Read more

This is because the stock market is up, corporate profits are at record highs and unemployment is (slightly) down. Those are good numbers. For some people. The stock market reflects corporate strength but does that trickle down to most Americans?

The richest 10% own the vast majority of stock wealth, meaning they capture most of the monetary gains, while the bottom 50% see minimal direct impact. Corporate profits mean CEOs and those shareholders are doing well but that doesn’t trickle down into substantially increased wages.

But unemployment is down! A little. Mostly because unemployed Americans are filing fewer claims because their job search has extended beyond the unemployment window.

The truth is we are nearly two years past Trump’s election promise that he will immediately bring prices down (and guarantee cheap gas…) and everything has gone up instead. For which there could be some understanding given the quixotic nature of spending and inflationary forces, but Trump has done nothing to rein in price gouging or to regulate markets. In fact he has aggressively pursued tariffs where, again, only wealth sees benefits while consumers pay higher prices.

He has turned his “America First” strategy that implied spending on Americans before engaging in nation-building foreign wars, into exactly what he promised not to do. Billions are being spent daily on war and from taxpayers pockets after his DOGE initiative gutted many programs that actually put Americans first.

More than 40% of Americans report, according to the Census Bureau, that they could not cover a $1,000 unexpected expense with their current cash or savings. An analysis by the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity found that the bottom 60% of U.S. households do not earn enough to afford basic American “dream essentials” such as childcare and healthcare while maintaining a MINIMAL quality of life.

Survey data consistently shows that nearly half of the population feels the pressure of daily financial worry, with many relying on credit cards and loans just to get through the end of the month.

When their coffee goes from $6 to $11, when their gas increases a dollar or more per gallon, when eggs and milk and nearly everything else is 30% more and week after week they are paying against wages that are flat or certainly not commensurate to rising costs, Americans aren’t (even) breaking even- they are SINKING.

Those who can (4O% have little to no savings) dip into what they prayed would help along with their Social Security (that many Republicans hold in contempt), leaving their retirement security in the dumpster. Trump doesn’t understand those economics. This is more germane to Trump himself than it is about his policy about-face, however; he puts gold leaf around his toilet seat.

There are many issues surrounding the 2026 Midterms and the (it will come eventually) 2028 presidential election, but the economy is always ground zero. The economy sits on our front porch and determines who comes and goes. It provides the potential for that American Dream.

And what exactly is that, anyway?

It used to be to have a comfortable home, to put the kids through college, to have the security of not worrying that a health crisis could bankrupt you, having a little something each year for a family vacation and to know that your retirement is equally secure. That may still be the true American Dream but an obsession with accumulation at the top has put each of those goals out of reach for too many Americans.

Trump’s version never did include those Americans; it’s only real to his perspective and understanding of success; to the 1% he is part of. For the rest it is just a gold-leafed carrot being dangled in front of our nose.

“America will never be a Communist nation!” declared President Donald J Trump.

No it won’t. However, that’s no more prescient than saying “Starbucks will never put Metamucil in their coffee.” It isn’t anyone’s realistic agenda nor would it take off if it were. The Democratic Socialists of America are no more than an influencer guided by idealism; they are not the Democratic Party. “Abolishing prisons” only means that America should be working toward reducing crime by solving the issues that create it. Of course that’s a good idea but so is, in theory, putting a fiber supplement into a laxative beverage. It’s a thought experiment inside the much larger vessel. Just as a feudal landscape rests inside Republican ideology, it isn’t giving orders on deck.

Wait a second…

That is the Republican agenda. Did I just stumble onto the counter argument for the left? Is “communism” as an amorphous breeze a greater threat to American freedom and capitalist lust than the formation, right before our eyes, of an authoritarian regime actively holding its working class to servitude?

The result of the MAGA sweep through legislative waters is more than the dismantling or reduced funding of public institutions designed to protect the average American (like the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy and the Department of Health and Human Resources), it is the codification of supply-side economics and the social privateering that follows.

That is the more pressing enemy of capitalism, justice, and the American Way, and it starts right where Republicans are most concerned and obsessed: Taxes.

Supply-side economics, championed in the 80s as Reaganomics and most commonly referred to by the description of its intention as “trickle-down,” is the theory that tax cuts and increased benefits for the wealthy and corporations will eventually benefit everyone in society. It is the sworn enemy of the progressive tax system that has been in place since the beginning of federal tax to pay for the Civil War. Progressive taxation imposes a lower tax rate on low-income earners and a higher rate on those with higher incomes.

The rationale for a progressive tax is that an alternative “flat” percentage on all income would place a disproportionate burden on people with low incomes. The dollar amount owed might be smaller but the effect on their real spending power would be greater and often put them below even basic costs of living.

The argument against progressive tax tables is that it destroys incentives to earn more money. However, history shows conclusively that they haven’t and wealth has been accumulated in massive proportions throughout our history even with higher tax rates. In fact, since the aggressive application of trickle-down, the highest earners have increased their holdings so profoundly that we now measure wealth against fortunes in the hundreds of billions. Not for more people, but for an increasingly smaller percentage at the top who control a higher and higher percentage of America’s total wealth.

The argument that wealth is being penalized, however, still sells easily even to the people who would be hurt the most by flat or regressive tax policies. “Why should I be punished for earning more money?” is the commonly asked question that resonates down the ranks.

The simple answer is that ascending tax brackets are logical as they reduce the tax burden on those who can least afford to pay and it leaves more money in the pockets of low-wage earners who are likely to spend more of it on essential goods and services which, in turn, stimulates the economy and creates more opportunities to create wealth.

It is the consumer class, the rank and file, the 90% who aren’t rich, who fuel the economy.

A progressive tax system also collects more taxes than flat taxes or regressive taxes because the highest percentage is collected from those with the highest amounts of money. Those with greater resources fund a larger portion of the services that all citizens and businesses rely on such as road maintenance, utilities, and public safety. Functions that enable wealth.

For the past 4 decades most new tax breaks and reduced tax percentages have systematically been given to wealth. Low and moderate incomes have seen little to no benefit leading to greater income inequality, which results in little help to the broader economy. Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) gave the largest tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy, and CEOs and other executives captured 81% of the wage gains. Trump has promised to give them even more.

The TCJA was skewed in favor of wealthy business owners, with more than half of the benefit going to households with $820,000 or more in income. They can expect more breaks.

Over four decades of data shows that trickle-down economics has actually reduced growth, and that tax cuts for the rich have had no meaningful effect on economic growth, as well as little effect on unemployment. What they have done is exponentially decrease upward mobility rather than “stimulate” the incentives it was allegedly created to increase.

What is insidious beyond the continued and expanded application of trickle-down economics is the more damaging ideological upheaval it represents. It is the demonization of the poor, already called “freeloaders” and “lazy” by the arrogance of advantage and prejudicial opportunities, and it will be the elevation of power to only a few Americans defined as uber-wealthy.

It is the establishment of oligarchy that diminishes, then devours, democracy and spits out it as its own- plutocracy. We can follow that toward Aristocracy, Monarchy, or any Authoritarian concept our prognostic fears desire.

Under Republican leadership and influence we have charted a course with John Adam’s prediction that “democracy…wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide”.

Along the way, the poor, the working class, even the downwardly mobile middle class, are ostracized and separated from the foundational promise of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

I won’t be around when the extreme is realized; I’ll have fizzled away on reduced Social Security and cobbled together health benefits, long before King Donald VIII lays claim to all the seas, but I haven’t been in this fight for myself; it’s always been for my kids and future grandkids.

Failure would be to stop trying to correct this course that will get us there sooner from larger mainsails spun with gold from our gold fillings. But how?

Mutiny.

Not with sabers and muskets or treasonous assaults on the captain’s quarters and not by making Captain Bligh walk the plank.

(Let me know when you’re tired of the tall ship metaphors…too late?)

Mutiny, in the Republic we uphold, is informed voting. It is the original premise that there is no better guiding principle in a democracy than the informed voter. Being informed requires more than one source; it requires real data which can be an amalgam/synthesis of multiple sources.

It requires that we look at actual results and inform our local and state representatives to make policy from the socio-economic realities of their constituents. You can’t tell a voter from the local and state perspective there are hospital beds when there aren’t. Or that their wages will suffice when they don’t. Or that their water is clean when it isn’t.

That is where a legal and moral mutiny finds its voice and its strength; by keeping local and state government accountable for the reality of the conditions for those who row this ship. (sorry)

That is the shot across the bow coming from the left: “America will never be an Authoritarian country.” Is it loud enough?

