I keep a stomach distress bag handy whenever I read a news article about Texas. Governor Greg Abbott is not good for my digestive health. A few weeks ago, he signed a law giving private citizens the right to sue anyone who “aids or abets” abortions. The idea is to weaponize abortion proponents and drive doctors and other healthcare providers out of the state.

There is a lot more to dislike about Governor Greg Abbott, but he is not alone in making proposals that many of us consider outrageous. In June, for example, State Representative Kyle Biedermann proposed legislation for the state to hold a referendum on whether a legislative committee should be created to develop a plan for “Texas independence.”  Mr. Biedermann has had enough of Washington and its meddling in Texas affairs.

Texans are not alone in wanting their state to “go in a different direction.”  Secession movements are also active in Alaska, California, Hawaii, and Vermont.  I want to focus on Texas. My question is “Why not let it go?”

Legal experts tell us that it is “illegal” for states to secede from the union, but I wonder if America has the stomach for another civil war.  My guess is no, especially given the reality that many of us see Texas as an obstacle to ratifying sane policies. More than a few of my liberal friends, when asked about Texas secession, shrug their shoulders, and say, “We’d be better off without it.”

I have my doubts about that, despite Greg Abbott, but note that the Democrats would win more elections and retain control of the House of Representatives if Texas quits the U.S. Personally, I will welcome a Senate free of Ted Cruz (R-TX).

If Texas left the Union, I would expect a mass migration out of the State back into the U.S. Greg Abbott might have to build a wall just to keep people from leaving. I also worry that Texas might attempt to seize “its fair share” of nuclear weapons and fashion itself a little North Korea that regularly makes threats against its northern neighbor (us). 

If Texas seceded, might Donald Trump be tempted to move there and become King? That is possible. The prospect of a lifetime of power without the hassle of regular elections might just persuade him to quit Florida. And, once in power in Texas, Trump could plot with like-minded secessionists in other states and try to create a modern-day version of the Confederate States of America.

I am not likely to be conscripted into the Army for the purpose of fighting what is likely to be dubbed “Texit,” but if I were, I would think about a move to Canada. I would not want to take up arms against fellow Americans (yes, I still consider Texans fellow-countrypeople) and would not want to be shot by Governor Abbott or one of his followers. I suspect many Americans would agree.

If future presidents are faced with a real secession movement, would they bring a declaration of war to Congress? Would it pass? If it did not, where would that leave America?

I am comforted by the fact that despite the Maryland Eastern Shore being out of sync with the rest of the State, I don’t often hear about plans for a new State called “East Chesapeake” or “Crabonia.”  That’s a relief. I think we would be dramatically worse off without the rest of the State, or the rest of the United States, to help us prepare for the next century. 

Despite my friends who stubbornly remain loyal to Trump, I am confident that the Eastern Shore is moving in the right direction politically. While some Republicans tell me I am crazy to say that the re-election of Andy “Handgun” Harris is not inevitable, I also note that many Republicans tell me that, as of today, they would vote for Harris but have a few questions for him to answer. They want to know what he was up to in his White House meeting on December 21 and how he became convinced the 2020 presidential election was “rigged.”

I want to know the answer to these questions. I think I already know how Andy would vote if the issue of Texas seceding from the U.S. came to a vote in the House of Representatives. Even though Democrats might benefit from Texit, Andy would vote “Aye.” So much for the Constitution. 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and, when the Constitution is not under attack, other subjects.

 

Is Andy Harris a Benedict Arnold? He attended a White House meeting on December 21, 2020, at which a legal theory was promoted supporting the ludicrous concept that the Vice President can single-handedly reject slates of electors. The plan was to set aside Joe Biden’s seven million vote plurality win and keep Donald Trump in the White House. President Trump adopted the legal theory, but Mike Pence rejected it. That rejection almost cost Pence his life on January 6.

According to testimony that the House Select Committee received regarding the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol, the purpose of the meeting was to discuss a plan to “encourage members of the public to fight the outcome on January 6.”

What was Harris’ role at the meeting? Did President Trump tell Harris and the other 10 Republican Congresspeople at the meeting (including then-Congresswoman-elect Marjorie Taylor Green) that armed militia men would storm the Capitol to ensure that the electoral college vote was never certified? Did Harris volunteer to help make the assault on the Capitol successful? First District voters deserve to know the answers to these and other questions. 

Andy is not talking, perhaps with good reason in that sedition is a felony. Benedict Arnold got shot for it. It appears that Harris has concluded that his constituents do not think the events of January 6 were important or, in some cases, were justified. I hope that enough First District voters will disagree to impact the 2022 election.

Heather Mizeur won the Democratic primary and will face Harris in November. Many pundits suggest that she cannot win. They suggest the district is just too conservative for a domestic policy expert to win. These pundits may be right, but could Harris’ complicity in the January 6 insurrection make a difference? I hope it can.

