Category: Commentary

In part one we discussed why the argument in the Oval Office was less important than some made it out. In part two we covered the far more important change in international security that that argument unveiled. In part three, let’s finish off those “pretences” that Kissinger referenced.

“America is abandoning world leadership.” Even Trump would argue he is doing nothing of the sort. America no longer has world leadership. It is one thing to abandon something, another thing to recognize it’s gone. While America is certainly first among equals in power, influence, money, etc., it no longer has the sway it did at the end of WWII or the end of the Cold War. That’s a simple fact backed by massive data. Any American leader faces the same choice: try to pretend we lead the world, at an exorbitant cost, postponing an inevitable decline, or fix what ails America now.

I would note too that using Ukraine as the totem for America’s global influence is, at best, a partisan gambit. Where were these same people when the Biden administration withdrew from Afghanistan (especially the part where we didn’t coordinate with our European allies)? How about the Obama administration’s acquiescence to the “little green men” who occupied Crimea? One can go back through Cold War history and find example after example of America deciding to ignore allies, cut losses, or even abandon friends. It happens, even to the “leader of the free world.”

“Russia has broken every agreement.” Thanks to fervent reader Volodmyr Z. from Ukraine for this comment! He’s right. Putin said over a decade ago he wanted to regain all the lost territories, and he has consistently been on a path to do so ever since, including invading Ukraine thrice. Which is why the President of Ukraine cannot negotiate with Russia, because Russia doesn’t see him as an equal partner, nor as one who has anything other than surrender to offer Russia. Know with whom Russia does keep agreements? The United States. I worked Strategic Arms Control with the Soviets, and they were scrupulous about the agreements. Not because they were nice guys, or even decent human beings. “Trust but verify.” They knew we would catch them cheating, they feared we would cheat, and they thought the agreements were good for Russia. That’s how it works, and that’s why the US must be the principal negotiator for peace. Not because we’re the leader of the free world, but because Russia sees us as a power and wants something from us. The Republic of Vietnam may have signed the 1973 Paris Peace Accords, but nobody doubted who negotiated it, or whose signature was most important.

“How can we repudiate the shared values of our closest Western allies?” These shared values are an interesting case. What do they mean? If you mean a commitment to free trade, they’ve always been less shared than it seemed, as the US consented to all kinds of special protections. Try selling American milk tariff-free in Canada, American cars in Germany, or American beef in Japan. Maybe it was human rights? Don’t pray silently in public in the UK, don’t wear a burka in public in France, and don’t insult someone in public in Germany (not kidding; they’re all criminal violations). Most of Europe’s abortion laws were MORE restrictive than the US under Roe; now they’re somewhere in the middle of our Red and Blue state laws. Certainly it would include respect for non-intervention, unless of course you’re speaking of the French in Africa, or the British in the Suez. Anti-Racism! Yes, that’s it, we all share an antipathy to racism. I used to endure lectures on racism from a German friend. I don’t need to tell my educated friends today that it’s easy to not be racist when there is only one race around. Europe has embarked upon a program of migration that welcomed large-scale racial mixing, and if you follow the news there, it’s not going well. Guess I won’t be getting the lecture again soon.

None of which is to say the nations of “the West” don’t have many things in common; they do. But the greatest single shared value was this: The US didn’t want to run the world, and didn’t want anyone else to either. That was something with which all could agree. We’re making that agreement more explicit today, for our own purposes, and many don’t like it.

“The US is abandoning the globe at the moment of greatest peril.” You often see this contention with respect to further Russian aggression in Europe. Russia has learned it can’t even “take” Ukraine. I admit, Russia might think differently about Latvia (solely as an example), and that’s a reason for NATO’s European members to get serious about defense. But the Red Army is not on the brink of overrunning Paris, nor will it be in the next fifty years. Russia is demographically headed for oblivion, and all we need to do is provide hospice care. Even China is only looking to accomplish what the US did in the Cold War: establish an international system friendly to Chinese interests; they’ll not be landing on the beaches of Honshu, either. Oh, and they’ve gotten “old” before they got “rich,” so time is against them, too.

There is an international competition going on, but it revolves around technology (specifically artificial intelligence) and domestic stability. Which is why those are areas on which the United States should be focused.

“Ukraine must have a security guarantee as part of peace negotiations.” What does this mean? Let’s drop the euphemisms here. Any security guarantee is only as good as the willingness of the guarantor to fight a war on behalf of the guarantee. Otherwise-thoughtful people are saying that adding Ukraine to NATO, or giving them a US-backed security guarantee, will prevent Putin from attacking again. That is only true if we are willing to fight a nuclear-armed Russia in a war over Ukraine. So if you are willing to send your husband or wife, brother or sister, daughter or son to die defending Ukraine, then YES, argue for such a security guarantee. If not, stop.

President Clinton signed the Budapest Memorandum, in which the UK, the US, and Russia (!) all pledged to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine. How did that work out? President Obama did not give Ukraine a security guarantee after the Russians took Crimea. Did he miss an opportunity? There is no evidence in our foreign policy actions by both parties, or in any polling done over the last two decades, that the people of the United States agree that defending Ukraine is a vital national interest. A security guarantee is not a bluff; it is a real commitment, which is why it works. We have one with NATO; we don’t with Ukraine.

“Trump has undermined the very basis of NATO, the most successful security alliance in history.” This goes directly to Kissinger’s point: Trump didn’t undermine NATO, Trump demonstrated NATO’s current situation accurately, and it’s not good (he would say, “the worst . . . EVER! Terrible!”). NATO will go down in history as unique and uniquely successful. Back even in the Cold War, it was the only one of the multilateral pacts which survived at all (Google CENTO and SEATO and see how they did). NATO worked because it had a simple premise, which Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay, the British first Secretary General of NATO, allegedly characterized as “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” He was absolutely correct. Today, from a security perspective, the Russians can’t get in, the Americans want out, and the Germans have fallen and can’t get up.

How bad is it? In the stark reality of Russia occupying a sovereign nation and breaking continental norms in place for eighty years, the European states have . . . almost succeeded in pledging to eventually spend 2.5% of GDP on defense. France has demanded that Europe coordinate their defense industries and military capabilities . . . to no response. Three years after Germany announced a Zeitenwende (foundational change in how it sees security), they may soon pass a law . . . forcing eighteen year-olds to fill out a digital survey on their interest in joining the army. And the UK just committed to sending peacekeeping troops to Ukraine to be deployed . . . wherever there is no fighting. Pardon me if I’m not sanguine about Europe’s willingness to bear any share of the burden, let alone its share. NATO may indeed survive this challenge; it’s been remarkably resilient. If it does, it will survive because European states take on most of the burden for their own defense.

