Tag Archives: politics

What’s the Opposite of “Woke”?

Posted on by
Reply

Letter to the Editor, Lincoln Journal-Star, Feb. 12, 2025.

As a Nebraskan, I’m naturally concerned about wokeness. The nation, and most Nebraskans, elected a president whose entire mission appears to be centered around “anti-wokeness.” If that doesn’t make anti-wokeness important, I don’t know what would. 

The problem is figuring out what “wokeness” means. 

We can compare “woke” with neologisms from the past that were employed as ideological  labels. I remember a few decades ago, conservatives seemed obsessed with the spread of “Islamofascism.” But as with “woke,” the definition of the term appeared pretty random, sort of circling around the idea that to be Islamic and an enemy of the United States is to be Islamofascist. 

Then there are the words that “surround” a term like “woke”, such as when the president pairs the epithet “woke” with companion labels like “communist, globalist, leftist, Marxist,” etc.  By association alone, we can understand that to be “woke” is to NOT be a good MAGA Republican. Maybe that’s enough.

In truth, we all know what words really mean—or don’t mean. To MAGA conservatives, those of us who support DEI initiatives, those who support helping refugees, those who condemn the demonization of all marginalized and powerless Americans—we are “woke”.

So what should a never-Trump Republican call folks who witnessed the chaos and lawlessness of Trump’s first term, and then voted for another one?

I think the term we’re looking for would simply be the opposite of woke. 

Not “anti-woke,” which limits them to what they are not.

Perhaps the word is “asleep”. 

A Shadow Looms Over Omaha’s Leaders 

Posted on by
Reply

Unpublished editorial

This Tuesday, Omaha Mayor Jean Stothert and Police Chief Todd Schmaderer held a press conference intended to “quell apprehension amplified by national reports of imminent deportations under the new Trump administration,” according to the Nebraska Examiner.

Asked what would happen if federal officials insisted on help, Schmaderer said he doesn’t have to stray from his defined mission: 

“The federal government can’t come one day and give a directive to the Omaha police chief, to the mayor, to say, ‘This is what you’re going to do.’”

The two were responding, as the Associated Press reports, to a new memo written by acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, which instructs the Justice Department’s civil division to work with a newly formed “Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group.” The group will  identify state and local laws and policies that “threaten to impede” the Trump administration’s immigration efforts and potentially challenge them in court, according to the memo.

This action, and this memo, are generally being reported nationally as a tool to go after heavily Democratic cities that “hinder” Justice Department anti-immigration efforts, such as via statue, policies or immigrant-friendly court actions. 

But the leading argument is not the most salient one for Omaha. Later in the 3-page memo, we find this: 

“Federal law prohibits state and local actors from resisting, obstructing and otherwise failing to comply with lawful immigration-related commands and requests.” (Emphasis added)

Chief Schmaderer is probably banking on that word “lawful” to hold the status quo and allow him to resist any federal “commands” he finds distasteful (or professionally dangerous). But let’s look closely, here in 2025, at the legal parameters of the authority of the executive branch—charged with enforcing the nation’s laws—as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Consider that one reason Trump is back in office is a series of Trump-friendly rulings by the conservative Court, culminating in Trump v. United States (2024), which grants presidents unqualified immunity from any laws they may break while engaged in acts “within their core constitutional purview.” 

I would argue that Mr. Trump regards his America First crackdown on illegal immigration as a very “core” act with regard to enforcing the law, especially since deporting undocumented immigrants was the main plank of his campaign platform. And, to be clear, those who cross the border without going through channels have broken the law.

But Mr. Trump, as we have seen, breaks the law and then claims political persecution is driving anyone hoping to hold him accountable (those 34 felonies and numerous former federal indictments). Rather than Trump, it is often the DA or prosecutor coming after him whose professional life ends in tatters. So what’s to stop him now, with his immunity ruling in hand, from breaking any law that gets in his way? 

Given the immunity ruling and Trump’s penchant for defining legality under his own terms, it is safe to say that any law designed to constrain this president from executing what he believes to be his “core” functions—to include  punishing people who impede those functions—is no longer a law. It is a “suggestion” at best. And to Trump, any suggestion that his power should be limited is seen as a challenge. 

So what becomes of Omaha? Lincoln? Admirably, you have pledged to tread the legal path and obstain from operating outside your purview, even if so ordered. 