Even hard-core conservatives should now understand that a coup attempt occurred on January 6. That knowledge should prompt them to reassess Mr. Harris. Even if they oppose Democratic policies and hate Joe Biden, they should consider whether they want to reward Andy Harris with another term in Congress. Here’s how Heather put it: “I’m running against Andy Harris because he is a traitor, and I am a patriot.”   

A few Spy readers will respond to this column by telling me that I am crazy. Maybe. But evidence is growing that the January 6 hearings are making a difference. Politico reports that a New York Times/Sienna College poll showed that growing numbers of Republicans would prefer someone other than Trump to be their standard bearer in 2024. The same article reports that a series of recent focus groups showed an erosion in support for Trump.

Last week I discussed Trump with a conservative friend. The talk gave me hope. The friend expressed chagrin that Harris attended the December 21st meeting. “Why couldn’t he just focus on representing us?” was the comment. The friend also wanted to know why Harris does not feel obligated to tell his constituents his role in a meeting of conspirators.

My friend smells a rat. When I commented that “at least he wasn’t giving Proud Boys tours of the Capitol on January 5,” my friend sighed and asked me to give him a break. “He broke his oath of office,” my friend told me, “If he schemed to violate the Constitution, he wasn’t protecting it, and he has to go.”

It is now too late for First District Republicans to replace Harris as their candidate for Congress. The only alternative is to vote for Ms. Mizeur. Will First District Republicans do that? If the election were held today, they would not. Mizeur would lose. But what if we learn that Harris was more than just a cheerleader for Trump in the days preceding January 6? That could make a difference.

So do not tell me Mizeur cannot win. And do not tell me that Handgun Harris deserves another term in Congress. He does not. He did a poor job representing the district before January 6. His actions since then are the icing on the cake.

Harris needs to come clean. He needs to tell us why he was at the December 21 meeting, what other conversations he had with Trump and other co-conspirators leading up to January 6, and he must condemn the Trump coup. 

And, just in case Andy decides to lie about what he did, or to continue his stonewalling, maybe Jamie Raskin (D-MD), a member of the January 6 Committee, can lend a hand. The January 6 Committee must explore fully the actions of the 10 Republican Congresspeople and report their findings to the public and, if the facts merit it, to the Department of Justice. 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and, when the Constitution is not under attack, other subjects.

 

My TV will be tuned into the next hearing of the January 6 Committee tomorrow evening at 8 p.m. I hope you will be watching too, especially if you are a Republican who thinks January 6 was a peaceful protest or that “nobody cares” about what happened that day.

Thursday’s hearing will chronicle how Donald Trump spent January 6, 2021, with a focus on the 187 minutes when a deadly assault on the Capitol was underway. We already know that Trump did nothing to stop the assault. We will learn more ugly details–comments he made and how he reacted when a rioter tossed a spear-tipped flagpole at a Capitol police officer.

The images will be ugly. Nauseating to some of us. But, for all, what we will see and hear is a picture of a man clearly unfit to hold the office of the Presidency. The evidence that the Committee has collected already has established a solid foundation for indicting Trump and several of his co-conspirators for sedition. And tomorrow’s hearing will expose Donald Trump as a man with no empathy for the police being attacked by his mob and a man indifferent to calls for the hanging of his Vice President. 

We already know that Trump parked himself in front of several TVs and watched the attack. As he watched, he made a few phone calls, some of which were on disposable “burner phones.”  We already know that after the mob started to chant “Hang Mike Pence,” Trump commented, “Maybe he deserves it.”  We already know that Trump was aware that John Eastman’s legal theory that suggested Pence could singlehandedly reject electoral college votes was false and that Eastman knew it would be rejected if the Supreme Court reviewed it. On Thursday, we will hear more details about just how happy Trump was at the prospect of retaining power through violence, even if that violence cost the lives of his Vice President and members of Congress.

Even more troubling is that Trump refused to call off the attack even after he saw that police were being injured and that one woman had been shot. Perhaps he was thinking, “You have to break some eggs to make an omelet.”  

We learned last week that the Secret Service deleted text messages exchanged on January 5 and January 6. Did the then Commander-in-Chief order the Secret Service to delete them? We may find out Thursday or in coming weeks. And what did Trump ask the military to do (or not do)? Did Trump order the Secret Service to whisk Vice President Pence away if he got into his limo so that he could not ratify the electoral votes? 

Unfortunately for Trump and those with whom he exchanged text messages; it appears that the messages were not “permanently deleted.” There most likely will be at least one smoking gun in the mix—a text message that either further documents Trump’s sedition or catches Trump or a Trump ally in a lie. 