Finally, “There is no change in the global system; Trump’s behavior as a mafia don is the cause of all this.” President Trump is far more publicly transactional than any modern US President, and more theatrically vulgar (in the original Latin meaning), too. If you wish to characterize that as “Tony Soprano-like,” go ahead. But suggesting that’s the reason things are the way they are gets cause-and-effect backward. As Kissinger suggested, as the voters too felt, things changed. Trump, with all his manifold faults, represents both a factor illuminating that change and a response to it.

In the Godfather movies, there is a scene where young Vito Corleone meets with and confronts the local crime boss, Don Fanucci. This is not the wild west; it’s New York City in 1920. In a nation of laws, with functioning police and courts, it’s still a violent time. Corleone doesn’t go to the press, or the police, or the courts. He stalks the Don and kills him, setting himself on the path to becoming Don Corelone, head of a crime syndicate. As immoral as his choice is, he accurately understood the environment in which he lived. Vito Corleone didn’t make the times; the times made him into Don Corleone.

This will be hard, friends. I’m going to ask you to do something really difficult in this installment. To wit, surgically remove your Trumpian lizard brain. You know, the part of your brain that instantly responds to all things Trump. Whether you go “hell, yeah, fight, fight, fight, pwn the libs!!” or “there goes that giant orange, pig-faced Satan of a Putin puppet!” Take it out, just for a few moments.

That’s too hard. It’s too embedded in most people. So just turn it off and let the rest of your brain think. You’ll enjoy the experience, I promise you.

Like him or not, Henry Kissinger was one of the sharpest minds in American foreign policy over the last fifty years. Yes, he made tragic mistakes (foreign policy successes and intelligence failures are the two possible foreign policy outcomes), but also had incredible successes. But most of all, he had keen insight. He could look past Mao’s brutal authoritarianism and see a man who could be wooed away from the Soviet Union, for example. That was both morally obtuse and incredibly prescient.

Of Donald Trump the politician, Kissinger said, “I think Trump may be one of those figures in history who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretences.” Note Kissinger was neither praising Trump nor denigrating him, just positioning him as a character in history. I’m going to argue in this post that the important thing in Kissinger’s insight is NOT about Trump, but about the phrase “the end of an era.”

“Yes,” you’re thinking, it’s the end of civility and decency!” There’s the subliminal Trump brain again. Every time that lizard emerges from its hole, just smack it back under.

What you saw in the Oval Office the other day was a stark reminder that we are officially in a different era. No one can debate that anymore. What era did we leave, and what does the future hold? Let’s see.

“Pat, we know the answers already: America will be Great Again!” SMACK. Positive Trump lizards get no better treatment than negative ones.

At the end of World War II, America literally bestrode the world. We had immensely powerful armed forces backed (briefly) by a nuclear monopoly. We occupied large swaths of the planet, had a roaring economy which was practically unaffected by wartime destruction, and a great generation of leaders who understood that the globe remained on the precipice. Nazism, fascism, and militarism had been defeated; communism stood beside us as the sole, evil competitor.

America abandoned its longstanding principle of non-involvement outside of the Western Hemisphere. We took on alliances, built international institutions, remade defeated foes into fledgling allies, and stood against further Communist advances. We did so partly because the primary lesson of the early 20th century was that if no one stood up for international decency, America would be dragged into yet another global war. We did so mostly because not being dragged into such wars meant Americans could go back to loving life in America, which is as close to the national dream as there is. In pursuit of these goals, America engaged in all forms of behavior: principled stands, political bullying, nation building, overthrowing governments, space races, technology boycotts, local wars, trade embargoes, and much espionage. Some called it the end of America’s naivete.

The implicit deal America struck with its real or potential allies was this: we will provide the security umbrella, you stand with us against Communism. Everything else was of secondary importance. We gave nations favorable trade deals, because everyone wins with free trade, right? We forgave debts and ignored public slights: the sight of a burning American flag became a staple of international protest in friendly countries! We cut deals with dictators. We let countries off of their defense burden so they could build happy, well-financed social systems to ensure their domestic tranquility. America wasn’t an altruistic superpower; it did what it did in order to win the Cold War. It was that important.

As you know, the West won the Cold War. America truly was once again the sole superpower, and there was no clear challenger. Believe me, I worked in the field at the time, and a great search was on for the next “peer competitor.” But try as we might, we could identify no country that was within decades of providing the challenge. The system of international law, alliances, human rights, and free trade that the United States and its allies promoted stood as a testament to its victory. But the system was built to face a serious challenge; how would it function in the absence of any challenge?

Not well, as it turned out. NATO sought a new mission, and the title of an influential foreign policy article in the 90’s was “NATO: Out of Area or Out of Business?” NATO changed from a defensive alliance of like-minded free countries to a halfway house for newly-freed European states, shepherding them into the fold. It even invoked its sacred Article V guarantee when Al Qaida attacked America on 9/11, a generous if entirely unnecessary gesture. Even the advent of Islamic terrorism was insufficient as a global challenge, although it did succeed in two things: first, encouraging American hubris that led to disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and second, a reminder of just who our real friends and enemies were.

What happened over the next thirty years? The stresses on that American international system started to show. In the absence of a common threat, why spend money on defense at all, since America wanted to be the sole superpower? Why not protect your industries with tariffs, since America didn’t care in the past? Vote against them in the United Nations; what’s the difference? Protest and criticize them as you will; after all, there’s plenty of Americans who will agree with you!

Just as the international system frayed, so did the American national consensus. Americans’ legendary mobility (no one moves, or rather moved, as frequently as Americans did) started sorting people into Red or Blue states. In the absence of a reason to pull together, we pulled apart, arguing over every little thing. Think I’m kidding? We currently argue about transsexual women (men who insist they are women) participating in women’s sports. The NCAA (the governing body for college sports) estimates there are . . . wait for it, less than ten such athletes. It is neither the human rights issue of our time nor a generational threat. But we are still arguing. The arguing, protesting, and lawsuits over all things have yielded a nation without the ability to govern itself. We stare down a $36 TRILLION dollar national debt and can’t stop spending. We pay annually more to service that debt than we do on the military or Medicare, and in the not so distant future, it will surpass Social Security spending. And no party or leader has any plans whatsoever to address it.

“But Pat, I want to focus on Trump! He’s the Bad Orange Man, the cause of all things wrong with America today. Did you see how terribly he behaved with Zelensky?”

Or is it:

“DOGE will slice fraud/waste/abuse. Trump will tariff us back into a balanced budget. Why can’t you see that!

Forget about Trump, remember? This is about the new era. What is it?

The grand coalition led by America is over. Don’t tell me how great it was; I know. It succeeded beyond our wildest dreams. But it doesn’t, it can’t, work in this new world. The world doesn’t have to revert to the base aggression that the Greek philosopher and strategist Thucydides described, “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must” (By the way, Athens was a democracy at the time!). But something new is going to replace what was.

