NEW MEXICO DOJ'S POLITICAL SHENANIGANS REQUIRE LEGISLATIVE CORRECTION

[Note: I sent the following text under the title "Open Letter to All Members of the New Mexico Senate and House Judiciary Committees" to them and members of the media.]

The New Mexico Department of Justice (NMDOJ), under the leadership of the Attorney General Raul Torrez, is doing everything possible to avoid enforcing the Open Meetings Act (OMA) against former members of the Las Cruces City Council who, through a select committee operating in secret, influenced public safety policies and practices usually without the knowledge of City Council or the public and thereby violated OMA for several years.  Its investigation of my complaint about OMA violations avoided this core of my complaint.  Its response to FOG’s request that it re-open my complaint in light of its year-long investigation documenting OMA violations is silence.  Its rationale for refusing my request that it re-open my complaint defies logic.  Its responses to my Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) request to know about NMDOJ’s decision making in this matter have violated this act.

 

I do not know the purpose, mission, or writ of either Senate or House Judiciary Committees, but I assume that some element of oversight is involved in your work.  I hope that there is no parallel between the USDOJ and the NMDOJ, both contextualized by one-party control of government and liable to political considerations, and that New Mexico’s Democratic-controlled legislature has more integrity and courage than the Republican-controlled Congress has.  So I write to bring your attention to NMDOJ’s reprehensible response to my complaint and to request that you review its performance and prompt NMDOJ to do its proper work properly.  Those who have read my blogs know some of the details; I summarize them for those who have not.

 

Context is important.  In his 20 December 2024 letter to the Las Cruces City Council about improper hiring practices, Mr. Blaine Moffatt, Director, Government Counsel and Accountability Bureau (GCAB), concluded with a warning: “Future complaints related to your public body will be examined with increased attention.”  With respect to my complaint, his office and lawyers did not practice what he preached.

 

My 19 December 2024 complaint about OMA violations was assigned to Isabelle Lopez, an Honors (that is, a newly hired) Attorney.  In May 2025, her questions to the City Attorney and the City Attorney’s answers failed to address the core of my complaint.  I wrote to Ms. Lopez and criticized her investigation, but she did not reply.  In October, Rebecca M. Guay, Deputy Director, GCAB, replied with an elaborated restatement of Ms. Lopez’s answer to my complaint; it, too, failed to address the core of my complaint.  I wrote to Ms. Guay and criticized her reply, but she did not reply.  And there my complaint has rested, closed out.

 

In May 2025, I contacted the Foundation for Open Government (FOG) and provided it with the approximately 500 records which I had received from the City of Las Cruces in response to my successful suit about IPRA violations by the City Clerk and City Attorney: improper redactions, improperly withheld records, and failure to describe the records redacted or withheld.

 

On 28 May 2026, FOG submitted a report of its findings to the Las Cruces City Council and to NMDOJ.  City Council responded by implementing FOG’s recommendation to repeal the ordinance establishing select committees.  NMDOJ did not reply to FOG.  On 29 May, I wrote to Ms. Guay to request a “reconsideration of my complaint in view of documentary evidence supporting allegations of OMA violations.”  She did not reply.  On 30 June, I wrote to Mr. Moffatt to request that his Bureau reopen my complaint.  He did not reply.

 

In late July, I submitted an IPRA request to NMDOJ to learn about its handling of these requests to re-open my complaint.  In an exchange of correspondence with Ms. Carrie Cook, IPRA Attorney, about this request, she has feigned to be responsive, but she has given me wrong, misleading, or no reasons for not complying with IPRA requirements: to provide all relevant records, to state the exemption for any redaction or withholding, and to describe the records redacted or withheld.  I do not know whether she provided all relevant records; the nature of her emails does not inspire trust.  She cited the attorney-client privilege to justify redactions and withholdings; I doubt that the attorney-client privilege applies to inter-departmental NMDOJ communications.  She failed to provide descriptions—in particular, repeatedly failing to identify the authors or the audience–by falsely claiming that providing this information would require NMDOJ to create a record—which it is not required to do; she tried to mislead me by equating the disclosure of required information and the creation of a record.

 

On 19 August, I received an 18 August close-out letter from Christopher M. Harrington, Assistant Attorney General, GCAB.  He states that my complaint is now void because the Las Cruces City Council repealed the ordinance establishing select committees.  He avoided the core of my complaint: city counselors in a select committee violated OMA by operating in secret and making decisions about policy and practice.  His position is that a case against a bank robber is mooted if the bank later installs better vault locks.

 

NMDOJ’s handling of my complaint reflects badly on NMDOJ lawyers—from staff lawyers Isabelle Lopez, Rebecca M. Guay, and Carrie Cook to officials Blaine Moffatt and Christopher M. Harrington.  Their performance discredits NMDOJ and Raul Torrez.

 

When NMDOJ responds to a citizen with discourtesy, dissembling, dishonesty, and defiance, the question is why.  I have two answers: partisan political considerations to protect Democratic incumbent Congressman Gabe Vasquez in the fall election and protection from embarrassment at the exposure of its politically corrupt investigation.  NMDOJ lawyers who found no basis for my complaint after a cursory investigation now confront FOG’s thorough investigation rebutting their finding.  Rather than reveal political motives, admit investigative error, and take corrective action, these lawyers have not replied to FOG’s report and request to re-open my complaint and have denied my request to re-open it.  In short, in my case, NMDOJ has deliberately failed to follow its IPRA guidance, to enforce OMA, more generally to adhere to the rule of law, and to pursue justice in response to a valid complaint by a citizen who trusted that NMDOJ was more ethical and professional than its federal counterpart.

 

I make this letter to members of the New Mexico Senate and House Judiciary Committees public so that it can better understand NMDOJ’s efforts to protect Democrats and to maintain a cover-up of its flawed investigation.  I also want the public to observe how elected officials with legislative and oversight duties in their respective judiciary committees react to NMDOJ’s reprehensible performance.

SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE U.S. WAR AGAINST IRAN

       There is no better example of the ill consequences of actions based on ignorance and motivated by arrogance than Trump’s self-initiated attack on Iran launched on 28 February.  Anyone who knows anything about foreign affairs in the Middle East has long known that Iran has had the option to close the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic response to an American or Israeli attack.  Military planners expected Iran would close the Strait in the event of hostilities between it and America, and so advised the President.  He rejected their advice out of blind pride.

 

Yet, despite the hostile relationship between Iran and America for nearly half a century, Iran had not exercised the option to close the Strait until this war.  The question is why; the answer is that exercising that option, with its severe worldwide consequences, would, without justification, have incurred the wrath of many nations.  Trump’s attack provided that justification, and many countries in the region, though not allied with Iran, understand and in part forgive its response.  They may chafe under its new regime of controlled shipments and payments of transit fees, but they are unlikely to do more than try to alleviate its terms by negotiation and political pressure.

 

So the question is why Iran did not close the Strait when America and Israel attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities.  The answer depends on a crucial distinction between hostility and hostilities.  The June 2025 American/Israeli attacks had no political objective—that is, regime change.  Instead, they had only a military objective, the destruction of those facilities, with tacit support from countries in the region which fear Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons.  Trump’s February 2026 attack on Iran was different because it also had the political objective of regime change.  That objective ensured that Iran would react, to the surprise of no one but Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.  Both were either ignorant of this likelihood or indifferent to it in the hubristic belief in America’s military superiority.

 

After over five months of on-again, off-again attacks and talks, Trump and Hegseth have lost the war.  They have achieved none of its alleged objectives, primarily, regime change and termination of Iran’s nuclear-weapon program.  Indeed, they lost the war before the attack was launched mainly because they had only their arrogant, racist belief that an economically and politically suffering third-world Muslim country would quickly submit to a sudden onslaught of expensive, high-tech weaponry of the worlds’ most powerful military.  Such a belief is the more remarkable because Trump and Hegseth know that America, despite its overwhelming military might, lost its war in Vietnam, a country far more vulnerable because less populous, educated, and developed than Iran.

 

With traditional American hubris, Trump and Hegseth, with their boyish fascination with video-game-like razzle-dazzle weaponry, thought the attack would produce victory in a matter of weeks.  Anticipating their amusement, Hegseth expended vast quantities of costly, sophisticated ballistic and cruise missiles, though a few thousands-of-dollars bombs could have done as much targeted damage as one multi-million-dollar missile.  Using more conventional munitions would mean delivering them by tactical fighter-bombers and strategic bombers, and risking pilots’ lives, but it is unlikely that either considered using missiles to save lives.  If American forces had incapacitated Iran’s air defenses—Hegseth’s claim cannot be readily believed—, then the use of conventional weapons at a negligible increase in casualties would have avoided the far greater problems created by depleting theater arsenals of major military assets, with serious implications for strategic requirements elsewhere in the world, particularly the Far East, especially Taiwan.

 

Trump and Hegseth have lost the war because they foresaw no ill consequences, had no support or strategy, and squandered valuable munitions—and could not have prevailed against a determined opponent resolute in its resistance to an existential threat.  Having lost, America is now a weaker, more vulnerable country.  For many months or some years, the military will be weakened by shortages of major weapon systems.  Its power, as exercised by its armed forces, has been exposed as having diminished effectiveness in achieving political objectives.  More importantly, America’s prestige has been tarnished and its authority undermined by ignorant, arrogant, and erratic decision making.  The world has witnessed a demonstration of collective incompetence at the highest levels of America’s government.  At this point, America is anything but great again—in the words of Richard Nixon, it is “a helpless, pitiful giant—, and Trump, who campaigned to “make America great again” has done as much to erode its reputation and dissipate its moral, economic, political, and military strength as our adversaries could wish.

 

Trump is in a quandary from which he cannot escape.  His military attacks have failed, and more attacks cannot succeed.  He lacks diplomatic skills and is deemed untrustworthy by foreign diplomats; his substitute negotiators are equally unskilled and untrustworthy.  His ego, brittle but defensive, and his personality, immature and irresponsible, cannot admit error or defeat.  His ego will not let him admit that he has lost the war and much American influence in foreign affairs.  His personality will lead him to insist that others, mainly Obama and Biden, are to blame.  For anyone but Trump, the aftermath—though there looks to be no aftermath in the short term—would provide a steady diet of crow and humble pie.  All in all, his Iran escapade has shown Trump to be a loser to everyone but himself.  Because he cannot admit his mistakes and losses, he cannot learn from the one and cut the others.  Which means a continuation of the armed impasse and its consequences, and more of Trump’s braggadocio, bungling, and boondoggle.

 

Until the Democrats achieve regime change here, America cannot expect any improvement in our relations with countries abroad.  Indeed, Trump is liable to initiate other adventures, like occupying Greenland and Cuba.  In Greenland, he will use the locals’ resistance as a pretext to protect a Texas oil venture illegally landing drilling gear in its northeast region and thereby begin the occupation.  This case of might making right by Trump’s standards will serve Trump and his cronies, but it will do nothing to enhance America’s standing in the world.  What its effect on NATO will be remains an open question likely with an uncomfortable answer.

 

It is unlikely that Trump can be stopped unless Democrats acquire a majority at least in the House.  At the very least, it must restrict or refuse funding for the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.  In the event of violations of the law and inaction by the Department of Justice, it must restrict or refuse funding it, too.  I am not hopeful, however.  Democrats are not much more courageous than Republicans.  Whereas Republicans act because of their cult-like subservience to Trump, Democrats dither because of their political diversity and their aversion to vigorous though righteous action. 

