Friday, April 17, 2026

ACCOUNTABILITY FOR TRUMP STILL LEAVES AN ABIDING THREAT FROM HIS FOLLOWERS

       The conventional wisdom is that the conduct of Trump and administration officials can be, and some day will be, dealt with by holding them accountable.  Which means investigations, prosecutions, convictions, and incarceration or other penalties.  The intended effect is a purge of the body politic by ending fascist authoritarianism and restoring democracy and justice under the Constitution and the rule of law.  Regrettably, although accountability is both necessary and desirable, the dream of such a purgation is naïve because it is anti-historical.

Since its founding, the American populace has been politically divided into three factions, their size and intensity varying over time: one approving, one disapproving, one variable in its allegiance to the basic principles of the Declaration of Independence: legal and political equality of all people, freedom of choice in living and equity in opportunity in that choice, and government by the consent of the governed.  The first faction fought the American Revolution, with some incidental assistance from the third faction; the second faction was the Tories.

 

Four score and seven years later, that second faction consisted largely, though not entirely, of the people of or sympathetic to the Confederacy.  The persistence of that faction is notable because of the success of American democracy and the corresponding vitality of the American economy and society.  The second faction never gives up.

 

On 9 April 1865, General Ulysses S. Grant generously allowed the surrendering soldiers of Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia to retain their firearms and their horses.  When they and other defeated rebels returned home, they repaid Union generosity by restricting the freedom of former slaves.  In December, they formed the Ku Klux Klan, whose lynchings, killings, and firebombings targeted blacks, Catholics, and Jews.  When Reconstruction ended 22 years later, the former states of the Confederacy enacted Jim Crow laws of segregation and deprivation of social benefits and political rights.  Whites spread their bigotry when they left Dixie after the Civil War by the Oregon Trail for the Pacific Northwest and migrated during the Depression to industrial cities in the Upper Midwest and western Pennsylvania.

 

Another result of Dixie’s sustained racism was shifts in southern political allegiances.  After the Civil War, blacks aligned with the anti-slavery Republican Party; whites, with the anti-Reconstructionist Democratic Party.  But, a century later, when the Democratic Party, with support from some northern Republicans, passed the various civil rights laws in the mid-1960s, these political allegiances reversed.  Blacks transferred to the Democratic Party, and white racists switched to and were welcomed by the Republican Party.  In his 1968 and 1972 campaigns for the presidency, Richard Nixon adopted a “southern strategy” to win their votes.

 

Today, the Republican Party is indelibly biased against people not white and Christian.  Trump has encouraged and enlarged this bigotry to include not only blacks, but also other people of color, non-Christians (mainly Muslims; Jews get a pass for the time being), women, and those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, queer, questioning, and asexual.  During his two administrations, Congressional Republicans have endorsed Trump and his administration’s assault on democratic norms and principles, the Constitution, and the rule of law.  Most of them are not the cowards whom Democrats take them for; they are careerists protecting their professional livelihood.  Although many have found Trump, Stephen Miller, Kristi Noem, Pete Hegseth, Pam Bondi, and others offensive, most do not find most of their policies, practices, and prejudices contrary to their political views and to their desire for political dominance.  The same might be said of Trump’s MAGA followers, though they are far more receptive to his vulgarity, vitriol, and violence.

 

When Trump dies in office or otherwise finally leaves it, this rump of unregenerate enemies of democracy will remain.  His millions of voters and millions of non-voting supporters constitute a considerable portion of  the electorate and the population.  Political troglodytes on social media and in the ranks of billionaires will continue to rouse these political regressives throughout the country.  So the question is: if the country is not to remain perpetually vulnerable to the threat of a newly emergent autocratic leader, fascist subversion, and domination, what to do?

 

One answer begins with distinguishing between two groups.  One is the group of Republican officials who have served Trump and his administration; the other is the group of MAGA or low-information, low-intelligence, or little-interested followers with various inane reasons or none at all for following Trump.  I am sure that, even in the event of a “blue wave” defeat, the members of both groups will remain aggrieved, sullen, hostile, or vengeful.  Such was the response of the Confederates, who idolized Robert L. Lee as the hero of the “Lost Cause”; such will be the response of those who idolize Donald J. Trump.