And if my capitalist dreams come true, I won’t change one word of what I’m saying today about the market, regulations and the necessity of containing the corruption that is an inevitable byproduct of an unregulated free market.

Someone said recently that “the liberal economic model has taken over the United States” yet, over the past 45 years the divide between rich and poor has grown to be the largest it’s ever been. The top 10% have increased their holdings by over 250%; the marginal tax rate for the wealthiest Americans has been reduced by nearly 55% since Eisenhower; and Capital Gains have been reduced by 80%.

Who’s winning and who’s losing?

If they were talking about the “neoliberal economic model” (neoliberal economics are not social “liberalism”) they would be right, but they’re not. The liberal model is based on “trickle UP” to create the consumerism that propels capitalism and it has been losing for decades.

The conservative model which is America’s operating system today is predicated on wealth accumulation at the top and insists it trickles down to create prosperity at the bottom. “Neoliberal” economics planted that seed over 40 years ago and it isn’t working. Look around. It isn’t working and it never will.

It is the author of flat working class wages, income disparity and rising costs crippling the disposable income that propels consumerism and drives the economy.

“When has a poor person ever given you a job?” was a retort from a Republican friend.

Well…I guess the answer is…never.

My jobs have all been given to me by entrepreneurs who risked their money and I have nothing but thanks for them. The point of the question, of course, is to say that we need to protect the “job creators” and give them the incentive to create and grow business so that we can have those jobs. That reminds me of the relationship between Renfield and Dracula; if Renfield worships and protects him, Dracula promises to provide Renfield with an endless supply of blood.

It is without a doubt a sycophantic relationship and it only serves its master.

Incentives? Aren’t they protected and incentivized enough?

As I observe the wealthy class in America it appears that they must have been incentivized pretty well and pretty well rewarded by our system. Yet, when I look again at their actual tax to income ratio and then consider who buys the products that created or increased their wealth, it becomes all too clear that a different incentive needs to emerge.

Walmart isn’t a billion dollar corporation because wealthy people shop there; it is the middle class, the working class that comprise 90% of America and consume the goods and services to create the wealth, who shop there. They are the ones who need to be incentivized and protected for our economic engine to keep running and to prosper.

That’s how the Capitalism sustains.

I am part of the dwindling Middle Class, but I am by the measure my father used, a man with the riches of family and friends and I don’t begrudge affluence at all, not one bit. I know how important financial success is to the system and, as I said, I’d love to be more affluent. But if that day comes when I can put a Bayliner in my third garage space, I will say:

“Thank you America for providing the opportunity that I was able to capitalize upon. I will gratefully pay my fair share of taxes that our progressive system has asked of me so that our government can work toward an equitable distribution of resources for others; others who fuel the engine that allowed me to prosper. And thank you for creating the programs that can help those who have not been as fortunate.”

The social justice I fight for includes social programs and fundamental access to education and healthcare to give Americans better opportunities to reap the benefits of capitalism and of a free Republic bound to protect the common good.

That isn’t drab, oppressive, communism by any measure. It is a free society with representative government that understands that capitalism, in order to sustain, must create a system for the working class to prosper.

It is trickle UP.

Most Americans saw this coming. We knew in 2015 that a self-serving, pathological, narcissistic, bully, would be a dangerous president. We knew in 2024 that his re-election would usher in his revenge policies. We knew in 2025 that appointing unqualified, sycophants into his cabinet would be a s#it show without a shred of wisdom or inspiring leadership. And it has all come to roost.

America is not great again. Prices remain high, wages remain flat, but now billionaires envision becoming trillionaires while the poor are ignored. Services have been cut, gas is still going up, and as insidious is the declining reputation of the United States. Former allies issuing statements to distance their countries from Trump’s capricious and dangerous aggression. Faltering alliances and malignant mistrust.

Domestically, bullying is on the rise and more vulnerable young people are being chastised and left unprotected. Concurrently, crimes against immigrants are on the rise and white supremacists are emboldened, even flying Nazi flags at the president’s rallies.

A billion dollars a day is spent on war while Americans can’t pay for health care. Trump gets double the war funding from his lapdog Congress which leaves programs to wither and die that gave Americans opportunities. Those same Americans are the ones paying for war, and paying the cost of tariffs because billionaires are left alone.

The Republican Senate galvanizes instead over excoriating the man who rose to the nearly impossible task of organizing the fight against a global pandemic, but pass on investigating the evidence of a cabal of privileged men who trafficked and raped young girls.

This is the abject failure most of us knew would be the result of electing people to government who haven’t a clue how, or even the desire, to truly govern.

That’s the present. Now. What about the future?

Should the midterms see a swing back to a vestige of sanity, and should 2028 put a nail in the MAGA coffin, we have to have plans to rebuild that are more than “owning the MAGA’s” as they so deliciously savored “owning the libs.” It’s time to start building policy designed from a healthier vision.

I’ll start with 8 ideas to correct our course. This isn’t a list to “liberalize” America; these are all concepts that were once in the domain of political cooperation:

1. Building International Diplomacy from the foundation of leadership, not threats.

2. Establishing taxes that end loopholes and shelters where wealth escapes with lower tax rates. Using that revenue to fund healthcare and education.

3. Stabilizing the economy by ending prohibitive trade wars from tariffs.

4. Decarbonizing the power grid, accelerating electric vehicle adoption, and investing in industrial efficiency. Strengthening renewable energy sources and promoting green manufacturing.

5. Securing Social Security by eliminating the cap.

6. Establish universal daycare.

7. Provide federal grants and tax credits (such as expanding the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit), and subsidies to build, rebuild, or convert structures into affordable housing.

8. And improve mental health services and long-term care for disabilities.

There is one more from my personal playbook: To re-establish diversity, equity, and inclusion in American curriculum. If I had a magic wand I would wave it over the purple mountain’s majesty and amber waves of grain and say: “This land is your land and all human beings will find refuge here from discrimination.”

I’m not asking, nor could I expect, everyone to agree with everything here, but it is necessary to put America’s focus back onto the Preamble of the Constitution; to ensure domestic tranquility by providing shared security, protecting liberty and creating a more effective, unified country.

That means that we should come to the argument in the Town Square armed to the teeth - with ideas

.

This gentleman went on to ask me if I could speak via Zoom to his first year drama students next month about what it takes to get there. That is something I’ve done many times before at other schools but it never comes easy. Especially when I consider the look on their faces that says: “Who the hell are you?” I didn’t emerge on SNL and the process was ego bruising to say the least.

I didn’t have the confidence I needed as a writer and as a performer I lacked intuitive knowledge of the camera and of non-performative performance. Meaning I often pushed when I should have held back.

To be fair, and somewhat immodest, not everything was a loss because I can name two dozen sketches where I did everything just right. Yet I never gained momentum. I certainly can’t tell students how my ego was laid bare when I’d go out with other cast mates only to be asked by fans to be the one to take their picture with the others. Yeah. Pretty rough.

The story I want to tell starts later when I took my SNL resume to LA in 1985 and found some gravitas. Casting directors were eager to meet me, I had a good agent, a great manager and quickly lined up tv pilots, movies of the week and guest spots on popular shows. Each one had the potential of being a ticket to a substantial career but none of them beat the odds stacked against such things. They all went nowhere.

Hmm…maybe I shouldn’t start there.

By 1995 SNL was doing the big reunion shows but nothing I did ever made it to air. My only inclusion was for my low wattage as a star when Robert Smeigel did a cartoon about that reunion show where my assigned seat was behind the bleachers. My date at the time said: “At least you made the show.”

That’s not a story for students, either. Damn.

Maybe it starts here, instead, because I soldiered on, adding to my career, voice overs, audience warm up, game show hosting, low budget films, writing a cartoon pilot. I was even a producer for a daytime chat show. I worked. Nothing came easy, but, I carved out a good career under the radar of popularity.

When the internet came along it wasn’t long before SNL fans would started blogging and lists would be made. I made the mistake (who could resist?) of Googling (when Googling became a verb) my name.

“What happened to Gary Kroeger?”

“Who cares?”

“Maybe the worst cast member ever.”

I stopped looking. It hurt. Deeply.

THAT’S not a story for students.

And then it incurred to me…maybe all of this is for students. What is really at stake is not a career lesson but life lessons. In my story, Saturday Night Live became only a footnote to me; something I did but was not the sum total of who I am. I can even forget that I was on it until someone writes or stops me to say “Ira Needleman! That was my favorite sketch!” or “You did a better Alan Alda than Bill Hader!” ( I don’t agree) and “Donny! Donny and Marie! That was great!”