But what of the divergent path the president may believe to be “more” legal—perhaps even “perfect”—given his history and the power of immunity recently bestowed upon him? 

In 2025, we must ask—which of those represents the “legal” choice? It looks like only time will tell.

Trump’s Return: Implications for U.S. Democracy

Posted on by
Reply

January 9, 2025

From Exile to Victory

Today is a National Day of Mourning. As I write this, the body of Jimmy Carter lies in state at the Capitol, the hallowed center of America’s democracy that was violently attacked by Donald Trump’s supporters four years ago last Monday. 

He told them to go to that same Capitol and “fight like hell” as Congress attempted to certify the results of a free and fair election, so they did. It was a counterpart for today; it was a national day of shame. The world looked upon the United States as a democracy losing itself to violent hooliganism.

But in eleven days, the same Donald Trump who refused to recognize the vote of the people, the one who tried to engineer a reversal of Democratic President Joe Biden’s win by whatever means necessary, who has been convicted of 34 felonies, who assaults women, who “allegedly” stashed a trove of secret government documents in his bathroom (I guess we’ll never know), who calls America a “garbage can” fighting “forever wars” while praising Putin’s blood-soaked Russia—this man will be sworn in as president once again. 

He will be sworn in by a member of the Supreme Court, a conservative majority of which has  granted him constitutionally questionable immunity from prosecution for his many alleged crimes. As I write this, that same Court has just narrowly decided not to try to erase his 34 state felony convictions for crimes committed before he was in office. 

This is not to mention the literally thousands of lawsuits Trump has been hit with, the payouts to hoodwinked “students” of the phony Trump University, his civil trial for sexual assault of Ms. E. Jean Carroll (for which he was found liable), or the many other women who have come forward to accuse him of assault. 

Remember the Donald Trump who admitted barging into the dressing rooms of his Miss USA and Miss Universe pageants to “inspect” the half-dressed contestants? Because he could? The Trump whom we heard on tape claiming that he could not help himself, could not resist grabbing and kissing beautiful women? It’s the same Trump now. 

As Gallup notes, the Supreme Court protecting Trump from accountablity presides over a court system that it appears Americans no longer trust. In 2020, 59% of those polled said they have confidence in the courts. A few weeks ago, Gallup released a poll showing that in the last five years, the number has dropped to 35%. According to Gallup, this is the kind of rapid decline in confidence seen during recent upheavals in countries like Myanmar, Venezuela, and Syria.

Yet it is by design. A democraticaly elected president cannot become a “dictator on day one,” as Trump has publicly promised, without a little help from his friends. As Putin and his ilk have done in Russia, Hungary, Syria, Venezuela, and other former democracies, Trump must undermine the authority of the courts in the eyes of the public before he can bend them to his will. 

Ironically, in the case of the Supreme Court, the unaddressed ethical lapses and outrageous behaviors of conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, as exhaustively reported by Pro Publica, have aided this campaign against the courts’ general credibility. Chief Justice Roberts’ annoyed dismissals of any hint of wrongdoing, as if to suggest that wrongdoing by members of a powerful court with no one to answer to but itself is impossible, have also likely moved the needle. 

And of course, Trump relentlessly attacks every judge, prosecutor, or DA who dares to come after him, casting them as the Spanish Inquisition and himself as a modern Jesus of Nazareth. But as with those juries that have found him to be less than innocent, to me the publicly available evidence alone makes him look more like a criminal being prosecuted by the law than a politician being persecuted by his enemies. There’s just no evidence of the latter, unless you look all the way back to the 2019 Ukraine debacle, Trump’s mob-like pressure campaign to force the Ukranian government to smear the reputation of candidate Joe Biden (the subject of Trump’s first impeachment.)

Speaking of protecting the public from wrongdoers, that was also Aileen Cannon’s job in presiding over Trump’s trial for allegedly stealing top secret government documents. We all saw what happened with Trump’s appointee in charge—endless delays and needless hearings on every frivolous motion, followed by prompt pre-election dismissal of the case based on the already-defeated notion that the special prosecutor was “illegally appointed.” 

That was the end, as they say, of that. But it should have been only the beginning. Special Counsel Jack Smith was ready to appeal. 

Then Trump won the election. 

From Victory to Retribution

Yes, once again, Trump won. Now, like a character in a novel rescued from unjust banishment and restored to the throne, Trump’s ignominious past begins to fall away in favor of an imagined “return of the king” narrative favored by the administration and its friends in high (and low) places.