 

To counter this reaction, a restored Democratic government must pursue justice to recover from the effects of a dozen years of Republican misrule,  It must ensure total transparency about what happened, insist upon accountability, and take steps to prevent a recurrence.  These steps must lead to the political neutralization of those who served Trump and his administration, whether in or allied with it.  First, the government must investigate and prosecute all officials and their staffs who can be charged with federal crimes, violations of their oaths of office, and dereliction of official duties; it must not accept plea agreements which would eliminate incarceration after conviction.  (If little fish want to go to jail by not testifying against big fish who will scorn them as suckers, let them.)  The government must seek the disbarment of every lawyer who signed legal opinions or supported legal actions contrary to the Constitution, laws, or legal ethics.  Second, the government must discharge or bar from government employment DHS, ICE, CBP, DOJ, and FBI personnel who have acted in illegal arrests, detentions, and deportations of immigrants.  They must be banished from prime and sub contracts with government agencies.  Third, CEOs, managers, and staff of private companies involved in holding, transporting, or deporting federal detainees must be aggressively investigated, maximally charged, vigorously prosecuted, with plea deals or settlements ruled out, and banned from any government contracts.

 

Simultaneously, the government must address two interrelated facts.  The first is that Trump’s supporters tolerate, favor, or embrace both fascist beliefs and behavior, and, underlying both, bigotry about the superiority of some group of people over other groups: whites over people of color, Christians over Muslims and Jews, men over women, straights over LGBTQQA+, etc.  The government must also understand that their bigotry reflects, not a lack of information, but a personal need to believe themselves superior to others.  They may have any amount of information about others but believe others morally inferior.  The government might launch and maintain public programs which challenge bigotry of all kinds.  It must reform institutionalized misinformation and restore DEI policies and programs.

 

The second is that Trump and Republican allies have made political war on Democrats.  He has treated Democrats as “an enemy within.”  They infringed upon the Constitutional rights of Democrats, targeted prominent Democrats for vindictive prosecutions, withheld funds from Democratic states or cities, occupied Democratic cities with ICE, CBP, or military units, and hindered or disenfranchised groups which predominantly vote Democratic: minorities, seniors, students, handicapped, and women.  Because Republicans have supported him in his efforts, they have identified themselves as anti-democratic (lower-case d) types who believe that government rests on the consent of and serves only some, not all, of the governed.  They act on the assumption that Democrats are not created politically equal to Republicans.

 

One way to answer Republican efforts to diminish the rights of Democrats and to undermine democracy is to adapt the example of post-war Germany.  Since the end of World War II, its government has outlawed the Nazi, communist, and similar parties.  Yet Germany is regarded as a democracy.  Perhaps, one step for the continued success of democracy in America might be a ban on the Republican Party and associated parties and organizations.  In fact, by an extant law enacted in 1954, the United States outlawed the Communist Party as a conspiracy to overthrow the government.  Though untested in court and liable to rejection on free speech grounds, such a law based on conduct might more likely pass muster.  Legal cases brought on unsupported allegations of fraud might be evidence of conspiracy.  Actions impeding voting or shrinking the franchise in the name of fighting fraud might be regarded as acts to overthrow the government.  For now, citizens should vote against all Republicans at all levels of government.  Denying them political power is what they deserve for trying to deny political power to others.

 

Nevertheless, government cannot do everything; indeed, it cannot do much of what needs to be done.  Democratically inclined citizens must do their part in their everyday interactions with Trump or MAGA supporters.  Their interactions will require moral courage to overcome their reluctance to dispute their political opinions and disapprove of their prejudices.  This task is not an easy one, for, politics aside, many Trump supporters are nice people.  But such citizens must ask themselves just how nice they and Republican sympathizers with autocracy are.  They have tolerated, approved, or enabled efforts to curtail or eliminate Democrats’s—ultimately, everyone’s—constitutional rights; to tell everyone what to read or not read, what to think or not think, what to say or not say, what to do or not do; and to limit everyone’s freedoms to live, love, and labor—and vote—as they see fit.  Such citizens must fortify themselves with the fact that these nice people meant to undo our democracy, ruin this country, and harm the people in it, or did not care about this undoing, ruin, and harm.

 

If America is to remain—if it has been—“the land of the free and the home of the brave,” democratically inclined citizens must find the courage to put the right thing politically over the easy or comfortable thing personally or socially.  Otherwise, if we pretend that a “blue wave”—a Union victory over the Confederacy, so to speak—will teach racists or fascists a lesson, we shall be right back where we started, with them more determined and better prepared to seize power in the future.  Whatever we do, it must be effective and persistent.  We must not relent; they must relent and sincerely repent, or remain political pariahs.  Kumbaya will not stop them.

