A Wink and a Nod?

How will Republican lawmakers censure Donald Trump for his incendiary role in Wednesday's attack on the US Capitol?  Will they encourage the use of the 25th Amendment?  Pressure him to resign?  Support impeachment?

So far, as the Washington Post reported yesterday, "Republicans [are] largely silent about [the] consequences of [the] deadly attack and Trump's role in inciting it . . . Republican leaders [have] yet to hold anyone accountable."  True, Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania have called for Trump's resignation, and Politico notes that several Republicans have expressed private support for Trump's removal.  Still, the collective response is silence . . . 

. . . for which Eliana Johnson, guest host of today's edition of the newsletter "Politico Playbook," offers an answer.  She describes a strategy one Republican operative called "wink, wink, nod, nod," in which "lawmakers simply treat VP Mike Pence as president."  It's already been used, she notes, when Congressional leaders on Wednesday called Pence, not Trump, to employ the National Guard.  Moreover, Mitch McConnell has apparently told others that "he does not plan to speak to Trump again."

Big whoop. 

McConnell has enabled Donald Trump's malfeasance since the start of this presidency.  He's winked and nodded for four years so that he could secure judgeships and tax cuts for the rich.  Congressional Republicans, a few notable exceptions notwithstanding, have joined him.  When Joe Biden won the election in November, these same Republicans once again remained silent.  What harm, they asked, in allowing Trump to claim a fraudulent, stolen election?

I hope they found out.

Remaining silent, winking and nodding at Mike Pence, should not be an option for Republicans, certainly not for their leadership.  They should be speaking on talk shows, posting to social media, and interviewing with newspapers--wherever they might reach uninformed citizens--to tell them the truth: Joe Biden won this election.  No fraud.  No steal.  They should further speak out against their president: Donald Trump was wrong to incite violence.  Finally, they should be doing whatever they can to get Trump out of office and to speak publicly about their efforts.

Clear, consistent messages could make a difference, at least for the future.  If Republicans can't get rid of Trump now, maybe they can undo some of the damage they've caused.  For we cannot expect to preserve our democracy as long as election results remain in doubt for so many citizens.  The angry, armed mob already broke through the gates, and we can't afford for them to do so again.

Epiphany

Three days from now, on Wednesday, January 6, the United States Congress will meet to certify the winner of the 2020 presidential race.  President-elect Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump in November by over 7 million votes in the popular election and by 74 votes in the Electoral College.  The Trump campaign's efforts to sue several states for voter fraud have failed in over 40 cases.  District Court Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan of Pennsylvania said, in dismissing one of the cases, that "this claim, like Frankenstein's monster, has been haphazardly stitched together . . . This court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations . . . unsupported by evidence."

Frankenstein's monster indeed.  

It's what the Republican Party has created repeatedly in its subservience to Donald Trump, and it's what brings us now to the latest outrage:  the group of 12 Republican senators and over 100 representatives who plan to oppose the count of votes on January 6.  What an interesting coincidence that this disgraceful devilry will occur on Epiphany, the Christian celebration of the Magi's visit.  Epiphany has also come to mean "a moment of sudden revelation or insight."

Can we count on any of these spineless senators and representatives to experience epiphany, to see the danger of their actions?  Not likely, when their circular logic spins on its own deceit.  Senator Ted Cruz, leader of the twelve senators, said today, "We've seen in the last two months unprecedented allegations of voter fraud . . . We have an obligation to protect the integrity of the democratic system."  Allegations, yes.  Proof, no.  The courts have ruled; the democratic system was upheld.  That the likes of Cruz and his comrades continue to hoodwink Trump supporters doesn't validate the false narrative.  

Shakespeare's play Twelfth Night, also a reference to Epiphany, offers us two quotes as we contemplate these Republicans' actions.  In Act 2, Scene ii, Viola says,

"O time, thou must untangle this, not I.
It is too hard a knot for me t'untie."

Who will untie this knot that Republicans have created?  Certainly not Mitch McConnell, who enabled his corrupt president from the start.  Certainly not the so-called moderate Republicans--Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Mitt Romney, or Ben Sasse--whose actions rarely support their words of protest.  Certainly not the the right-wing media that continues to promote lies and foment discord.  New leadership under Joe Biden will make a difference, of course, as he will begin to restore integrity and respect.  But William Shakespeare may have it right in the end: time may be our only salvation.

Finally, again from Viola, Act 2, Scene i, a lament for all of us: 

"What country, friends, is this?"