Pessimist that I am (with regards to Trump), I expect the worst. Mind you that I am not gloating. Early in Trump’s presidency, I saw that he was spawning racist hate and encouraging polarization of the two-party system. 

Trump never understood his job. And when I say “job,” let it be noted that between hundreds of rounds of golf and many hours of chat with Fox News “personalities,” Trump did little work on the nation’s business. He was and is a lazy man. I suspect he spent more time between November 2020 and January 20, 2021, on planning the insurrection than he did on anything connected with the nation’s interests.

The sordid term of Trump’s presidency is over. Even if the January 6 Committee’s work does not result in indictments brought by the Department of Justice, Trump has been exposed as the toxic narcissist that he is. He was, as John W. Dean III once said, “A cancer on the presidency.” 

Trump remains a cancer on American democracy. If the Constitution and democracy are to survive, that cancer must be removed. To get that done, Trump must be indicted, and Trump’s depravity must be exposed so that the hard-core Trumpers, those who respond to criticism of Trump with a condemnation of President Biden (or, in worse cases, start talking about Hunter Biden’s laptop or Hillary’s emails), to finally recognize that they were conned by Trump.

Recent polls indicate that Trump’s following is dissipating. Ron DeSantis, a frightening authoritarian in his own right, is ready to take Trump on and will likely be the 2024 Republican nominee, even if Trump runs. Trump’s hand-picked 2022 Congressional candidates are not doing well. Hershel Walker has not yet learned to read or speak. Dr. Oz, Trump’s idea of a Senator for Pennsylvania, is being attacked by Snooki (who is Snooki, by the way). And Trump’s favorite governor, Kristi Noem, thinks that 10-year-old rape victims should be forced to carry their babies to term.

It is in everyone’s interest—even Republicans—that Trump and Trumpism get flushed out of the American system. Because the January 6 Committee is serving this laxative purpose, I am grateful for its work.

Dare I say that it is everyone’s patriotic duty to watch the January 6 hearing on Thursday? The hearings are no longer about politics. They are about putting Trump’s threat to American democracy to an urgently needed end.

Two concluding thoughts. First, I encourage anyone who still believes Trump had nothing to do with trying to overthrow the government on January 6 to see a psychiatrist. Second, I want to know what Andy Harris’ advice was to Trump at the December 21 White House meeting at which the illegitimate legal theories of John Eastman (suggesting that Mike Pence violate the Constitution) were promoted. 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and, when the Constitution is not under attack, other subjects.

 

A few weeks ago, a friend of mine wrote President Biden to share his thoughts on the pros and cons of student loan forgiveness. The friend, an expert in the field, wrote a detailed letter outlining several reasons why blanket loan forgiveness, $50,000 per borrower as proposed by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), is not a promising idea. My friend received a response that indicated that The White House would keep his comments in mind. 

That is it? The White House said they will keep my friend’s ideas in mind. In truth, they will do nothing of the sort. My friend’s letter was opened, read by a staff member (likely a volunteer), identified as relating to student loans, and then scheduled for a form-letter response. The letter itself, I am confident, was not forwarded to the domestic policy staff, the Department of Education, or anyone else. 

I expect my friend will receive solicitations for political contributions from the President, the Democratic party and from various Democratic candidates. By seeking to discourage the President from adopting a policy that he believes is a grave mistake, he will be rewarded with several years’ worth of junk mail. And if my friend shared his phone number or email address, he will get spammed as well.

In case you are curious, my friend told President Biden that blanket loan forgiveness not only involves granting significant benefits to many people who do not need them, but also will lead current and future student loan borrowers to expect that their loans, like those made in the last 10 years, will be forgiven. My friend also noted that forgiving loans does nothing to address the larger problem–the exorbitant cost of a college education. 

My friend’s experience with President Biden typifies a problem with our government today. Our elected representatives all too often do not pursue the best policies, instead championing the policies they think will get them elected or re-elected. That is why Republicans want to “build the wall” rather than support a humane and rational border policy. It’s why candidates run on “banning” Critical Race Theory and propose things like abolishing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms as a means of protecting Second Amendment rights.

Today’s politicians, in most cases, are too dependent on campaign contributions and “earned media” to waste time listening to ordinary citizens, even citizens with expertise relevant to the issues at hand. That is why typical Congressional representatives spend more time at fundraisers, or raising money on the phone, than they do reading constituent correspondence. 

There is no easy solution to the reality that today’s elected representatives are not representing regular citizens very well. As they say, money talks. Because it costs so much to get elected and re-elected to Congress, those with money get the attention. That is why on many days there are more lobbyists roaming the halls of Congress than constituents seeking meetings with their representatives in search of help on an issue or problem. 