Friday, March 27, 2026

WHAT WAS MARTIN HEINRICH THINKING WHEN HE VOTED TO CONFIRM KRISTI NOEM’S SUCCESSOR?

The great contrast in administrations between Trump 1.0 and Trump 2.0 is the difference in the quality of cabinet officers.  (Many might wish to skip my list of names as unnecessary or unpleasant reminders; if so, they should skip to the next paragraph.)  Key cabinet officers in Trump 1.0 were a mixed bag; with few exceptions, most were marginally qualified, some less so: Rex Tillerson and later Mike Pompeo (State), Steven Mnuchin (Treasury), James Mattis and later Mark Esper (Defense), and Jeff Sessions and later William Barr (Attorney General), Ben Carson (HUD), Wilbur Ross (Commerce), Elaine Chao (Transportation), and Betsy DeVos (Education).  Key Cabinet officers in Trump 2.0 include crooked and incompetent loyalists of little or no merit: among others, Kristi Noem (Homeland Security), Pete Hegseth (Defense), Robert F. Kennedy (Health and Human Services), Pam Bondi (Justice), Scott Bessent (Treasury), and Linda McMahon (Education).  (Stephen Miller, a racist and xenophobe, is a senior adviser.)

 

The significant fact about such cabinet officers is that all were not only nominated by Trump, but also confirmed by the Senate.  In Trump 2.0, Trump nominated them because of their loyalty to himself, not any particular qualifications for the position.  Indeed, in some cases—Noem, Hegseth, and Kennedy—, he seems to have nominated them because they were not qualified.  Most Republican senators confirmed them because they feared Trump’s retribution; a few, like Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy, trusted the glib assurances of nominees like Robert F. Kennedy.

 

Fear of Trump does not explain the votes of two Democrats in the case of Markwayne Mullin, nominated by Trump and confirmed by the senate by a 54-45 vote: 52 Republicans and 2 Democrats for, 42 Democrats, 1 Republican, and 2 Independents against..  The two Democratic votes came from Senators John Fetterman and Martin Heinrich.  Neither vote was needed for confirmation; on a strictly party line vote, Mullins would have been confirmed 52-47.  Heinrich’s vote was an unforced error revealing a lapse in judgment.

 

Fetterman’s vote is easy to understand; he has become a renegade in his party.  In this context of senators’ fear or naivete, Heinrich’s is not.  Heinrich explained his vote in a written statement:

 

This is going to surprise some people, but I consider Markwayne Mullin a friend. We have a very honest and constructive working relationship. We have authored legislation together, such as the Tribal Buffalo Management Act, and we crafted the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill together this year. We often disagree and when we do, we work to find whatever common ground we share.

 

I have also seen first-hand that Markwayne is not someone who can simply be bullied into changing his views, and I look forward to having a Secretary who doesn’t take their orders from Stephen Miller.

 

For five years, under this and the previous Trump Administration, I have lacked any constructive relationship with the Secretary of Homeland Security. This is despite my state being home to hundreds of TSA, CBP and Border Patrol constituents and many miles of the U.S./Mexico border. I want someone who recognizes the necessity of judicial warrants, as he has. I would like a Secretary who I can call and have a constructive conversation with about my state and the unique terrain that exists in the southwest and the proper mix of structure, technology and personnel necessary to effectively secure our border.

 

Heinrich’s explanation is feeble and flawed.  That Heinrich regards Mullin as a friend because they have worked together in the Senate is not remarkable; many senators work with other senators on a friendly basis to advance legislation of mutual interest.  Such collaboration between equals is no assurance that it will persist when one becomes a department secretary or when the issues are different and not the kind on which they have agreed and worked collaboratively.  That one senator cannot bully another—or, at least, Heinrich cannot bully Mullin—is no assurance that Trump (or Miller acting for him) cannot bully Mullin, as Trump (or Miller) has bullied so many others, department secretaries included.  If Heinrich thinks that he can get something accomplished by pushing his friendship with Mullin, Mullin can reply that, if Heinrich were his friend, he would not be pushing him into a tough spot with Trump (or Miller). 