Indeed, the major media, much of which is now owned by Trump’s fellow billionaires, seem to be suffering a major case of amnesia regarding the historic coup attempt. Three days ago was the fourth anniversary of the January 6 attack. In perusing the media that morning, one of the two articles I saw on the topic was from never-Trump conservative David Frum, writing in The Atlantic on the topic of—you guessed it—how the incoming administration and its apologists are trying to “erase” the legacy of January 6. 

It must be erased, because this king has returned for “retribution” and “justice,” as promised when he announced his candidacy in early 2023. Before even  taking office, he has already threatened our neighbors both north and south, throwing in Panama and Denmark for good measure. He has threatened GOP elected officials like Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney with “military tribunals”, whatever that is supposed to look like. 

You may recall that four-star General Mark Milley, who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, spoke on the phone with his Chinese counterpart during the mayhem of January 6, 2021. As the world press was live-reporting on a possible coup by Trump’s supporters, who were marching through the halls of the Capitol chanting “Hang Mike Pence!” and defecating on elected officials’ desks, and while Trump himself did nothing but watch the sordid show unfold on television, Milley took responsibility for assuring the Chinese government that the United States nuclear arsenal was under control and that there was no threat of an unprovoked nuclear strike. 

The Chinese were completely blind regarding what may have been happening in terms of the security of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and chain of command. Further, U.S. intelligence indicated that weeks earlier, the Chinese had acquired intelligence of their own suggesting a possible first strike by the U.S. So Milley’s call may have been instrumental in averting an accidental nuclear exchange. 

But Trump, after a couple of years spent rehabilitating himself among his supporters, was retroactively livid. He said publicly in September 2023 that Milley’s actions were treasonous and, in past times, would have merited court-martial and execution. In other words, he was insinuating that his former Joint Chiefs Chariman, a decorated war hero and a symbol of the modern military, could be put to death for calming the global situation while Trump sulked in front of his TV, watching the insurrection he co-authored. 

What’s more, at the time, Milley’s call had been discussed and authorized by the then-Secretary of State and acting Secretary of Defense. While it may be argued Milley exceeded his statutory authority in making the call, it may also be argued—and more convincingly—that bridging the gaping hole in the chain of command left by the absent president was the more immediate concern.

Professor Tom Nichols of the U.S. Naval War College said as much, writing in The Atlantic at the time that “[t]he Constitution of the United States has no provision for the control of planet-destroying weapons while the President is losing his mind and trying to overthrow the government itself.”

Since that time, General Milley has become a standard-issue MAGA pariah, to the point that he has been forced to barricade his home and hire private security for his family. It’s a familiar story now. By taking a stand for the Constitution and the public good, Milley has become  the symbolic anti-MAGA warrior who must be diminished.

Let’s remember what Trump confidant (and fellow convict) Steve Bannon has been saying for years: “Our goal is the deconstruction of the administrative state.” 

Milley has since said publicly that Trump is “the most dangerous person ever” and “a fascist to the core.” With Trump about to gain unchecked power, I am very concerned for the general’s future, and by extension the future of all who value the checks and balances of the Constitution, the integrity of the courts, and the rule of law. 

But we who value such things are no longer the majority. Instead, the country will inherit the kind of future that a small plurality of Americans and a decisive majority of Nebraskans asked for with their votes last November. It’s a future they have gifted to Trump the Immune, but whatever fruits it bears will fall to all of us. 

They say the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Let us see how this future unfolds. 

A Modest Proposal

Posted on by
1

You know the old saying—when life gives you lemons…

Yesterday, life gave us Biden vs. Trump two-point-ohhhhh my. Nobody wants it. Everybody dreads it. Still, it’s’ what we’ll get. 

Lemons. 

But the old saying skips a few details. Exactly how do you make the lemonade? The answer is simple: you squeeze the lemons. You squeeze the juice out of them. Then you sweeten up that juice and drink it down. 

What is a president, after all? Little more than an actor, a figurehead who utters the pronouncements and signs the documents written by beurocratic writer eggheads working with bureucratic math eggheads and low-level White House Congressional liaison eggheads. (I probably don’t have to mention that none of these eggheads are octegenarians—only the politicians who stand in front of the cameras and spout whatever comes into their heads have that kind of job security.) 

