bulletin might or might not publish this brief letter to the editor about another botch-up by Ms. Shawna Pfeiffer in a recent issue.  I have no intention of commenting on every or even many of her columns; I have every intention of showing that The Bulletin has yet to find a conservative columnist capable of informed and literate commentary, something more than a dog’s breakfast of undigested views and bilious verbiage.  As I wrote, 

Ms. Shawna Pfeiffer is entitled to her outrageous opinions and loose language, but she is not entitled to her factual distortions or conceptual confusions (“The Good, the bad and the ugly,” 19 July).  All those who criticize the police are not filled with “rabid hatred.”  The people at the 13 June rally did not report hating the police; they reported fearing the police who aimed rifles at them (even Chief Story admitted that they should not have done so).  She writes that “they [officers] often sacrifice their lives for our community.”  She then refers to a deputy who killed himself when he drove his car into a stationary semi—not a sacrifice, probably not a suicide, but likely a preventable accident.  “Often” should mean more than one LCPD officer killed in the line of duty in the entire history of the department.  She also writes about the passage of a law “which removed qualified immunity, making it possible for civil servants like police officers to be held personally liable for doing their jobs.”  The law does no such thing; it holds them liable for not doing their job properly while on the job, like using excessive force which injures or kills people who should not have been injured or killed.  Ms. Pfieffer speaks of “fundamentally moral stance[s]” without herself being able to make the moral distinctions necessary to moral stances.

 

She shows herself unaware of or indifferent to the traditionally skewed legal conditions of law enforcement which enable police officers to assume that they are the law as far as citizens are concerned and above the law as far as they themselves are concerned.

 

Perhaps Ms. Pfeiffer missed the LCPD’s recruitment video posted a few weeks ago.  (Thanks to Heath Haussamen, I did not miss it.). Police Chief Jeremy Story talks about the importance of good police-citizen relationships, but his video with his voice takes an antagonistic line.  He asks its viewers whether they like to run and then shows film clips of officers chasing suspects.  Story appeals to prospective goons, not “good guys.”  (Will they serve in his five SWAT vehicles?)  His video suggests nothing other or better in the way of public service.  It shows us what Story’s professional priorities of the LCPD really are—not the right ones, only hazards to the city.

 

When it comes to antagonist relationships, class warfare is about as good as it gets.  Trump’s Big, Beautiful Bill, which embodies the old maxim, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, is its latest instance.  The phrase is often associated with Marxism and, by sloppy association, with the Left.  But Marxism is not the only or even the first analysis of society by class, defined by economics with cultural, political, and social ramifications.  Long before him, there was Robin Hood, and with him, there were two classes, the rich to be robbed, and the poor to be given.

 

So, from the beginning, the largest part of politics was concerns about the distribution or concentration of wealth: policy issues about who gets what.  Like Marx, but not Marx only, Democrats make the wide distribution of wealth their primary concern, and Republicans see this distribution as a kind of societally sanctioned robbery.  The Democrats’ defense of the distribution of wealth is the necessity of providing at least a minimum of economic benefits for all.  To Republicans, such distributional policies deprive them of what they believe themselves entitled to by virtue of their inherent moral superiority.  In America, the idea goes back to the Puritans, who believed that material success signified God’s grace upon the elect; today, the elite believe it is their deserving.  Not surprisingly, this sense of moral superiority translates into or accompanies various forms of bigotry: racism, sexism, elitism—, etc.

 

The result: competition for or differential possession of wealth among classes, or class warfare.  The current disaffection with and within the Democratic Party reflects the disconnect between the party establishment, which is seen as elitist in its affiliation with the uber-rich and celebrities, and its natural constituency, the lower and middle classes.  Talk about the price of eggs or gasoline is superficial because their prices reflect macroeconomic forces over which neither the President nor Congress has much control.  Talk about job security in an age of rapid technological change—the real fear of replacement—and wealth inequality is significant because the President and Congress can influence, if not control, these conditions.  Talk of the latter reflects the possibility of control, as the infuriated responses of America's one-percenters indicate.  But Republicans are not less waging class warfare, though they do not use such terms.  With one exception: some years ago, a notable plutocrat whose name I no longer remember [I have been informed the man is Warren Buffet] admitted that the rich were engaged in class warfare and claimed that they were winning.  Instead, they mostly silently wage it without slogans by cutting welfare and education programs, among many others benefitting millions of ordinary Americans.  The closest thing to a slogan is their appeal to “opportunity,” which costs them nothing and puts nothing on anyone’s plate.