In recent decades, many ideas have been offered to make government work again. One is public financing of elections. My problem is that I do not want to see a penny of my tax dollars go to any candidate who disagrees with me. A second idea is to limit the total amount of money that can be spent on a primary or general election. This idea is attractive, but recent history of campaign financing suggests that both political parties will find means to circumvent the limits by using “independent political action committees” or running ads that purport to be about an issue but are targeted for or against a particular candidate. 

I am not sure any of these approaches will fix the problem caused by our elected representatives not representing us. The only solution, or, better said, the best solution, would be for citizens to better understand how the government is supposed to work and insist that their representatives do their jobs. This would mean citizens demanding that representatives quit pandering for money, stop dancing with every lobbyist that stops by their offices, and start focusing on the voters they are supposed to represent.

For many representatives, my proposed solution would mean political defeat. Representatives who walk away from today’s monied interests will walk away from the resources they need to stay in Congress. That is a tragedy. I worry about our future. Our most pressing issues demand more attention, and we as a nation deserve better representation. 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, birds, and other subjects.

 

My July 4th was partially spoiled when I encountered a boat displaying three Trump-inspired flags. One read “Joe and the Ho Gotta Go.”  The second was a U.S. flag that transitioned into a confederate battle flag. The third flag was more confusing. It was an American flag with black stripes and a black field for the stars. I am told the flag is meant to signal “Give no quarter,” meaning that the bearer will never surrender and will kill any enemies they encounter. It is based on a civil war flag conjured up by a confederate group when the war “turned south” for them. 

The sight of the flags, these were in Caroline County, was nothing new. But they prompted me to wonder why Donald J. Trump or someone else associated with him has not done anything to condemn the flags. The answer, of course, is that Trump is fully comfortable calling the vice president of the U.S. a whore. It is who Trump is.

Over the holiday weekend, I also read about how Trump and his allies are attacking Cassidy Hutchinson.  He called her “bad news,” “a total phony,” and “a leaker.” He suggested she sought to “go to Florida” with the Trump team but was turned down. In her anger, she turned on Trump, the defeated ex-president says.

The tone of the attacks is fully consistent with the Trump-inspired flags, which is to say juvenile, crude, and demeaning. It was no surprise to learn that an attempt was made to intimidate Ms. Hutchinson before her deposition. It was, however, a pleasant surprise to learn that the attempts failed. I wonder whether that failure prompted yet another plate-throwing incident?

On the encouraging side, the Trump attacks on the January 6 Committee have utterly failed. Even the “denial” of Trump’s temper tantrum in the presidential limo on January 6 has backfired. The agent who rebutted the story is known to lie. Let’s get that man in front of the January 6 Committee under oath!

While Hutchinson’s testimony has renewed calls for the prosecution of Trump, Meadows, Giuliani, and a host of others, I predict that we have not yet seen the Committee’s best work. July is not going to be a good month for Trump, even if he announces his candidacy for president.

The January 6 Committee will deliver at least two big bombshells in July. The first will be direct evidence of the extensive communication and coordination between the White House and the two militia groups that led the January 6 assault—the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. We may learn that Meadows talked to the Proud Boys during the assault and that certain House Republicans were acting as communications conduits between the militia members and the White House. You already know about Rudy Giuliani. Have you heard the names Scott Perry and Jim Jordan? Those are my two best guesses. (Other suspects, such as Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, Andy Biggs, and Lauren Boebert may have been deemed too stupid for Trump or Meadows to trust.)

The second bombshell will be evidence of Trump’s complicity in funding the insurrection. I expect to see a financial trail connecting Donald Trump, Jr., Rudy Giuliani, and Mark Meadows to the money that enabled the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and others to get to Washington. 

 Of course, Trump will say all three acted on their own. If Trump does, and when the Trump associates, now with tire tracks on their backs, ponder the prospect of jail time becomes clearer, it is likely that at least one will flip. Remember how Mark Meadows was cooperating with the January 6 Committee until he wasn’t. He is the most likely “flipper.”

We may also hear from White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, who the Committee subpoenaed. If Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony was truthful, Cipollone both knew about Trump’s involvement with the January 6 insurrection and warned the president that it was illegal.

And what about John Eastman? Without Professor Eastman’s legal memo suggesting that the Vice President could unilaterally overturn the 2020 election by rejecting slates of electors and substituting others, there may have been no attack on the Capitol.  Did Eastman believe his own theories?   What prompted him to write the memo?

As the January 6 committee moves ever closer to the release of its full written report, Donald Trump’s future will become clearer. Rumors are circulating that he soon will announce his candidacy for president for 2024. If he announces (highly likely), it will be nothing more than an attempt to fend off prosecution. Trump will argue that Democrats are prosecuting him on political grounds. His hope will be to re-energize his base.

Somehow, as I celebrated July 4th, I started to think that won’t happen. Things are not looking good for Trump’s future. Given the strength of the evidence that is emerging about what Trump was up to after he lost the 2020 election, his campaign will be seen for what it is–another abuse of our political system to serve his own ends at the expense of the public good. 