Ordinary Courage

As the results of the presidential election became clear earlier this month, I knew that our president would seek to create chaos, but I never imagined that ordinary citizens would save us.  I thought that at least some Republican legislators, other than Mitt Romney, would object to these destructive attempts to override voters' wishes.  I wondered if Mitch McConnell would finally defend the Constitution.  I hoped that prominent generals would issue a joint statement of condemnation.

Silly me.

Instead, working people did their jobs, starting with postal employees who handled and delivered an unprecedented number of absentee ballots.  Despite efforts to hamper their work through the removal of mail-sorting machines and Louis DeJoy's attempted cost-cutting proposals, the United States Postal Service processed over 122 million ballots this year.

Elections officials at all levels followed the model of postal employees, working long hours on election day and beyond to ensure an accurate count.  Moreover, several workers reported not just harassment, but violent threats as well, for doing their jobs.  Al Schmidt, the Republican City Commissioner of Philadelphia, said that "his office [was] receiving death threats for counting votes in a democracy."  Poll workers in Michigan and Arizona reported similar intimidation, and in Georgia, Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said that both he and his wife had received death threats.  One text read, "You better not botch this recount.  Your life depends on it."

Yet despite the long hours, the insults, and the threats, elections officials have resisted intense pressure and begun to certify the results of this election.  Republican and Democratic officials both have fulfilled their oaths of office to ensure an accurate count.  Indeed, our fellow citizens are thwarting Donald Trump and his lawless attorneys.

Theirs is ordinary courage, in a way, if courage is ever ordinary.  

But what about Congressional Republicans and senior White House officials?  Where's their courage?  We are fortunate to have honest, hard-working postal workers and election officials who value integrity.  Were it equally true in Washington.

Delete Donald

When my mother Margaret George was running for office in Pennsylvania many years ago, the child of one of her volunteers grew weary of the campaign.  Riding in the back seat of her mother's car one day as they delivered flyers and yard signs, the little girl cried out, "No more Peggy George."

I know the feeling, not about my mom's campaigns, but about the one we've just been through.  "No more Donald Trump," I say.  He's taken us for a ride that's lasted too long and, like the little girl in the back seat, we've been mostly powerless to stop him.

Until now.  He's done, he's lost the election.  Lawsuits, protests, and bluster won't change the reality of the vote.

So what now?  Here's a proposal: stop talking about him, stop writing about him, stop analyzing him.  He's consumed our energy for four years.  As Michelle Goldberg writes in The New York Times, "The outrage Trump sparks leaves less room for many other things--joy, creativity, reflection. . . Living in Trump's panic-inducing eternal present is bad for art, but it's also bad for imagination more broadly."

Sidelining Donald Trump would mean that our leaders can focus on the challenges we face.  Consider the coronavirus as an example.  The drama of Trump's diagnosis and treatment last month shifted attention away from the pandemic's pernicious spread throughout the country.  Even now, we watch our president head to the golf course--wondering how he could be so irresponsible--as thousands more Americans die.  We'd all be better off if we didn't bother even to notice where he is.

Moving President Trump off the front page would have the added benefit of depriving a narcissist of the attention he craves.  We could all take this advice from Dan Neuharth of Psychology Today: "Recognizing that narcissists are caught in an endless quest for attention and approval can free you from false expectations and allow you to set healthy boundaries."  Imagine Trump-free days when we no longer fear his next dangerous move.  Imagine a president who won't intrude into our daily lives, who won't keep us awake at night.  Joe Biden will be that president.  By turning our attention to him, we deny Donald Trump the ongoing power that he doesn't deserve.  

Trump's a lame duck now.  It's time to treat him like one.

Don't Let the Baby Have His Bottle

As the youngest in my family with two brothers who sometimes saw me as spoiled, I took my share of derision when we were kids.  If I whined about something or made a request that they deemed excessive, they would chant, "Let the baby have her bottle."  

Their sing-song duet came back to me this week as Donald Trump reacted to the news of his coming defeat.  Just as you might expect from a child, he tweeted in defiance on Saturday morning, "I WON THIS ELECTION BY A LOT!"  Later that morning when the networks announced Joe Biden's victory, Trump declared, "The simple fact is this election is far from over."

No, the simple fact is that Donald Trump shouldn't get away with his baseless, immature charges of a stolen election.  Until he produces evidence substantiating his claims, he should be called out repeatedly for lying.  But as has been the case with his presidency, only a few--like Senators Mitt Romney and Pat Toomey, and former governor Chris Christie--have chastised Trump.  The usual lackeys (Kevin McCarthy, Lindsey Graham, and Ted Cruz) have defended him, and the rest remain silent.

