ENDING THE IRAN WAR, UNLIKELY REPUBLICAN RECOVERY, PONDERING HEINRICH

      Ending the Iran War.  I am going to tell two stories which I hope will not mislead you into thinking that I routinely get into physical altercations.  The stories report the only two of my 86 years.

Almost 75 years ago, a classmate and I got into a fight.  He was solid and slow, like a punching bag which he became in our fight; I was slight and swift, and had had some boxing training.  I pummeled him with impunity but without apparent effect; tired by my efforts, I ended the fight by walking away.  The next day, he told me he was black and blue on his arms and from his shoulders to his waist.  We never fought again and had a civil relationship thereafter.

 

About 65 years ago, a fraternity brother took a swipe at me.  While he got himself lit at a party, his date felt ill, and I drove her home.  Partly sobered, he thought that I had made off with his girl, confronted me, did not accept my explanation, and slugged me in the face.  I stood my ground but said and did nothing.  With everyone standing around staring at him, he stalked off.  Days later, fully sobered up, he apologized.  The result: no breach in our relationship.

 

The analogies are imperfect but serve well enough to suggest a better way to end the war against Iran than more bombing, more blockades, and more sanctions.  The United States should stop all of these unproductive hostile acts against Iran which have hurt the civilian population far more than it has hurt its repressive government.  The US should not even declare victory; it has not won and has no prospects of winning—whatever winning might be in this situation.

 

At the same time as the US stands down from these acts, it should declare that it does so in the interests of the Iranian people, in the hope that the Iranian government will take steps to defuse the situation like opening the Strait of Hormuz, and in the expectation that it will resume compliance with the Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).  By acting unilaterally to end hostilities, the US turns the international community’s attention to Iran to see how it responds.  How it responds will have considerable influence on how other countries, particularly those Muslim Arab states in the region, engage with it and the US.

 

Those who think that military strength is the only strength or a strength greater than moral strength will scorn this suggestion as making the US look weak in a world in which military might is supposed to represent strength.  No one doubts that the US has unsurpassed military strength, but everyone now believes that it lacks the wisdom to deploy it sensibly.  But might does not make right; indeed, the lesson which the US should have learned from the Vietnam War is that right makes might—which is one way to explain the victory of the Viet Cong.

 

From a broader perspective, in a multi-polar international community, cooperation among nations, not coercion between them, is as desirable as it is inevitable.  International trade requires a world order based on agreed-upon rules of security, not diktats or threats by the more powerful to the less powerful.  US policy should be that the US will guide the use of its military by two principles: self-defense if the country is attacked and joint operations with others to protect the rules of the international order.  In other words, no more unilateral military interventions like those since the mid-twentieth century, in Guatemala, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Panama, and, most recently, Venezuela.  Or the criminal, perverse, and repeated killing of crews of vessels in international waters on unsupported claims that they were drug smugglers.  It is one thing for the Monroe Doctrine to demand European non-intervention in the countries of the Western Hemisphere; it is another for US foreign policy to rationalize American intervention throughout it whenever it so desires.  US policy should also preclude unilateral interventions elsewhere, especially in the Middle East, like those in Iraq and Iran.  Only by exercising restraint in the use of its military can the US again become a good citizen, trusted and respected, in the international community.

 

 

Unlikely Republican Recovery.  The only damage which Trump has done to his credit is crippling the Republican Party.  Trump did little or nothing to build the Party as anything but a cult of his personality, power, and prejudices.  By dominating it and redirecting or redefining the Party’s essentials, not one of them has escaped erosion.  He has impaired its capability to rebuild itself.  And if it could, it would not be better than it is now.  Trump has made various kinds of bigotry, core to the party, the driver of many of its domestic policies and practices.  For example, racism and xenophobia fuel his administration’s anti-immigrant violent efforts.  He has led the erosion of the Party’s traditional commitments to free trade, individual freedom, small government, states’ rights, fiscal responsibility, and law and order; at most, it can harp on its commitment to lower taxes and less regulation.  Tariffs are antithetical to free trade.  Federal election interference, and DHS and CBP raids are but two of the intrusions of a big, not a small, government, into the freedom and the rights of citizens and states.  Tax cuts increasing income inequality and ballooning the national debt demonstrate fiscal irresponsibility of the highest order.  Deploying national guard troops in metropolitan areas has not improved law and order.

 

Trump’s nomination and the Republican senate’s confirmation of department secretaries variously ignorant, incompetent, corrupt, or criminal debase standards for Republican leadership.  The list of grossly unqualified department secretaries is long, including Pam Bondi, Kristi Noem, Tulsi Gabbard, Robert Kennedy, Todd Blanche, and Pete Hegseth.  The most grotesque of them all is Hegseth, a secretary not only unqualified, but indifferent to his lack of qualifications.  Instead of attempting to learn what he needs to know to run the Department of Defense (see above to know why I refuse to call it the Department of War), he has eliminated senior flag officers who might question, if not challenge, some of his decisions.  Without the knowledge or skills to manage DOD in an age of rapidly advancing military weaponry, he has resorted to the simplistic things which he can do: fight culture wars and urge a macho mentality and physicality in the troops.  The question which I would like Hegseth to answer is this: how many pushups does it take to shoot down a drone or a missile?

 

Even if the Republican Party could accuse only Trump for its decline, it would be unable to recover.  For its members of the House and Senate share in its decline.  The near or total unanimity in their support of Trump’s policies and practices, and of his nominees for department secretaries or federal judges shows that Republicans are not primarily concerned about the national interest, domestic or foreign.  Indeed, Republican officials have shown that their lack of conviction and courage has made them complicit in their inability.  What Trump has done, House Senate Republicans have enabled.  Together they have incapacitated the Republican Party.