In this new era, nations will have to take greater responsibility for their actions. There will be no global policemen, perhaps a few regional ones. International relationships will be more transactional: contracts, not covenants. To all those people who ever shouted (or wanted to) “Yanqui go home!” you’ll get your wish. I have a little secret for my foreign friends: if you polled all Americans and gave them the choice to live in America free from outside threats, but also free of outside commitments, over ninety percent would take it. Yes, America’s foreign entanglements (George Washington’s phrase) were key to our Cold War success, but now America’s biggest problems are back at home.

This may sound depressing, but it needn’t be. This is a return to history, after a brief (80 year) unusual period of idealism. Nations have strengths and weaknesses. They have interests, allies, and threats. None of that is permanent. We fought two wars against the United Kingdom before deciding they were our most special friends. Even during the Pax Americana, things changed. Iran was once a staunch ally, and initially the US kept Israel at arm’s length. We befriended Communist China long enough to separate them from the Soviet Union, but then kept trying to change them while they became a potential challenge.

Would it have been nice to keep things as they were? It may seem so, but the answer is no, because America does not have the power to play that role any longer, and more importantly, it doesn’t have the will. America is powerful, the most powerful single nation on the planet. But it has found that it cannot endlessly expend its resources everywhere on the planet. America lashed out after 9/11, eliminated al Qaida, and defenestrated the Taliban. Two decades later, we couldn’t even muster the will to prevent the Taliban’s return, despite knowing what would happen. It wasn’t the casualties: more service members were dying in training accidents than in Afghanistan when President Trump wrongly committed to and then President Biden incompetently executed our shameless withdrawal. It wasn’t the cost, most of which was sunk cost at that point. It was a loss of nerve, a loss of will.

Perhaps after healing its domestic wounds and stabilizing its spending, it can resume a global role. And there is no reason a more multi-polar world has to be worse. There are pertinent lessons of history here. After the disastrous upheaval of Napoleon’s wars in Europe, the great powers sat down with smaller countries at the Congress of Vienna, creating a set of rules that enabled a balance of power on the continent, preventing more war. True, the rules were regressive and counter-democratic, because the ruling elites feared the mass armies that French republicanism had unleashed. But the rules worked splendidly to ensure peace (in general) for one hundred years, until another set of changes left them vulnerable to the instability that led to World War I.

In the grand finale (part three), I’ll bring us back to Trump and the moment and perhaps shed some additional light. I’d recommend leaving your Trumpian brain at rest, but you do you!

If you haven’t watched the full video of the Trump/Vance-Zelenskyy tag team WWF death match in the Oval Office, here it is:

Stop right there. Don’t try to tell me you saw it. Or you already know what happened. Unless you watch the full forty-nine minutes, don’t even try it.

You might have seen a video clip or partial transcript which focuses on the contentious parts, but this is the full version. The first thing you’ll notice is how boring it is. The first eight minutes are completely normal, with a pleasant exchange and mutual supporting language. Then the press is invited to ask questions. Trump and Zelenskyy have a jocular disagreement over whether Europe or the US has provided more support, but they laugh it off. There’s a snarky question (around 19:00) from the press about Zelenskyy’s “not wearing a suit,” which is odd in that nobody seemed upset about Elon Musk’s attire at the cabinet meeting. Trump later makes a point that Zelenskyy’s “outfit is fine.”

Things start to go south around twenty minutes in, when Trump suggests Ukraine “won’t need security assurances because Putin won’t want to go back” into Ukraine. Zelenskyy shakes his head, and when he gets his chance to talk, he challenges Trump directly that Putin “broke his agreements” even “when you were the President.” Trump sits back and becomes visibly agitated while Zelenskyy reiterates his point, then he explains Putin must pay for starting the war. Even that would have been a blip, and that’s all. There was a lunch waiting to be served, and an agreement waiting to be signed

For those who suggest this was an “ambush” planned by the administration, all this agenda was agreed to in advance by the two staffs. Photo op in the Oval with nice words and press pool, lunch (no press), signing ceremony with press conference. They are at the end of the photo op when President Trump says, “ok, one more question.” It’s over for all practical purposes. A reporter asks a question about negotiating with the Russians, and JD Vance responds by saying, in effect, the US is more influential when it engages in diplomacy rather than tough talk (an explicit swipe at the Biden administration). This comment is not directed at Ukraine or Zelenskyy, yet the Ukrainian President asks if he may interrupt Vance, then proceeds to explain that Putin does not honor his word, “what kind of diplomacy are you speaking of here?” This is the point where things blow up.

The people focusing on the theatrics are missing the point here. It doesn’t matter whether Vance’s comment was provocative. It also doesn’t matter whether Zelenskyy called Vance a name or just swore under his breath. If you think there haven’t been such arguments in the Oval, you’re wrong. Joe Biden swore at Zelenskyy in an Oval phone call, before hanging up on him. LBJ and Richard Nixon said much worse, just not for the cameras (although there are tapes, and what tapes!). What you saw was what normally goes on behind the scenes. There’s a reason for that, because politicians want people to believe politics is all about rational positions, not personalities, but adults know that personalities are often just as important.

What you saw was, in Trump’s phrase, “great television,” but lousy diplomacy. Whether you think either side was right or wrong, it doesn’t pay to take such arguments public, regardless of who starts them. What you saw was two opinionated men (not one) who already disliked one another let their personal animosities take over. On a superficial level, it was uncomfortable, like children watching mom and dad fight. For Americans, it was embarrassing, except President Trump is not capable of feeling embarrassment.

For Ukraine, it was suicidal. Tell me how getting thrown out of the White House, no mineral rights deal, and perhaps all aid shut off, helps Ukraine fight Russia. Then remind me if anybody on the planet didn’t know Trump was mercurial, antagonistic, and not particularly enamored of Zelenskyy. British, French, and American Congressional leaders all warned Zelenskyy, to no avail. As to Zelenskyy’s claim Putin cannot be trusted, answer this question: how does this war end except with negotiations with Russia? Did Zelenskyy think he was making some new point?

You may remember that the almost-signed mineral rights deal was preceded by another rupture, sparked by the Rubio/Vance meeting with Zelenskyy last week. According to the former, the Ukrainian President said he needed time to get his legislature to approve the deal. Then he left and publicly announced he was rejecting the deal. That’s just politics; they all eventually got over it. That will probably happen here again, although much damage has been done.

In the end, Zelenskyy knows he cannot win (the war or the peace) without US support. He wants a security guarantee, and I don’t blame him. He wants it for the same reason he can’t have it: Russia will eventually try to invade Ukraine again. European leaders just held an emergency summit and agreed (wait for it) to provide peacekeeping troops NOT along the conflict line, and calling for a “US backstop.” Europe cannot secure Ukraine’s future or rearm it without US support. Putin wants to secure the gains he has and end the fighting, for now (yes, he’ll try again). And Putin wants the US to end the economic sanctions which are starting to bite.