To remain silent is to become complicit, enabling Trump's reckless behavior.  What are Republicans afraid of?  They're like new parents who dance around their toddler's temper tantrums and don't know what to do.

Perhaps this has been the problem all along.  We've had a big baby in the White House for four years, and instead of confronting his outrages, his colleagues and staff repeatedly gave up.  They stuck a bottle in his mouth and in so doing, stuck it to all of us.  

We kept hearing about the supposed "grownups in the room," like Rex Tillerson and John Kelly, but they never took meaningful action.  The baby got his way no matter what.

It's time to throw away the bottle.  Donald Trump lost the election.  The grownups have arrived, and the baby must finally go to bed.

Not Really a Choice

Is there anyone left who hasn't voted and who remains undecided?  If so, I can't imagine why: the choice between Donald Trump and Joe Biden couldn't be more clear.  But if by chance we've got voters still making up their minds, I'd ask them to consider these questions:

Do you want a president who lies, or one who tells the truth?

Do you want a president who incites violence, or one who seeks peace?

Do you want a president who favors dictatorships, or one who values democracies?

Do you want a president who mocks his constituents, or one who respects them?

Do you want a president who cares about himself, or one who cares about his country?

Simply answered, Donald Trump lacks the moral character necessary for the job.  He has shown himself to be dishonest, imperious, and vicious.  He appeals to the most vile instincts in human nature.

Joe Biden, on the other hand, exemplifies virtue.  He's not perfect, but he pursues a fair and just course.  Honest, thoughtful, and kind to others, he has the moral character necessary for the job.

We may wish this election to be solely about policy; certainly immigration, climate change, racial justice, income equality--all of these and more--are on the ballot.  But what matters most of all is character.

Donald Trump is destroying our country.  Joe Biden will build it back.  There's not really a choice.

Those Damn Suburban Neighborhoods

Here's Donald Trump at a campaign rally earlier this month in Johnstown, Pennsylvania:

"Suburban women, will you please like me?  Please.  Please.  I saved your damn neighborhood, OK?"

I've been a suburban woman for most of my life, and I'm wondering what exactly Donald Trump has saved me from, or rather, what he's saved my DAMN neighborhood from.

The coronavirus?  No.

Climate change?  No.

Failing infrastructure?  No.

Expensive health care?  No.

Rising drug prices?  No.

Right wing terrorists?  No.

Oh, that's right.  He saved my DAMN neighborhood from all those scary people of color.  Except for the fact that my WONDERFUL neighborhood is filled with people of all races, and many of us reject Trump's racist appeals.  Apparently we're not alone.  The Guardian reports that "Biden leads by 23 points among suburban women in swing states. . . and by 19 points among suburban women overall."

Meanwhile, the campaign is sending Ivanka Trump out to convince us that her father is "the people's president."  The idea is to soften his corrosive personality and policies.  She doesn't mention, of course, the 545 migrant children whose parents are missing or the 225,000 Americans dead from COVID-19. Nothing about our 32.8 million fellow citizens who lack health insurance or that children remain the poorest age group in our country. 

No, the Trumps think we're all still watching Leave It to Beaver and Father Knows Best.  But we've grown and embraced change.  Most of us recoil at President Trump's racist insinuations; they degrade and insult our communities.

This man needs to go.  So does his family. 

Our country cannot tolerate such hate and division.

The Power of it All

Joe Biden chose a beautiful fall day to visit here in Durham, North Carolina.  A blue sky and the sun just right, it kept us warm but not too hot.  We were a laid-back crowd, typical of this small southern city, all of us waiting to see our presidential hopeful.  Not invited to the main event--a car rally in a blocked-off parking lot--we stood along the school's drive, all of us apart from each other, trying to figure out which route Joe would take to head back to the airport.

The unmarked police cars, the motorcycles, and a side road sealed to traffic gave it away.  We figured if we waited long enough, we would see Joe's motorcade, and sure enough we did.

What struck me most of all was the power, the sheer power, of that motorcade.  The roaring motorcycles, the flashing lights, the lead cars followed by four SUVs, and multiple cars behind.  It's a heady experience seeing that kind of power, a realization that those who run our country are mighty in ways that go far beyond the ordinary.

And what a tragic mistake to have vested that extraordinary power in such a weak human being as Donald Trump.