 

Remarkably, Republicans in the Executive and Legislative Branches have shown their hostility to democracy, most recently in efforts to disenfranchise large groups of presumably Democratic-leaning voters.  Notwithstanding the defeats of those efforts and the resounding results of the midterm elections, Republicans are not, as the commentators are saying, learning the lesson of those results.  In fact, they are doubling down on their positions, as suggested by Trump’s appointment of Steven Miller to be his Chief to Staff, the House’s failure to impeach Hegseth, and its nomination of the pugilistic Jim Jordan to the House Minority leader in the next Congress.  The Republican contempt for democracy was best expressed by the current Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, who, when asked about the results of the midterm elections, said simply, “the voters made the wrong choice.”  There is no basis for hope that the Republican Party can recover itself and win elections in the near future, if ever.  We might be witnessing the end of the Republican Party, but we shall not be witnessing the end of the prejudices and policies which might have wrought its demise.

 

 

Understanding Martin Heinrich.  Sorry to say, Martin Heinrich is going over to the Dark Side.  It was bad enough that Heinrich voted to confirm Markwayne Mullin to be Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.  His rationale: they had a good working relationship which Heinrich thought augured well for cooperation on DHS operations in New Mexico.  In other words, Heinrich supports the “buddy system,” even if it is a one-way relationship.  His kind of personalist politics is precisely what is wrong with so many political decisions.

 

It is worse that he co-sponsors the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 (BAAJA).  The bill expedites permitting for a variety of fossil- and non-fossil-fuel energy projects by exempting them from many, long-established environmental protections.  BAAJA would weaken the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act.  (For two BAAJA analyses, see Bookbinder’s public letter and Regunberg’s TNR article.)  While climate change is accelerating and while the economic costs of non-fossil fuel are competitive with, if not lower than, the costs of fossil fuels, anything promoting the production of fossil fuels, especially with adverse effects on health and the environment, makes no sense.

 

The two Republican co-sponsors are West Virgina Senator Shelley Capito and Utah Senator Mike Lee; their co-sponsorship condemns the bill by association.  A Democratic co-sponsor, Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, might not know much about the adverse effects of fossil-fuel extraction and pipeline shipment—there might not be much to impair in his state—, but Heinrich certainly does.  His co-sponsorship of this act betrays his past environmental credentials and campaign pledges—for what?  Contributions for a 2030 run for re-election?  Contributions for a 2032 run for the New Mexico governorship?  Positioning for a remunerative job in the fossil-fuel industry?  I hate to think.

DANGERS AHEAD FOR DEMOCRATS: NOTHING FAILS LIKE SUCCESS

     My responses to the election results combined euphoria and serenity; I retired happy and slept soundly for three nights thereafter.  But I have now awakened to the problems that confront the country, the new Congress, and the new majorities of Democrats in the House and Senate.  Some of them await the Congressional “blues” now; others will abide unless addressed now.

Problems in governance until the next presidential inauguration and beyond are first and foremost.  The last two years of Trump’s presidency will resemble the last year-and-a-half of Woodrow Wilson’s.  Trump, who never cared about leading the country, only exploiting it for profit and enjoying it for ego, is reverting to his past as a developer, though not a very successful one.  He is likely to subside into an increasingly erratic and malevolent senility comforted by Natalie Harp and to surrender more and more decision-making to Stephen Miller.  In the modus operandi of this administration, Trump and Miller will double-down on its abuses and mistakes, including breaking laws and defying the courts.  This approach will become evident in the White House’s resistance to Congressional investigations, with vigorous support by Attorney General Todd Blanche, who sees himself as the defense attorney for Trump and senior officials in the administration.  Meanwhile, Republicans in the lame duck congress will do their best to advance what is left of their agenda before Democratic majorities take office on 3 January.

 

Republican resistance to investigations will be a problem requiring Democrats to hold administration officials in contempt of Congress, even though Blanche will ensure that referrals to DOJ gather dust or line waste baskets.  Whether he will launch investigations of Democrats as he has threatened remains to be seen.  Regardless, Democrats will resort to the power of the purse including possibly a December shutdown, certainly targeted rescissions now and funding reductions in the next budget later, perhaps to include even the White House.

 

After Democrats assume control of Congress, they will find it problematic to deal with Republicans for three reasons.  First, Republicans will resist Democratic bills which reverse their signature legislation, the One Big Beautiful Bill, which curtails benefits on food, health, and health insurance, among others.  Pugilistic Jim Jordan, the House Minority Leader, will lead the resistance and attempt to maintain a solid party-line opposition.  Second, Republicans will not lessen or waver in their decades-long commitment to small government, states rights, little regulation, free trade, and low taxes; they will continue to work diligently and subversively to diminish the authority of the federal government.  Third, Republicans will not have a change of heart respecting Trump, the Republican Party, or its principles, despite the disastrous results of the midterm election; those distancing themselves from Trump do so for their political survival and should not be trusted.  Obstructing Democrats will be Republicans’ priority number one.

 

Democrats can alleviate these problems by exploiting problems facing Republicans, notably a difficult choice between remaining loyal to Trump, obstructing Democratic bills, and facing the voters’ wrath in 2028; or breaking from Trump, supporting their bills, facing Trump’s wrath, and Jordan’s discipline.  Some will be tempted to give some support to Democratic bills which would alleviate the pain felt by so many people everywhere.  But they will take no unified stance on those bills because all politics is local.  Every Republican representative and each Republican senator up for reelection will have to consider both their political survival and the wishes of their diverse constituencies.  Which means that support or opposition will differ from Republican to Republican, bill to bill.  If Democrats are smart, they will launch campaigns in Republican districts to encourage Republican support for their bills.  They should also campaign to overcome presidential vetoes and to support House impeachments and Senate trials.

 

Such campaigns are necessary if Democrats not only wish to pass their bills, but also to maintain, better yet expand, their success achieved in the midterm election.  They should realize that much but not all of their success resulted from antipathy to Trump, corruption, the Iran War, and his agenda, not affection for Democratic candidates.  The large swing of certain demographic groups—young white men, Hispanics and Latinos, suburban women, etc.—to Democrats in one election can change to large swings to Republicans in another election.  So a continuing campaign is necessary to retain them in, and attract others to, the Democratic Party.  Democrats should work to make those who voted for them in this midterm glad that they did and likely to do so again, and everyone else at least willing to consider voting for them at the next opportunity.

 

Otherwise, the old adage will apply: nothing fails like success, and political success fails because of complacency.  To defeat complacency, Democrats ensure continued consultations with their people in their trips back home.  These constituent contact/campaign stop events should include surprise drop-ins at local diners, for example, and door-to-door visits as well as town hall meetings—anything to stay in touch with the people.  A continuing campaign should be an operational requirement of the Democratic Party’s effort to appeal to people.