Heinrich’s explanation smacks of the usual personality-based, good-ol’-boy politicking which has done so little good in the confirmation of disastrous and dangerous department secretaries.  Heinrich’s standards of selection leading him to support Mullin’s confirmation disregard his record.  Mullin is a MAGA hardliner as befits his reputation for having “anger issues.”  He supports the ICE agent who killed Renee Good and Trump’s immigration policies.  Although he agreed to end administrative warrants used by ICE to enter peoples’ homes and make arrests, warrants recently declared unconstitutional, and other ICE abuses, he was evasive in his confirmation hearing about two critically important matters: whether he would stop pursuing the Administration’s quota of 3000 daily and indiscriminate arrests, and whether he would refuse to obey unlawful orders from Trump.  In short, Heinrich let his personal feelings about and senatorial relationship with Mullin outweigh his responsibility to judge Mullin’s qualifications and his positions on national issues from a perspective of his likely service to national as opposed to political, especially Trump’s, interests.

 

Like all those who have voted for Trump’s nominees for cabinet positions out of fear of Trump, the usual go-along-with the president-to get-along with him, or friendship with his nominees, Heinrich has put these irrelevant considerations above his duty to the welfare of the country in voting to confirm Mullin.  Heinrich is indifferent that Mullin’s positions as DHS Secretary will likely reflect his past positions on immigration, elections, and other MAGA issues.  Indeed, in response to Trump’s and his political proclivities, Mullin might accelerate the development of detention facilities (aka, concentration camps) and continue to disregard both civil rights and federal standards for such facilities.  He might provide ICE officers to patrol areas near voting polls, thereby deterring or intimidating voters, or to disperse voters in the name of controlling long lines, subduing disturbances, or curtailing demonstrations.  In their eventuality, Heinrich will no doubt, like Maine Senator Susan Collins, express his “concern”—a lame effort to excuse himself for his feckless vote of confirmation.  Although he does not run for reelection until 2030, his vote to confirm Mullin should be remembered and taken into account as a measure of his judgment and his fitness for office.

 

 

[Note: Both New Mexico senators rely on answering machines rather than aides to answer their phones.  They require that a caller leave a name, number, and message—a requirement which, I believe, discourages constituents from communicating with these elected officials.  In fairness, this requirement seems to be standard in the Senate.  Happily, NM District 2 Congressman Vasquez’s D.C. office still has human beings answering the phone.] 

Friday, March 20, 2026

THE SAVE AMERICA ACT SAVES NOTHING

      “A Note on Election Fraud,” which I appended to a recent blog, prompted a response from Representative Rebecca Dow (R, District 38).  My note addresses the issue of voter fraud and ends with a challenge to those who insist that millions of people have voted fraudulently in recent presidential elections.  Perceiving an attack on her position, Dow responded with the politician’s defensive non-sequitur: “So you oppose voter I’d [sic].”

I replied that “I am not opposed to it [voter ID]; I had to ID myself the first time I registered to vote, about 60 years ago, and have had to ID myself every time I have relocated.  But the demands were relatively simple; I do not recall having to show either a birth certificate or a passport.  In fact, I cannot remember what I had to do to ID myself.  But the world was not then run by paranoids or poseurs claiming most people or large numbers of minority groups were trying to pass themselves off as citizens entitled to vote.”

 

In the course of our exchange, Dow maintained a position consistent with either the SAVE Act or the SAVE America Act.

 

I believe in one vote per one legal citizen.

As I understand the proposed federal bill, the bill would require documenting proof Us citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. Unless it’s been amended. Include includes things like US passport, birth certificate, or other official citizenship documentation [sic, seriatim]

I have zero issues with that [sic]

 

Apparently, Dow thinks that I or others believe that non-citizens or some citizens should have one or more votes.  I do not, I know no one who does, but I urge her to contact VP Vance, who would give people with children more than one vote.  She knows the documentation required for registering but not the documentation required for voting.  She knows or cares nothing about the consequences of these requirements.  She ignored my claim that these requirements might disenfranchise millions of potential voters, including millions of women whose names on their birth certificates and their passports or drivers licenses do not match because they took their husband's name when they married.  And she did not answer my questions about whether she approved of the consequences.  So there the exchange ended.

 

•      •      •

 

Now that the Senate is debating the SAVE America Act, people should understand its provisions.  Central is the requirement of would-be voters to provide documents proving U.S. citizenship—e.g., passport, birth certificate, or government-issued photo identification—when registering to vote and a photo identification when voting.  (There are other requirements, some relevant to elections, some not, like those dealing with transgender issues.  What is with Republicans’ obsession with sex and gender?)