As life happens, so do the more important experiences like fatherhood, I ran for public office, and helped a business to grow (I went into advertising for 17 years). Community work, mentoring students, and owning a restaurant became the substance of knowledge and wisdom followed.

Watching my sons grow and search for themselves while providing a loving foundation of support during trials and tribulations was far greater than anything Saturday Night Live could have provided even if I had become a star.

Community theater gives my long-honed talents as a performer the opportunities I’d always hoped for. There is no difference between the applause on Broadway or even at the Academy Awards from the applause of 400 neighbors in your community who came for the same escape into the entertainment you are providing.

I found what I wanted to say. Sure, I’ll pepper in the work and the dedication that led to Saturday Night Live, but in the context of life, not show business.

My message is this- Your life is more than whatever you choose to do and your resilience will surprise you through the inevitable miscues and misfortunes that come along. Some may appear unbearable, but that’s just a trick your ego plays on your heart. What you lose will never outweigh what you gain when you discover a strength no force on earth can touch: How you put your next foot forward. And the next and the next.

Look for the gift that is in all of us, sometimes buried under illusions of grandeur (I would never say “delusions”) - it is the gift of desire to help others; it is the wisdom you procure from everything (the ups and downs, the good and the bad) that has put you in the place you are today.

The energy you need to find your definition of success, comes from the energy you create from mentorships, collaborations, the pursuit of knowledge and your activity helping others do the same.

That would have been nice to know 40 years ago but…that’s life.

Kansas City Chiefs kicker, Harrison Butker, gave a college commencement address where he said: “I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolic lies told to you. Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.”

Butker added that his wife’s life “truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and a mother.”

He wasn’t finished. As if there was any doubt about his Christian-based patriarchal conservatism he went on to say: “As men, we set the tone of the culture, and when that is absent, disorder, dysfunction and chaos set in.”

Butker then added that the LGBTQ community, the media and a woman’s right to choose are symptomatic of moral decay and at the root of society’s ills.

I would like to thank Mr. Butker for his thoughts. He has eloquently stated what the right wing is riding on and could win with. His articulation of the status quo he and 40 million others are working hard to establish makes clear where our counter positions must be focused.

Also rife on right wing social media are compatible posts to the “Butker Doctrine” telling men to “return to being men.” There is a loud movement answering the left side of this debate (who gave voice to non-binary gender and non-traditional sexuality) with a call “back to manhood.” Meaning quite clearly the concept of manhood that preceded the #metoo movement.

It is a call back to when masculine toxicity was not even questioned. How, you may now be asking, could people be so tone deaf in 2026?

Seven years ago the #metoo movement directed attention toward the behavior of men and boys that was rooted in toxic masculinity. The message spread fast and it was correct. Changes in behavior and awareness had to take place. There was no playbook, however, and directions took a hard left turn. In an article that was often shared, a woman praised her boyfriend for having asked if he could hold her hand, if he could place a first kiss and when the relationship could progress in any fashion. They warned anything less is “abuse.”

Many people, myself included, applauded. But conservatives found a foothold in such restrictive definitions and the Butker’s of America started to rise and build their momentum into the platform of modern conservatism. The modern conservatism that harkens back to the way things were; to “make America great again.”

Change by decree is temporary. Old ways will always resurface when there is conflict with compliance. Lasting change occurs when a new idea answers those conflicts with a compatibility between intentions and new consciousness.

In other words, if the direction of change is putting holding hands and a first kiss into the bucket of toxicity, that goes too far for a lot of people. And I understand why. I thought about my own sons; thoughtful, kind, young men navigating the waters of relationships, and I wondered: “Are we sure that permission for every step is the way to move forward? Could that be creating parameters too fuzzy to follow? Could that be equating an innocent gesture with an act of aggression and ultimately castigating even good men?”

And could that be enough of an opening for the conservative movement to say “Enough!” and to plant their standards with antiquated stereotypes? You know…their “return to greatness” when everything was allegedly easier?

To illustrate my concern I shared publicly an experience I had as a young man:

“I dated a girl in college who made it clear she was going to be (in her words) ‘hard to get.’ One evening after a third or fourth date I leaned in to kiss her. She pulled away.

Later she asked, “Aren’t you going to try again?”

“No!” I replied.

“Well, you’re gonna have to surprise me.”

Did I become an “abuser” when on another night I did surprise her with a kiss without permission at that moment? Was she absolved from that predication of non-permission-surprise?

Slow down if you were quick to admonish me for asking such a question. I do not condone even the palest gradation of physical aggression toward a woman. The issue of systemic patriarchal abuse is real and it had not been adequately challenged until the emergence of #metoo but we do little to advance necessary change if we don’t distinguish between what is toxic masculinity and what is not.”

Patriarchy created a cliché social construct that views masculinity as violent, unemotional and sexually aggressive. Many boys have observed (even been taught) those stereotypes as a rite of passage. The result is toxic. But participation in a social construct is not necessarily where culpability lies. Not until this societal awakening creates and accepts a redefinition of masculinity.

Central to this cause must be to continually address systemic malfunctions; racism and sexism have no place in a society founded on our precious tenets of freedom, justice and equality. Something I’ve learned in business, however, is that there can be no expectations of compliance to any objective without clarity. If we fall short on giving clear instructions, then our expectations are not valid.

Great strides in awareness of the victimization of women are being made and this is where we can separate enlightened men from the history of patriarchy that replicates toxic masculinity. Such as what Butker so proudly promotes with sugar coated goodness as a “woman’s true vocation” and a man’s place as cultural scions.

Boys and men need to elevate their consciousness of abuse and sexual discrimination. Change will result from that ethical demand to do so and from the clear communication of responsibility.

That does not place blame on victims; no one is responsible for being abused, but solutions lie beyond merely stated expectations. They lie in how we teach and demonstrate our principles. That, itself, is a vague instruction but there are values that can be clear: Respect. Humility. Truth. Equal justice. Non-violent resolutions.

Those are the values I demonstrated to the “kind, thoughtful, young men” I mentioned earlier.

Butker’s patriarchal view is fuel in the machinery of toxicity and he is unequivocally wrong. Being a wife and a mother is a choice as is the choice to be single. Or to become a pilot, a doctor, a senator or a candlestick maker. Or to be any combination in the fulfillment of personal goals without being determined by anatomy or stereotypes.

Men do not set the tone of culture. The tone of culture is set by enlightenment, awareness, and distinctions learned from dismantling stereotypes. And new definitions will be revealed from a vigilant examination of freedom, justice and equality.

Put that between your goalposts, Mr. Butker.

End of story.

The argument is often made that the Confederate flag and the monuments to Confederate soldiers and generals are from our history and should be preserved. Yes, the Confederate rebellion to secede from the Union is part of the history of the United States, and that is where it should stay, as history; in museums, books, lectures, and classrooms. It is a history to remind us of the sinister reality of slavery.

Confederate flags on the back of trucks, in the garage, or at Southern courthouses, are a celebration of that revolt, and that has no place in our active future. They are symbols of oppression from the worst part of our history. They are not symbols of our rebellious nature, as many supporters of Confederate lore claim. They are, rather, symbols of profound ignorance.

After the Civil War a movement began in the South called The Lost Cause. Some Southern historians distorted the war as “a heroic defense of the Southern way of life.” Within that narrative is the idea that slaves were happy and a vital economic institution, and that slavery was not the cause of the war. The United Daughters of the Confederacy used their influence and organized fundraising to create Confederate war memorials all over the South. Their effort was so successful the heroism of the Confederacy became as engrained in the white Southern identity as its rich heritage of music, food, hospitality and magnolias.

We cannot erase the Confederacy from history or believe that by taking down its monuments and flags that the issues raised by it begin to disappear, as well. What we can do is stop the celebration of its cause by chastising and removing its banner.

I hold to what may seem like a contradiction, however, by stating that the statues of Confederate soldiers can serve to cauterize the spread of systemic injustice from the Confederacy. Recently, I heard academic and historian, Dr. Kimberly Brown Pellum, offer a different perspective that altered my previous thinking. She argued that complete removal of Confederate symbols might erase the historical narrative of racism in the United States. She suggests instead that they remain in place with plaques or interpretive panels to teach the accurate history of what they represented. They should be monuments that make clear that they fought against the Union, against emancipation and fought for the continuation of slavery.

Many Southerners see this differently and will not accept their ancestors as treasonous or racists. Our argument with them is futile. The deceased cannot defend themselves and their spirits may rest in personal histories. Misunderstanding the Confederacy also does not necessarily make someone a racist. The flag on the General Lee in “The Dukes of Hazzard” (I’m dating myself) meant rebelliousness; a strong, independent figure in folklore. But this is the day of reckoning as we’ve been invested with a greater understanding of continuing systemic issues. It’s time to find new symbols.