By fall, I expect Trump will resort to campaigning for president at rallies where “Joe and the Ho Gotta Go” signs and confederate flags will be in abundance. He will remind us of what a low life he is. 

The threat of Trump continuing his assault on democracy should frighten all Americans. He reminds us that freedom is not free. Trump is un-American. Trump and his party gotta go, but they will not go unless and until he is held accountable for his actions associated with January 6, 2021. 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, birds, and other subjects.

 

Last week the Court, as expected, overturned Roe v. Wade. Reactions are, as expected, mixed. The “pro-life” and “pro-choice” arguments of the last 50 years resurface as women, states, churches, and others scramble to pronounce their points of view. The decision is likely to play a significant role in the 2022 and 2024 elections. 

Much has been written about Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the decision overturning Roe. Technically, the decision does not ban abortion. Instead, it rescinds the right to an abortion and sends the regulation of abortion to the states. Because at least 22 states already have banned or severely restricted abortions, the decision effectively bans abortions for millions of women. Thousands of women will be forced to birth babies they had determined they did not want or were unable to care for.

While many have focused on the legal arguments of Dobbs, I reflect more on the logical inconsistencies reflected in a court that has effectively banned abortion but still allows the death penalty. Similarly, the decision will result in thousands of babies being born that may lead lives of misery not just because their mothers were unprepared to raise them (or didn’t want to), but because of poverty. 

The Declaration of Independence references the “unalienable rights” of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Many babies born because of Dobbs may not have much of a life, may have extremely limited liberty, and may be denied the pursuit of happiness. Of course, many such babies may lead happy, healthy, productive lives despite being “unwanted children.”

Some babies born as a result of Dobbs may eventually commit capital crimes and be put to death by the government. Ironically, some of the younger justices on the Court, including the Trump Trio of Gorsuch (54 years old), Kavanaugh (57 years old), and Barrett, (50 years old), may still be on the Court when appeals of death sentences of some of the babies (now adults) will reach the Supreme Court. Ironically, the same justices who effectively forced their mothers to unwillingly give them birth will vote to let them be executed. 

Another deeply troubling aspect of the decision is the matter of effectively forcing the birth of human beings and then not caring for them. If you adopt a dog and then abuse it by not feeding it, giving it proper shelter, or otherwise treating it in a humane manner, you can be prosecuted. The concept is that when you adopt a dog, you accept a slate of responsibilities. In the case of an unwanted child, a child born because a woman was unable to get an abortion after concluding she did not want or was unable to care for the child, the state (the government) is responsible for the child being born. Shouldn’t the state be responsible for ensuring the child receives proper healthcare, an education, and the right to “pursue happiness?”

I am angry at Republicans and religious zealots who champion the “right to life” but oppose universal healthcare, spending on education, job, and income security, and other “basic human rights.” Those people championing the “sanctity of life,” are hypocrites, in my view, when they force babies to be born without also championing the “right to live.” 

Child poverty in the U.S. is a disgrace. Eighteen percent of all children live in poverty—thirteen million children. The Supreme Court’s decision, coupled with the hypocrisy of the Court and others in not somehow ensuring that the babies forced to be born are not doomed to join the thirteen million, is effectively denying the “right to live” for many of these babies. 

A final reflection on the decision is that it suggests the Supreme Court and other aspects of the Constitution may be broken or obsolete. The Court returned the decision on whether to permit abortions to the States based on a controversial reading of the Constitution and its amendments. That result is contrary to the wishes of 65 percent of the population.  Is it too much to suggest Dobbs is evidence of Constitutional dysfunction?

The disconnect between the current Supreme Court and the wishes of much of the country suggests that it may be time to rethink the role of the Supreme Court and other aspects of the Constitution. Should Justices be subject to term limits? Should the process of amending the Constitution be made simpler to facilitate the adoption of amendments to establish rights such as same-sex and interracial marriage, or the right to contraception and abortion? These are tough questions, but they are becoming increasingly “ripe for consideration.”

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, birds, and other subjects.

 

Democracy is an obstacle to an agenda based on fear.

For the last few years, I have worried that progressives were losing faith in the Constitution. My fear was that dysfunction in Washington would convince progressives that the system of government created by the Constitution no longer worked. I worried that a critical mass of progressives would abandon attempting to win elections and collaborating with moderates and conservatives to enact legislation and take to the streets.

Progressives may yet lose faith in the Constitution but, for now, remain a solid force within the Democratic party. Despite the slow wheels of government resulting from the Constitution’s checks and balances, progressives are not yet ready to storm the Capitol and hang Mitch McConnell.

The right wing, by contrast, has already left the Constitution behind. Led by Donald Trump and other “new Republicans,” extreme conservatives have sought to achieve their agendas through the courts rather than legislation, by executive action by-passing Congress, and, in January 2021, by violence and terrorism. 