Contra Putin’s comments, NATO didn’t start this war, nor did Ukraine. But neither did the US. If you read the bold faced text in the last paragraph, you’ll note that all parties know that only the US can end the war with negotiations. Zelenskyy would be happy to keep fighting forever as long as the billions in aid keep flowing, but he has no plan for victory, just a hope, and “hope is not a method.” Putin knows he has gained only a partial victory, and like he did with Crimea and earlier in the Donbas, he’ll take his winnings for now, confident he can invade again, or perhaps badger Ukraine into submission. This is why negotiations are the only way out at this point. And the United States, not Ukraine, is “holding the cards” as Trump put it.

The undiplomatic row in the Oval Office was a symptom of a deeper change in world politics. I’ll cover what that is in part two!

Spin used to be just a setting on your washing machine, now it’s a way of life. Most of us think we’re experts at spotting spin, and we are, in that we notice spin with which we disagree. Let me let you in on a little secret: we’re missing half the spin, that is, the spin with which we agree!

Spin, the art of not being entirely truthful (“economical with the truth” I once heard it called), leaving out some inconvenient facts or exaggerating others, is endemic in the news and on social media. In the legacy media, it’s driven by (1) partisan blind spots, (2) lazy or uneducated reporting, and (3) the rush to be first, whether right or wrong. On social media it’s the same. Let’s look at some examples.

Elon Musk is running DOGE, the misnamed Department of Government Efficiency. It’s misnamed only in that the title was retrofitted to create the acronym DOGE, after a Musk favorite cryptocurrency, and “Department” has a specific meaning in government terminology. Reminds me of the time I explained to a security guard that writing the word “SECRET” on the top and bottom of a blank piece of paper didn’t make it secret, as that was a status requiring several other qualifications according to the government.

Either way, DOGE is running around accessing secured federal information technology systems and making unconstitutional eliminations of federal employees and programs. Or they’re not. See, no one, and I mean no one, really knows for sure. President Trump has said Musk is a special government employee, a category which would grant him such access. But the President has also said Musk is not in charge of DOGE. Many people are getting “fired” and some federal funding transfers have stopped, but no one has produced an order signed by Musk directing such things. And that matters, because courts have enjoined his access and actions, then gradually dropped their objections, because you can’t stop the actions of the federal government just because you don’t like him. You have to produce evidence, and so far it’s lacking. That doesn’t mean such evidence won’t arrive tomorrow: it may. We just don’t know, but that doesn’t stop spin meisters from saying it’s all legal or unconstitutional (either/or).

Mr. Musk’s DOGE team claimed to save $US 8 Billion dollars on a single Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) contract. The amount was actually an accounting error; the actual cancelled contract was for only $8 million. So they did save some money, but not nearly as much as they indicated. Now they’re talking about sending DOGE rebates to all Americans based on the “savings” they are creating from cutting federal expenditures. The figure $5,000 USD had been bandied about. There are approximately 260 million American adults. Giving each one dollar would require . . . (yes, you guessed it) $260 million dollars. Make it 100 dollars and you need $26 trillion dollars; the entire US federal budget is only about $7 trillion dollars, so don’t buy that new fridge just yet.

On the flip side, have you heard about the mass firings of civil servants? Did you think federal employees were notoriously hard to fire? They are, except during their probationary period (usually one-to-two years when they enter on active federal service or change jobs or classifications, becoming an executive, for example). During this period, they can be fired for almost any reason, the one known exception is they cannot be fired for political reasons. It appears the administration is going through entire agencies and firing all employees in their probationary period. Why? Isn’t that stupid? On one hand, yes, you remove the flow of new blood and let go of people you just trained. On the other hand, if you do it in a sweeping way, no one can claim you’re doing it for political reasons (which means it won’t be successfully challenged in court or mediation).

What about the non-probationary federal employees who worked in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs? How can they be fired, aren’t they protected? Yes, they are, but they’ll have to make claims in court or the labor relations board. Most have chosen not to do so. Would you want to work for an organization that has identified your specialty as something to be eradicated? And given recent court rulings about DEI programs, a legal case could have the effect of validating the administration’s position that DEI is unconstitutional. This falls under the category of “don’t ask a question you don’t want the answer to.”

Did the administration not cut employees at the National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA), the folks who (among other things) protect nuclear weapons? Who is guarding the nukes? Some media claimed the administration let go perhaps 300 probationary employees, but the Department of Energy spokesman said in fact only 50 employees managing a loan program or with clerical roles were fired. So are we supposed to believe the federal civilian spokesman as a competent civil servant, or ignore him as an incompetent Trump toady? It gets so confusing at times. Now some of the fired employees have been recalled (I guess it’s a blessing that someone thought something wasn’t quite right).

Here’s the ultimate in spin: did you hear about the US Agency for International Development (AID) program which spent $70,000 for a DEI musical in Ireland? What about the $32,000 spent for a transgender comic book in Peru? Not true, the Washington Post intoned in a fact check about the administration’s “wildly inaccurate claims.” The Post refutes these claims by explaining both were State Department grants (oh, that’s totally different). And it wasn’t a DEI musical, it was a musical event (key word) promoting DEI. And the comic book featured a gay hero, not trans. Granted (pun intended) these are small sums, but calling the claims wildly inaccurate on this basis is only possible if you have lost all sight of the meaning of accuracy in the first place.

I’m sympathetic to friends who tell me they don’t know what to believe. It’s hard to dig into complex topics, and easier to go with your gut, what you want to believe, or what a source you like tells you. But it’s deadly, too. Your choices are to either do the research, avoid joining the discussion, or participating in the spin, thereby making it worse. Doing the research is exhausting, even for a retiree with mucho federal experience and too much time on his hands. Avoiding commenting or sharing things is hard when everybody else is doing it. But if you choose the third option, you abandon any pretense of ethical standing. You’re not fighting the good fight, clarifying the problem, illuminating solutions, or engaging in informed debate.

And that’s a choice. When you’re in the washer, spinning endlessly around, no one will take you seriously when you say it’s time to stop.

It never ceases to amaze (me, at least) how people can become so fixated on the daily flow of “news” that they miss the forest for the trees. Or the substance for the tweets, as it were. My MAGA friends are quite literally dancing in the streets, celebrating each new Executive Order as if they change things (sometimes they do, often they don’t, as I pointed out back in the Biden era). Liberal/Progressive friends seem to carom from one level of outrage to another; I’m hoping the sedatives kick in soon, because it appears (like Spinal Tap) “these go to eleven.”

Between cautioning each group on their mental well-being (I’m NOT the therapist in the family), I realized something about the larger trends behind all this, and I did so from an unlikely source: the “old gray lady,” aka the New York Times. MAGA wing, stay with me now!