DOES NEW MEXICO’S DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE RUN A PROTECTION RACKET FOR DEMOCRATS?

      In my 29 May blog, I questioned whether Attorney General Raúl Torrez is committed to open government or not.  The answer is probably not.  The New Mexico Department of Justice’s (NMDOJ) has thus far failed to respond to several requests to reopen my complaint about Open Meeting Act (OMA) violations by former members of the Las Cruces City Council, including incumbent Democratic Congressional District 2 candidate Gabe Vasquz and independent candidate for governor Ken Miyagishima.  Vasquez and Miyagishima need NMDOJ protection.

On 28 May, the Foundation for Open Government (FOG) submitted a request to Government Counsel and Accountability Bureau (GCAB) Deputy Director Rebecca M. Guay to reopen my complaint.  The request was based on its thorough, year-long investigation of abundant evidence obtained by my Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) request and FOG’s further research.  Its investigation supersedes the brief, perfunctory, skimpy work of GCAB lawyers.  Presumably, Ms. Guay must consult her superiors whether she or they will or will not reopen my complaint.  FOG has received no response to its request over seven weeks later.

 

On 29 May, I made a request to Ms. Guay (copied to Torrez) to reopen my complaint on the basis of FOG’s investigation.  I have received no response to my request over seven weeks later.  On 30 June, I restated my request to Mr. Blaine Moffatt (copied to Torrez and Ms. Guay), Ms. Guay’s immediate superior.  I have received no response to my restated request over three weeks later.

 

Whatever decision Torrez, Moffatt, or Guay make, their individual failures to respond to a reasonable request is inexcusable, shabby treatment of a private citizen by government officials.  That treatment might reflect the usual bureaucratic reluctance to admit a mistake, an incomplete, if not incompetent, investigation of my earlier complaint, as disclosed by FOG’s investigation.

 

Other reasons might also explain their failures, discussed in my blog, which I summarize.  I said that Torrez faces two risks to reopening my complaint.  One, he might offend the political establishment, mainly Democrats, if he directs the NMDOJ to reopen my complaint and thereby investigates current candidates for office.  An investigation of Vasquez, a Democrat, might anger Democrats by jeopardizing his re-election to the District 2 seat in the House of Representatives (Miyagishima’s candidacy is a vanity project of a fading politician).  Two, he might offend officials and employees in the department.  Novice attorney Isabelle Lopez would not appreciate the implicit judgment of her cursory initial investigation; and GCAB Deputy Director Rebecca M. Guay would not appreciate the reversal of her reflexive ratification of Ms. Lopez’s work.

 

I also noted that Torrez runs two risks if he does not reopen my complaint.  One, he might appear to be protecting members of his party.  Two, whatever his professed commitment to open government, a negative decision might suggest political hypocrisy.  I now add that, if he does not reopen my complaint, he makes Government Counsel and Accountability Division Director Blaine Moffatt look like a blowhard; his letter on another matter to the Las Cruces City Council promised that “Future complaints related to your public body will be examined with increased attention.”  Thus far, they have not been so examined.  If Moffatt appointed or approved the appointment of Ms. Lopez to investigate my complaint, then he showed himself a blowhard.

 

My guess: Torrez will try to reduce or avoid some of these risks by slow walking a reopening of the investigation until after the November midterm elections or by refusing to reopen it altogether.  In the expected close race for the District 2 Congressional seat—Cook Partisan Voter Index rates this district “even”—Vasquez, a weak incumbent candidate, needs all the help which he can get.  If Torrez slow walks or does not reopen the investigation, he would seem to agree with my assessment of this Democratic candidate.

 

This complaint to NMDOJ about OMA violations is not my first and only one.  Two others occurred under AG Hector Balderas’s leadership.  One was that an LCPD Internal Affairs (IA) investigation of my complaint about five false allegations of code violations violated my due process rights.  Although IA found that the allegations were false, it neither reported that finding to me nor acted upon to clear my LCPD file.  This complaint went unanswered.  The other was that IA’s violation of my due process rights was motivated by antisemitism.  This complaint also went unanswered.  NMDOJ does a lot of not answering complaints about government agencies.

 

I assume that I am not the only citizen of New Mexico who has filed complaints with NMDOJ alleging violations of laws by government agencies, including police departments, and has received no answer.  (If I am the only such citizen, then I must wonder why my complaints do not matter.)  Since the common element of my three complaints is local government officials and agencies, I infer that NMDOJ is reluctant to investigate as many cases as a lack of adverse publicity allows in order to protect state and local officials, ranking employees, and agencies from scrutiny.  For NMDOJ, transparency and accountability appear to be merely ideals “more honored in the breach than in the observance.”  Attorneys General honor them when they choose to avoid them because of political consequences adverse to their aspirations to higher office.  Which is to say that public relations and personal politics deny justice for citizens with complaints about state and local officials and ranking employees.  Officials and employees know that NMDOJ prefers to tolerate and protect rather than to deter or prosecute illegal behavior.  The refusal of NMDOJ officials to investigate complaints encourages misconduct; immunity leads to impunity.

 

I doubt that the New Mexico legislature is scrutinizing the NMDOJ in matters concerning citizen complaints about local governments and state agencies.  Does the legislature know what number of citizen complaints NMDOJ receives?  Or what percentage of citizen complaints it acknowledges?  Or what percentage of citizen complaints it dismisses without investigation?  Or what percentage of citizen complaints it investigates?  Or what percentage of citizens receive a report on the disposition of their complaint?  Or whether it measures citizen satisfaction with its handling of complaints?  I doubt the legislature can answer any of these questions because it has not asked NMDOJ for answers.

 

If I am right that the legislature is ignorant in these matters about local governments and state agencies, the legislature cannot ensure that the NMDOJ is a department acting for good government throughout the state—a fact not suggesting good government.  Perhaps legislators on the House and Senate judiciary committees should conduct investigations of the NMDOJ.  But it is unlikely that Democrats on those committees would approve inquiries or investigations of their political brethren.  NMDOJ under Torres will remain corrupt in its protection of government officials and employees from the rule of law regarding open government.

ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORM AS AND AFTER THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION COLLAPSES

     To follow the Democratic, liberal, or Progressive independent media is to know their commentators’ eagerness to hold Trump administration officials, especially higher-ranking ones, and Trump-hired employees accountable for their misdeeds.  They want them investigated, prosecuted, and, if warranted, convicted and sentenced to prison for whatever federal crimes for which Trump has not pardoned them and for whatever state crimes for which he cannot pardon them.  They want DOJ lawyers, pardoned or not, who served Trump as their client, disbarred, disbarment being a state prerogative beyond the reach of a presidential pardon.  They want to replace Trump’s non-criminal political hacks and hires in order to reconstitute departments, agencies, and boards with competent, dedicated people.  These leftist commentators can thank the Supreme Court for presidential authority to clean up the Executive Branch.  Ironically, such practices to render accountability will be in full accord with the theory of the unitary executive which SCOTUS has implemented in many of its worst decisions.  Yet they might be a problem.

Reformers are rightly passionate about effecting reforms, but proposed reforms face difficult obstacles, both legislative and Constitutional, in the near term, before 2028, and hardly less difficult ones in the years thereafter.  These obstacles will likely be accompanied by internal disagreements about what reforms they should undertake, what priorities they should assign them, how incremental or radical they should make them, how they can implement them, and how they can secure support for them.  Until reformers can decide on an agreed-upon an agenda addressing these areas of potential disagreement, they risk discord, diffusion of energies, and defeat.  And, of course, opponents of reforms will exploit these disagreements to hinder them.

 

Reformers want to address many areas corrupted by the Trump administration, but they should give priority to restoring the rule of law in the Supreme Court and the Department of Justice.  Otherwise, a new Democratic administration will face obstacles to holding Trump administration officials and hires accountable under the law and to effecting other reforms.

 

Part of restoring the rule of law is reforming the Supreme Court.  One proposed reform is enlarging the court, which requires no Constitutional amendment, only legislation.  Democrats should avoid or oppose this reform until they win the presidency and win or hold the Senate in 2028.  Although presently most unlikely, this Republican president and Republican Congress could pass such legislation, which would enable Trump to nominate and Senate Republicans to confirm additional reactionary justices to the Court, thereby compounding the problem of a Court already gone rogue.

 

The primary motive for this reform is to overcome the disastrous reign of six conservative judges, all Republican appointees.  They have embraced the unitary executive theory and thereby enhanced the power of the presidency, to include immunity from misconduct in office, and have undermined both the ability of citizens to seek judicial redress of grievances and, more generally, democracy itself, as its rulings on gerrymandering and the Civil Rights Act, among others, prove.

 

There would be little need to expand the Court only to counter the baleful influence of the six conservative Republican justices if they were impeached.  Every one of them merit impeachment because each one of them has committed “high crimes and misdemeanors.”  They have perjured themselves by lying to the Senate during their confirmation hearings about their allegiance to precedent or settled law; all testified that they believed in stare decisis, the judicial principle which honors precedent.  The evidence is their many votes overturning previous court decisions.  They have been corrupt; several have accepted benefits from outsiders and, contrary to the law, failed to report these benefits.  Evidence for these charges is already part of the public record.  If any of them resigns to forestall or avoid impeachment proceedings, proceedings should continue to ensure their public disgrace by official repudiation and their permanent disqualification from any public office in the future.  Impeachment would have the benefit not only of punishing them, but also of setting a standard for future nominees and confirmed justices.  However, Republican opposition in Congress would preclude impeachment before 2028 and would make it only remotely possible thereafter.

 

The secondary motive for this proposal is that the workload of the Court has increased so much in the past several decades.  The need for this proposal can be reduced by Congressional legislation restricting the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction to only those items specifically mentioned in the Constitution—again, a difficult task in the face of Republican opposition.

 

Other proposed reforms are term limits—18 years is often suggested—and staggered tenures.  Since the Constitution stipulates lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, this reform would require a Constitutional amendment, the Congressional passage of which would have little or no chance of success.  Some have suggested that legislation could reassign Supreme Court justices to appellate courts after 18 years.  But the Court would likely rule that the lifetime guarantee is to positions on the Supreme Court only, not also to alternative federal court positions.  However, a legislative work-around exists: an age requirement.  Congress could pass a law requiring that justices be at least 65 years old to sit on the court.  Mortality rates for those of that age is about 18 years.  However, the irregularity of deaths would deny the possibility of staggered tenures.  Still, there are advantages.  One is that nominees would have extensive records as judges or would appear unprepared for the position.  Another is that the regular rotation of justices might avoid entrenchment of judicial doctrines and outdated precedents.  Republicans occupying the presidency or controlling Congress would not likely support such a bill.

 

Other reforms of the Supreme Court might define precise limits on the use of the “shadow docket” and require published rationales for all Court decisions; and establish criteria for Senate confirmation, which the President would have to consider in making nominations, like years of experience and percentage of votes for decisions reversed by higher courts.  Reforms by judicial decisions are necessary to reverse the many perverse decisions rendered both in open court and in the “shadow docket,” but these reforms might be beyond the capability of Congress.

 

Restoring the Department of Justice, including the FBI, requires reforming their relationships with the Executive and Legislative Branches, best by making it an independent agency.  More, Congressional legislation should attempt to re-establish previously independent agencies and establish new ones deemed necessary by legislating that their independence alone is beyond the reach of Court jurisprudence—a proposal which might have enough support from Republicans to pass in Congress but would have no support in the Trump administration.  Simultaneously, all Trump officials and hires should be dismissed with prejudice from government service, and replacements hired from those previously employed by DOJ or the FBI and others whose objectivity in matters of legal practice can be established.  The same firing and hiring procedures should be applied to all Executive Branch departments and agencies.  In addition, all Inspectors General should be employees, not of their departments or agencies, but of DOJ, so that their work is independent of department secretaries or agency heads.