 

The struggle for democracy in America involves powerful economic forces.  As is increasingly obvious to most Americans, the uber-rich have the financial resources to warp elections to their purposes.  Citizens United, the Supreme Court’s absurd, even obscene, decision which equated money and speech—like mobster-speak, money talks—gave plutocrats unparalleled power to influence elections, that is, weaken the ability of the electorate to give the true “consent of the governed.”  The remedy, if this fever of autocratic tendency does not destroy democracy, will have to include a non-regressive redistribution of wealth.  The means will have to include radical tax reform: multiple tax brackets reflecting the value of money, graduated annual wealth taxes, and graduated estate taxes.  As it is, the rich do not contribute their fair and an affordable share to the welfare of the country which has made them rich.  Their reinvestment of tax cuts in the economy is a small percentage of their total investments, most of which are in second, third or more homes; jets; yachts; works of art, jewelry, and yet more stocks and bonds.  Bottom line: billionaires are not worth very much to society, and millionaires are not worth much more.

REVENGE ON TRUMP’S ENABLERS MEANS THEIR ACCOUNTABILITY UNDER THE LAW AND IN SOCIETY

For some, the word for the day is, do unto them as they have done unto us.  But such revenge, while it has visceral appeal, is entirely inappropriate to any hope of restoring American democracy to robustness.  To simply reverse the weaponization of government to punish Trump, the officials of his administration, and the agents carrying out their orders would be to further corrode the principles and values of America’s constitutional democracy.  As they have operated illegally and unconstitutionally, those of us who embrace democracy must operate legally and constitutionally to hold them accountable and appropriately punish convicted malefactors.  The law rigorously applied as accountability for the lawless is the appropriate turn-about for fair play.

 

I am unable—probably no one is able—to provide even a comprehensive, as distinct from a current, complete account of Trump’s illegal or unconstitutional actions and those of his minions in various departments and agencies: DOJ, DHS, FBI, ICE, BP, and ATF, as well as  federalized national guard and selected Marine units.  These departments, agencies, and military units have lied to courts, disregarded court orders, secured perverse emergency [or “shadow”] docket decisions from the Supreme Court, attacked civilians, abused and abducted citizens as well as non-citizens, separated children from parents, deprived them of their rights, detained them in punitive conditions, and deported them to third countries.  The list of their abuses is so long that I have probably omitted as many as I have included.  If a future government ever recovers from their abuses, it should collect evidence of illegal acts, investigate those who committed them, and hold them accountable under the law.

 

The leaders of these government units are variously callous, corrupt, and criminal.  The same and more may be said of Republicans in Congress.  They are virtually unanimous in tolerating Trump’s violations of law and the Constitution out of fear of losing their seats, that is, their career, not chosen for public service, but for power and prestige.  In their subservience to Trump, they give a patina of legitimacy to his authoritarian rule; in return, he lets them enjoy the personal advantages, privileges, and benefits of office.  Their subservience to Trump means surrendering congressional authority and abandoning almost all traditional Republican positions except lower taxes for the rich: balanced budgets, small government, law-and-order, and international leadership of democratic countries.  Ironically, they undermine their professed reasons to be in Congress.  For supporting Trump’s rule, they must be held accountable by the public humiliation of election repudiation and by ostracism by their political associates.