The right wing has lost faith in democracy. Their actions reflect a belief that, if democracy works, they lose. Because most Americans support reasonable immigration policies, racial justice, and equity, fighting climate change, the right to abortion, and separation of church and state, a functioning democracy is an obstacle to the right-wing agenda. 

The January 6 assault on the Capitol may prove to be but the first battle of a war against the Constitution. Led by a President whose career in real estate development was built on circumventing laws and regulations, Trump’s followers sought to block Congress from certifying the 2020 election. The goal was to keep Trump in office despite his electoral loss. Supporters of the coup attempt, then and now, are fine with having a president who was not elected by the people.

The story of Trump is a troubling one, replete with a history of racism, petty and grand theft, and a propensity to lie in the face of overwhelming evidence. Trump, we are learning from the House Select Committee on January 6, knew that he had lost the election but championed half-baked legal analyses and false claims (most created by his followers) to claim the election was stolen.

It may seem obvious that Trump’s claims would disintegrate as courts rejected his false claims, but Trump’s strategy continues to be to double-down on lying while at the same time attempting to set the stage to overturn future elections that he, his followers, or his ideological successor might lose. 

Trump, by sheer force of his willingness to argue the ridiculous, has made himself indispensable to a movement that is sufficiently out of sync with mainstream America to never win national power. That is why his followers tolerate him despite evidence of tax fraud, sexual assault, and petty grift. 

Trump’s followers, both those who marched on the Capitol and those who continue to dismiss the seriousness of the insurrection attempt, are not so much supporting Trump as attempting to fight democracy. Trump should thus be seen as a means to an end rather than as the end itself. Right-wing extremists want a leader who will deliver policies that correspond to what they think they believe. This means preventing immigration, freezing racial equity, preventing racial reconciliation, and limiting government. By dismantling “the deep state,” the right-wing sees the possibility of their policy agenda winning notwithstanding the wishes of most Americans as expressed through their representatives and President sent to Washington.

If the theory that the right-wing has abandoned democracy is correct, we are in deep trouble. If the right-wing does not regain power by election, it could turn to more serious strategies, which could include bombings, kidnappings, and murders. Efforts could also be made to intimidate moderates and liberals from voting. In short, domestic terrorism. Far-fetched? Read up on what the Proud Boys were up to on January 6. 

The fear that right-wingers will turn to enhanced violence is not speculation. They have already done it. A plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Whitmore was foiled, but only after elaborate plans were developed. Pre-meditated attacks on gay-pride events have occurred. And, of course, racially motivated mass shootings have become common.

Does the right want a dictator?

The indifference with which right-wingers have responded to the deadly January 6 insurrection suggests the right is ready to embrace an autocrat, or benevolent dictator (benevolent to the right-wing at the expense of others). Trump was delivering what the right-wing thinks it wants–people of color “put back in their place,” LGBQT people put back in the closet, and a government that operates to perpetuate the status quo. If urban schools do not improve, for example, black progress does not occur. If income security and protection of civil rights are low priorities, the U.S. becomes a less attractive destination for immigrants. The list goes on.

Do not expect right-wingers to call for a dismantling of our system of government openly. Instead, listen to their chants of “USA! USA!” and then listen to what the crowd is cheering. In the case of Trump, it often calls for building border fences, incarcerating Hillary Clinton, or cracking down on crime. Extremists say they want to make America great again. Nothing could be further from the truth.

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, birds, and other subjects.

 

For just a minute, let’s be honest. We still don’t know yet whether the first hearing of the House January 6 Committee changed anyone’s mind about Trump’s complicity. Judging from both news analyses and conversations with friends from both parties, the hearing was widely watched and substantive, but is that enough? 

Speculation since Thursday’s hearing has turned to whether we already have seen the much-ballyhooed “bombshells” teased by Congressman Raskin (D-MD), Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) and others. If we have, we need to be worried. It will take more than former Attorney General Barr calling Trump’s claims of election fraud “bullsh*t,” or even Ivanka Trump admitting that she accepted Barr’s conclusion, to change minds that seem impervious to the reality that Trump schemed to hold onto power in 2021 by any means possible.

Is the January 6 committee about to fail? I hope not, but if something doesn’t happen, Trump and Trumpism (the latter more dangerous than the former) will soldier on, poisoning the 2022 midterm elections and setting the stage for worse in 2024. “Worse” means an end to representational democracy as we currently know it. 

What signs of success should we look for? First, we need to see Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Republican Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA), and swaggering right-wingers like Josh Hawley (R-MO) start to see more risk in defending Trump than in ignoring or condemning him. That transition already has taken place with Mike Pence and, to a lesser degree, Mitch McConnell. Even Mo Brooks (R-AL), a featured speaker at the infamous Save America rally on the morning of January 6 has spoken out, suggesting it is time to move on. (That so-called courageous statement cost Brooks Trump’s endorsement for a Senate seat. Trump called him “woke,” which means “dead to me” in Trump’s mind.) 