 

The SAVE America Act means to be a legislative solution to the alleged problem of large-scale voter fraud, that is, millions of non-citizens voting in recent presidential elections.  The allegation defies all evidence and losses of 61 of 62 cases challenging the votes in the 2020 presidential election.  If there were millions of fraudulent votes cast, there would be abundant evidence of them.  Yet incidents of election fraud as measured by convictions are few.

 

My source of information is The Heritage Foundation, the conservative organization which developed Project 2025.  Its Election Fraud Map identifies five kinds of cases, each kind reflecting the disposition cases brought to court; it also identifies eleven kinds of election fraud, including false registration or impersonation fraud at the polls, the kinds for which personal identification is relevant.  For a sense of proportion, I used Wikipedia figures for the turnout in the eleven presidential election years from 1984 through 2024.  I tabulated the cases of fraud convictions in federal election years from 1982 through 2024.

 

 

 

 

All Elections: 1982-2024

 

 

Convictions for Federal Election-Year Fraud

Presidential Election Turnout

All Fraud

False Regis

Voter Impers

Alien Voter

 

1982

67

67

0

0

1984

92,654,861

1984

no data

 

1986

41

0

0

0

1988

91,586,725

1988

1

0

0

0

 

1990

no data

1992

104,600,366

1992

1

0

0

0

 

1994

4

0

0

0

1996

96,389,818

1996

2

0

0

0

 

1998

10

0

0

0

2000

105,405,100

2000

18

3

0

0

 

2002

11

2

0

0

2004

122,349,480

2004

31

2

1

0

 

2006

42

12

0

0

2008

131,406,895

2008

43

21

0

0

 

2010

119

23

0

0

2012

129,139,997

2012

83

9

0

0

 

2014

72

17

0

0

2016

136,669,237

2016

71

10

3

no data

 

2018

87

17

0

0

2020

158,427,986

2020

31

7

2

no data

 

2022

94

9

9

no data

2024

155,240,955

2024

43

23

1

1

 

 

total

1,323,871,420

total

871

222

16

1

 

The number of all convictions for fraud in the nation are a miniscule fraction of the total number of votes cast.  There is no reason to think that millions of undetected incidents of false registration or voter impersonation at the polls have occurred in red and blue states.  Again, the cases brought to challenge 2020 election results produced no evidence of voter fraud.  From 1982 through 2024, New Mexico had a total of 8 cases of fraud, of which 3 were of false registration and 1 was of impersonation fraud at the polls.  Such is the magnitude of the problem.

 

Only in the minds of the intellectually diseased (ID) or ideologically driven (ID) would such numbers suggest a problem at all, much less a demented effort to eliminate it entirely by draconian methods.  No reasonable solution of a “problem” of only about 240 convictions out of about 2 billion votes cast in federal elections for false registration and voter impersonation would propose the possible disenfranchisement of many millions—the common estimate is 21 million—of potential voters.  Yet the proposed SAVE America Act is just that unreasonable.  For each conviction for fraud, thousands—87,500—would be hindered from voting.  In short, the solution is many times worse than the problem—a clear symptom of an ID malady.

 

In practical terms, the proposed legislation would accomplish this disenfranchisement by making registering and voting expensive or inconvenient or both.  The central requirement of prospective voters to provide proof of identification places unreasonable demands on millions of people who do not have a passport, a birth certificate, or a government-issued photo identification.  Many cannot afford passports ($165) or birth certificates (around $10) or cannot obtain them (birth certificates never issued, lost, destroyed, remote); many have documents which are inconsistent (a woman’s name on a birth certificate might not match her name on a passport or driver’s license because of a name change at marriage).  For all, these requirements can be burdensome; for the poor, these costs amount to a poll tax.

 

Given the basic inanity of the SAVE America Act, the question is why Republicans—locally, surely among others, Rebecca Dow—support such an absurd legislative proposal.  There is only one answer: the desire to disenfranchise the millions of poor, minority, handicapped, or women voters who they believe vote for Democrats.  Which is to say, as we know, that Republicans are anti-democratic (lower-case d) types who believe that government rests on the consent of some, not all, of the governed because they do not believe that all people are created politically equal.

 

Since the end of World War II, the German government has outlawed the Nazi, communist, and similar parties.  Yet Germany is still regarded as a democracy.  Perhaps the best hope for the continued success of democracy in America is a ban on the Republican and associated parties.  For now, the best that we can do is to vote Republicans or at least Republicans like Rebecca Dow out of office and not vote them into office in the first place.  Denying them political power is exactly what they deserve for trying to deny political power to others.