 

Together, the legislative and executive branches of government have conspired to create a police state.  Xenophobia. Islamophobia, and pseudo-antisemitism are the main levers intended to detach Americans from democratic principles and values, and constitutional rights.  Thus, the “Big, Beautiful Bill” contains billions for facilities and personnel to incarcerate legal as well as illegal immigrants, most not illegal, all without due process.  The long-term effects of billions for concentration camps and billions for ICE agents have not received much attention, but they should.  Once built and once hired, then what?  Political necessity or inertia ensures that they are likely to continue to be used and to be employed, respectively, even if all immigrants were deported.  Since Congress will be reluctant to allow camps costing $45 billion dollars to deteriorate, or to spend billions more to dismantle them, future administrations will seek other uses for them.  Trump-like Presidents might find their availability tempting to target and threaten dissenters, protesters, and politicians not to his or her liking.  Trump-like administrations might target minority populations—African Americans, Muslims, Jews, Asian Americans, etc.—until only whites of European descent populate the country.  Non-Trump-like presidents will not want to discharge thousands of ICE agents because they would constitute a virtually unemployable horde of violence-prone, reviled, and embittered individuals whose resentments might make them a continuing threat to the country and its political stability.  So the tyrannical government which the Trump administration has begun to create and Congress has begun to fund will likely inaugurate a federal police force and a standing army, both of which will prove difficult to dismantle.  Inured to police and military callousness toward citizens and non-citizens alike, and tolerant of legal and constitutional abuses, Senators and Representatives will likely maintain this gulag of concentration camps in a disfigured democracy.  The only means of accountability for this national disgrace is their defeat at the polls.

 

The highest members of the third branch of government, the judiciary, are at least equally unworthy.  The six conservative, Catholic, Republican partisans of the Supreme Court are especially deserving of the contempt of their colleagues in the legal profession and their fellow citizens.  With the advantages of an excellent education and employment security in a position to enable public service, they have betrayed everything except wealth, class, and party.  They have squandered their opportunities to serve the county; instead, they preferred to indulge their personal prejudices and grievances, and enjoy the munificence of their friends.  The bankruptcy of their judicial practice is evident in their emergency, or “shadow,” docket decisions made in response to the Trump administration’s “emergency” requests.  None of the requests address emergencies by any definition of the term.  Most of their decisions, with little or no rationale, defy or distort applicable laws, reverse court precedents, or ignore constitutional provisions.  Their cruelest and most despicable decisions do not stay, or suspend, the execution of perverse executive orders even while proceedings by plaintiffs against those orders continue.  What is the messages to judges in District courts?  Example: the Court permits deportations even while the cases brought by those deported continue; cruelty is inflicted, harm is done, and some of it is likely irreversible.  The Court’s policy: shoot first; ask questions later.

 

In addition to these appalling emergency docket decisions is the far worse decision by which these six partisan hacks, robed as justices, opined that the President has absolute immunity for core constitutional acts, presumptive immunity for other official acts, but no immunity for unofficial acts.  They exempt the President from criminal accountability for his “official” acts.  A question worth asking since he or she swears to uphold the law and the Constitution: exactly what “official” acts might be illegal?  They ignore the President’s unqualified power to pardon anyone, even malefactors in his administration and thus enable their abuses.  The decision has been criticized for many reasons.  The reason easiest for me to understand is its departure from the plain text and clear implications of Article I, Section 3: “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law” (emphasis added).  The Constitution says nothing about a president’s liability or lack thereof for illegal acts under federal or state law if he or she is neither impeached by the House nor convicted by the Senate.  Presumably, if no one is above the law, federal or state prosecutors can criminally charge the president for illegal acts, and injured third parties can civilly sue for damages.  The Sycophantic Six have made up law without any textual basis for doing so—judicial activism at its worst.  Where impeachment is clearly justified—Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito and perhaps Brett Kavanaugh for bribery and discrediting the Court—, it should be pursued.  But all seem liable to impeachment for decisions plainly contrary to law and the constitutional—the highest of crimes—, in violation of their oaths of office.  At the very least, all six should be disbarred, banished by their professional peers from professional associations for their perversions of judicial practice, and ostracized by society.