 

Such Democratic campaigns should be continual because Republicans will continue their efforts to control government and undermine democracy.  The historical record for over the past century and a half makes clear their steadfast commitment to these ends, which will not change with fluctuations in election results.  They will remain true to the moral and political deficiencies which have characterized the Republican Party since the end of Reconstruction in the 1870s.  The party of Lincoln which ended slavery perversely became the party which saw and allowed the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and Jim Crow laws.  The Republican Party accepted these outrages under the rationale of states’ rights, the Confederacy’s justification to treat some people as property.  This justification relied on two assumptions.  One is the racist assumption that white people are inherently superior to black people and other people of color: red, brown, yellow.  The other is the economic assumption that the allocation of economic benefits should correspond to presumed gradations in superiority or inferiority.  That is, the rich are better than the poor and are thus entitled to a proportionately greater share of those benefits.  To the rich, taxation is a form of unjust expropriation of benefits for distribution among the less worthy or the unworthy.  The strength and endurance of these assumptions means that Republicans will persevere in their opposition to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the provisions of the Constitution.

 

Democrats should not be shy about explicitly linking these two assumptions to traditional Republican domestic policy positions favoring the production and accumulation of wealth in one way or another: small government, states rights, little regulation, free trade, and low taxes.  Small government and especially states’ rights give companies greater influence on public policy decisions than they would otherwise have in a robust federal system of government.  Little regulation enables companies to conduct business to maximize profitability, at the expense of occupational safety, health safety (food and drugs), and environmental effects.  Free trade enables unfettered company conduct in international trade which may be antithetical to national interests (e.g., Musk’s limits on Ukraine’s use of StarLink and StarShield).  Of course, low taxes reduce funding for government programs, especially those in the social safety net: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, etc.—the assumption being that defense-related programs are untouchable.  All of these Republican domestic policy positions empower businesses, favor their interests over peoples’ interests, and limit the ability of the people in a democracy to make decisions affecting their lives.  No matter how Republicans describe their proposed bills or their amendments to Democrats’ proposed bills, all of them would reflect their unamerican principles.

 

Finally, Democratic campaigns should not be silent about the character of Republican officials and the Republican Party.  The Trump administration is the culmination of Republican efforts to govern with few or no legal or Constitutional constraints.  Its record of ignoring the law or defying court orders is unique.  One example: this administration has refused to obey the law requiring complete disclosure of all Epstein records and has obstructed court orders to compel compliance.  Another: the excesses of its immigration policy are not exceptions to their rule, but exertions of their rule itself—abusive, indiscriminate in arrests (illegal and legal immigrants alike, permanent residents, citizens), and sometimes murderous; cruel in incarceration; callous in deportations to third countries; and inhumane in family separations of children from parents.  Objections from Congressional Republicans have been muted or missing for nearly two years, and complaints to or about the Trump administration have been non-existent.  They have tacitly approved or condoned unprecedented violence, veniality, and vulgarity by Trump and administration officials.  By their conduct in the White House and in Congress, Republicans have shown the content of their character, who they are and who they will be.  Democrats should understand their opponents and resist them at every turn.  To do otherwise out of complacency based on recent election success, a desire to avoid confrontation, a flawed sense of forgiveness, or a nonsensical belief that Congress cannot pursue both affordability and accountability simultaneously amounts to tacit acquiescence to a continuing Republican threat to decency and democracy.  That Democrats might do so is the greatest danger.

THE 2026 ELECTION: SURPRISES, MESSAGES, AND RESOLUTIONS

     All of the final results of the 2026 midterm elections are not in and will not be in for several days or even weeks.  But the undecided elections will not alter the fact that Democrats have achieved a remarkable victory by regaining control of both the House and the Senate.  (I do not consider in this blog the many governorships, legislatures, and other state offices which have gone Democratic.)  The enormous Democratic vote, with its wide winning margins in many races and narrow winning margins in races in which Republicans had long prevailed or Trump had won by large percentages, was only one of many surprises.

Three are notable, though niggling by comparison to that really big surprise.  One was the absence of claims of voter fraud or election rigging.  The number of elections were so many, and the size of the votes which saw Democrats prevail across the country, even in traditional red states, were so large, that they made it impossible for Trump to make his usual mendacious claims about stolen elections.  A second was the absence of any attempts to obstruct voting or intimidate voters.  Again, the size of the turnout everywhere and precautionary efforts by pro-democracy organizations deterred perverted federal law enforcement agencies from intervening.  The third was the ineffectuality of large sums of money deployed by trillionaire Elon Musk and assorted billionaires.  He, the most odious man in America, contributed nearly $500 million to Republican campaigns, including about $180 million, to support Ken Paxton, one of Trump’s chosen candidates;  Paxton lost by double digits and other Trump-selected candidates also lost.

 

One really big message is the repudiation of the Republican Party with its MAGA cult.  The Party will continue to survive because it has one trillionaire and many billionaires to prop it up.  Although the Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech, it has not ruled that money is votes.  It appears that the more money which Republican moguls spent on campaigns, the less return on their investment they got.  They might invest more diversely by spending more on Democrats to redeem themselves or deflect their wrath, or spend less altogether as a poor investment.  Just as Democrats were pleased that Trump inserted himself into the campaign, they might be pleased if these titans of industry continue to spend lavishly on Republican candidates because much of the electorate hates them for trying to buy elections.  It is even possible that these 21^st-century robber barons have changed the polarity of elections, from Republican versus Democrat to the rich versus the rest of us.  Or, as Texas Senator-elect James Talarico puts it, “The real fight in this country is not left versus right.  It is top versus bottom.”