We can go too far. Context is important, and taking down every statue of anyone tangentially connected to the crime creates a misleading story; true history is not cleansed but can be illuminated. We can move into a better future by agreeing not to lionize egregious mistakes. Just as Germany cannot remove all Nazis from its narrative, it also does not allow swastikas to be flown. Germans are ashamed of a past they cannot erase, and do not wish to see it as part of their future. We should feel the same.

That’s my statement to say something softer than what I really mean. Here are some more critical statements about the difference between nationalism and patriotism:

“Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism.” -French President Emmanuel Macron

George Orwell wrote: “Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception.”

Charlies de Gaul distinguished the two by saying, “Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.”

American journalist, Sydney J. Harris, highlighted the blind, uncritical nature of nationalism: “The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does.”

Pretty damning statements about nationalism. Yet, I do want to soften the blow by finding a common thread and distinguishing the meaning of each as it relates to current understandings and debates. To be clear, what President Trump and Republicans are calling for, particularly with respect to our flag, the Pledge of Allegiance and standing during the National Anthem, is not “patriotism” but “nationalism.” Both are concerned with individual relationships towards nations, but nationalism is defined as our interest in the unification of a nation based on cultural and linguistic equanimity.

Patriotism is experienced as our love for our nation’s values and beliefs.

For years now there has been controversy around athletes taking a knee as a form of protest during our National Anthem. A paradoxical situation immediately developed. Standing for the national anthem

should be an expression of upholding our national values since it is, essentially, a pledge to recognize America as the “land of the free.” As is our Pledge of Allegiance (to the flag) which commits us to “liberty and justice for all.” Those are America’s values and to support them is patriotic.

However, to protest the National Anthem or America’s symbol (the flag), does not necessarily debase those values. As an expression of our First Amendment, protest can be a patriotic premise to scrutinize (or criticize) our commitment. While nationalism can hold us together, it cannot supplant our value of freedom and justice. Forced nationalism is, in fact, contrary to true patriotism.

If a minority race in America is being profiled, and if there is evidence that such profiling is leading to being killed for an offense (or alleged offense) for which a white person would likely be released or incarcerated at worst (and not killed), then the pledge becomes false to those subjected to such systemic racism. And it cannot be unfathomable that at some point a Black person (as was the case of Colin Kaepernick) will not be willing to participate in a cultural tradition that celebrates a different reality.

The other part of this controversial equation is respect for military sacrifice. Our military is essential to securing our premise of liberty and justice.  They will always deserve our honor and respect. The ceremonial pageantry of honoring the military at sporting events became a cultural tradition after 9/11 when we, as a nation, needed to be in touch with our strength and the spirit of nationalism was an essential bond.  But that fusion of the equanimity of nationalism and patriotic values came at a cost; that being a necessary evaluation of the character of America today and our commitment to freedom and justice.

The latter cannot be ignored, swept under the carpet, or absorbed by a ceremony; it must remain a relevant and vigilant pursuit. The freedom to protest, along with Constitutional respect and transparent democracy, is what holds our preeminent values to the light and in the highest regard. That is what men and women have died to protect. What they didn’t put themselves in harm’s way for was to defend pageantry; they sacrificed their lives, or were willing to, for the principles that forward our most sacred values.

Personally, I continue to stand for our National Anthem. Just as I fly the flag even in the midst of controversy concerning America’s commitment to its values; I am stating my relationship to them.

But….if you don’t fly the flag or you don’t stand for the Star Spangled Banner , that doesn’t mean you are dishonoring America or the brave men and women who have fought for her. You may be challenging the systemic injustice that betrays their honor and sacrifice. You may be casting light upon our citizenry who do not hold freedom, liberty and justice in the highest regard, and the systemic malfunction of a status quo blinding itself with nationalism that can compromise our patriotic values.

The difference between nationalism and patriotism is a crucial understanding. We may have different ways of expressing these points of view, but it’s essential that we know what we are saying. That is also an American value

I will risk your scorn and beg for your indulgence. When I ran for office in 2015-2016, my opponent, and the local Republican Party called me a “socialist” with great frequency. Even a group of elderly women at a local McDonalds on the eve of the election confessed that they didn’t (mail in) vote for me because of my socialist views on healthcare. I had said once in the campaign that “ACA was a start, but a flawed start toward really making healthcare available to all Americans.

Any gradation of a socialist construct was just too much for voters who anchor their political belief system on their patriotism. It is patriotism only as a brand and not the substance of defending democracy or the common good, but their identification will not allow any context that implies that taxes should have benefits beyond national defense and building roads. It is patriotism that says “Hands off our sacred institution of (unbridled) capitalism.”

History does not concur, however, as a socialist value exists in the very first line of the Constitution: “We the People. ..”. It is democracy in the aggregate; a system of laws that provide for the general welfare and an unwavering balance of equality and freedom without prejudice.

America was, and is, a contradiction if its own promise but the design of our charter is what has kept us on the path toward better realizations of its tenets. Tenets partially written with a socialist pen.

Today, Fox News and right wing media (even some legit media) are falling all over themselves reporting that “the Democratic Party is in a civil war” and that is opening the door for “socialists to take over the party.”

“The Far Left” it said on the Fox tv screen at Planet Fitness “is now the Democratic Party” as witnessed, they say, by New York Mayor Mamdani’s endorsement victories,

First of all, the Democratic Party is always in a civil war. It is the nature of enlightenment, from which progressivism was born, to question everything; there will always be stark disagreements within serious attempts at solving problems. Democrats are split every election between a centrist platform that compromises to win and the idealistic forces that define higher standards. For a Trekkie it’s like Bad Captain Kirk versus Good Captain Kirk; they need each

other to strike a polar balance, but diametrically oppose each other’s temperament.

Republicans win in down ticket races, and cyclically at the top of the ticket, precisely because no such separation exists. Republicans since the early 20th century stick to the platitudes that inspire voters. It’s much easier to identify as a patriot than it is to define a patriot from critical points of view. The latter only prevails when the former fails miserably at connecting jingoistic slogans with bread and butter issues. I’m going down a rabbit hole here and I’m going to stop, but history since Nixon bears witness.

The perennial argument between Democrats also allows conservatism to pull the Overton Window to the right. By today’s conservative standards, a dye in the wool Republican like Dwight Eisenhower who warned against the military-industrial complex, who ushered in an early version of Medicare, who shut down any attempts to change Social Security, whose marginal tax rate was higher than any Democrat who has followed, would be called a liberal. Reagan, for that matter, who signed the assault weapons ban, would be accused of leaning left. In 2026 the “ far left” is only as left as FDR’s New Deal which was the framework to pull American Capitalism from despair.

And so…Republicans, particularly in the last 12 years, have pulled the word “socialism” into their party lexicon as the warning to us all that it’s a (tired phrase) “slippery slope” to becoming repressive Communism.

The White House posted a meme of a determined Trump saying “ America will never be communist.”

My justifiably sarcastic response was: “Communism never! but authoritarianism will be just fine.”

Every Fox broadcast had headlines about Democrats turning into socialists and the talking heads lined up with visions of a monochromatic landscape and breadlines with civil servants wearing the same drab coat. KGB officers checking everyone’s status as they file into a soot-laden factory.

No, no one said that literally but that is the Cold War understanding of communism and that is what is being sold as the inevitable result of socialism and where Democrats (now fully committed socialists) will take us. That is the platitude-principle that requires no definition or critical point of view.

And so it is incumbent upon informed voters to clarify this profound disconnect.

“Socialism” and “social democracy” are going to be the topic for the next two election cycles, and maybe in perpetuity. Many people, including many Democrats, think they are saying “communism” when they say “socialism.” The best way to begin might be to understand what Mayor Mamdani and the “far left” swing in New York” call “social democracy.” Because social democracy already exists in America and it is part of what made America great.

(We can put community services aside for now. Things like Fire and Police Departments and Public Utilities are so engrained into our community psyche that to point out they share socialist bandwidth is probably futile)

Even constitutional promises from the Preamble which “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare” are almost the entire definition of social democracy. We have had Social Democracy in America for a long time. FDR’s “New Deal” is modern social democracy.

Many New Deal administrations have been abolished for nearly 80 years, but served to repair a collapsed economy and a demoralized nation. In fact, we had a collapsed capitalist economy when Keynesian theory, applied to the New Deal, came to the rescue. Social democratic programs do not necessarily extend into perpetuity, they often have designed obsolescence and when Congress functions and holds vigilance they dissolve into another aspect of social democracy: Fiscal Responsibility.