 

The means of accountability which I have suggested permit punishment to fit the crime: the ordinary legal process through the court system or societal action through the court of public opinion.  Unfortunately, the ordinary legal process can be obstructed by the president’s pardon power, which Trump can grant to officials and agents without hindrance at any stage in the legal process, before, during, or after it.  However, some of those pardoned might be liable to charges under state law; if so, they should be so charged, and those who are lawyers should be disbarred.  The conduct of elected politicians should be viewed from legal, political, and social perspectives. They should be held accountable for any and all violations of state laws; if their conduct is not prosecutable, they should be punished for what I call crimes against the state by defeat at the polls, disbarment, and professional and social ostracism.  Lawyers and justices who aided and abetted Trump’s authoritarian conduct should be disbarred or impeached and disbarred.  Justices in particular should be held to the severest standard and dealt with accordingly, in part to punish them, in part to deter others who might think themselves immune from prosecution and penalty.  After accusing Republicans of cowardice to oppose Trump, Democrats must demonstrate their courage to undo what he has done and improve upon the status quo ante.  Without taking the severest steps against those who have proven unfaithful to American democracy, America cannot return to a reformed democratic regime under the rule of law and the Constitution.

CLEO’S END – A FAVORITE PET HAS A BOTCHED “RETIREMENT”

 [This blog, a testimonial to a favorite pet and a narrative of her shameful termination, comes with public service announcements.]

 

Of sixteen cats in my life, Cleo, an eight-and-a-half-pound calico, and Edgar, her older boyfriend, were the best.  Cleo was a friend.  She was also a take-no-shit cat.  I amused myself by imagining the reaction of a coyote who dared to try to make a meal of her.  Here’s why.

 

Story one.  After Buddy, an aging Yellow Labrador, arrived as a rescue and made a snarky move at her, Cassio, my Akita/Pointer boss dog, put him in his place with nips and growls.  Six months later, Buddy thought to take over and shoved Cassio aside as I was petting him; Cassio growled and shoved back.  Fearing 160 pounds of dogmeat in the backyard, I grabbed, rolled, and scolded Buddy.  While holding him down for a moment, Cleo came over, furious at Buddy for getting ugly with Cassio, and gave him five or six one-two punches on the sides of his head.  And that was that: Buddy, decidedly chastened, accepted his proper place at the back of the pack.

 

Story two.  When Buddy (80 lbs.), Cassio (80 lbs.), Miranda (60 lbs., American Foxhound) were playing too close to her for comfort, she attacked each in turn and drove them away.  Then she resumed her spot and slept soundly.  She got her message across.

 

Story three.  As I brought a new 60 lb. dog of indeterminate breed whom I named Yaller home from the pound, I wondered if she were a cat-killer.  I led her on a leash from the house onto the porch.  Cleo was there and immediately attacked Yaller, who was so scared that she nearly pulled me over as she tried to get away.  In confirmation of Cleo’s instinctive assessment, Yaller twice lunged at my other cat.  I returned Yaller to the pound, with the recommendation that this otherwise fine dog—she had bonded to me at once—be placed in a cat-free home.

 

Cleo lived a long life for an indoor/outdoor calico: 11 years.  She was a most affectionate cat.  She loved all the dogs, even those whom she had had to admonish.  She accepted their nuzzling and licking.  She slept with them when she did not sleep with me.  Frequently, she would meet me on my return from the mailbox and walk home with me.  Sometimes, when the weather and her mood aligned, she would join the pack on a walk around Brown Farm.  Often, when I sat in my reading chair or at my computer, or slept in the bedroom, she was there, on my lap, on my desk, or between my legs—always purring.  We developed a system of signals to communicate our needs.  She trusted me.  Whenever I tended to her wounds, she let me repair any damage and endured my remedies.  At the vet’s, she trusted me while I held her to tolerate his probings and treatments without complaint or struggle.  She adored me, and I adored her.