For its many sins of omission (not to mention commission), the Times really does try to get to the bottom of things. Ezra Klein was one of the first challenging Biden’s continued fitness for office, for example. And lately he had an interview of note with conservative legal scholar/historian Yuval Levin (read/listen here). And further to the Times’ credit, they have in-house conservative Ross Douthat interviewing figures on the right to discuss the actual ideological ferment (yes, there is) on that side of the spectrum; his talk with Steve Bannon is worth your time (and I know, my liberal friends view Bannon as “The Lesser Satan,” but you’ll enjoy/be shocked at his take about the Broligarchy and the need for a strong Consumer Financial Protection Bureau).

For those unwilling to spend the time learning, I’ll cut to the chase by sharing what I discerned listening to these sources and thinking about them.

First, Trump is a genuine phenomenon, but Trumpism is not a “thing.” There can be no doubt about Trump as a unique character, and this being the Trump era. Scream all you want, it’s reality you’re fighting against, not Trump. But Trumpism, even generalized as MAGA, is not a coherent movement. It’s a polyglot coalition held together by the uniqueness of Donald J. Trump. I’m not saying it’s unimportant, or faux. Just don’t expect it to long outlast the Trump presidency. Whatever direction J.D. Vance or Don Jr. (or whomever) takes the movement, it will be very different. Nobody is Trump, and those who try to be Trump (remember Marco Rubio and his “small hands” comment?) fail miserably. There is further evidence for this point in the election results: Trump has never gotten to a popular vote majority (not that that matters for elections, but it does tell you something about the electorate) in three tries, even though he won twice and lost once, all narrowly. His is a populist movement, but it appears to be at best a plurality, not a majority.

Second, the Trump phenomenon is a symptom, not the cause of America’s challenging situation. The Founders built our government with a separation of powers (note the plural), not a division of power (singular). The executive, legislative, and judicial branches have very different powers. By far the most important and powerful is the legislative branch (i.e., the Congress), which controls the power of the purse, must advise and consent on the Judicial branch members (and can legislate their jurisdiction), and can impeach the other two branch’s members. To be effective, the legislative branch must build a durable majority (sometimes even a veto-proof one) in order to take full command of its authority. When it can’t, it cedes that authority (in practice) to either the President or the Supreme Court. As the American electorate has become more evenly divided over the past thirty years, such Congressional majorities have evaporated. Which results in “do-nothing” congressional terms that satisfy no one. Which results in increasing calls for strong (some would say strongman) leadership from the presidency, or greater judicial oversight of vague congressional formulations (both of which we see now).

By the way, this was as the Founders intended: Congress being the most powerful branch, they wanted it to act only when it could build a durable majority, lest we become a nation where each succeeding administration (or legislative session) simply undoes what the preceding one did (sound like today? Yup). So the main problem we have is not the electoral college, nor the size of the Supreme Court, nor the two-party system, nor “first past the post” primaries, nor gerrymandering, nor–well–fill in the blank. It’s the simple fact that Americans are evenly divided, and both parties seek primarily to shore up the base rather than do politics with the other side.

Third, we are on the cusp of a third era of modern America. The first was the New Deal, which ran from the 1940s to the 1980s. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) built an enduring coalition that fundamentally changed America. He was so personally popular he was able to ignore the Washingtonian limit of two presidential terms, and the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress continuously from 1933 to 1981, with only two, two year exceptions! Even when Republicans won the White House, they accepted the permanence of the New Deal and only tinkered at the margins.

That all changed with the advent of Ronald Reagan in 1980. The second era of modern America could be called the Global/Internationalist era, wherein the defining characteristic was a commitment to free trade. While the Congress and White House changed hands repeatedly, both parties played along with the idea that more free trade was better for the world, better for the United States, and better for Americans. The triumph of capitalism over communism proved this in Russia with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and even in China with the Chinese Communist Party decision that “to get rich is glorious!” Economists assured us that via the magic of comparative advantage, if every country played by the rules and traded freely, all would benefit.*

See, there’s always the asterisk. In macroeconomic terms, this is all undeniably true. However, the benefits are not equally distributed: there are always winners and losers. The losers in this case were middle- and lower- or working-class Americans who found themselves without decent paying jobs, let alone careers. They did get cheap sh!t from China, so they had that going for them. Oh, and the elites of the world, the highly educated, those with access to capital due to family, university degree, or initial business success, were wildly rewarded. That era officially ended with the 2008 financial crisis.

Since then, the American public has been in search of the next formulation or era. Progressives/Liberals put forward a sweeping set of individual rights (gay marriage, abortion on demand, trans rights, immigrant rights, etc), new government benefits (“ObamaCare,” student loan ‘forgiveness’) and controls (guns, internet censorship). Conservatives offered tax breaks (which generally favor the wealthiest), new religious protections, and opposition to “woke” ideology. The American public bought neither side’s arguments in total. They selected one from side A, one from side B, oftentimes contradictory choices (especially when it came to paying for benefits).

The one constant has been a growing awareness that economically, the free trade proposition has been a losing one for the average American worker. The trend first became noticeable during the Obama administration, when the Democratic party wrongly believed it had established a lasting demographic coalition of the working class, people of color, and progressives. When white working class voters started to leave the party, party stalwarts attributed it to simple racism: they weren’t ready for a black President, so good riddance. Most working class voters were still in the party, so what?

Then the trend continued during the Clinton campaign, with more white working class male voters leaving, culminating in Trump’s first unfathomable election. The knee-jerk reaction among Democrats was that Trump attracted those same racists and added white working class sexists (who couldn’t stomach a woman in the White House), so that was all the problem was. Trump was an aberrant candidate who rode an aberration in the electorate to one-time victory, probably with the help of Russia. Nothing to see here. Joe Biden’s victory cemented this view, bringing back some–but not many, just enough– of those working class voters.

Trump’s second inexplicable victory showed remarkable gains in groups which confounded the Democrats’ reading of the electorate: working class men, Latinos, blacks, youth, and women all demonstrated a real shift despite supposedly Trump being a threat not only to their rights and their benefits, but also to democracy. Those voters overwhelmingly voted on the economy, and thought Trump would do a better job managing it for them.

While cultural issues played a part, it’s somewhat misleading. The most memorable campaign ad was Trump’s “She’s for they/them, Trump is for you.” This did not attract voters because it was anti-woke, or anti-trans, or anti-anything else. It worked because it coincided with those voters’ beliefs about the two party’s priorities: Trump on the economy, Democrats on social issues. Kamala Harris did not run a campaign heavy on identity politics; she practically ran away from it. But you can’t talk about something all the time for years (as a party) and then suddenly pivot away in a campaign. Voters thought that such issues were what was important to Democrats, and in many ways the voters were right. The voters weren’t necessarily against those issues, but they most certainly were more interested in economic ones. And they turned back to Trump.