 

Another really big message of the vote is the repudiation of Trump himself.  His big mistake, one which he cannot admit to himself, was to invite voters to think of him as being on the ballot.  He cannot imagine that most of the country loathes him as a malignant—autocratic, avaricious, bigoted, cruel, erratic, incurious, indecent, ignorant, impetuous, vulgar—narcissist.  People will support the undoing of Trump’s vanity projects.  They will approve the return to pre-Trump terminology—no Gulf of America, no Lake America—and the restoration of the architectural status quo—reconstruction of the East Wing, renovation of the Kennedy Center, revitalization of the East Potomac Golf Links on Haines Point, and repair of the Reflecting Pool.  I believe that the courts will prevent construction of the Triumphal Arch.  However, the complete repudiation of Trump will take years, perhaps decades, in America’s recovery from the moral and political damage which Trump has done to America, its people, and its reputation.

 

And to Congress, the Constitution’s Article I branch of government.  Democratic control of the House and the Senate presents Democrats with a unique opportunity to restore the authority of Congress by redressing the electorate’s grievances and reforming the defects in government, many of which have been identified by Trump’s, and, more generally, Republicans’, abuses of government purposes, policies, programs, and power.  This control must be focused and guided by leaders with the grit to get the job done without fear or favor, and without the fact or the appearance of ties to the establishment.  Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer are not those leaders.  They lack the temperament to marshal the Democrats’ energy to advance legislation to address these objectives.  The new leaders elected by their peers should be clear about how to proceed to revitalize Congress with proposed legislation to serve the peoples’ and the country’s needs.

 

First, Congressional Democrats should regard both Trump and Congressional Republicans as resolute foes.  Republicans have worked to control government by gerrymandering and imposing election restrictions mainly affecting Democratic-leaning demographics, especially minorities and students.  They have demonized and smeared the Left—liberals, Democrats, Progressives—as extremists, socialists, communists, terrorists, and the like (or worse).  They will have no more a change of heart after this election defeat than white Southerners had after their defeat in the Civil War.  They might disguise their hostility and purport to work on a bipartisan basis, but they should not be trusted.  Their record of silence throughout Trump’s second reign is evidence more of consent and complicity than cowardice.

 

Second, Democrats should act uncompromisingly to legislate what they believe is right.  They should eschew bipartisanship except in the direst circumstances because Republicans will use the leverage which bipartisanship provides to dilute the impact of Democratic bills.  They should eliminate the undemocratic filibuster in the Senate; the majority should be able to pass its legislation and take the consequences for doing so in elections, not allow the minority to reject it with impunity.  Otherwise, they should let Trump and Republicans decide whether to support legislation which serves peoples’ needs or, if they reject it, take the political consequences, which Democrats should stress at the time and repeat in continuing political advertising.

 

Third, Congressional Democrats should realize that they can do two things at once: propose legislation to redress the electorate’s grievances and pursue accountability of officials who have broken their oaths of office, broken laws, or abused power in their performance of their duties.  In the political context defined by the 2028 presidential election, they should show that Congress is responsive and responsible.

 

·      Democrats should immediately revoke tariffs and pass legislation to restore federal funding to assistance programs for food, healthcare, health insurance, and education, among other social or economic welfare programs.

 

·      They should act to end the war in Iran and use the House’s power of the purse to defund it.  They should increase military assistance to Ukraine and re-impose sanctions on Russia.  They should limit military assistance to Israel to defensive weaponry only.

 

·      They should pass legislation for a sensible immigration policy and a pathway to citizenship for immigrants, legal and long-resident illegal; they should curtail abusive efforts to control immigration, apprehend illegal immigrants, and imprison detainees.

 

·      Democrats should act to bring the Department of Justice, the jugular vein of American democracy, into compliance with the law, long-established standards of enforcement, and norms of justice.

 

·      They should establish a uniform system of requirements for conducting and voting in federal elections and pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

 

·      They should investigate Trump, members of his family, their friends, and administration officials for corruption and abuse of power.  Democrats should investigate not only well-known figures like Jared Kushner, Elon Musk, Todd Blanche, Pete Hegseth, Robert Kennedy, Kristi Noem, and Kash Patel, but also lesser-known administration officials like OMB Director Russell Vought, primary author of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, and Brendon Carr, Chair of the Federal Communications Commission.

 

In all of their efforts to deal with the administration, Democrats should make use of the House of Representatives’ power of the purse by targeting specific budget items for defunding for non-compliance with Congressional directives and subpoenas during the budget year.

 

Finally, given the diversity of newly elected Democrats to state and federal government offices—not to mention the diversity of the population—, Democrats should make the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusiveness the policy of the federal government.  As El-Sayed said, “They [Republicans] want an America that is too small for some of us.  We know that America is big enough for all of us.”  It is and should be recognized as such.

DISRESPECTING REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS AND DEPLORING THEIR POLICIES

I did not acquire my disrespect for Republican politicians and policies from my parents.  (My mother was a liberal Democrat; my father, a moderate Republican.). I did not acquire it eight years later, when I first became interested in politics during the 1948 Truman-Dewey presidential campaign.  Before my parents left for an election night party at the country club, they instructed me to keep track of the results posted on the radio.  Every so often, they called me for the latest news, and, just as often, I reported that Truman was leading.  We were puzzled because Thomas Dewey, the New York governor, was widely predicted to win.  Indeed, before all the votes had been counted, in anticipation of his victory, The Chicago Daily Tribune came out with the headline “Dewey Defeats Truman”—a famous gaffe.  I knew nothing then about Republican politicians and their policies; it took only a few years for me to acquire my disrespect for them.

 

It arose in the early 1950s in response to Senator Joseph McCarthy and his reckless claims of communists in government agencies, the military, universities, and Hollywood; and his smears of individuals in and out of government.  He was assisted by Roy Cohn, a lawyer who twenty years later became Donald Trump’s consigliere.  Some regard Cohn “as a principal ideological architect of modern right-wing populist politics, built on institutional distrust, public grievance, and media combativeness” (AI).  During four years of McCarthyism, almost a prologue to their similar conduct today, Republican senators, fearing attacks from McCarthy, did nothing to curtail him.  The Army’s chief lawyer challenged his tactics and deplored his lack of decency; his testimony stirred the public and prompted the Senate to finally censure him.  The Republican Party has changed for the worse in seventy years.  Today, even when prompted by Democratic colleagues, Congressional Republicans have lacked both the convictions and, of course, the courage to censure or repudiate Trump.