 

I wanted Cleo to have a quiet and dignified “retirement” when her time came, as it did on Thursday, 3 July.  But it was not to be.  The two technical assistants tasked with preparing Cleo for the on-duty vet could not adjust to circumstances not the usual and did not respect my wishes.  Referring to a previous cat retirement, I explained that I wished to hold Cleo in my lap while they shaved her leg and inserted a needle into it.  They wanted to take her to the back room for those tasks.  Sensing that they would handle her roughly and that she would respond badly, I refused to let them.  They relented and agreed to let me hold Cleo on the consulting table while they prepped her.  When I carried Cleo to the table, one assistant nudged me aside, alarmed Cleo, and made matters worse by struggling to wrap her in a towel to prevent scratching and biting.  I tried to comfort Cleo but could not overcome the assistants’ aggressive efforts at controlling her.  Their tasks completed, they left; I put Cleo in my lap, but, despite my efforts to comfort her, she remained fighting mad.  The vet came in and administered a sedative and a life-ending cocktail.

 

Nothing in Cleo’s last moments was what she wanted for herself or what I wanted for her.  She deserved to “retire” with dignity and respect, not in fury at the insensitive, inconsiderate, and inappropriate conduct of technicians who had no respect for their clients or their clients’ cats.  They left me with the painful memories that Cleo was abused in her final moments and that I, by tolerating and trying to cooperate with these technicians, had enabled them to abuse her.

[A post-publication correction: the assistants, not knowing me or my vet’s practice with me, were following the law.  If Cleo had bit me during the “retirement” process, the clinic would be liable, and they said so.  I did not believe them because my vet had said nothing to me about such liability when she effected other “retirements” of my pets.  She knew that I would not sue for any failure of mine to control Cleo, but the assistants did not.  Ignorance on both sides made for Cleo’s misery.]

 

Nothing can change the facts of this misfortune.  To prevent a recurrence in my case and, I hope, in others’ cases, I later complained to the senior vet, with whom only I schedule all appointments for my many pets.  So she knows me well, knows each of my pets well, knows how I manage them, and knows how much they mean to me.  (PSA #1: work with one vet only, exceptions only in emergencies.  PSA #2: do not hesitate to make complaints.)

 

I began by alerting her that, calm as I may be in giving her a detailed account of this incident, I was still furious.  Then I delivered it.  I then said that I understood that lower-level employees especially are governed by the rulebook of approved procedures, which cover most situations.  I added that what the rulebook often omits is guidance for the unusual situation.  Omitted is the simple suggestion for any such situation: stop to get advice.  In my case, any employee in the reception area would have said either ask an on-duty vet for advice, ask Mr. Hays to return when the senior vet is in, or do as he requests.  I suggested that my vet so instruct her employees.  (PSA #3: do not hesitate to offer advice or state your preferences.  PSA #4: make advance arrangements with your vet—pets should have advance directives, too—about what you want in “retirement” services, and have the vet’s notes in your pet’s file indicate those arrangements so that staff will know what they should do in his/her absence.)

 

Given our established relationship and her respect for me as a pet owner, I had no doubts about the sincerity of my vet’s sadness, her apology, and her resolve to prevent a recurrence.  She promised me the following: one, to talk with the technical assistants who, from the sound of it, were not going to have a good day; two, to put notes in my file that these assistants were to have no contact with my pets and that my pets were to be treated as I wished them to be treated; and, three, to instruct employees that they were to stop to get advice in unusual situations.  (PSA #5: expect a specific, constructive response to your complaint or change vet.)

 

Cleo approves these five public service announcements.  But she is still pissed off.

ANSWER TO QUESTION AND SOLUTION TO PUZZLE

QUESTION:  In “the Night before Christmas,” the narrator goes to the living room, sees St. Nick, and describes him.  Then he observes, “A wink of his eye and a twist of his head / Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread.”  My question is, why did the narrator have fears which these hints allayed?

ANSWER: St. Nick is an elf, as the poem says that he is.  In English lore, elves are ambiguous figures, sometimes benign, sometimes malign.  The narrator does not know which but fears the worst.  St. Nick gives him the assurance that he is benign.  (See “Elf” in Wikipedia.)