We cannot make that mistake again.  Despite everything Trump has done to undermine our country and our standing in the world, the President of the United States is still the most powerful person on earth.  We owe it to ourselves and to each other, and to people everywhere, to do what we can to elect someone deserving of that power.  Someone who won't use that power for his own good, who won't corrupt that power into something vile, who won't treat that power like it's his personal tool.

For in the end, that power belongs rightfully to the people, we the people.  It's shared power, not authoritative power.  

Joe Biden understands this.  Donald Trump does not.

Dump the Debates, or Do Them Better

When Abraham Lincoln debated Stephen Douglas in 1858, the two men held a series of public events in seven Illinois cities that attracted "droves of citizens" across the Midwest.  The first candidate spoke for an hour; the second for an hour and a half; and the first again for thirty minutes to rebut his opponent.  The transcripts show that they spoke uninterrupted by each other, though the crowd cheered and laughed throughout.

Imagine such a debate today, where our national candidates engage in serious discourse about serious policy.  It doesn't happen.  Not when a fly on the vice president's head gets the most attention.

No, the 2020 national debates haven't been worth our time.  Not even the fly's. 

The first event between Donald Trump and Joe Biden featured a bullying president unconstrained by the moderator and too much crosstalk, while the second debate between Mike Pence and Kamala Harris left questions unanswered and lies unchallenged.  In both events the format didn't work: the moderators couldn't control the contenders, and the participants--especially Trump and Pence--flouted the rules established by the Commission on Presidential Debates, despite their campaigns having agreed to abide.

As soon as President Trump began speaking beyond his allotted time and interrupting Joe Biden, he should have been shut down--by either turning off his microphone or awarding extra time to his opponent.  As a matter of fact, the debate shouldn't even have been allowed to begin when Trump's family and friends in the audience removed their masks, violating the Commission's rules.  Karen Pence should have been escorted from the stage when she did the same.  Rules are rules, and the Commission needs to enforce them.

If the final debate is to go forward, and I wish it wouldn't, we need substantive change in the format.  I propose the following:

1. Ask each candidate the same questions, focused on policies and proposals, such as "Explain three specific steps you would recommend to address climate change, and, if you have none, why not?"  Substitute "climate change" with other current issues--the coronavirus, the criminal justice system, health insurance, public education--you get the idea.  

2. Give the first candidate three minutes to answer, the second candidate five minutes to answer and rebut, and the first candidate two minutes for a final rebuttal, alternating speaking order with each topic.  Display questions on the screen the entire time so that viewers can see for themselves if candidates provide answers.

3. Support the moderator by adding a timekeeper and a fact checker.  The timekeeper must have the authority and the tools to maintain control and can stop the debate if disorder breaks through. At the conclusion of each round, the fact checker will project onto a screen the most salient lies, giving thirty seconds for the contenders and audience to view.  (This proposal couldn't possibly cover Donald Trump's lies, as they're all salient, but at least it's a start.)

4. Eliminate the split screen showing the opponent's face, which distracts viewers and trivializes the debate.

Even with these proposals, the upcoming debate will still give Donald Trump free air time to spew hatred and lies, which he uses to incite violence and chaos.  The connection between his attacks on Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer earlier this year and the subsequent arrest of domestic terrorists who plotted to kidnap her is one recent example. Another is the role that his continued dismissal of scientific information plays in our nation's handling of the pandemic.

The format for national debates has been problematic for years.  What's different now, though, is that Donald Trump has brought these events to a new low as an agitator and a liar.  If his tactics can't be countered on stage, we need to ask ourselves if presidential debates today are even worth having.

A Nation on Edge

The last three days have typified life under Donald Trump's presidency, one where we live-stream chaos generated by our Commander in Chief.  Even as he remains hospitalized at Walter Reed Medical Center, Trump somehow manages to choreograph endless uncertainty, lies, and distortions.  Those who work for him have learned their roles well, from Dr. Sean Conley who evades key medical questions, to Chief of Staff Mark Meadows who continues to contradict and deceive.

From the earliest days of his presidency--when he inflated the crowd size at his inauguration--to his debate appearance last Tuesday--when he bullied and blustered his way through--he has sown confusion and doubt into our lives.  Because he incites violence in his supporters, we now worry about our safety at polling sites.  Because he courts the friendship of Vladimir Putin, we now wonder about the safety of our elections.  Because he refuses to follow the law, we now fear that he won't leave office peacefully.