Social Democracy is a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote justice within the framework of a democratic society and a capitalist economy. It involves citizen commitment to representative and participatory democracy, and measures to regulate the economy in the general interest; the “common welfare” from the Constitution.

The purpose of Social Democracy is to create the conditions for capitalism to lead to greater democratic outcomes. Its policies are aimed at curbing inequality, eliminating oppression of the underprivileged (attempting to eradicate poverty), and supporting public services (care for the elderly, child care, education, health care and workers). That’s fiscal responsibility.

Our Constitution laid the framework, Amendments have supported it, and curbing economic crisis has defined it. Our modern history of progress is not the sole domain of constructs from FDR policy, however. Roosevelt borrowed heavily from another Roosevelt: Theodore.

Teddy Roosevelt was, in fact, a Republican until he created the Bull Moose Party to give rise to his own coined term: progressivism.

His agenda was social justice; safety and health standards, labor laws, a living wage and protection against the hazards of sickness and irregular employment. It was to regulate corporate America insofar as to protect the prosperity of the working class and to navigate us away from the inevitable trend toward corporate oligarchy.

Teddy Roosevelt also fought for the protection and enhancement of America’s natural resources and his critics (including his 5th cousin Franklin) called him a “socialist” at the time.

“Socialism” is woven through our history by Democrats and Republicans alike in gradations of understanding to grave warnings, yet you’ll never hear the word “socialist” directed at Ronald Reagan even though some of his policies, if advocated by a Democrat, would be viewed as such.

When the auto industry needed government intervention, Reagan said: “I have proposed an acceleration in the rate of government purchases of motor vehicles.” Not quite a government takeover, but it was a use of government beyond defense and infrastructure.

Reagan was willing to utilize government’s influence in order to help business. His administration bailed out Chrysler and the Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company, effectively controlling over 80 percent of the common stock. That is, to say the least, government expansion without the consent of the governed.

Yet that does not diminish the legacy of the man who started a movement by saying: “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.”

Inspiration doesn’t require details and sometimes allows grotesque contradictions.

I’ve called myself an old-school Kennedy Democrat. I’m the son of an Eisenhower Republican who was previously an FDR Democrat, who was, himself, not far removed from a Roosevelt-Bull Moose- Progressive-Republican. We must move past labels that people are unwilling to investigate or understand. There will be no revolution of spirit or ideology that puts America on a better path until we are truthful with these terms. And that truth starts by admitting that much of what we believe is founded on tribal rhetoric without an understanding of what it is we actually believe.

Our charter asks us to believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness within a society based on equality. Where justice is our preeminent value administered to all. And where our government and its policies serve the common good of its people.

That can include the “social” programs of welfare, medicine, education, senior security, day care, and even bus fare, in the service of democracy. And here’s the noodle twister: that’s how we ensure that we will never become an authoritarian-communist country.

The claims being made on both sides, Republican and Democrat, regarding historical triumphs are flawed. The political parties do not represent consistent ideologies throughout their histories. The essential ideological arguments today are (and always have been) between Conservatism and Liberalism, and not Republicans and Democrats.

Republicans, for example, can make a legitimate claim to being instrumental in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but conservatism cannot. It was from an eloquent presentation by Republican senator Everett Dirksen who said, “This is a bill whose time has come” that persuaded enough Republicans (not the majority of Republicans) to overcome the bloc of Southern Democrats (not the majority of Democrats) and got it passed.

Richard Russell, a Democratic Senator from Georgia, launched a filibuster to prevent its passage saying, “We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our states.”

Russell was a Democrat but not a liberal. In fact, he was the founder of the Conservative Coalition that brought Southern Democrats and Republicans together to wrest control of Congress. Southern Democrats largely became Republicans in 1964 due to their anger over the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

Even within the larger philosophical movements of Liberalism and Conservatism, there are different societal and economic contexts. Republicans in Lincoln’s time were not exclusively the party of conservative values as they have become.

Lincoln considered himself a conservative Constitutionalist, and was supported by Republicans (primarily from the North), but in assuming all powers not delegated in the Constitution, including the power to suspend Habeas Corpus, he took more liberty with constitutional authority than perhaps any President in history.

He also became socially liberal in his interpretation of the natural rights the Constitution upholds. While the Republican Party was literally founded by anti-slavery activists (the abolitionists) in 1854, “emancipation” was the result of Liberalism to counter Conservatism.

The claims of either political party, however, for creating huge ideological shifts in America is nonsense. One side may harbor a majority of those who hold a particular philosophical position over the other, but political party affiliations are merely a skiff deployed from that larger vessel.

John Locke who is often credited for the creation of “liberalism” defined the concept of each of us having “natural rights” and the “right to life, liberty and property.” The root definition of “liberalism” is liberty; Latin for “free.” Not today’s interpretation among anti-liberals as meaning “excessive” (as in a liberal application of suntan oil).

Conservatism, which is defined as “reluctance to accept change” actually has its roots with the Tories or the “Loyalists” who wished to remain loyal to England and the monarchy. Not exactly the “patriots” conservatives of today claim as their heritage.

Take the conservative position toward women’s suffrage in the early 20th century. Life Magazine in 1905 offered this (edited here) as an argument to the more liberal North American Review which had just offered its support of the movement.

“The primary objection to woman suffrage is that it would add an enormous army of unqualified voters to the huge mass of them that vote now…There is nothing the average American woman wants that the average American man will not give her if he can get it…The average woman thinks the same… for our part, we are old fogy, and hope that it will never need to happen. Not in our time, kind Fate; not in our time, anyhow.”

The article was intended as a reasoned argument to reflect the beliefs of many Americans at the time. It was a position to maintain the status quo and to protect what it saw as America’s best interests.

That is clearly not the position of reasonable Republicans today, but it is historically consistent with conservative philosophy. What is illustrated is how the conservative status quo must be pushed by a consistent progressive movement. We can glean from history that radical voices are required at times to unite in opposition to the status quo when conservatism denies natural human and civil rights.

That has primarily been the course of the liberal movement and why I, personally, align myself to the left; it is the choice I make between different philosophies to fulfill what I view as my responsibility as an American.

I understand what it means to “conserve” and to be cautious; I understand why it’s important to protect that which protects us. I also understand what it means to respect differences and to allow for new ideas. The latter sometimes has to challenge the former in order to bring about a better progression toward Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

While it may be true that modern conservatives align more with the Republican Party and liberals with Democrats, if the discussion can gravitate away from partisanship and toward a genuine understanding of Conservatism and Liberalism, maybe this could become a more civil political climate.

And beyond that, maybe we can start to get things done in the interest of all Americans, as we have in the past.

In August of 2011 my family met in the Rockies to spread my Dad’s ashes in the mountains he loved. He had passed away 10 years earlier but it took that long for my brothers and our mother to coordinate schedules with our own children, work, and all that comes with adult lives. And, truth be told, I think that mom liked having Dad close by.

Finally, we found a week in late Summer, and even still not every beloved grandchild or family member could be there.

Our service was casual but very meaningful as tears bottled up for a decade flowed from each of us. My father was an extraordinary man who chose a fairly ordinary life, and except for too few years living it, it was exactly the life he had hoped for.

His greatness is a legacy of justice, open-minded thinking and compassion that he imprinted on his sons and I encourage you to spend the next few minutes reading about him. A great American will be revealed.

Glenn Kroeger passed away from congestive heart failure in the early Spring of 2001. He was a lifelong smoker whose system had collapsed like dominoes with one ailment leading to another. Phlebitis, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes and prostate cancer conspired to take out his heart.

He was too young at 72 and there have been so many times when I’ve yearned for his wisdom, but he had also lived a full life and had given his family so much.

Standing just shy of 6 feet, he was a curly, black-haired, olive-skinned, second generation German with hairy forearms. The kind of arms that fathers have who get immediate respect from children.

He grew up during the Great Depression in abject poverty, enlisted in the Army to join his older brothers (was honorably discharged when they discovered he wasnt yet 18), put himself through college to receive an engineering degree and carved out the American dream.

I grew up admiring his mind, but could barely endure his pedestrian-existentialist philosophies. He’d say, “Stop flicking that light switch! Every time you do is one less time it will be turned on and off in its life.”

“But…if I flick it again,” I would ask, “…won’t that be one more time it’s flicked in its life?”

That’s how he saw things; limited and finite resources that must be conserved.