The acts are getting stale, the actors losing their touch. We’ve seen this movie too many times. Thus our current national slow-motion malaise, amplified by a social media experiment gone awry, which will culminate in a moment next November that few want to see happen, regardless of the outcome. And those few are a scary few, at least on occasions when they sufficiently outnumber the objects of their projected self-loathing. 

Unless…

Because let’s face the cold, hard facts: Trump is ascendant in his GOP, while Biden is an albatross for Democrats. It doesn’t make much sense, but there it is. You can blame the media’s “Trump enrichment syndrome” or the gullibility of yokels, the fragility of gun-baring white men, or the ennui of an entire people who’ve had too damn much success on the hunt  for another cheap thrill. Or you can blame God, or the stars and planets. 

But it won’t change what you will get—not a lemon, but a dried up old orange. And a crazy one at that. 

We must ask ourselves, though: What else could we get? What good thing could we make from this MAGA obsession, which has resulted in the RNC going to the Trump family and Lara Trump declaring that “every penny” will now go to Trump’s campaign (which is also his legal defense fund)? What can we make from that?

The word is Orangeade. Another word is “super-majority”. And all Democrats would need to do is concentrate on the important Senate and House races, outspend strapped Republicans in strategic vulnerable and swing districts (leaving some non-MAGA GOP opponents in place), and sell this message to voters disgusted by Trump but also poisoned against Biden and wary of a “President Harris”: Trump will be contained in his White House like Sauruman in his tower. 

Rage as Trump might, a Congress helmed by Democrats in both houses—including a super-majority of 60 senators—can thwart practically every move he and his captured Supreme Court may try to make toward their dream of a post-democratic autocracy. 

(Oh yes, the Supreme Court which, at this time, appears in the tank for Trump but still cannot actually write the legislation they favor. That is the job of Congress, which can also write laws that shape an out-of-whack Supreme Court. So I hope you see I am describing a “twofer”.)

I know what you’re saying. “Impossible. It’s never been done.” Which would be correct. Kind of like there’s never been anyone elected back to the White House after attempting to seize power from the man who beat him in the previous election. Like there’s never been a president under mulitple criminal indictments, or a president who has been found guilty of sexual assault by a jury of his peers.

Oh yeah, there’s a lot of “never beens” these days. Aren’t you ready for another of your own, Democrats? After all, in 2008 there had never been a Black president. There had never been legal gay marriage in the US. Few nations offered women reproductive rights of any kind, and even fewer allow abortions (still). 

In 1919, women had “never been” voters, and only one (a fluke) had been a Member of Congress. 

In 1860, Black Americans had “never been” free. 

And remember, the Trump-inspired Congressional losses of his tenure, while modest, were also unprecedented.

So hammer this message home, from now until November: Instead of handing the nation to Trump and his amoral MAGA allies like Greene, Goetz and Graham, a coalition of Independents (like myself), Democrats, and Republican refugees can use the 2024 election to take it all away from them. We can box Trump in the White House, alone, with only his “hand-picked” (translation: incompetent,  self-interested and likely criminal) loyalists to defend him (for as long as that lasts). 

The coalition will be temporary by nature. We’re talking about Congress, where power shifts in the wind like the sands of the desert.

And how long would his presidency last? The Supreme Court appears poised to delay Trump’s prosecution until he can secure the presidency. The day he enters office, Trump’s Justice Department will end the prosecutions. On the next day, Congress can proceed with impeachment number three. And this time it sticks. As the new boss, his VP will have a stark choice: play ball with a re-empowered Congress, or get shown the door like the old boss.

And whatever Trump’s Supreme Court bloc tries to do, a robust Congress could undo. 

I would brand it a “velvet revolution,” seizing power from the executive and returning it to the people via ballot box patriotism. If this were to be achieved, not only would America be successful in containing MAGA fever and thus protecting vulnerable Americans from its worst instincts. It would also, in the process, re-empower the branch of government that should in fact wield the most conspicuous authority of the three—because it is the people’s branch, populated with the people’s representatives. At least in theory. Can we make it a reality? Why shouldn’t we? We have no king.

And who knows? Maybe Democrats can sweep Biden back in too, with a sort of reverse Congressional coattail effect. Not that it really matters.

Many will say an alliance of progressive and moderate Americans cannot do it, because the right-leaning Independents and nervous traditionalist Republicans will balk. But really they don’t want us to try, and their voices are louder, individually, than ours. They want it to stay that way. So the powerful of all stripes will shout down such an idea as unrealistic. Unfortunately, such rhetoric has its own power in our omnipresent mediascape.