Living in a state of anxiety with Trump as our president hasn't been good for our nation's health.  We all ride a daily roller coaster that has no steady operator in control.  Careening from one incident to the next, we often forget the outrage of the days before.

I resent this.  Donald Trump has intruded in my life in ways that I've never experienced before.  Yes, I disagreed with decisions made by previous presidents, both Democrats and Republicans, some of which I viewed as disastrous.  But I've never lived with the level of anxiety created by President Trump.  If I felt anxious about the state of our nation in the past, it wasn't because of the president's erratic and incompetent behavior.

I believe that Joe Biden, if elected, will restore a sense of calm in order to address the crises raging amongst us--the coronavirus, racial disparity, the economy, climate change, income inequality--which cannot be managed by an inept narcissist who foments turmoil.

We deserve a Commander in Chief, not a Commander in Chaos.

Election Blues

When I first restarted my blog in February, I was looking forward to commenting on the 2020 presidential campaign.  I've long enjoyed national politics, and the Democratic primary didn't disappoint.  But since then, I've lost interest in details that usually consume me--emerging issues, polling data, party platforms, and candidate gaffes.

I think it's in part because this campaign follows the same script every week: some new Trumpian outrage followed by rebuttals from Democrats and pundits, who make the same arguments over and over again.  Permeating beneath this is a layer of fear: fear that Trump will rig the election, fear that he won't leave peacefully, and fear that minority rule will triumph again.

All reasonable fears.

What to do?  My neighbors and friends continue to ask how they can help.  People who never wrote letters or made phone calls now offer to do so.  Others who didn't consider themselves "political" put up yard signs and volunteer to work at the polls.  These actions matter.  And yet I can't help but feel like my country's unraveling.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death and the nomination of her successor highlight both a growing national divide and the hypocrisy in our government.

In the midst of all of this, I took comfort in the spontaneous protest that erupted this week, directed at Donald Trump as he viewed RBG's casket at the Supreme Court.  Gathered on the grounds nearby stood ordinary citizens who jeered and booed as he came into view.  Eventually their scorn coalesced into the chant "Vote him out," which Washington Post writer Monica Hesse called "astonishing, discombobulating, and more patriotic than anything you'll witness at a Trump rally."

Here was Trump, pretending to honor Justice Ginsburg, forced to face an outcry against him.  This almost never happens.  Wrapped in the cocoon of the White House, he ventures only to arenas where adulation is the norm.  On Thursday, though, for about one minute, he stood and heard the voice of protest.

This gave me hope.  Fellow citizens honoring our distinguished justice and, at the same time, calling out our unworthy president.  I may be feeling blue, but I also feel buoyed by my neighbors and the protestors in DC who showed themselves to be irrepressible.

The Power of One

How can the death of one person hold so much power in our democracy? Aren’t we supposed to be “We, the people”?

The loss of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has set off a volatile, political battle. Less than twenty-four hours after her death, Republican senators were already speaking about her replacement. And though I revere Justice Ginsburg’s brilliance and accomplishments, I’m concerned that she holds this much power in our government, either alive or dead. Something’s broken when the absence of one person can wreak fundamental change across society.

A similar truth holds for Mitch McConnell. Though he’s still here, of course, he continues to block legislation, and at the height of hypocrisy, prevented a hearing for Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland in March 2016 during Barack Obama’s second term. Now McConnell intends to seek Senate confirmation for Donald Trump’s nominee within six weeks of a presidential election.

What is broken must be repaired. 

When it comes to the Supreme Court, we must first dispel the myth that it’s our one non-partisan branch of government. We all know this isn’t true. The current fight over Justice Ginsburg’s seat is proof enough. We must then consider remedies to the Court’s composition. Russell Wheeler, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, reviews options in his March 2020 essay, “Should we restructure the Supreme Court?” In it, he summarizes the three most frequently discussed ideas: adding seats to the Court (aka “packing the court”), increasing the size of the Court to 15, and imposing term limits for justices. 

Whatever changes are made, our courts must be structured in such a way to avoid current trends where, as Wheeler points out, four of our five conservative Supreme Court justices were nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote, and “senators who confirmed Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh represented less than half the population.”

McConnell’s ongoing reign is a related problem. As the Senate Majority Leader, McConnell holds the power to schedule or not schedule votes even when bi-partisan support for a bill is evident. He blocked votes on popular criminal justice reform in 2018, for example, and gun background-check legislation earlier this year. He seeks quick approval for Trump’s judicial nominees yet repeatedly held up Obama’s. His power, and Nancy Pelosi’s for that matter, should be scaled back.