Second, we need to see Trump shut up. While most people who face criminal charges for tax and business fraud in New York, and for interfering with the election would follow the advice of counsel and stop talking, Trump has done the opposite. In doing so, he produced the strongest evidence yet of his mental illness and that nothing the January 6 committee proves will get him to back off his crusade to end democracy in America. Trump’s statement was to call the deadly January 6 insurrection “the greatest movement in the history of our country.”

Third, we need to see signs of life at the U.S. Department of Justice. Why hasn’t the attorney general indicted Trump yet for sedition? Legal scholars believe there is enough evidence to indict Trump now. Why hasn’t Merrick Garland acted? Are the indictments being held back so as not to energize Trump voters in the 2020 mid-term elections? I do not know but suspect that is part of what is going on at Justice.

Fourth, we need to see Trump candidates defeated in elections. Encouragingly, a few hand-picked Trump candidates have flopped. Former Senator David Perdue’s effort to win the Republican nomination for governor of Georgia over incumbent Brian Kemp comes to mind. But for every Perdue, we have a J.D. Vance, Dr. Oz, or a Hershel Walker. The election of any of this trio is unwelcome news for democracy and the Senate.

Assuming the Committee fails, meaning that the Trump base shrugs off the reality of an attempted coup, there is real reason to fear for the future of the Constitution. We will either have a civil war, started by states that will decline to remain part of a country that has abandoned free and open elections and that embraces white supremacy, or something worse. That “worse” could include wholesale expulsion of undocumented people from the U.S., warfare with Mexico, alliances with autocratic countries like Russia, Turkey, Hungry and Saudi Arabia.

That is why we need to hope that the January 6 committee, or, better stated, common sense, prevails. The insanity of Trump and the Pandora’s box of dysfunction he has set loose needs to end. America must come back together again. America’s current problems will not be solved without unity.

And lest anyone even think of responding to this piece by reminding me of how bad Joe Biden is, let me preempt you. Joe Biden had nothing to do with the January 6 insurrection. Criticize him for what he has done or not done as president, but do not tell me we would be better off with Donald J. Trump back in the White House.

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, birds, and other subjects.

 

Last Friday, I went into town for gas. I saw a sticker depicting President Joe Biden pointing to the spot where the price per gallon is displayed. Biden is saying “I did that!” A recent  ABC/Ipsos poll suggests that most Americans agree. According to the poll, Biden currently has a 27 percent approval rating on how he is dealing with gas prices. His score for handing inflation is as bad at 28 percent. 

Let’s be honest. It is unfair to put the blame for high gasoline prices solely on Joe Biden and the Democrats. There’s plenty of blame to go around, including Russia, greedy oil company executives, Donald Trump, Congress, and the pandemic. And if we want to play the blame game, we need to add ourselves to the list. If we bought less gasoline, the price would go down.

For many of us, gasoline is the most irritating manifestation of inflation, but it is only part of a pattern of rising prices. Long-term inflation, leading to a recession, seems likely. Simply put, indications are increasing that trouble is heading our way.

Consider a few recent comments by business and government leaders. Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase predicts an “economic hurricane.” Elon Musk predicts a recession and tells us, in true Musk fashion, that it will be a good thing. “Bankruptcies need to happen,” he tells us, which is easy for him to say.  

More worrisome is Treasury Secretary Yellen admitting that she was wrong in her projections about inflation.  Yellen believed inflation would be modest.  Reports suggest that she advised President Biden to pare down his domestic spending proposals but was overruled by other administration advisors. 

Worse yet, we have Fed Chairman Jay Powell and others at the Federal Reserve uncertain of how inflation can be brought under control. Powell predicts “pain” and says several factors that might trigger a recession are beyond the Fed’s control.  That is not comforting. 

All this suggests that we are on the cusp of a recession. I see one coming but, I am frequently surprised by encountering people who continue to believe that things will be back to normal by the end of the year. Among their explanations are that the supply chain issues are “straightening out;” that the Fed’s “quantitative tightening” will work; and that the war in Ukraine will end soon because “Putin is running out of tanks.”

When I hear this type of garbage, I smile, nod my head, and walk away knowing that I have just wasted my time. But when I reflect on all the explanations being offered for inflation, most of them in the form of blame, I realize that nobody has a handle on inflation. 

If the Biden administration, the Fed, or anyone else manages to tame inflation, a modicum of luck will be involved. This is not to say that there aren’t things that can and should be done now. The Federal Reserve is doing the right thing to implement quantitative tightening. Republicans are doing the right thing to oppose massive new federal spending. Economists are right to suggest that too many people continue to voluntarily remain unemployed or underemployed. 