 

The core of my disrespect for Republican politicians was not their rabid anti-communism, but their innate racism.  Most Congressional Republicans never earned my respect.  Democratic race-baiting senators like South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond and North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms became Republicans in 1964 and 1970, respectively.  The instigator of the worst in Republican conduct since 1994 was House Majority Leader Republican Georgia Representative Newt Gingrich, who set the standard for abrasive and abusive politics.  Senate Majority Leader Republican Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell lowered the standard by vowing to resist from day one all legislation proposed by America’s first black president, by rigging the confirmation of Supreme Court nominees politically conservative and racist instead of judicially impartial in their orientation, and by ensuring the confirmation of cabinet secretaries qualified only by their loyalty to Trump, not competency.

 

The only Republican president in my lifetime whom I at all respected, racist though I suspect him to have been, was Dwight D. Eisenhower, especially for calling in the 101st Airborne Division (“Screaming Eagles”) to support integration in Little Rock in 1957.  I respected no subsequent Republican presidents or presidential candidates.  In accepting the GOP nomination in 1964, Senator Barry Goldwater appealed to the Republican Party’s racism when he denounced the passage of the Civil Rights Act.  (In the years thereafter, the Party eliminated from its ranks those northern and western liberal and moderate Republicans who had supported that law.)  In 1968, former Vice President Richard Nixon used a “Southern [read: racist] strategy” to win the White House, which strategy changed racist Democrats to racist Republicans in Dixie.  In 1980, California Governor Ronald Reagan launched his presidential campaign near Philadelphia, Mississippi, site of the murder of three civil rights workers, and allowed racism and resentment to fester in the Republican Party thereafter.  Presidents George Bush, father and son, did nothing to quell these corrosive, un-American tendencies.  President Donald Trump—well, much of what he does, like attacks on voting rights, immigrants, and Latinos or Muslims and their countries, has a racist motive, and much of what he says uses racist language and tropes.

 

The modern Republican Party’s racism directly opposes the foundational principle of American democracy that “all men are created equal” and is embedded in its economic and political policies.  Since Republicans believe that all men are unequal, they believe that that inequality justifies the unequal distribution and accumulation of economic goods and services.  Thus, they emphasize property over people—an emphasis at odds with America’s foundational documents.  An important editorial change to the drafts of the Declaration of Independence signifies radically different party priorities: from “life, liberty, and property” (Republican) to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (Democratic).  Moreover, the Preamble of the Constitution prioritizes “We the People” and the “general welfare”; neither it nor the body of the Constitution mentions businesses, companies, or corporations.  It mentions commerce only twice, in regulating it with foreign nations or between states.  So the Republican claim, famously stated by President Calvin Coolidge, that “the business of government is business” is a lie.

 

Traditional Republican policies—small government, minimal regulation, low taxes, states’ rights—are compatible with or promote the interests of property, not people.  The goal of small government and minimal regulation is to diminish the power of democratic government to promote the general welfare, that is, the people’s interests compared to business interests.  The goal of low taxes is to shrink government, minimize funding of a social safety net, and enable the accumulation of wealth by the already wealthy.  Thus, Republicans favor regressive flat taxes and oppose progressive tax rates.  Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill gives large tax cuts to the rich and smaller tax cuts to the rest.  The goal of states’ rights, a rationale of the Confederate rebellion, is to give relatively more power to businesses vis-a-vis state and federal governments.

 

Republican officials supporting erratic or self-serving policies and practices further erode my respect for them.  With respect to small government, the Trump administration is doing two things at once: reducing its administrative size but increasing its powers under the theory of the unitary executive branch.  This theory is a rationale for expanded and aggressive presidential power at the expense of the legislative and judicial branches of the federal government and of state governments, the Constitution, the rule of law, civil rights, and democracy itself.  They invoke the theory for the Trump administration but will revoke or oppose it for a succeeding Democratic one, just as Republican administrations expand the federal deficit to pass their budgets, then react to the enlarged national debt as a national crisis requiring a reduction of budgets under Democratic administrations.  They support deregulation because it directly increases corporate profits by reducing business costs at the expense of adverse health, societal, and environmental effects.  The Trump administration supports states’ rights only so far as they do not thwart its interests.  Thus, it impedes local and state police investigations of murders in Minnesota by ICE officers and tries to intervene in state elections to help Republican candidates.  The Trump administration has shown that traditional Republican policies are contingent commitments, not constitutive convictions, even if indefensible from a democratic perspective.

 

I confess that my attitude toward Republican politicians and their policies influences my attitude toward those who vote for Republicans.  In addition to supporting unsatisfactory policies, Republican politicians tout good character, lofty moral standards, and family values—what are they, really?—but do so hypocritically.  For instance, Republican politicians more often than Democratic politicians commit adultery or are complicit in sex trafficking and sexual abuse (Epstein).  Their misogynistic view of women sees them as objects, property, to be used, not as people to be respected.  Trump is notorious for pathological lying, foul and insulting language, sexual misconduct, cruel and malicious policies, revengeful legal actions, and corrupt financial dealings which exploit presidential power for personal gain.  He manifests no decorum, decency, or dedication to public service, only the rapacious egocentricity of the malignant narcissist.  Republican politicians are not outraged by such gross misconduct and do nothing about it.  Republicans tolerate this misconduct as necessary to keep this deplorable president and their party in power.

 

Even if they are dissatisfied with Trump’s economic (tariffs) and military (Iran war) actions, and disturbed by his blatant bigotry, gross vulgarity, and overt sadism, tens of millions of Americans ignore his lack of character and tolerate his corruption and incompetence.  They are again casting votes for this president who, by any reasonable, civilized standards, is a degenerate, despicable, even evil, human being, one who seeks to supplant democracy with his dictatorship without, of course, “the consent of the governed.”  What are they for?  And why? What are they against?  And why?  To adopt a phrase, they vote for him, they own him.  If they resent people who look down on them for supporting a despotic cult leader, they should know that they have earned their contempt.