Is that the end of the story? No. While politically this is the Trump era, who the ultimate winner of this new era is, is up for grabs. The working class of all races is in play, it’s a majority of the electorate, and it wants to see action on the economy. These voters are patient: they don’t expect prices to drop tomorrow, but prices sure-as-cheap-Chinese-sh!t better stop going up like clockwork. They want to see more and better jobs, lower taxes, and yes a little bravado from our federal government. They would also like less regulation, and the same or better benefits. I didn’t say all their claims are reasonable or even consistent, did I? Most of all, they don’t want to see business-as-usual when it comes to the economy, because that means more of the global/internationalist way.

Whichever party addresses those issues will cement the backing of this large group, probably for a decade or more. The good news is, if they meet some or most of the voters’ demands, that party will have earned the right to govern with a durable majority.

Do you think much about “why?” you are a citizen? For most Americans, it’s simply an existential state: I am, therefore I am an American. Or perhaps, I am an American, therefore I pay taxes. As an expat, citizenship has more immediate resonance. I remain an American citizen: I vote, pay taxes (state & federal), carry a US passport, and retain all the rights and obligations that ensue. I am also a foreigner. I carry a card (my residente permanente) with me at all times that explains my status in Mexico, as Mexican law requires. When I walk around in public, it is quite obvious ‘I’m not from around here,’ partly because I’m too blanco, too tall, and I walk with the quintessentially American ‘I’m in charge here’ stride. Citizenship affects my daily life.

Every nation has to decide how it determines who is a citizen. There are basically two options, known legally in Latin as Jus Sanguinus (the right of blood) or Jus Solis (the right of soil, as in location). In the former, you are what either of your parents is; under the latter, you are what you are based on where you were born. Neither is an absolute condition. Countries with birthright citizenship exempt the children of foreign diplomats, for example, and nations with blood citizenship often place limits of how far back you can claim descent (parents? grandparents? great-grandparents?).

The vast majority of nations today employ blood citizenship, and have throughout history. Birthright citizenship is a fairly new concept, historically, mostly used by new nations in the Western Hemisphere who were trying to encourage a growing population. These same countries also employed a version of immigration which basically allowed anybody (or at least anybody white, back in the day) to enter and then claim citizenship. There was a lot of land, not enough people, so those were the rules. Among the countries that had birthright citizenship and either restricted or eliminated it recently are Britain, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and India.

While it has always been the practice in the United States, the Constitution is silent on the issue. What? Aren’t there people screaming that President Trump’s order is UNCONSTITUTIONAL? Yes, yes there are. The original text of the Constitution has no language about citizenship rules, birthright or blood. The common practice was birthright, but that was all it was: common law. After the Civil War, some people wanted to exclude freed slaves from citizenship, and they claimed the slaves did not belong here as they were brought here against their will (further punishment, what a concept!). The 14th Amendment was written with specific text to cover this case and end the discussion. Here’s the important section:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Amendment XIV, US Constitution, 1868

Some folks on Trump’s side of the argument are trying to make a great deal out of the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” claiming that illegal aliens are not this (subject to the jurisdiction thereof) and therefore their children are not US citizens. The problem with this argument is those illegal immigrants are most certainly subject to our laws, most specifically, they may be deported. One would have to first claim they couldn’t be deported, which is hardly the case.

What about the concept of signing an Executive Order to change a Constitutional principal? Odd business, that, but not as off-the-wall as you might think. First off, many of the people claiming this is completely unacceptable didn’t blanch at then-president Biden’s attempt to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment with a statement, not even a formal order. Also, since the birthright concept is based on multiple judicial rulings (not the original text of the Constitution), generating a court case by promulgating an Executive Order and lawsuits to halt it is perfectly acceptable. Better to begin the formal amendment process in my opinion, but there is nothing to exclude getting a favorable review from the US Supreme Court, either.

As to the legal arguments: An originalist legal interpretation of the Constitution might hold this was specific language dealing with a specific case (freed slaves), and probably does not apply universally. However, the US Supreme Court did rule in the case of the United States vs Wong Kim Ark in 1898 that the same birthright rules apply to the children of immigrants. But hold your horses, that case involved legal immigrants! This is where things get really interesting.

The Justices in that case made birthright citizenship crystal clear, but they also pointed out two obvious exceptions. One was the aforementioned exclusion of children of diplomats, the other children born to a foreign occupying army. Yes, the Supreme Court stated that if a foreign army occupied US territory, and those soldiers had children in that territory, those children would not be US citizens. But why these exceptions? The diplomatic one is a reciprocal courtesy, one of those areas where the need to engage in foreign discourse creates one-off exceptions to normal rules (like the limited extra-territoriality of embassies). But the occupier’s children? Basically, they don’t belong here, which is a value judgment. Thus even the seminal case affirming birthright citizenship has in its majority opinion language allowing for exclusion.

Will the courts use that? Of course the lower courts will hold that the matter is settled, and it is, according to precedent. The question is: is the precedent correct? That is a decision for the US Supreme Court. Overturning birthright citizenship would mean overturning a century of legal holdings, so the odds are long against it, but not impossible, especially if an originalist legal argument can build a simple majority among the justices.

The better question, lost in the pro/anti Trump noise: is birthright citizenship working for America today? There is nothing about the concept that screams “authoritarian” or “racist”, unless you think countries like the UK, Ireland, and New Zealand have those attributes. There is nothing inherently American in birthright citizenship, that is, nothing essential for America’s self-concept. It is a historical legacy, true. But how is it working?

“Au contraire!” Professor David W. Blight responds in The Atlantic. He calls birthright citizenship “A Sacred Guarantee,” and he’s right, with respect to freed slaves. But his argument goes further to suggest what’s really at stake is equality before the law, which is also in the 14th Amendment. But that’s a separate section, unaffected by the citizenship clause. And the Supreme Court has already held that equality before the law extends beyond citizenship to everyone physically in the Unites States, including foreign diplomats, visitors, and even enemy Prisoners of War (an issue which cropped up with respect to the terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba)!

Even before the 14th Amendment, America employed birthright citizenship because we wanted to encourage population growth, and not that many people wanted to come. Is that still the case? There are documented cases of birth tourism, where pregnant women from countries like China pay to to gain an entry visa near a due-date, then stay and deliver a brand new American citizen before returning home. The numbers are not large, but I know no one who thinks this is a good idea. There are also “accidental Americans,” people who were born in America to visiting foreign parents who later get a note from the US IRS explaining they owe taxes and fines for not submitting annual returns! And of course the millions of children of illegal immigrants (or the undocumented, if you prefer) present another form of challenge. Try to detain them as a family and the courts have held you can’t hold the children as they have done nothing wrong. Try to deport the parents and you risk splitting up a family. Why do we privilege those who flout the immigration system but then have children, too?