 

Two other reforms should target anti-democratic institutions or procedures.  One is eliminating or neutralizing the Electoral College.  Again, a Constitutional amendment is now out of the question.  But it might be possible for a Democratic administration to persuade enough additional states to subscribe to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, “an agreement among U.S. states and territories to award all their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the overall national popular vote, regardless of individual state results” (Wikipedia).  Current signatories represent 232 electoral votes; with only 48 more required, a combination of a few large states like Arizona (11), Michigan (15), Ohio (17), Pennsylvania (19), and Wisconsin (10), and perhaps a few small states like Nevada (6) and New Hampshire (4) would be sufficient to make the compact effective.  In 2028, a Democratic administration and Congress might, with the consent of signatories, enact legislation making this compact virtually irreversible until a Constitutional Amendment becomes feasible.

 

Another is the end of the Senate filibuster.  This procedure is anti-democratic.  Ending it has the advantage of restoring majority rule.  Moreover, by assigning clear responsibility for party-line majority votes on legislation and confirmations, it might encourage cross-party collaboration as the majority party might want minority-party input on legislation to reduce, if not eliminate, adverse effects.  Its demise would not be dangerous; other democracies have done just fine without a nefarious device which enables minority rule.

 

However, there is a danger of going too far in seeking accountability.  The eagerness to hold administration personnel accountable must not replicate, thus perpetuate, the abuses of the Trump administration.  The methods of dealing with Trump officials and hires must adhere to the highest standards of justice to disarm charges of weaponization of the legal system.  Moreover, reformers must be aware of and work to avoid the danger not only of perpetuating presidential powers enlarged by Trump, but also of expanding them, as presidents have often done with the powers of their predecessors.  The next, presumably Democratic, president must not only eschew such enlarged powers, but also work with Congress to legislate their removal from the Executive Branch, with prompt, severe penalties for violations.  Otherwise, the threat to democracy which these enlarged powers pose will remain.  In short, accountability and reform, whatever the good intentions and intensity of these efforts, must be equally ethical and restrained.  Which means that the character of those seeking accountability and reform must be above reproach and demonstrate integrity, humility, and a commitment of public service which overrides personal ambition.

THE OLDER I GET, THE BETTER I WAS

     This July 4^th, as it commemorates the 250^th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, calls for retrospection and reassessment, for a comparison of past and present conditions of our country.  In some, it prompts either a naïve nostalgia assuming the superiority of the former to the latter or a political yearning for a return to yesteryear.  For them, this bon mot is apt; for me, it is amusing, for I do not think it true of me as I compare the times of my earlier and later years.  I have been pleased to age; I think that I have learned more, even acquired a modicum of wisdom (a word not much in use today), and changed for the better.

Until a dozen years ago, I had thought that America was steadily becoming a more perfect union.  Until then, I had witnessed the end of Jim Crow laws and KKK lynchings (Emmett Till, 1955) or other murders (James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner, 1964); the liberation of women to have choices in bodily autonomy—to abort or not to abort, that is the question—and in professional careers beyond those of schoolteachers, nurses, and librarians, occupations still generally regarded as women’s work; and the termination of residential covenants against Blacks and Jews in many places, including my hometown, Shaker Heights.  But Martin Luther King’s leadership in the 1955-1956 Montgomery bus boycott was a sign of changes to come; no one had to be a weatherman to know which way the winds were blowing.  Obviously, the presidency of Donald Trump and the ascendency of MAGA and other even more extreme fascist organizations have done much to make the union less perfect than it had become.

 

As I review my life and times, not the political and social development of the past 86 years, I view the experiences of my youth as better, healthier, and happier than I believe the experiences of today’s youth are.

 

One notable change from my times to later times is the rise and spread of Little League.  In my day—I am talking 1945 to 1958—, football, basketball, and baseball games (nobody played soccer) were pick-up games even if they were regular occurrences.  In elementary school, we played mostly baseball.  The biggest or the best athletes were captains who chose the teams and assigned positions.  If they chose themselves to key positions too often, other players would grumble and demand fairness in assignments.  We resolved disputes by arguing, not fighting except for a little shoving once in a while.  In the end, everyone got to play the position which he preferred once in a while, but some proved themselves so good at certain positions that everyone wanted them there.  We never suffered from coaches picking their sons for key positions, resolving disputes, and managing the game, or from parents screaming at us to try harder.

 

We just had fun.  At the 11:45 elementary school lunch break, I would race the three blocks home, wolf down a sandwich and a glass of milk, and race back to school to get in an hour of baseball before classes resumed.  I usually played second base, though I sometimes pitched, and I had a special role as well.  The playground had two fields; one had its right field, the other had its left field, defined by a chain link fence behind which a large, male German Shepherd patrolled.  Most of the kids teased the dog by running along the fence and strumming a stick against the fence.  The dog barked angrily in defense of the property.  But I always talked to the dog and became friends with it.  So, whenever someone hit a home run, I was the retriever who jumped the fence to get the ball.  It gave me a chance to play with the dog a bit.  Some days, the lady of the house—I remember her name: Mrs. Vernon—invited me in for cookies and milk or lemonade to thank me for being kind to her dog.  Pick-up games, friendly neighbors—a far cry from sports organized by adults who regulate or respond to them for their purposes.