But never forget what our collective power can do at the voting booth. Don’t forget the hope that was inspired in 2008, and don’t fear the backlash—that will happen no matter what you do.

The only alternative to victory is surrender to the loudest, angriest, and most ignorant voices among us. 

“Moral Values” (editorial 3)

Posted on by
Reply

And so here we are. If the election proves anything, it proves that conditions in this country and the actions of its government have very little to do with our reasons for selecting its leaders.

In an historic election on which rides, very possibly, the future of this nation as we know it, exit polls showed that the top issue was not the continuing threat of terrorism; it was not the Iraq war; it was not the burgeoning deficit or the lackluster economy. No, the top issue was a nebulous phrase both meaningless and pregnant with hidden meaning: the top issue cited by voters was “moral values.”

The first thing that came to my mind when I heard that was, “Which ones?” After all, it could be considered highly immoral to make war against a nation that poses no threat to the American people, a war resulting in the violent deaths of tens of thousands, most of them innocent women and children.

Was Abu Ghraib a moral place? Was it right to hide the truth about what was done in our name? (And no, I don’t hold Bush culpable for the torture; but he, like any Commander in Chief, is responsible for the actions—and inactions—of his Defense Department.)

Some would question the morality of policies designed to shift the tax burden away from capital, causing it to land almost entirely on the back of labor. And if massive tax cuts for today’s wealthy political donors and voters make it necessary to either cut benefits to tomorrow’s elderly or impose draconian tax increases on future workers–as economists predict–are such cuts a moral choice?

And if “voluntary” pollution controls for corporations are not enough to make safe the air we breathe and the water we drink; if denial of global warming does not make it go away; if the government’s refusal to ask Americans to conserve results in more military action to protect “national interests” in the form of the oil supply—is that moral? Is it moral to ignore the environment that sustains us?

If we are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights, and if among these rights is freedom from unreasonable intrusions by the government into the lives of citizens, and the right to due process when taken into custody by the government, is it moral to suspend these rights in the name of protecting the nation founded on them? Under whose authority?

In this light, I respectfully disagree with the notion that the administration’s return to power is the result of people choosing “morality” over whatever the Democrats are supposed to represent. My own moral struggle requires more clarity in calling this choice by its real name. I mean to say, I would actually feel better about the results if voters’ motivations had been more honestly reported. Not good, but better.

But instead they simply quoted “moral values.” It doesn’t tell the story. Not unless this really is an age of moral relativism, and what’s moral for you is not moral for me. But no, the “moral values” evangelicals would be the first to dispute that. So I guess we see reality itself differently. I see the slaughter of thousands of innocent women and children in pursuit of a political agenda, and they see–what? I see a government so bereft of morality it ignores the humanity of the Geneva conventions and attempts to redefine “torture” in its prisons to apply only to cases of organ failure, and they see–what? I see the wholesale theft of the next generations’ Social Security, Medicare and earnings in the form of trillions of dollars in deficit spending, and they see–what? I see the snuffing out of countless species–possibly the destruction of life itself–as a result of willfully ignoring the documented effects of human activity on this planet’s delicate ecosystems, and they see–what?

What do they see? These are not assertions, after all. They are facts.

Fact: the Iraq war was not defensive, hence it was by definition waged for political reasons.
Fact: the Justice Department actively sought ways to abandon its moral obligations under the Geneva Conventions by writing “legal opinions” attempting to redefine torture and the status of American prisoners of war. Right now, the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba are beyond the authority of every American legal jurisdiction.
Fact: the budget surplus that greeted Bush when he came to office is gone, our current annual deficit is nearly $500 billion, and such deficits are now predicted for every year into the next decade. The main reason for this is the Bush tax cuts.
Fact: the U.S. government’s own research agencies acknowledge the contribution of human activity to global warming, but the Bush administration has instituted no policies designed to curb such activity and refuses to join other industrialized nations in the Kyoto treaty.

Homosexuals in the closet, creationism taught in science classrooms, abortions performed in bathtubs and perpetual war with “evildoers” will not change the horrendous legacy of a dangerously radical administration incapable of recognizing its own moral transgressions. So if that’s what you voted for, please tell me how such an agenda outweighs everything we, as Americans, should have voted against.