Some suggest dire consequences if birthright citizenship is banished. Much of this is simple hysteria: other forms of citizenship are in force all over the world, so it’s not exactly an unknown concept. For example, the vast majority of people in the USA at the time the law–or its interpretation —is changed would be simply “grandfathered” in as citizens. So, no, I wouldn’t have to go back and prove my parents were Americans. Going forward one would, but that is increasingly the way of things, as anybody who went and got the new REAL ID knows.

The Washington Post recently had a scary story about the possibility of mothers in labor being turned away from hospitals because they don’t have a US passport. They warned about the administrative burden for hospitals having to “affirm” citizenship of newborns. There is even the emotional account of a woman whose premature labor results in her son being born before President Trump’s edict goes into effect, thus “I know he will be able to live in peace in this country.” The problem with such “reporting”? Hospitals can’t turn anyone away for their papers: it’s the law (and it is how many illegal/undocumented persons get emergency room health care). A birth certificate doesn’t need to be issued in the hospital; it was a matter of convenience that can easily be transferred back to the local government. And an administrative burden? Really? Like hospitals don’t require forms and proofs already? Finally, the mother and child story almost prove the point: is this how citizenship should work?

Carlos Lozada (himself a naturalized American citizen) wrote in the New York Times “the practice (birthright citizenship) has become an essential trait of our national character.” What does that even mean? Is it unchanging and unchangeable? Slavery was an essential trait of our national character for ninety years, too.

There is a valuable debate to be had about our existing immigration and citizenship laws. It is necessary and overdue, but must be had without unnecessary inflammatory rhetoric. Very many nations, nations we respect, use blood citizenship. America has used birthright citizenship for a very long time. This issue should not be decided based on who proposes it, or what racist ulterior motives can be ascribed to them. It should be decided on one point alone: what works best for America today?

At the end of most US presidential administrations, there are a rash of pardons or commutations. The pardon power, the ability to forgive, is among the President’s sole prerogatives and is sweeping (the only enumerated limitation is for crimes of impeachment; everything else is fair game!). There are norms (like not pardoning your family or cronies), rules (a process for people to apply for pardons), and customs (pardons are for crimes already committed, not those in the future). But these are not absolute limits.

Pardons happen throughout a term in office, but most frequently at the end of an administration primarily because they are lousy politics. The person pardoned may be happy, as well as their supporters, but there is usually a court, a jury, and victims who will be outraged. There is also the problem of recidivism: the person you pardon may go out and commit another crime, invariably calling into question why they are free in the first place. Better for that to happen when you’re out of office.

The recent ending of the Biden administration and the beginning of President Trump’s second term yielded a unique situation with many pardons on both sides of the inauguration. And it also yielded another fine example of partisans looking at the wrong thing, leaving a real problem unaddressed while trying to score attention points with hypocrisy.

Let’s start with the new President. Trump issued blanket pardons for the January 6th defendants, calling them hostages and heroes. According to sources who met with him prior to the decision, he was leaning toward the outcome Vice President Vance foreshadowed: pardons for those who were nonviolent. But something triggered Trump (one legacy media source claimed it was Biden’s last pardon actions) and he went instead with a sweeping action.

Needless to say, he was wrong. There are people who were at the Capitol that day that do not belong in prison, but there were many who committed violent or destructive acts. They should not be free. Self-described patriotism is not an excuse for riot any more than deprivation is an excuse for looting. And “Biden did it first” is also not a reason. Trump also pardoned a convicted drug kingpin, apparently believing he was unfairly targeted (I certainly hope so!). And he’s looking at some other cases where police officers were charged with criminal offenses that perhaps represent overreach by local federal prosecutors. These are a mixed bag of actions which are overwhelmingly negative.

In his last days in office, President Biden went on a pardoning spree. He reneged on earlier promises and pardoned his son. He claimed it was to prevent the incoming administration from conducting a vendetta against Hunter, but this was factually incorrect, as the pardon also included offenses to which Hunter had already pled guilty, and was so sweeping as to include anything he might have done over a long period of time. Then he added pardons for a variety of other family members, mostly people who were listed in court records as having been names used on accounts for the transfer of foreign funds into Hunter and James (the President’s brother) Biden’s business dealings. Next were several people (January 6th Committee and staff, General Milley, Dr. Fauci) whom Biden believed Trump may go after in the future. Finally, he issued sweeping pardons for people involved in nonviolent federal crimes, which included drug distribution, financial fraud, and embezzlement.

The truly preventative pardons were probably a good idea, if for no other reason than to protect President Trump from his worst instincts. Many of the other pardons were horrid and specious. Biden pardoned drug dealers directly responsible for many deaths, and fraudsters who ruined many people’s lives. He commuted federal death sentences ostensibly due to his faith, but not for racists (perhaps Biden has his own rite in the Catholic Church). Even people who had defended Biden throughout his tenure called the actions shameful and inexplicable.

If you’re thinking this is a “both sides” argument, your thinking is part of the problem. What we have here is not a partisan issue: it is a bipartisan example of the abuse of power, and “both sides” should address it as such. What do I think?

Leaders in the House and Senate should initiate a constitutional amendment to the President’s pardoning powers. The amendment should limit pardons to past actions and for periods of time not to exceed four years. It should ban pardons within the final six months of a presidential term. Perhaps limit the crimes to which pardons can be applied, or place other conditions on them. I’m sure there are other considerations people of good will can suggest.

Rather than play a game of “I’m outraged by your President’s actions!” while turning a blind eye to mine, we should seize the opportunity provided to address the problem. The process to amend should be limited to the issue at hand and kept as simple and straight-forward as possible, which means it needn’t run for years.

Or we can all go on dunking on social media.

Within days we will be living again under the Presidency of Donald J. Trump. For some of my friends, this is the welcome return of the MAGA King. For a few, it is a time to wait-n-see what happens next. For still others, it is the dark skies of Mordor looming over America. This post is for the last group.

How to survive another four years of Trump? First off, realize you’ve already lived through eight-plus years. Yes, history will record this period, including the Biden interregnum, as The Trump Era. He has dominated the news cycle, social media, and politics since he rode down the golden escalator at Trump Tower back in 2015. So you’re not at the midway point, you’ve already survived over two-thirds of his reign. Democracy didn’t Die in Darkness (per the Washington Post), although it certainly got a scare back on January 6th, 2021. However you looked at it back then, you and the Republic (a term I never tire in reminding people is our form of government, de facto and de jure) withstood even a once-in-a-century pandemic during his term. You can do this.

What about in practical terms? If you believed all the people telling you Trump=Hitler, you might have noticed many of them were lying to you. I’m not saying you were wrong, just that many of the people who swore that Trump represented the TEOTWAWKI (The End Of The World As We Know It) didn’t really mean it, even though they said it. You don’t welcome Hitler into the White House for tea and cookies. You don’t publicly yuck it up at a funeral with Adolph. You don’t go to Berchtesgaden (I mean Mar-a-lago) and kiss the ring of the fuhrer, whether you’re a tech bro, a media talking-head, or Governor of the great state of Canada.