 

PUZZLE: A student runs low on funds and sends the following message for cash to the folks back home.  How much is their child requesting?

    S E N D

   M O R E

M O N E Y

 

SOLUTION: The approach begins with a recognition that the value of M is 1.  M is carried over from the addition of S and M (and possibly 1 from the previous column).  Such logic leads to the solution based on the following assumptions.

1.     assumption: one letter equals only one number

2.     assumption: no two letters equal the same number

3.     assumption: M does not equal 0 because zero does not precede written numbers

4.     M = 1 because no two numbers can add to at least 20 to carry 2 instead of 1

  S  E  N  D

  1  O  R  E

1  O  N  E  Y

5.     To carry 1 to be M, S is either 8 or 9

S = 8 plus 1 carried, in which case O = 0; or

S = 9 but 1 cannot be carried because then O = 1, but M = 1; if 1 is not carried, O = 0.

For S = 8 plus 1 carried, E plus 1 carried would equal N, but to carry 1, E would have to be 9 and N = 0, but O = 0; ergo S does not equal 8

  9  E  N  D

  1  0   R  E

1  0  N  E  Y

6.     Since E does not equal N, 1 has been carried to E; ergo, E + 1 = N.

7.     For E + 1 =. N, 1 must be carried from N + R.  Either

(a) N + R = E +10 or

(b) N + R + 1 = E + 10

by substitution for N in (a), E + 1 + R = E + 10; ergo, R = 9; but S = 9

by substitution in (b), E + 1 + R + 1 = E + 10 or, R = 8

  9  E  N  D

  1   0  8   E

1  0  N  E  Y

8.     D + E > 10; Y does not equal 0 or 1; Y = 2 or 3 but does not equal 4 (6 & 7 highest remaining numbers cannot add to 14); E does not equal 7 because N does not equal 8 =R; D + E  ¹ 5 + 6 or 6 + 5 because y does not equal 1; D = 7

  9  E  N  7

  1  0   8  E

1  0  N  E  Y

9.     Y= 2 or 3

for Y = 2, E = 5; N = 6

for Y = 3, E = 6; N = 7; but D = 7

ergo: E = 5; N = 6; Y = 2

  9  5  6  7

  1  0  8  5

1  0  6  5  2

 

10.  $95.67 + $10.85 = $106.52 (in 1970 dollars; $882.54 in 2025 dollars)

 

What overwhelms me about this puzzle is not the challenge to get the solution, but the insight of the person who recognized that the message could be rendered arithmetically.

No one answered the question or solved the puzzle.

 

THE BULLETIN FEATURES A GUEST COLUMNIST OF SUSPECT OPINIONS

      It was never clear to me whether Richard Coltharp’s column in The Las Cruces Bulletin was the paper’s official position or his personal opinion; both may be the answer.  Since his departure a few years ago, this weekly paper has had no editorials expressing its official opinions. The Las Cruces Sun-News had given up such editorials many years before.  Something is lost when local papers, weekly or daily, do not address issues important to the community from the perspective of those presumably better informed than most citizens.

What we have instead is an assortment of columnists and commentators, now known as “Guest Columnists.”  Regulars are Peter Goodman, who writes for the Sun News and speaks on KRWG and KTAL; Walt Rubel, who writes for the Bulletin and speaks on KTAL; and, more recently, Shawna Pfeiffer, who also writes for the Bulletin.  There are others, I am sure, but they are unknown to me.  Goodman and Rubel are old-timers with a good deal of information as the basis of their opinions; we know them as left-of-center on most issues.  Pfeiffer is a newcomer with more assertions than support; she is less well known as way-right on issues, with a strong commitment to the uniformed police (I do not know if she supports disguised ICE agents).