The imbalances of power in our government are not sustainable, and the only way to make change is through the legislative branch. When our newly elected Congress convenes in January 2021, our representatives need to review and revise not only the structure of the Supreme Court, but the power in their own bodies as well. 

It behooves us to hold them accountable.

Coming Round to Kamala

Though Kamala Harris initially struck me as an excellent choice for Attorney General, based on her piercing examinations of Brett Kavanaugh and William Barr, she didn't impress me as the best candidate for Vice President.  Throughout the Democratic primary, I found her smug and condescending.  I didn't like her disrespectful take-down of Joe Biden in the first debate, and her performance in subsequent debates seemed equally artificial and staged. 

Here's why I've changed my mind:

1. Senator Harris has the experience for the job.  As a US senator, she serves on key committees, including Intelligence, Homeland Security, and Budget; and as California's Attorney General for six years, she headed up law enforcement for the most populous state in the nation.

2. She's tough and commanding, certainly more so than her milquetoast opponent Mike Pence, but also stronger than both Joe Biden and Donald Trump.  Biden's appeal comes more from his conciliatory and welcoming manner, whereas Donald Trump fails as a commander though his meandering, senseless speech and derogatory treatment of others.

3. Though President Trump calls Kamala Harris "phony" and "nasty," she's avoided the labels that have dogged women candidates in the past.  Hillary Clinton evoked for many the image of the stern school teacher.  Sarah Palin, unprepared for her role in 2008, became a caricature of a silly, incompetent woman.  And Geraldine Ferraro ended up mired in her husband's finances in 1972, as if she were an extension of his career and not a solid candidate in her own right.

4. With an undergraduate degree from Howard University and a law degree from the University of California, Hastings, Senator Harris brings a refreshing education to the campaign.  In fact, both she and Joe Biden break a long tradition of Democratic candidates boasting Ivy League and elite New England school backgrounds--offering an understanding of ordinary Americans.

5. Kamala Harris holds the confidence of her running mate.  Regardless of the process that Joe Biden undertook in his selection, he nonetheless sees in her a partner ready to govern.  We all benefit from their compatibility in that we'll have two smart leaders making joint decisions.

Kamala Harris isn't perfect.  Her record as a prosecutor concerns many, and the rapid collapse of her primary campaign troubled others.  Still, she can do the job and she will do it well.  We've accepted for far too long the incompetence of Donald Trump and Mike Pence.  Senator Harris will serve our country with honor and distinction, and we must give her the chance to do so.

Losers and Suckers

Can anyone seriously doubt that Donald Trump called World War I Marines "losers" and "suckers," as reported on Thursday by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic? Or that he wondered aloud why anyone willingly serves in our military? And that he didn't want wounded veterans participating in a parade?

No, and here's why: 

These comments follow logically from Trump's own words.

1. Though his most well-known "loser" is probably former Senator and POW John McCain, he has also described many others this way: Bill Kristol, Chuck Todd, Jeb Bush, Karl Rove, Marco Rubio, Rihanna, Seth Meyers, Tina Brown, and a host of unnamed Twitter users.

2. He's disparaged the military before. He called James Mattis "the world's most overrated general"; he said that General John Kelly, his former chief of staff, "misses the action and just can't keep his mouth shut"; and he bullied Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman for his impeachment testimony, calling Vindman "very insubordinate" and someone who "did a lot of bad things."

3. "Suckers" is another one of Trump's words.  It's a concept he fears.  "Why is the United States always the sucker?" he said in February, opining that Europeans take us for granted. And when he announced troop withdrawals from Germany in July, he said, "We don't want to be the suckers anymore."

4. He has no understanding of military service.  As Nancy Pelosi said on Friday, "Every day Trump makes clear that he does not comprehend what it means to sacrifice for one's country--as he consistently puts his own interests ahead of our national security and those who defend it," citing his refusal to stand up to Vladimir Putin. I would add his praise for Chinese dictator Xi Jinping, his coddling of Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and his sending troops to build the border wall.

5. Finally, why wouldn't Trump want wounded veterans in his parade? Recall his 2015 mockery of New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski's disability, or consider Trump's derogatory comments on women's "ugly" faces.  Clearly he disdains anyone who doesn't meet his standard of appearance.

Though General Kelly could confirm The Atlantic report if he were willing to speak out, we don't really need him to.  Donald Trump's history of insults echo from one week to the next.  His language and behavior pollute the office he holds, and for this reason alone we should vote him out.