RESTORING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AFTER THE ROUT OF REPUBLICANS

      My title reflects the happy, pre-election talk by all sorts of Democrats, Progressive, liberals—in a word, the Left—and sympathetic media.  Two weeks before the midterm elections, they imagine a blue wave which will sweep large numbers of Leftist representatives into the House and a smaller number of Leftist senators into the Senate—enough in both chambers to effect significant changes in the government.  Talking heads and think-tank savants have detailed lists of steps to be taken to recover from the damage which Trump and his administration have done to the country and the federal government.  The sum of all such lists is exhaustive in its scope: pre-Trump personnel, departments and agencies, relationships with the states and their governments, and relationships with foreign governments.  Their aim is nothing less than to restore the federal government to the effective functioning of its public services and to the delivery of the necessary benefits to its constituencies.

One of these steps, perhaps the first one, is accountability.  The number of administration personnel, from the heads of agencies and departments down to the many staff who have violated federal laws and court orders is enormous.  Trump is likely to pardon many but not all of them.  But pardons in large numbers are likely to be challenged, and it is possible that the Supreme Court might rule that presidential pardons extend to individuals but not groups.  We shall see.  Whatever, many who have violated federal law but been pardoned might have violated state laws and might be liable to states’ legal and judicial processes.

 

Leftist commentators elaborate their suggestions for accountability with varying degrees of ingenuity and intensity but with little awareness of the difficulties and problems involved.  Presidential pardons aside, some suggestions are tinged with vindictiveness, understandable but unsuitable to the restoration which is desired.  For instance, Glenn Kirschner routinely speaks passionately about accountability.  But, as befits a former government prosecutor, he stresses restraint in legal and judicial procedures to achieve accountability.  I agree, but it will be difficult to persuade MAGA Republicans and friendly media that accountability pursued by a reformed, revitalized Department of Justice is not just reverse weaponization.

 

Moreover, the greater problem is likely to be the reluctance of the public to tolerate, much less support, the necessary steps of accountability to restore government.  First, the public will want Congress to address the issues which figured largely in the midterms: inflation and affordability generally; gas and diesel prices, food prices, health care and health care insurance costs, and housing costs and availability, with a nod to data centers and immigration reform, namely, the curtailment of the Department of Homeland Security and its subordinate and out-of-control agencies, ICE and CBP.  The Left will be under great pressure to produce results, but whether Congress can develop effective legislation and override likely vetoes is unknowable because Trump is erratic and irascible.

 

Second, the public is likely to be divided into two camps about any widespread, in-depth, or long-lasting efforts of Congressional accountability.  After the stress and tension of the past two years, one camp of many people is likely to want to put the unpleasantness of it all behind them and to move on.  They will invoke the example of Ford’s pardon of Nixon—which example some maintain taught would-be dictators that there was no punishment for attempting autocracy.  The other camp of many people will want to address one problem important in the midterms which I did not mention above: corruption.  They will want to see the corrupt punished and as much ill-gotten money as possible clawed back and properly distributed.  It is a close call which side prevails; it might be that the public quarrels about which approach serves the country better.

 

Still, it does seem hard to imagine that the public and politicians on the Left will not want to punish those who have done so much damage to the country: the people, public institutions, the economy, the rule of law, the Constitution.  I cannot imagine that there are many who believe that Pete Hegseth, Pamela Bondi, Todd Blanche, Robert Kennedy, Kristi Noem, Markwayne Mullin, Howard Lutnick, Russell Vought, and Kash Patel should be able to leave the government without punishment for their misconduct in office.  (Let us not forget satellite figures Donald Trump, Jr., Eric Trump, and Jared Kushner.  I wonder about Melania Trump’s immigration paperwork.)  Likewise, government lawyers who served in violation of legal ethics; state disbarment is the proper penalty.  And many others at lower levels.  Indeed, it might be necessary as well as desirable to discharge with prejudice any federal employee hired during the Trump administration, especially employees of DHS, ICE, and CPB.  Such personnel should receive public notice in the media near their residences and be barred from federal employment and federal contracts.

 

So far as I know, neither Leftist politicians nor any commentators have talked about holding Republicans in Congress accountable for enabling Trump.  But they should, and they should do something about those who supported Trump whether out of conviction or cowardice.  Their motives do not matter; their betrayal of the country does.  One possibility: the Left might refuse to seat the worst of them—i.e., the members of the Freedom Caucus—on committees.

 

There is a further concern; the persistent resentment of the losers.  The defeat of Dixie in 1865 was almost immediately followed by the birth of the Ku Klux Klan, the reign of Jim Crow laws, and the transformation of the Republican Party from an anti-slavery into a racist political party.  It has bided its time and carefully prepared to seize power ever since the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the Goldwater and Nixon candidacies, and the Gingrich-inspired revolution.  The MAGA crowd now imbibes the heady spirits of white Christian nationalism; it will not sober up from the hallucination of another election “stolen” by hordes of illegal immigrants.  With millions provided by wealthy oligarchs, it will continue its efforts to neutralize its political enemies and undermine democracy.  All the while, the winners will become increasingly smug about their midterm victory.  They may remain potent through the 2028 election, for Trump will still be in office (unless succeeded beforehand by his political soulmate J.D. Vance) and energize opposition to him.  But thereafter comes the great snooze and a startling awakening to a renewed thrust from fascists to overturn democracy.

 

After the midterms, many will sing happy days are here again—but for how long?

THE SORRY STATE OF A SORRY STATE

     While writing this blog, I recalled James Wright’s famous and much-anthologized poem, “Lying in a Hammock at William Duffy’s Farm in Pine Island, Minnesota.”

Over my head, I see the bronze butterfly,

Asleep on the black trunk,

Blowing like a leaf in green shadow.

Down the ravine behind the empty house,

The cowbells follow one another

Into the distances of the afternoon.

To my right,

In a field of sunlight between two pines,

The droppings of last year’s horses

Blaze up into golden stones.

I lean back, as the evening darkens and comes on.

A chicken hawk floats over, looking for home.

I have wasted my life.

 

The last line is arresting.  How does one get to it from the preceding twelve lines?  I invite my readers to offer their explanations (maximum word count: 250 words); no prize, only praise, for the most interesting but sensible ones.  Have at it.  (AI interpretations do not qualify.)