 

But one decision I regret.  I loved basketball and was good at it on either end of the court.  My elementary school and junior-high-school friend Dale Huge and I were about as evenly matched a pair of ballers as anyone had ever seen.  He was slightly better than I, say, 51-49.  Kids watched our one-on-one, hour-long games.  In our first semester in senior-high school, Dale asked me what sport I was going out for; I said cross-country.  He objected and asked me why; he said that we should go out for basketball and be the starting guards by the end of the season.  I declined without telling him the real reason: I was too shy to want to play in front of a crowd.  He started by season’s end while I jogged along just enough to stay in shape for spring track. So I remember not being better then, only missing a chance to be as good as I was.

 

Another notable change was the disappearance of Friday-night canteens hosted by Plymouth Church (UCC) for junior-high students in its basement.  The kitchen served hot dogs, potato chips, candy, ice cream, and other junk food.  Several knock-hockey games filled an open space; it served those, mostly boys, who were shy and those who wanted a break from dancing.  The important space was a dimly lit dance floor separated from the food and game areas by ceiling-to-floor curtains.  The only adult present was a parent playing 45s for dancing; well-behaved, we needed no chaperones.  Close dancing and an occasional, quick, covert kiss were about as randy as we got.  When canteen ended at about 10:30, our parents, who had dropped us off, picked us up and took us home.  As I look back on the canteens, I am grateful that we did not have malls to make us grow up faster than our years allowed.

 

What was good in my early years was shared close personal relationships and social interactions in relaxed settings.  Today, I regret that minors experience fewer similar experiences.

 

The villain in the piece is electronic technologies.  Before televisions became commonplace, the kids in my neighborhood played street games: hopscotch, hide-and-seek, and capture the flag.  There was not much television to watch, and I grew up not watching it much, only a few selected shows, and skipping the rest.  In 2015, I gave my TVs to Goodwill and have not missed them.  I go to Chicago to watch the Michigan-Ohio State football game with my son and ex-wife on Thanksgiving weekend, and find a way to watch WNBA games or, more often, players (Sonia Citron, Caitlin Clark, Angel Reese) of special interest.  I was slow to get a computer—my first was an Epson, in 1983—and, of course, have had one ever since.  I cannot imagine how I wrote my dissertation just 10 years earlier.  I use it for writing blogs, reading the news, and getting sports scores, not playing games or watching movies.  I finally got an iPhone, which I use mostly for a few calls and messages, and, when waiting for doctors, the latest news or sports scores.

 

I do not use Facetime and any other apps which are so popular for “staying touch with family and friends.”  I intuited early what experts have come to recognize as the baleful influence of smartphones on infants, children, and teenagers.  They are addictive, and their overuse often leads to personal isolation, anxiety, and depression, and away from healthy activities with others.  I recognize their equally baleful influence on adults in the empty time spent staying in touch and political trash-mongering.  AI will be even worse because it will make it more difficult to stay in touch with reality; it will disorient us, make us distrustful, and corrupt human interactions.

 

I might sound like a dyspeptic old man, but I am not dyspeptic.  How could I be?  I have returned to where I started, with good friends as neighbors.  I have four dogs, my best pack ever, and a cat—a happy family.  In retirement, I look back on a long, gratifying life as a consultant, civic activist, and scholar.  I have not regretted aging because I have enjoyed maturing, which one, like me, must aspire to and attempt to achieve.  In defiance of my title, I think that I am better now, in my golden years, than I was then.

 

Enjoy this Fourth, but take a moment to reflect not only on who we were and are as a country, but also on who we were and are as persons.  Can the country be better, a more perfect union?  Can we be better, more perfect persons?

THE SILVER LINING IN TRUMP’S IRAN WAR

    Almost every media outlet, almost every commentator, and almost every media outlet—left, center, right—agree that Trump’s Iran war launched on 28 February and formally ended on 17 June was a disastrous and humiliating defeat in every possible way for the United States.

Trump’s war achieved none of its objectives, variously stated, variously emphasized.  They were: unconditional surrender, regime change, destruction of Iran’s military capabilities (missiles, planes, ships, and the capability of producing more missiles), cessation of Iran’s support for proxy forces (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthi), and a permanent termination of Iran’s nuclear programs and assurances that it would not get nuclear weapons.

 

The contentious negotiations ending the war made clear that Iran did not surrender, much less unconditionally.  Although many Iranian leaders were killed, the regime survived with younger, stronger, more dedicated leadership; with more power concentrated in the hands of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.  US intelligence shows that a substantial portion of Iran’s military forces survived attacks; Trump now rationalizes that Iran should continue to have missiles.  No changes in its support of proxies or its continued nuclear enrichment program have occurred.  Worse, Iran took control of and closed the Strait of Hormuz, open to international shipping before the war, and still retains control, with the prospect of charging fees for passage.

 

Trump has further eroded the little trust remaining in his word.  In the three-and-a-half months of the war, he announced that the war was won and its end was just a few weeks, days, or even hours away—about 40 times.  He made threats of civilizational destruction, which implied the use of nuclear weapons—the threats alone being war crimes.  (No more credible is Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who repeatedly trumpeted the devastating effects of US attacks, but, as Iran has proven its resilience and its success in asymmetric warfare, he has fallen silent.)

 

Trump has severely damaged relationships with major US allies.  He unilaterally started the war on a whim, without consulting aides or allies, and then found that he needed assistance from NATO countries when the war did not go according to his fanciful wishes.  His demands for their support offended them, none gave support, and some refused even to allow military overflights.  In response, Trump declared that the US never needed their support—a flip-flop calling into question the seriousness and stability of his demands.

 

Trump has shown the vacuity of anything which might be called thinking about America’s strategic interests.  He never considered what every war-planning exercise assumed in a war against Iran: its closing the Strait of Hormuz.  In his expert-free ignorance after the event, he said that no one had expected such a response.  Instead, he prefers to personalize and politicize all issues, to attack his predecessors and to abort their work regardless of its merits.  He condemned the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA),which the Obama administration achieved and from which Trump withdrew the US in 2018.  He will get no agreement with Iran about its nuclear programs as good as the JCPOA; he will be furious that Obama outdid him.