Character Matters, Mr. President

When I was an English teacher, I would tell my students never to use the word "nice."  It's banal and lifeless.  "What do you mean by nice?" I would ask.  Kind? Thoughtful? Generous? Empathic? Compassionate?  

Yes.  All of the above to define Joe Biden.

In any other election year, a discussion of a presidential candidate's niceness would seem silly.  We'd be concerned about our candidate's positions, qualifications, and experience.  And certainly these matter.  But after nearly four years of dealing with a mean president, niceness matters all the more.

What do I mean by mean?  I might more reasonably ask, Where do I begin?  Examples abound:

Vengeful: Donald Trump's endless retaliation against those who disagree with him or speak out against him.  See Alexander Vindman, the retired Army officer who testified in Trump's impeachment trial.

Scornful: Donald Trump's nasty mockery of others.  See John McCain, former U.S. senator and POW.

Threatening: Donald Trump's Mafia-like menacing.  See Minneapolis and D.C. protesters, who stood up against police brutality.

Misogynist: Donald Trump's constant need to demean women.  See Kamala Harris, U.S. senator and vice presidential candidate.

Cruel: Donald Trump's vicious assaults on those most vulnerable.  See Family Separation policy, a barbaric, inhumane treatment of children and their parents.

It will be interesting to see how the Republican Party whitewashes Trump's heinous behavior at the convention this week.  For if anything became clear during the Democratic National Convention, it was the gratitude from so many for Vice President Biden's kindness to them over the years.  From ordinary citizens to members of Congress, one after another gave examples of Biden's compassion for others.

Why does this matter?

Because, as the Declaration of Independence reminds us, "A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

Joe Biden has the character to preside over our country.  Donald Trump does not.

We the People

The Democratic National Convention begins tomorrow, and I'm glad that it's taking place virtually.  While the coronavirus renders this format necessary, traditional conventions have also become outmoded.  Throngs of impassioned delegates filled with adulation for one man feels out of sync with the democracy we profess to cherish.

Though Donald Trump's political rallies epitomize this idolatry, so do Democratic ones.  I'll never forget the thrill of seeing Barack Obama at a huge rally in Greensboro, North Carolina, in September 2008.  The excitement and energy of the crowd electrified the event in a way that I'd never experienced.  It was great.  And yet I wonder . . .

Every four years, it seems, we cast about for that one candidate--usually male, usually white--who will singlehandedly save us.  In fact, George Washington's inaugural journey from Mount Vernon to New York in 1789, as described by Ron Chernow in his book Washington: A Life, began this American tradition.  Despite the new president's wish to keep celebrations simple, "Before long," Chernow writes, "it was apparent that Washington's journey would form the republican equivalent of the procession to a royal coronation."

A royal coronation indeed.  It's not what our Constitution prescribes, but it's what our conventions and inaugurations have become.

Moreover, we hold unrealistic expectations for the presidents we've elevated.  Washington captures this sentiment in words written over 230 years ago:  "I greatly apprehend that my countrymen will expect too much from me."  He's right.  Those of us who revered Barack Obama expected societal change that never materialized.  Those who worship Donald Trump don't live in an America made great again.

We've lost the "We" in "We the People," though it seems we never had it in the first place.  But it's the goal, it's the idea.  It's all of us participating in democracy.  It's scrapping the Electoral College.  It's getting money out of government.  It's overturning Citizens United.  It's eliminating voter suppression.  It's rethinking presidential power.

It's Make the United States Better for All.

Who's It Going to Be?

It's about time for Joe Biden to tell us his VP pick, and just as I did during the presidential primary, I've vacillated in my preferences.  

I started with Stacey Abrams, a formidable and brilliant woman, and decided that her lack of experience in the federal government disqualified her.

I moved on to Val Demings, whose impassioned closing remarks at Trump's impeachment trial impressed me more than anyone else's, and then decided that her experience as a police chief made her vulnerable.  

I thought briefly about Barack Obama's friend and adviser Valerie Jarrett, but she never emerged as a strong contender.  On to Susan Rice, a smart and effective UN ambassador.  I read today, though, an article about her immense wealth and investments in troubling companies, and she's also linked, unfairly, to the Benghazi sham.

Okay.  Deep breath.  What about Karen Bass or Tammy Baldwin?

Answer:

They're all excellent candidates.  Any of the women on Joe Biden's list would distinguish herself as capable, knowledgeable, and compassionate in ways that neither Mike Pence nor Donald Trump can touch.  They're sharp women, leaders in all kinds of settings, with demonstrated values that left the White House on January 20, 2017.