 

•      •      •      •      •

 

Much of what is now New Mexico had been, until about 600 years ago, an area populated by separate pueblos and isolated villages eking out a generally subsistence existence.  Their poverty protected them from surrounding tribes.  It was readily conquered and harshly ruled by Spaniards until 1680.  In that year, the pueblos united in the Pueblo Revolt to expel them.  But pueblo unity failed within a dozen years; in 1692 the Spanish returned and in 1693 reconquered the area.  The general population has never since united to alleviate its conditions of economic depression and political oppression.  New Mexico maintains this historical legacy of poverty and its culture of submission.  So here we are, and here, it seems to me, we shall remain.

 

I have lived in Las Cruces for nearly two decades and, for most of that time, have written fortnightly columns for the Sun-News or blogs emailed to my distribution list or posted on my website.  I have covered topics on education, politics, religion, and foreign policy, among others.  I have given much attention to public education and public safety as well as democracy, abortion, race, and sex/gender.  I have never expected my views to become a blueprint for action; instead, I hoped that they might prompt discussion and proposals for improving conditions in Las Cruces and New Mexico.  But I have learned slowly and reluctantly that New Mexicans do not want improved conditions; they want to endure what is endurable in order to avoid the discomfort of efforts to reform adverse conditions.  Their elected officials know how to avoid reforms, allow adverse but endurable conditions to persist, yet preserve their positions of power and prestige.

 

New Mexico, if it were a foreign country, would be one of Trump’s “shithole countries.”  Its third-world-type economy rests almost entirely on extractive industries: gas and oil, and pecans and pistachios.  Its two national laboratories, Los Alamos and Sandia, have not attracted high-tech start-ups; its three national universities—University of New Mexico, New Mexico State University, and New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology—, have also failed to attract them.  The only high-tech firm in New Mexico of any size is Intel.  The largest employers in the state are federal and state government agencies and installations, healthcare organizations, and public schools.  The purpose of the latter is employment more than education—which explains why New Mexico has more institutions of higher education per capita than Massachusetts—yet, by employing many mediocrities, has ranked last or near last in national rankings for decades.  Its schools graduate large numbers of poorly educated students who constitute a workforce unattractive to mid- to high-tech firms.  The state imagines that its economy can thrive by relying on tourism—selling scenery or artifacts of indigenous people—or by being an outdoor studio for the film industry.  A culture of poverty permeates the state: no- or low-skill jobs with low wages, relatively high unemployment, inadequate nutrition, poor healthcare, insufficient housing, and poor schooling, along with widespread crime and widespread violence, domestic and otherwise.

 

Meanwhile, elected officials at the local, county, and state level address these deficiencies with expensive or piecemeal remedies, or reckless gambles in their political show of concern.  For instance, state legislators approved across-the-board teacher salary increases which have done nothing to improve teacher quality or student academic performance.  For another, Dona Ana county commissioners approved a data center as a “silver bullet” to boost employment, with little public input and less due diligence; they knew little about the firms to build and operate the facility, and less about its various economic, environmental, and societal effects.  Any number of local governments operate in disregard of the Open Meetings Act.  Given a politically inert, if not submissive, electorate, their officials know that they can make decisions affecting the public in secret, without, to them, the inconvenience of democratic processes.

 

The Democratic Party, which exploits this electorate and prevails in the state, is successful only in winning elections.  Otherwise, it accomplishes virtually nothing of effective and enduring results to ameliorate adverse conditions throughout the state.  I suspect that the Progressive Voters Alliance in Las Cruces is typical of other Progressive, Democratic, or liberal groups in the state in its dedication mostly to congeniality, mutual congratulation, and two-minute soundbites.  It has never enlisted its members to engage in a concerted effort to address any issue of concern.  The closest it came was approval of a Common Cause plan to rig elections for Democrats by using taxpayer dollars to fund the campaigns of candidates—everyone knew that they would be Democrats—who would commit to refusing outside funding.  Despite advocates’ vigorous and dissembling efforts, the plan was so defective that it failed to persuade a Democrat-dominated City Council to adopt it.  One opponent was targeted for slurs and shunning.  This aborted PVA effort shows that local leftists are not more tolerant of debate and dissent than other political partisans.  It also shows that Republican politicians are not the only ones who try to use public money for partisan purposes and to subvert democratic processes to win elections.

 

I end almost as I began.  I have addressed many important issues, especially those of public education and public safety, by talking with or writing to many officials, elected and appointed.  My efforts have achieved less than nothing.  The perversity of a City Council nominating a crooked City Clerk who cost Las Cruces about $150,000 for a statewide honor says it all: officials relish their corruption, and—because?—the media and public do not care.  But I care, though I know that I should not; I believe that I should not care more about the city, county, and state than my fellow citizens do.  Notwithstanding, I shall continue to address at least some of the issues which deserve attention for one reason: I was raised to serve others and the public good and to use my abilities to that end.  Would that those with whom I have communicated had been raised similarly.

HIGH ABOVE CORNELL, THERE’S AN AWFUL SMELL

    I derive my title from the local ditty “High above Cayuga’s waters, there’s an awful smell.  Some say it’s Cayuga’s waters; others say Cornell.”

I am a third-generation Cornellian; my daughter is a fourth.  I attended Cornell from 1958 through 1964 and received bachelor’s and master’s degrees.  I was a member of Zeta Beta Tau fraternity.  I am ashamed of both the university and the fraternity.  I am outraged and pained that Jane Doe has been so grievously abused in so many ways.  I hope that judicial proceedings will bring some relief to her pain.  And I hope that the full disclosure of this horrific episode will prompt an examination of the conditions which made it possible; I hope that it will prompt all of us to determine what we—each of us in our private lives—can do to prevent other such episodes.  At the very least, we must teach boys to grow up to be men, not misfits or misogynists.

 

For various reasons, I severed my connection with the university many years ago.  For good reason, I severed my connection with the fraternity in 2018.  The reason: a gross incident, as described in an AI overview: “Cornell University placed its Zeta Beta Tau (ZBT) fraternity chapter on a two-year probation in February 2018 following an investigation into a secret 2017 sex competition dubbed a ‘pig roast.’ … The Competition: New members (pledges) of the Zeta Beta Tau chapter at Cornell allegedly earned points by having sexual intercourse with women without their knowledge or consent regarding the game.  The Rules: Additional bonus points or tiebreakers were awarded to the member who had sex with the woman who weighed the most.”  When I resigned, I wrote that I no longer wanted to be associated in any way with a fraternity which had members capable of such disgusting conduct.