 

Trump will make the American taxpayer pay for his failed war.  One of Trump’s objections to the JCPOA was his claim that Obama paid Iran billions to agree to its terms.  Except for the US settling a long-standing dispute for $1.7. billion, the JCPOA merely allowed Iran access to $50-$55 billion of its own funds held in foreign accounts.  By contrast, the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Iran and the US commits $300 billion to Iran.  The US claims that this money will come from private investors and foreign governments—unlikely because Iran lacks a stable legal system conducive to investment.  More likely, the funds will come from Arab governments in the region as political cover, with covert US reimbursement.

 

As an ignorant buffoon, an incompetent bungler, and a corrupt mobster, Trump has failed in his war, humiliated the US, and embarrassed America.  He has harmed the US internationally by undermining alliances with traditional allies.  He has needlessly risked the lives and welfare of its troops and killed untold numbers of civilians in other countries in pointless war.  By squandering resources required for the defense of its interests here and abroad, he has weakened America’s national security.

 

But all is not lost.  There are lessons to be learned from this humiliating defeat.

 

Lesson one: the Department of Defense (DoD) has learned nothing about asymmetric warfare from its long and deadly involvements in Vietnam and Afghanistan, countries smaller, poorer, less populated, and less advanced than Iran.  It must learn that overwhelming military firepower—Hegseth’s lethality—, even with enormous death and destruction, cannot ensure achieving US objectives.  No amount of bombing defeated the Vietnamese communists, the Taliban., or now the Iranians. It must learn that US arrogance prevents it from realizing that second- and third-world countries have loyal, resilient citizens and creative strategies and tactics suited to their environments.  DoD must face the realities of modern, often asymmetric, warfare.

 

Lesson two: American military prowess has been exposed as highly limited in its warfighting capabilities.  It expended billions in sophisticated, costly munitions against simple, inexpensive weapons, with only modest success.  Its depleted supplies of these weapons will take years and billions to replace.  Meanwhile, their loss leaves the US and its putative allies at greater risk of conflicts in other theaters.  DoD must shift procurement priorities, from an arsenal stocked with relatively few, expensive weapons to one stocked with many, relatively low-cost weapons.

 

Lesson three: American wars abroad have huge costs at home.  The economic costs are real; the costs of goods and services go up, and many businesses suffer from shortages, disruptions, or delays.  The political costs are no less real; popular support for the war at the start—the Iran war was unusual in lacking such support—subsides as the war continues.  Since Vietnam, America’s wars have lacked sustained domestic support and have fostered discontent.  Only by relying on a small professional army has the US been able to sustain long-term conflicts.  So wars fought in its citizens’ name but without their commitment have demoralizing and divisive effects.  DoD leadership must advise—insist, if possible—that the president not fight wars and sustain combat without popular support.  Flag officers might stand by the Constitution and the War Powers Act.

 

And there is a silver lining.

 

Lesson four: American leadership in international affairs has been permanently demoted to a new, lower status.  When Trump led the US into war, he found that he could not lead others, especially when he started it without a by-their-leave.  Trump may do so again (Greenland, Cuba, Panama, who’s next?), but successive presidents will know, for instance, that the Gulf of Mexico is no longer an American lake, more generally, that America will have to work as one of many equals, not necessarily as the first among equals.  Unless they follow his example, Trump’s successors must ingratiate themselves with the international community and accept a more modest role in international affairs.  At the very least, this reduced role will mean that the US will undertake fewer, if any, wars on its own initiative and will thereby encourage, even oblige, other nations to assume greater responsibility for their defense.  In fact, for the past few years, many nations have been doing exactly that.  Reacting to Trump’s erratic views, his impulsive actions, and his wavering support of Ukraine, NATO countries are increasing their defense budgets and coordinating their weapons and weapon systems with each other.  Sweden has abandoned neutrality and joined NATO; Japan is revising its military doctrine from a strictly defensive posture to a more long-range, offensive one.  As a result, US allies will have less need for US leadership and little tolerance of its arrogance.

 

The advantages of a more modest international role in matters of defense might lead to non-military advantages to the US.  With a shrunken sense of America’s exceptionalism, the US might be willing to work more collegially with other nations on issues of international concern: climate change, the non-proliferation of nuclear-weapons, epidemic control, artificial intelligence and other advanced technologies, among others.  After Iran, humility may become America.

 

In short, the silver lining of Trump’s Iran war is the humbling of the US.  No longer will it bully-rag other countries.  No longer will it resort to unilateral or coercive action and displace consultation and cooperation.  No longer will it be the paterfamilias of the family of nations; it will be just another member of that family.  Perhaps this family of democratic nations will welcome an avuncular Uncle Sam. 

WHY DOES TRUMP HATE AMERICA?

      MAGA—Make America Great Again—is the slogan for Donald J. Trump’s ultimate con job on America.  It implies that America, once great, has lost its greatness and that Trump can restore it.  It implies that destruction of that greatness, interrupted by the presidency of George W. Bush, occurred during the presidencies of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Behind the slogan is an inchoate view of America envisioning demographic and political chaos produced by non-white immigrants, legal or not, and residents, citizens or not, of color.  Trump is no political scientist, but he is susceptible to the pervasive influence of racism and sensitive to trends in America’s political environment.

 

Trump has been a lifelong racist.  In the 1970s, in his mid-20s, he was found guilty of racial discrimination in apartment rentals.  He admitted no guilt in the settlement and a few years later was found to have returned to discriminatory practices.  In 1989, at the age of 43, he took out full-page ads in four New York papers calling for the return of the death penalty and the execution of the five black men accused and convicted of rape and attempted murder in Central Park.  Although they were later exonerated and successfully sued the city for $41 million (in 2014 dollars; $58 million in 2026 dollars), Trump persisted in calling for their execution for murder although the victim survived.