He died right after George W. Bush was elected, but before 9/11. I’ve always thought that was a strange blessing because the horror of that day and all that has followed would have been a mortal wound. Just before he died he said to me, regarding the new President, “He is not the result of Americans’ concern, but the result of their apathy toward leadership.”

Before anyone dismisses him as a left winger who simply opposed any victory of the right, let me offer some perspective. My father was a conservative man by nature and found his politics evolving after the death of FDR to the platform on which the Republican Party stood in the 50’s: Fiscal conservatism, military restraint, but a responsible role around the world.

He hated being categorized but he called himself “an Eisenhower Republican.”

His conservatism was not so much a political ideology, however, as simply who he was. He never carried even a dollar in credit card debt, never had a parking ticket, and always lived within his means. That meant that I had a secure childhood, but I was never going to be the kid with the newest bike or anything that I hadn’t earned.

He once said, “I will never reward you for doing what you’re supposed to do, and you’re supposed to be a good person, you’re supposed to work hard, and you’re supposed to do well in school.”

My allowance sucked.

My father’s political perspective was jolted again after Kennedy was assassinated. The topics discussed at dinner were about this new anger and mistrust in politics, a demagoguery emerging from social conflicts, and Vietnam.

It was during this time, as civil rights issues moved front and center, that my father drifted away from the Republicans.

He saw the new Republicans becoming entrenched in a platform based on fears; a fear of defining or extending civil rights or anything that did not support their status quo. He saw conservatism falling into policies that supported those fears and moving away from what he embraced above all other issues: egalitarianism; the belief that we are all, indeed, deserving of equal rights and respect.

In the mid 60’s he became a reluctant Democrat.

He bristled, however, if anyone lumped him into the “bleeding heart liberal” category. His human rights ideas aligned more closely with the new liberals, but he didn’t like any extremes. He hated spending a dime on anything that he didn’t think was absolutely necessary.

Over the years that followed, my father was deeply troubled by President Johnson’s escalation of the Vietnam War, and while he recognized President Nixon’s intelligence, he was repulsed by his personality. After Watergate, he was thoroughly disgusted with the Washington establishment and he voted for Shirley Chisholm.

My father, once a Republican, always conservative, voted for an African-American woman for President in 1972. _______________________________

In 1993 my parents came to visit me in Los Angeles. Before they left Iowa I had mentioned to them that Sylvester Stallone had just negotiated 20 million dollars for a single movie. I think I told them that to bolster their own hopes for me after so many ups and downs in my career.

My parents got lost in downtown LA before finding their way to my West Hollywood apartment and in their journey they had accidentally “toured” east LA and west of downtown. They witnessed poverty and homeless people under bridges and on the off ramps in a way they hadn’t before.

My father got out of the car wearing his signature pork pie hat and came straight up to me with a strange look on his face. Before even saying “hello” he said: “In a country where one man can make 20 million dollars for a few weeks work -there is absolutely no excuse that anyone should starve! It’s inexcusable! Inexcusable!”

That was as angry as I’d ever seen him.

Finally, allow me to share a story that will reveal his character, and what I attempt in my life to emulate.

The first time my parents visited me in LA was in the mid 80’s when AIDS has just entered the public consciousness. It didn’t even have its acronyms yet (AIDS, HIV) and was being called the “gay cancer.” The values of both of my parents were solid and their sense of responsibility and fairness, resolute, but like many Americans they had a narrow view of homosexuality.

One evening at dinner we got into a discussion about the “disease.” Although my parents certainly didn’t feel that any disease was deserved they saw it, as others did, as a consequence of behavior. Behavior they thought should be corrected.

I proceeded to tell them about people I knew in Chicago, New York and LA; people who were good, honest, hardworking, generous and gay.

I told them the story of one of those friends who was full of humor, talent and love who had just died the most painful and humiliating death.

I told them about the hundreds of gay men and women that I’ve known, all of whom are as they were born to be; I told them about people, who happened to be gay, who were just living their lives but were now dying from, or terrified of, an unknown and gruesome disease.

I told them that even though their son is straight, this disease affects, challenges and scares him directly. And those people suffering are his friends.

My father quietly nodded his head. My mother looked at him in a way that seemed telepathic. I never had to say another word. From that moment on, Gay Rights became woven into the quilt of their convictions. They marched for, voted for, wrote letters to the editor for- Gay Rights; Civil Rights; HUMAN rights; and funding for AIDS care and research. It’s all one and the same.

These moments are the ones that have shaped my own ideologies and give me the resolve I need to keep the discussion moving, even when the frustrations of disagreement make solutions seem impossible. My father lives in every breath I take and I will always be a soldier in his egalitarian fight.

Thanks for reading this. My father deserved the attention.

Trump and complicit Republicans have manipulated the Second Amendment to fit a demented vision of American freedom by removing sensible restrictions on the sale of deadly weapons and, thereby, jeopardizing lives with a warped and, frankly, infantile, theory, that more guns in more untrained hands will lead to safer communities.

Trump dismissed the entire board overseeing the National Science Foundation The NSF followed the tradition of independent decisions for allocating federal science grants in order to best serve science in the pursuit of truth. He did this to redefine reality to fit his fantasies. The same thing that he and complicit Republicans are doing to educational curriculums; rigging research to align with preconceived outcomes. They are institutionalizing political brainwashing.

Trump and complicit Republicans have dismantled logical and scientifically sound measures to protect our environment with increased drilling, fracking, and oil consumption. By increasing our carbon footprint he will destroy balances in nature that preserve clean air and water necessary for our health.

Trump and complicit Republicans continue to insist that America is broke, yet refuse to demand that those who benefit from capitalism the most, pay a commensurate value. Instead he reduced their taxes while most Americans fight flat wages against rapidly rising costs. He doesn’t flinch at spending a billion dollars a day on a war he created, yet refuses to consider national healthcare that would greatly enhance the lives of most Americans at much less cost than his proposed doubling on national defense.

Trump and complicit Republicans have created anti-diplomatic foreign policies based on threats of overpowering force to annihilate civilizations for blind nationalist interests. He insists on loyalty but offers none. He insults and degrades sovereign allies and tears up time tested treaties to further a goal of global domination. Domination that will be met by escalated foreign development of war machinery and military and economic agreements that exclude the United States. His tariff based trade idea is self-serving and causing greater economic stress to working Americans.

Trump and complicit Republicans have eliminated programs of diversity, equity and inclusion that recognized systemic issues affecting race and gender and were designed to give protection and inclusion to marginalized groups of people.

Trump and complicit Republicans and a puppet Supreme Court, have compromised voter protection of minorities who are victimized by racist suppression. He has weaponized public institutions, the FCC, the FBI, and the DOJ to exact his revenge bidding against honest opponents

He has darkened the First Amendment by limiting its scope with mono-theistic indoctrination and state controlled content.

Trump and complicit Republicans have demonized immigrants by branding undocumented immigrants as murderers and thieves when 100 years of data proves overwhelmingly otherwise. He has emboldened racists and denigrated the value of American justice and created a violent task force welcoming the evil tentacles of fascism to carry out ignorant orders.

Donald Trump is dishonest, disloyal, untrustworthy and shows no evidence of principles of decency, justice or nobility. And I haven’t even mentioned the Epstein files…

Whether or not you are Christian or of a different faith, are a Deist or do not believe in God or any other supernatural Creator, this is a relevant conflict. A majority of Americans identify as Christians and without some uniform understanding of tenets, there will be conflict and it will fester into violence.

Pope Leo XIV on Palm Sunday sharply condemned war and the use of religion to justify violence, saying during Mass in St. Peter’s Square that God “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war.”

Only naïveté would conclude that wasn’t directed at president Donald Trump, but the Pope does not make political statements to praise or denounce anyone or country with specificity, rather gives counsel and inspiration according to the Gospel.

The Holy See, headed by the Pope, maintains formal diplomatic relations with almost all nations and holds Permanent Observer status at the UN and engages in political affairs only insofar as the moral and humanitarian perspective of the Roman Catholic Church. The Pope is the supreme leader of the Church and exercises full, immediate, and universal jurisdiction. Sorry for the pedantic explanation but it is to define the parameters of influence.

Trump, incensed that the Pope would challenge his invasion of Iran, chastised Pope Leo by calling him “WEAK” and claimed that it was his (Trump’s) popularity that propelled an American to become Pope in the first place. It is not merely speculation to conclude that Trump is implying the Pope should show some deference and allegiance to him.

Let’s table that mind-numbing vanity for a moment.