I believe even some of my friends who fervently stated the Hitler analogy didn’t really mean it, either, since voting or donating or social media posting or tweeting is hardly an adequate response to the enormity of an oncoming Reich. The only people who survived the Third Reich with their reputations intact were the ones who took up armed resistance. Even Pope Pius XII (You know, the one some try to smear as “Hitler’s Pope”) organized a secret attempt to kill Hitler. When you cite the greatest enormity of modern history as your analogy, you make extreme demands for action. Not tweets. I’m not calling anybody out to take up arms: just the opposite. Moderate your opposition and align it with fervent, principled work for the policies you do support. And give up the Hitler language.

Go on a social media diet. I don’t know anybody who says “the time I spend on (Facebook/TikTok/X) makes me smarter or a better person.” Do you? If things posted there inflame you, do like the punch line in the old doctor’s joke: Just stop doing it! I shake my head whenever an intelligent, well-meaning friend shares a post/tweet with something like, “you need to read this.” The next tweet with something useful will be the first. And please, don’t be that person who responds to a mega-star and their millions of followers with a back tweet. It’s like the neighbor to walks out their back door and starts screaming at the government: ineffective, weird, and a troubling commentary about the neighbor, not the government.

Review your news choices for bias. There are excellent sources of media analysis here and here, but even these don’t capture coverage bias (the bias represented by what the media source chooses to cover or ignore). I knew well-informed people who denied there was an immigration crisis until New York City screamed “uncle” and the Biden administration admitted to a “challenge.” I knew others who were shocked by Biden’s performance during the debate. You don’t watch media sources from diverse perspectives to change your mind; you do it to learn what the other side cares about and how they characterize the issues. Or you just make it all up in your head. If you don’t believe media coverage bias is an important issue for both sides, you are in deep trouble.

Resolve to ignore any article, post, or message with headlines straight from social-media speak. “Trump pwns the libs” is just as bad as “You won’t believe how Pelosi shocked the Prez.” Such headlines or leaders are the hallmark of click-bait, usually designed to get you excited enough to click through, but as nutritionally empty as a bag of Pizza Rolls (slogan: no animal, mineral or vegetable was harmed in the making of this food product). Long-time media sources that were once reputable (think Time, Newsweek, The New Republic) now join in the shock headlines of the social media influencers. If you only do this, you won’t believe how much better your life will be!

Choose your focus. The MAGA and Resistance movements agree on one thing: Donald Trump is the center of the universe. The sun and the planets, the policies and fate of the nation all revolve around . . . him. For the rest of us, he’s a character: entertaining, vulgar, proud, crude, strong, venal, you name it. If President Trump announces he’s going to lean on Denmark to annex Greenland on January 21st, what exactly does that mean to you? Perhaps it is your Buddhist monk protest moment, or perhaps you wait to see what that really means. I am not totally of the “take Trump seriously but not literally” camp. When he says things, he does so for a purpose. If he says something outrageous and nobody reacts, he may just proceed. But not everything he says demands your attention. Because President Trump loves knowing he is living rent-free in your head, and he will play to that. It’s your choice entirely if you play along.

Avoid TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome). Some in the MAGA movement or on the right label anyone or anything not agreeing with Trump as TDS. I am far more selective: I reserve it for those who feel the need to go to any length to criticize him, regardless of reality or simple politics. Let me explain. If Trump says his inauguration crowd is the biggest in human history, you don’t need to go on a social-media jihad using AI-supported photogrammetry to disprove it. You don’t need to assert that Trump isn’t rich because he isn’t the richest person in the world, the continent, America, New York City, or probably even Florida. He’s so rich he keeps incurring additional judgments in the millions of dollars just to keep defaming the woman who accused him of sexual misconduct! You don’t need to claim he is only rich because his dad was, when Trump’s current wealth is oodles more than that of his father. You don’t need to constantly add “first convicted felon” to every mention of his Presidency. A thought experiment on that last one. If Trump’s legal situation were applied to say, George Soros, you might be pointing out that until the appeals process is exhausted, his status is not final. If it was applied to Hunter Biden, you might point out the unique political nature of the prosecution (Joe Biden did!). If it was just some local businessman in the Bronx, you would probably read about it and say, “they took State misdemeanors, added an undisclosed federal charge, and bundled them into a felony? Wha-a-a-a-a-t?” In any case, it’s irrelevant, however it comes out.

Consider the art of the deal. No, not Trump’s book, but the concept. I’ve said all along, Donald Trump is a man of few fixed principals. One of them is he sees himself as a “wheeler-dealer” as my Mother used to say. You offer him a way to be more famous, or rich, or successful, and he might change sides on any issue. Democrats missed this opportunity during his first term, and if you are politically active, consider suggesting to your Representatives, Senators, Governors, whomever, that they try to cut deals. I was only half-joking when I said that Progressives should propose a major increase in the Affordable Care Act under the title TrumpCare. Think he wouldn’t consider it?

Review Paschal’s Wager. Blaise Paschal put forward an argument, called Paschal’s Wager, for belief in God. It is considered by many to be the first historically-confirmed decision matrix. I will give you a Trumpified version of it here: Either Trump is a Hitlerian Dictator, or not. Either you call him one, or you don’t. This forms four quadrants with different outcomes. If Trump is a dictator and you call him out, you get credit for being right. However, he will have you killed, and if all you did was call him out, those who remember you will wonder why you did so little. Outcome: that’s a small upside and large downside. If Trump is a dictator and you don’t call him out, you will suffer personal anguish at failing to do so. Outcome: all downside. If Trump is not a dictator and you call him one, you look foolish and incur the possibility of future “boy cries wolf” problems. Outcome: all downside. If Trump is not a dictator and you don’t engage in calling him one? Normalcy. Outcome: All upside. And greater peace of mind. Mind you, if you assign different probabilities to the two sets of alternatives, what you should choose changes. But if they’re all equal probabilities, which gives you the best life?

Now I know there are still some of my most progressive friends who, if they are still reading, actually take umbrage with my making light of such a serious situation. They feel they alone are correct and that Trump is an Existential Threat. If Trump really is a dictator, then he is the first dictator in modern history to voluntarily give up power. I know he tried to foil the process, but it was a miserable and weak attempt, and then he yielded. And now he is the first dictator to return to office democratically, too (Juan Perón was ousted in a coup, so his return is different). I’m not sure what kind of dictator that is.

Love him, hate him, or just getting the popcorn and watching, he will soon be the President. In conclusion, I reach back to my youth and the immortal words of Alfred E. Neuman, “What, Me Worry?”