 

These two episodes more than 25 years before Trump’s first term in office revealed who Trump is.  His racism is clear.  His violation of the law is clear.  His disregard of a settlement with the government is clear.  His disregard of a court’s finding is clear.  His disregard of fact is clear.  Everything which Trump did then he does now, and everyone should have known he would never do differently.  What is also clear is that at least a third of the American population shares or tolerates Trump’s racism, disregard of the law, and indifference to facts.  As I have written in other blogs, this third will remain an abiding threat to American democracy.

 

Trump was rotten from the start.  I skip the psychodynamics of his relationship with his mother when he was very young and its effects on his attitudes toward and trust of women.  By the time he was 13, he was already so undisciplined and misbehaving that his parents sent him to a military school.  His conformity to its requirements did not improve his character; it trained him to camouflage his impulses and his motives, and to con or dominate his contemporaries.  The result: no friends from those or later days, only convenient associates in transactional relationships.  (As a dog and cat lover, I note that he has never had pets—lucky for them.  As a narcissist, Trump lacks the empathy for pets, as he lacks it for people, and would resent pets attracting attention and thus diluting or diverting attention from him.)

 

As a student, Trump was a flop, mediocre at best.  His claim to have scored a perfect 1600 on  his SATs is just his usual lying braggadocio.  His claim to have graduated first in his class at Wharton Business School—admission secured by family connections—has no documentary support; in fact, he graduated (because of family influence?) without honors.  Moreover, in “testimony to Congress, Michael Cohen revealed that, under the direction of President Trump, he had sent letters to Trump’s high schools, colleges and the College Board (creator of the SAT), threatening them with legal action and jail time if they ever released Trump's academic records” (Forbes, 14 Apr ’24).  Obviously, Trump has reasons to conceal his academic records.

 

Trump learned his racism at home.  Growing up in a country as non-white minorities are nearing majority status in the country—expected tipping point is 2045—, he resented or feared their racial domination, just as slave owners feared black uprisings, and whites fear second-class status—white displacement, if not replacement—, with their loss of political control.  His legal loss in discriminatory housing rentals suggested the power of minorities under the law.  Trump hates America for the threatening prospect of a non-white-majority populace.

 

Trump learned his anti-intellectualism in his schools.  His academic inability to perform at more than an average level of attainment wounded his ego.  He resented those more capable than he and, even more, the standards which judged him mediocre at best.  His choice of career required no academic distinction, but the New York social world of elites educated at elite schools expected more cultural, intellectual, and social sophistication than he, an ignorant bully, could muster or hope to muster.  Although he aspired to join its social circles, they excluded him; his success as a developer, as measured by money and fame (really, notoriety), did not gain him entry or acceptance.  Perceiving the importance and influence of well-educated people and their resistance to him, Trump hates America because of them and their institutions of learning, which enjoy worldwide reputations for academic achievement, and set standards of cultural and intellectual excellence which he perceives as both reproaches and restrictions.

 

In retaliatory reaction, Trump has waged war on those institutions which cultivate excellence in their fields—witness his attempted perversion of the Kennedy Center.  He is attacking the acme of American education, its research colleges and universities.  He is reducing staffing, funding, and programs at government agencies and universities conducting research in the physical and social sciences, health and medicine, and education.  He is undermining public and private institutions which have made notable contributions, among others, to reducing pollution, increasing solar and wind energy, discovering new drugs, and improving medical treatments.  He is impeding businesses from incorporating advanced technologies which these institutions have fostered.  He is distorting the information presented at national parks, museums, and monuments to accord with a simple-minded, white-skinned version of American history.  Far outdistancing the background count of traditional American anti-intellectualism, Trump hates America for its accomplished thinkers and performers in all fields.

 

Because Trump feels threatened by those with expertise, he selects ignorant and incompetent advisers—witness Pete Hegseth, Robert Kennedy, Jr., and Kash Patel—and rejects informed and capable experts.  He fears them contradicting or correcting him, thereby exposing his ignorance and incompetence.  Thus, before his literally ill-considered attack on Iran, he did not consult or heed either DoD or DoS experts.  Moreover, because of his lack of consideration of others—I go beyond his lack of empathy here—and this reliance on coercion, he could not conceive of Iran’s resistance, its resort to retaliatory attacks on regional allies and bases, and its ability to counter American military supremacy by the obvious-to-experts closing of the Straits of Hormuz.  This conjunction of his dominant characteristics reflects the Greek belief that character is destiny.

 

Fundamental to Trump’s hatred of America is his hatred of American democracy.  Think of it as having not one, but two, axes.  The horizontal axis is political equality; every person has the same rights under the Constitution and the rule of law.  The vertical axis is opportunity (always enhanced by education) to be, as the Army once put it, the best that you can be; opportunity sorts people by their abilities, which are unevenly distributed among people.  American democracy promises and is capable of both equality and excellence simultaneously.  Trump’s beliefs are the antithesis of these axes.  His horizontal axis is a uniformity of mediocrity throughout the general populace so that none can challenge his rule—thus his attacks on education.  His vertical axis is the stratification of preferred individuals—family members, friends, business cronies, plutocrats, and MAGA supporters—over all others, who constitute the masses.  Those who are preferred are advantaged economically and privileged legally.  Trump’s authoritarianism rejects equality and excellence, and, regardless of merit, favors the few at the expense of the many.

 

Trump is the personification of this inversion of democratic principles.  He thinks himself superior to all others and above the law; he dictates orders regardless of the Constitution and the law.  He exaggerates his capabilities and his accomplishments as unique or superlative.  He promotes himself in vanity displays of banners with his likeness, buildings renamed for him, and new monuments and military parades in his honor.  These demonstrations of his self-love reflect and are directly proportional to his hatred of America because of its democracy.  His claim to want to make America great again is America’s greatest hater’s biggest and most successful con.