What has happened is a split/argument in the religious town square. My observation is that most Americans who believe their religion comes first, actually place it behind their personal politics. They do so by adapting their faith to fit their agenda or experience. Case in point (and ultimately the point of this article) JD Vance at the Turning Point America forum yesterday:

Vice President JD Vance said Tuesday that Pope Leo XIV should “be careful” when he talks about theology, rebuking the pontiff over his criticisms of U.S. foreign policy. Vance argued that the Pope, who has said Jesus “is never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs,” was failing to take into account conflicts such as World War II.

“Was God on the side of the Americans,” Vance asked, “who liberated France from the Nazis? Was God on the side of the Americans who liberated Holocaust camps and liberated those, those innocent people, you know, those who had survived the Holocaust? I certainly think the answer is yes.”

Vance received thunderous applause and Republican-Christian Trump supporters breathed a sigh of relief; they had the rhetoric they were looking for with a unification of Trump’s war agenda and God. This, however, to any critical thinker is a division of religion and reality and asks bigger questions about the relevance of faith in politics.

It is hard to put aside the sheer arrogance of Trump and Vance, to be dictating to the Pope the intentions of Christian theology, yet to calibrate any discussion it’s necessary to look at the basic black and white of the premise. Donald Trump who had only held a Bible once and held it upside down and JD Vance who may go to Bible study every second Thursday, contradicting a life solely dedicated to the Gospel, it is essential to put these men in perspective. And toss Mike Johnson into this pontificating stew.

Robert Francis Prevost (Pope Leo) became a friar in the Order of Saint Augustine in 1977 and was ordained as a priest in 1982. He earned a Doctor of Canon Law degree in 1987. He worked as a parish pastor, diocesan official, seminary teacher, and administrator in Peru, then was elected prior general of the Order of Saint Augustine in Rome from 2001 to 2013. He then returned to Peru as Bishop of Chilata and in 2023 Pope Francis appointed him prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops and president of the Pontification Commission for Latin America. Upon his return to Rome, Prevost was made a cardinal.

That was a very long way to make a point that’s already been made. Who the #!?% do these people think they are to diminish the Pope’s teachings from Gospel? What is most prescient and relevant is that upon becoming Pope Leo XIV, his knowledge, study, and experience led him to emphasize a Christian experience rooted in radical love, unity, and missionary zeal, focused on encountering God’s mercy rather than rigid doctrine. His papacy centers on self-sacrificing love (the “charity of Christ”), urging the Church to be a welcoming, united family that brings hope to a wounded world.

Yet JD Vance says that the Pope is not considering U.S. military victories in conflicts like the Second World War. Clearly, Vance, implies, God chose sides and answered only our prayers. Again, I am asking anyone who doesn’t believe in God or organized religion to suspend that perspective and just look at the contradictory lunacy of the MAGA-entrenched Republicans currently at the helm using faith to justify murder. And, yes, it is murder even in war when innocent people die.

There is no moral justification for “collateral damage” of human life. There can be inevitable horrible results of necessary conflicts; Jesus described war and rumors of wars as inevitable but did not endorse them. Inevitable because of the fallibility of men and not because of their strength. Matthew 5:9 to 5:44 is where Jesus taught “Blessed are the peacemakers” and commanded followers to love enemies and avoid retaliation.

But that’s just my interpretation. And the POPE’s

World War II, as well as World War I, were responses to aggression. They were defense, not offense. The United States did not enter either until the threats of foreign aggression and authoritarian repression were dangerously close to domination. Pre-emptive strikes, such as Iran, cannot be categorized in the same way no matter how much hyperbole is brought to the table.

Americans ask for God’s hand in everything from war to football games to directions not supplied by Google. When God does not give them the result they wanted they pivot to the unknowable nature of God. Fine. But then also realize that He didn’t answer our prayer to stop the spread of communism in Vietnam, He didn’t stop the War of 1812 even though our God given sovereignty was on the line. He didn’t answer our prayers in Afghanistan in any fashion that would have confirmed His allegiance to our cause.

So what does this mean? Is there a conclusion?

Yes. It is to leave God out of the justification for war. There is a chasm of difference between praying for God’s guidance and declaring your will as God’s. The Bible presents a complex view of war, portraying it as a consequence of human sin and brokenness. War is the construct and result of humans incapable of reaching a fully embraced understanding of “radical love (“Love your neighbor as yourself” Matthew 22:39), self-sacrificing love (the Charity of Christ; selfless compassion for the vulnerable, poor, and sick), and a united family that brings hope to a wounded world” (1 John 3:17: “If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person?”)

You know…what the Pope said.

I miss my mother on Easter perhaps more than any other holiday or even her birthday. Easter provided her warm perspective on people of different faiths, along with those who simply celebrate the awakening of the soil, coming together. When family and friends are woven into a community quilt of new hope.

My mother saw Easter as a better marker for us than the first day of every new year when we make resolutions we never seem to keep. This time of year we invigorate our internal life by connecting it again to our external life; when we draw the maps that will guide our goals, old and new, and expand our connections to the world.

That is our local legacy, too; a history of discovering commonalities while maintaining our individuality. It is a perfect template for the concept of “community.”

We share a common desire to nurture and protect our families. We thrive when we, as citizens and businesses, share our hopes and dreams, along with our civility, with the people around us.

This morning is a little cloudy but there is a gentle breeze muffling a cacophony of sounds as neighbors step back into their outdoor lives. Next door young children are already outside searching for eggs in chilly Spring air. It is a symphonic convergence of nature and humankind, scored by wind, trees, joggers and children. It is the energy from emerging flecks of green and budding life. Optimism is reborn as conflicts are replaced by activity and brighter rays from the peeking sun.

Spring came early but none too soon. May we all revel in the spirit of this rebirth and renewal that is a message of Easter and Passover we all can share

.

The following is a rebuttal to 12 things a conservative writer posted about Trump policies and the liberal agenda. I found the post to be interesting insofar as it is an accurate description of the issues that Trump brought into office and of the ideology that supports him; nearly half of the voting public.

I’ve done this before, this compulsion to correct erroneous claims, yet I know for a fact that my corrections, no matter how clearly defined, will not change a single MAGA mind. I do this from a compulsive need to correct misinformation and to offer my Liberal friends (Progressives, Democrats, Snowflakes…) some language to defend our ideology.

Again, it may not amount to a single change of mind or even attitude, but it can’t hurt to have it out there. I’m willing to do the work.

I will post each claim in bold type and reply to each, one at a time. This was posted on Facebook under a name who identifies as “Christian, Conservative, Wife & Mom” but since I don’t know that these are her statements, specifically, I will not publish her name. I have seen this re-posted, however, on many conservative sites.

Her post began with:
I’m noticing that there are some folks doing some serious whining about the Trump administration. So I thought I’d post some thoughts:

1) Accept the fact that this is leadership that we (the majority of) working, middle class Americans wanted. We are pulling the economic weight in the country and we are tired of pulling the weight of those that do not contribute.

Right off the bat, this is going to be complicated. I’m not going to argue the “majority” point because a slim majority of voting Americans did vote for the Trump agenda. Trump is the leadership that the winning party chose, no question about that. But the rest of the statement is convoluted. Trump won white, evangelical, working class Americans, but lost the majority of blue-collar, non-evangelical whites and the majority of minorities.

I’ll give the post writer enough slack to keep their point, but less than a 1% shift in the “blue wave” states would have tipped the Electoral College to Harris. This was not the “landslide” Republicans are claiming in terms of popular vote. Harris did, after all, receive 48.3% of the vote. Trump was shy of 50%.

The working class (and the shrinking middle class) do carry the economic weight of this country. But that’s a head scratcher since Republican economic policy has been Supply-Side economics with grossly tilted tax breaks to the wealthy and retargeted funding to their coffers that has caused the working class to wonder where their share of the pie has gone.

The egregious conclusion the writer makes, “and we are tired of pulling the weight of those that do not contribute,” is a true paradox because the working class is pulling the weight of the working class precisely because of the channeling of wealth up and not down. What the writer is implying (and she will reiterate that soon) is that poor people are not contributing because, she believes, they are not willing to work. More below.

2) If you haven’t already, get a job. Every business in the country is hiring. And you get paid for the work you do. And the harder you work and the more you learn the faster you will advance, and the more you will earn. It’s an amazing concept.

It sure is amazing. So amazing it doesn’t work. I understand the mythology of the American ideal “Work hard and you will rise to the top” but, unfortunately, that belongs in the basic primer from which it was first written; the one where “George Washington never told a lie.” It fits into our fairytale narrative.

It does have a purpose and that is to give hope and inspiration, from which America really did forge industry, but when we attach it to our policies as if it is fact, there is a very (very) negative result.