Unfortunately, if new investments in infrastructure, education, healthcare, the military, and science are deferred, we all pay the price eventually. The pressing social needs that gave rise to last summer’s urban turmoil have not yet been met. More unrest is likely if it becomes clear that progress is being abandoned in the name of curing inflation.

What does all this mean for the 2022 midterm elections? Unfortunately, if the polls are right, people will blame Biden and Democrats for inflation and will punish them by voting for Republicans. That will further polarize politics, especially if people like Mehmet Oz, J.D. Vance, and Herschel Walker are sent to D.C.

I fear that if Republicans win in November, their focus will not be on taming inflation. It will be on impeaching Joe Biden, enacting tax cuts, and pursuing nonsense like “banning” Critical Race Theory and blocking needed election reform laws to increase their odds of winning the presidency in 2024. 

This means that in addition to the obvious pain of inflation, we may face other types of pain as the polarization of America continues. All this means it is important to avoid the blame game when talking about inflation. Instead of finding someone to blame, let’s work together to find impactful solutions.

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, birds, and other subjects.

 

More than half of us want to see action on gun control, but nobody I know expects Congress to pass a law. It cannot. With few exceptions, Congress is devoid of leaders. Most members on both sides plan their every move with the next election in mind. And they do not have the time to develop legislation because they are too busy fundraising, posting on social media, or trying to get on Fox or MSNBC. It is sad, but that’s only part of the story.

Somehow the quality of people serving in Congress is declining. Missouri once sent Stuart Symington to the Senate. Today fist-pumping Josh Hawley represents it. At least two members of the House of Representatives are openly anti semitic, Representatives Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Omar Ilhan (D-MN). Tlaib accused Jews serving in Congress of dual loyalty, suggesting they may be more loyal to Israel than to the United States. “They forget who they represent,” she said. 

Omar Ilhan is also accused of antisemitism, but is also known for selling t-shirts reading, “F**k around and find out” on her campaign website. Ilhan is not known for her legislative leadership or her ability to collaborate with Republicans.

On the Republican side, more than a dozen members regularly contribute to the destruction of the credibility, and to the worsening dysfunction, of Congress. The list includes gun fanatic Lauren Boebert (R-CO), QAnon follower Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), and, of course, Matt Gaetz (R-FL), who has been accused of sex trafficking. Other Republicans are accused of complicity in the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol.

Misbehaving members of Congress are nothing new. Memories of Wayne Hays (D-OH) affair with employee Elizabeth Ray come to mind. Jim Traficant (D-OH) was expelled from the House and served seven years in prison for taking bribes, racketeering, and having staff members perform chores on his farm. Remember Wilber Mills (D-AR) and the “Argentine Firecracker,” Fanne Foxe?

There will be future episodes of bad judgment, alcohol abuse, and plain stupidity involving congresspersons and senators. Those episodes, too, will injure the credibility of Congress. But today we see something worse. We see members of Congress openly disobeying the rules Congress sets for itself. Consider the case of House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA). As widely expected, he has effectively announced he won’t comply with the subpoena he received from the House Select Committee on the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol.  Other subpoenaed Republicans are expected to follow suit. Their plan:  Attack the legitimacy of the Committee, make unrealistic demands in exchange for testifying, and run out the clock until Congress adjourns for the year.

McCarthy and the Republicans actions seriously injure Congress for multiple reasons. Among them are openly violating the legitimate request of a duly created committee and seeking to subvert the work of Congress in investigating the most serious threat to democracy in recent times. An extremely dangerous precedent is being established that may please Donald Trump in the short term but will lead to favors being returned in future Congresses.

In eight months, Congress may very well be in Republican control. Mr. McCarthy is expected by many to be elected Speaker. Will he, as members of the Freedom Caucus and Donald Trump have suggested, proceed to impeach President Biden?  Unfortunately, the odds are better than 50-50. 

Members of Congress of both parties have become increasingly comfortable with open political warfare. Efforts to find common ground are now uncommon. Political fights are not resolved in Congress but fought out in the media. Lying has now become the norm. Members caught in lies no longer fear accountability. You get the idea.

I wonder if all is not lost—if Congress and representational democracy is not living on borrowed time. If it is, get ready for more Donald Trumps and worse (yes, that is possible). The only thing that can save democracy is for the people to start exercising it. That means people following Congress and government closer and holding those who undermine democracy accountable. That means voting members of Congress and senators who are not civil, do not focus on the common good, and who otherwise violate common decency out. 

The American people rid itself of Donald Trump in the 2020 election. Today 76 percent of Americans disapprove of how Congress is doing its job. Congress needs to reform itself or get ready to go out of business. 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, birds, and other subjects.