 

A contemporary of mine wrote to a friend that Cornell had a curfew for women in our day.  His implication was that the curfew prevented “date rape,” a phrase then unknown.  I doubt it.  Although I heard nothing about sexual misconduct, I have no reason to doubt that it occurred.  Silence or, at most, whispers prevailed in those years.  Even then and certainly now, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

Which brings me to the present moment, as another obscene episode is receiving national attention.  Because the facts reported have changed by the day or even by the hour, just now no one can know the whole truth about the episode.  However, the trends bend toward clearing the victim of voluntary participation, darkening the “Cornell Seven” perpetrators, and discrediting the campus, the campus and city police, and the district attorney.  The decision of New York Governor Kathy Hochul to appoint New York Attorney General Latitia James as a special prosecutor with unfettered authority to investigate this episode is a wise one.

 

Appalled as I am by what has occurred not for the first time at my alma mater, I am even more appalled by what it implies about the men involved and their upbringing by their parents.  I can readily imagine that, in many families, the response to youthful male misbehavior is that old maxim “boys will be boys.”  The truth of that maxim is precisely that outcome, no matter what age such misbehaving males attain.  Fade to the still-protected perpetrators in the Epstein case.

 

I think that there are more boys today.  Societies change (I do not say evolve).  Perhaps with the exception of the Roaring Twenties, society had both explicit and implicit rules of social and sexual conduct, and personal respectability meant more, in the first half of the twentieth century.  Occupational and residential mobility—no roots, no connections—eroded those rules after 1945.  The Greatest Generation, which withstood the Great Depression and won the Second World War, were very imperfect parents.  They spoiled the generation of Boomers by giving their children what they had not received, and the Boomers gave their children what they had received.  This parental indulgence created their children’s sense of entitlement, including the right to do as they please.  The relaxation of social rules meant the relaxation of restraints in sexual relations.  I think it quaint that, in my day, talk about virginity was commonplace; the burning question was whether a man should marry, or a woman should be, a virgin on the occasion.  By then, many had answered it: who cares?

 

More generally, changes in social and sexual mores resulted from the post-WWII flourishing of tolerance, a good thing, and moral relativism encouraging non-judgmentalism, a bad thing.  Indeed, it is common today for one person to reproach another for being judgmental, as if being judgmental is a bad thing (of course, the reproach expresses a judgment).  The result has been an erosion of a concern for moral character and moral guidance.  Changes have also reflected changes in technology.  The pill greatly reduced fears of undesired consequences of intercourse between unmarried “copulators.”  The relaxation of the Hays (no relation) code, a set of guidelines about suitable language and conduct in Hollywood films from the early 1930s through the late 1960s, allowed and thus modeled in theaters and on television behavior previously frowned upon.  Computers and iPhones expanded access to the raunchy through pornography, which dehumanizes and objectifies both men and women.  “Research consistently shows a positive association between pornography consumption—particularly violent or degrading content—and attitudes supporting sexual aggression, as well as the actual perpetration of sexual abuse and harassment against women.” (AI). In this period of liberation—“rules are meant to be broken,” so some say—, parental authority has been undermined, and many parents are confused or uncertain about what moral standards remain valid or how to instill and enforce them.  The conditions for episodes like the current one at Cornell exist throughout much of America.

 

Nevertheless, a consensus maintains that the control of these conditions is the responsibility of both institutions and individuals.  Many campuses have codes of conduct and rules of procedure for dealing with sex-based offenses.  The challenge is to enforce them.  In the present episode, Cornell officers and its campus police failed to handle Jane Doe’s complaints in an appropriate, effective manner.  Depending on what the AG James’s investigation learns, what actions it takes, and what recommendations it makes, Cornell will have another opportunity to create a safe environment for women on campus.  It must do better.  And other campuses might well incorporate lessons learned from this episode.

 

Individuals—parents, other family members, and friends—can and must help as well.  The right way, however difficult it might be, is to counsel children from their earliest days to respect others, and to correct them when they fail.  I can speak only from my experience in raising my daughter and my son, with advice given to both throughout their minority, to respect all others.  As a rising high-school senior, my daughter caught the eye of a rising Naval Academy senior.  Before a first date—a movie, a snack, and goodnight—, my wife and I insisted on meeting him, setting a curfew, and implying our expectations.  In advance of a second date, I cautioned my sensible, strong, but relatively inexperienced daughter that the cadet was far more experienced than she was.  Trusting her, I gave her clear guidance: first line of resistance, the neck; last line, the waist.  She expressed her embarrassment; I replied, better embarrassed than pregnant.  She returned early from the date, strode to her room, and slammed the door.  She never said a word about the date, but I knew that her response to his advances was “no,” that her dad would kill her.  My talk with my son is what the cadet’s father should have been with his son.  By the time he reached puberty, he knew the facts of life without a talk about the birds and the bees.  We had a different talk; well, “we” is too generous; I did the talking.  The gist of it was that he must never take advantage of any woman and must accept that “no” means “no,” whether he thinks that she means it or not.  (The old joke—if a lady says “no,” she means “maybe”; if she says “maybe,” she means “yes”; if she says “yes,” she is no lady—is not an OK guide to boy/girl conduct.)

 

Many parents—I think mainly of fathers—do not teach such lessons to their sons, perhaps because doing as they say does not fit comfortably with doing as they had done or were still doing.  Clearly, what the Cornell Seven did in Ithaca they did not learn at home not to do anywhere.  Though they are not entirely responsible for what their older teenage or young adult children do—peer pressure and others become increasingly influential in their lives—parents must do what they can from the start or they might not like the finish.  Despite light being shined on Cornell and Chi Phi as well as other colleges and universities, and their fraternities, much more light needs to be shined on the moral guidance and example provided or not by parents.  A concern for moral character must be resurrected even in these problematic times when current politics is demonstrating how its absence can be so destructive of decency and democracy.