I'll support whoever Joe selects.  What I won't do is this: evaluate her appearance, question her ambition, challenge her strengths, or assess her family.  It's wrong and distracting.  

We need women at the highest levels of government, and now we've got another chance.  It's not one that I intend to waste.

Hatred

The voice that left the message was course and vile. "Ain't none of your business how I'm registered . . . I'd never vote for a Democrat, they're all crooked and stupid . . . Don't ever send anything to me again."  

Really?  This in response to a friendly, straightforward Get-out-the-Vote letter that my daughter and I sent to fellow Durham Democrats in our neighborhood.

So it's okay that people make calls like this? to a neighbor no less?  Especially when you're a registered Democrat who would logically receive such a letter?  I don't know why she's chosen to register as she has, perhaps to vote more effectively in local primary elections, but she shouldn't be surprised to get mailings from the Democratic Party.  What bothered me the most, though, was the hate in her voice.  Why not a simple, polite call that asks me to remove her from my mailing list?

I was watching the funeral service for Congressman John Lewis when the call came in and fortunately didn't answer.  The anger I felt simply listening to the message was hard enough to contain.  I felt like calling her back with an equally hateful response or sending her a demeaning letter.  But I thought instead about John Lewis:  his humiliations, his arrests, and his beatings.  The hatred he endured over a lifetime of 80 years dwarfed my bad encounter with a neighbor.  Like him, I wouldn't let this experience poison me.

Still, it's hard to know what to do with hate.  Martin Luther King, Jr., would counsel love.  Others, forgiveness.  For me, it's enough to say that I might understand my neighbor if I had lived her life.  And while I won't exactly turn the other cheek, I'll refrain from meeting hate with hate.  It's the best I can do right now.

Suburbanista

Someone needs to tell Donald Trump that he's got his suburbs on backwards.  Sure, they're not one size fits all, but their style has changed.  Suburbs no longer wear uniforms; they're colorful and varied, even subversive at times.  I know, because I live in one.

Determined to eliminate a fair housing law established under Barack Obama, President Trump is warning that Joe Biden's zoning policies will "abolish our beautiful and successful suburbs."  He thinks he's scaring us by saying that crime rates will rise and property values decline.  It's all code, of course, easily deciphered, for Black and Brown people moving in.  "Suburbia will be no longer," he says.

The trouble for Trump is that suburbia isn't so White anymore.  Nor is it Republican.  In fact, Democratic households outnumber Republican ones in my north Durham neighborhood, where people of different colors, ages, and genders have lived together for years.  Many of us detest Trump's endless race baiting, and we denounce his response to protests in support of Black Lives Matter.

Interestingly enough, protesters in Portland have employed one of suburbia's trademark symbols--the leaf blower--to counter tear gas attacks from federal agents.  It's as if urban and suburban citizens have joined together to demand civil rights.  Whereas Trump wishes to pit the two against each other, we've teamed up to stand him down.

So on this Sunday in July when the body of John Lewis crosses one last time over the Edmund Pettus Bridge, soon to be renamed in his honor, let's remember what he said: "I believe in freedom of speech, but I also believe that we have an obligation to condemn speech that is racist, bigoted, anti-Semitic, or hateful."

Racist appeals to suburban voters meet the Congressman's definition and must be condemned at every opportunity.

The Emerald Ash Borer

A brief thought on this hot July night. . .

Having noticed many dying trees in our neighborhood this summer, I asked an arborist what was wrong.  He said that the Emerald Ash Borer is killing ash trees in north Durham, and for some reason I thought of Donald Trump. 

Like this metallic green beetle, President Trump destroys rather than renews: he's dismantled our Constitution the way the ash borer disrupts nutrient pathways, and he's managed to do this in 3 years--the time it can take for an ash borer to kill a tree.  He's small (minded) and shiny like this nasty bug, and evidence of his subversion can be found both directly and indirectly.  He's on the move wherever ash trees can be found (and beyond).

Where the analogy doesn't hold up?  The ash borer is a non-native species.  Donald Trump, unfortunately, is as native to this country as you and I.  He sprang from our values and thrived in our culture, understanding how to wreck the very systems that helped to create him.

I hope that we're more successful in defeating him this November than we've been in defeating his Coleoptera counterpart, for it will take more than insecticides and hardwood quarantines.  It will take votes and votes and more votes.