 

I want to introduce her by considering her 27 June column, “Changing our political culture,” a brash assertion of unsupported generalities and ill-considered nostrums.  Its first sentence sets the standard: “The very best leaders are usually those who never sought out the role.”  The word “usually” gives the sentence a look as if it has some factual basis.  No examples or facts follow.  Instead, two stand-alone phrases suggest her ideals of such leaders: “Service without seeking fame.  Action without craving attention.”  Again, no examples or facts follow.  A reader might imagine that the best leaders just wander in off the street and find themselves elected governors or presidents. The rest of the paragraph digresses about the necessity of new officeholders to compromise themselves to align themselves with their parties, with the result that moderates and the middle ground desired by most Americans are lost.  So much for the “very best leaders.”

 

After more digressive writing about political squabbling and leaders who recognize their constituents comes a paragraph on the kind of people, presumably political leaders, needed in their communities:

 

We need people in our community who have run businesses, who have raised children, who have worked a 24-hour shift, who have been homeless and worked their way out of it, who have cared for an ailing family member, who have built something with their hands, who have been spanked as a child, who have fired an employee, who have worked in a service industry, who have participated in a neighborhood watch program, who aren’t afraid to ask if the status quo is really the right way to do something. We need people who aren’t consumed by hubris, who want to see change that isn’t currently being realized, who agonize over the decision to run, but who love their community more than the anxiety they feel throwing their name in the hat.

 

We already have such people in our community.  Some run for office; others do not.  But Ms. Pheiffer’s list is interesting for the people it includes and those it excludes.  It includes people “who have run a business” or “fired an employee.”  But such people are not necessarily leaders; they are bosses exercising power over others whose presence on the premises is paid for.  It excludes those who have organized other workers of “you’re fired” bosses to get better working conditions and better wages for rank-and-file employees.  Such people are leaders.

 

To define the kind of people whom we need as political leaders in a changed political culture requires a definition of leadership, not a list of types of personnel and activities which do not suggest leadership; and a description of the conditions and circumstances to establish a context for that leadership.

 

One thing irksome about Ms. Pfeiffer’s notion of these people as leaders is the implied myth of the “rugged individual,” who turns out to be an ordinary person after all (every American is a hero or heroine in waiting).  Apparently, Ms. Pfeiffer has been watching reruns of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” (or pre-release screenings of “Mr. Trump Goes to Washington”).  But I do not want “leaders” who tout their status as outsiders as a qualification for making national policy or who think that their ignorance gives them a fresh perspective on the issues at hand.

 

Another thing irksome is the anti-intellectualism implied by Ms. Pfeiffer’s list, which includes no one with expertise in anything: doctors, lawyers, scientists, teachers, among many kinds of knowledgeable people.  Some experts might qualify if they “have been spanked as a child,” not because they have expertise.  I can see their bumper stickers now: “Vote for [candidate’s name]; I got spanked.”

 

Ms. Pfeiffer favors shaking things up, challenging the status quo, and pushing change not yet realized as if they are good in themselves, without any reason(s) for doing them.  Her shoot-first-ask-questions-later approach is not a change in the political culture; it is part of the culture which she claims to want to change.  Take shaking things up: All things, some things, a few things?  Which ones?  Why?  What are the results, and are they an improvement on what was shaken up?  Take challenging the status quo: Why?  What is wrong with it?  With what results?  Take “change that isn’t currently being realized.”  What change?  Why is it not being realized?  These questions are obvious ones, but Ms. Pfeiffer is unaware that her discussion prompts them and that she needs to anticipate and answer them.

 

I have four questions of my own.  Has Ms. Pfeiffer changed her mind and now approves of Realize Las Cruces?  In the Trump Era, does she want a leader who envisions a country realizing change by cleansing it of immigrants, Muslims, Jews, etc., with a left-in-place hegemony of white, male Christians?  What is behind this blank-check approach to change?  How does this anti-establishment posture square with her unqualified defense of and dedication to the police?

 

The questions other than mine indicate the mindlessness of her column, which no one should take seriously.  This column among her others indicates that the Bulletin has no consistent standard of editorial merit.  At least, it has Rubel, and the Sun-News has Goodman.  Both papers need more thoughtful guest columnists.