According to current data, there is NOT a job for everyone. There are skill gaps, geographic hurdles, and industry fluctuations that cancel any consistently available opportunities in consistent areas. A mill can close leaving hundreds of workers looking for work at another site which is already full. If the writer is saying, “they can work at a fast food restaurant because they are hiring” that is as shortsighted as her financial fable itself. A living wage earner now making less than a living wage will still require some kind of welfare.

If she is referring to the jobless/homeless population (she did not specifically say that, but I have heard the refrain that they are lazy yet buying Cadillacs and eating steak dinners, for decades), I will say, as I have many times, losing a job, becoming homeless, and the paradigm that follows, is real. When someone loses a job, for myriad reasons, factories relocate, downsize, restructure, or consolidate jobs to increase profits, a lateral move can be impossible, even a step down might not be available. Their house is foreclosed and now a family is in a car. No shower, no clean clothes, maybe they can no longer pay for a cellphone- How do they get a job?

They aren’t lazy. And maybe they anesthetize from the sadness of it all and start drinking. It happens. To good people. And maybe, as I’ve seen in the work that I do, there is mental illness and they can’t do one of those jobs for which “every business in the country is hiring.”

That statement from the writer is probably the most ill-informed of her entire post. It is also thoughtless and UN-CHRISTIAN. Therein lies a hypocrisy that is hard to reconcile.

3) Understand that if you are a U.S. citizen, or have already started the legal process to become a U.S. citizen that you are not going to get deported! I don’t care what your favorite liberal media channel says.

The writer has used a very clever tactic, in fact, it’s the Trump rhetorical two-step. Discredit the opposition as evidence to support your position which is also the evidence to discredit your opposition. It works because it doesn’t require data and it’s so easy to remember. But it’s sinister.

I could be wrong, but I haven’t seen reports from the “liberal media” that legal immigrants are being deported. I have seen reports of legal immigrants who are frightened of being deported, and with legal Green Card status who are frightened, and I’ve seen reports of legal immigrants grieving over family that has been deported, but not of those who are a U.S. citizen.

The writer uses a trope to support her conclusion: “The legal process to become a U.S, citizen.” Yes, there is a legal process, but that is what liberals (for the most part) have been trying to address. It is a process that even Republicans in the past recognized as flawed. There is no time frame and hopefuls have waited years only to be rejected in many cases.

The part of the writer’s argument that I find most shameful is the blatant disregard for human dignity. Many immigrants are fleeing for their lives hoping for refugee status and many are desperate to work and to provide for their families. I don’t care what your favorite conservative media channel says, the evidence that most immigrants risk coming to the United States is to find good work. They are not here to be criminals. Overwhelming data supports that.

And as for the claim often made that they are taking jobs from citizens, look again. They are taking jobs that Trump’s “majority” doesn’t want; migrant farm work, and support jobs that wouldn’t otherwise be filled. Look no further than the mandatory deportation of illegal migrant workers in Georgia and Alabama, where the jobs then went unfilled and millions and millions of dollars in crops were lost.

4) Tariffs are a bargaining chip. When you are in business you make deals, and sometimes you have to play hardball. That’s how you get the deals you desire.

Not a completely full of shit position, only a partly full of shit position. Historically, taxes on foreign imports have been appealing to political leaders. They’ve always been around as a tool to protect domestic markets from cut-rate goods. They can also nurture local manufacturing and workforce. However, they also depend on a War of Attrition. That’s the hardball part and how you get “the deals you desire.”

When tariffs are imposed, the other country retaliates and costs get passed to the consumers, thereby increasing inflation. If no one backs down, a trade war ensues and the casualties are those working class Americans. Wealthy people, for whom Trickle Down economics are manna from heaven, don’t feel the pinch. The price of eggs is hardly a concern and they can wait out playing economic chicken. 90% of America can’t.

5) The Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects you from discrimination by age, sex, race, etc. DEI openly violates this. Democrats want you to believe the opposite is true because they value your vote more than your quality of life.

Nothing like being told that what I believe is not true. And this is a real conundrum because I have to tell the writer that nothing they believe is true.

First things first. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 intended to protect Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, but white business owners, in particular, claimed that this was not constitutional, and the repercussions of that resistance continued, resulting in amendments to expand the understanding. If understanding of equality and compliance to it were understood as clearly as the post writer claims then why was there a Civil Rights Act at all given the fact that we have a 13th and 14th Amendment? But hold onto your MAGA hats! President Trump wants to change the 14th Amendment in order to exclude “naturalized citizens.”

The point being that prejudice and discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex, and national origin” continue to exist systemically and institutionally, and Titles, Amendments and new Acts have been incumbent upon us.

DEI has no devious intention, it is entirely about quality of life. If diversity, equality and inclusion are threats to anyone, then those people are clearly the reason we need to be vigilant and continually enforce the inalienable rights of human beings.

6) It’s not the governments money, it’s your money. You should absolutely give a damn about where it’s spent.

Finally! Something we can agree on! It is our money. Unfortunately there are 165 million of us paying taxes to fund justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity, and we aren’t all going to agree on how it’s spent, are we? And since our Founders created a Representative Democracy in order to curb the tendencies of a mob ruled majority, we have a Constitution that represents the minority voices, as well.

I agree, we must be mindful of, argue over, and give a damn about where our money is spent, and that is why we have to support our charter and it’s check and balance system of government with three branches. You know…the one 1800 Trump supporting conservatives tried to overthrow a few years ago?

7) We are not the World Bank. If other countries need help they should raise their own finances. I don’t recall receiving any hurricane relief from India or China.

Damn. I thought we might get on a roll with another agreement, but this one is so warped it’s hard to know where to begin. I’ll start with a concept of “great” that I’ve been led to believe we need to be again. Greatness means generosity, compassion, humanitarianism, as well as prosperity from the blessings of liberty.

The United States is the richest nation on earth. We have interests in every corner, as well as, historically, an interest in the Goodwill of Humankind. As a result we have been the greatest source of aid to nations that do not have our wealth or resources or resolve to be a benefactor. It’s something I have been most proud of as an American.

The selfish, shortsightedness that the writer displays (that echoes the policy and rhetoric of the President and his party) is shameful, in my view, and completely contrary to greatness (and, again, betrays her professed Christianity). It’s also erroneous. Other nations do come to the aid of nations, even to the United States. The U.S. does provide more assistance than any other nation and as the world’s wealthiest nation, that’s only appropriate, but that’s also only in total numbers. In terms of GNP the U.S. gives around 0.2% whereas among all wealthy nations the average is 0.4%. Five countries, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, exceed 0.7. So, in a real sense, the United States is not the most generous.

Furthermore, more than 150 countries and international organizations have offered the U.S. assistance for natural disasters.

8) Drill, baby, drill. Want to know why? Because we have it. Are electric cars the future? Not in their current form. There is way more oil in the ground than lithium, and guess where most of that is? China. Want food prices to come down? Then energy costs have to come down. And that means oil, gas, coal, and nuclear. Unicorn farts and liberal tears won’t power your car!

A lot there to unpack. I may need to fill my lungs with unicorn farts for this one. I was under the impression that everyone more or less understood that oil has significant downsides. Like environmental damage from oil spills, air and water pollution from drilling and the destruction of natural habitats as well as the release of greenhouse gasses that are exacerbating climate change and negatively impacting ecosystems and human health. Maybe I was just listening to liberal media. And scientists.

Maybe the best thing to do is take the writer’s proclamations point by point. Are electric cars the future? Hopefully. The argument should center around the technology and reducing the emissions created by initial manufacturing of batteries and not around the abundance of oil over lithium. Oil is in abundance, but it is also undeniable that it is a finite resource.

Not caring about the future is not a responsible way to care for the present.

Where does lithium come from? Most comes from South America and Australia. The U.S. imports mostly from Chile (maybe she got to “Chi-” and assumed “na” the rest of the way). China does produce lithium batteries.

The misconstrued information probably comes from the fact that Tesla batteries are contracted with a Chinese company. But this is apples and oranges. Bringing energy prices down can help reduce prices elsewhere and the best way is energy innovation, time-based electricity rates (smart meters that allow customers to program their usage) and policies that increase the availability of renewable energy.

Drill, baby, drill, says nothing more than “I don’t give a shit, baby, I don’t give a shit” about future generations.

9) The economy and the security of the country are far more important than your feelings, get over it.

I’ve got nothing here. I think they were just venting.

10) There are men and there are women. Simple as that.

I do have a lot to say here. There are men and there are women, that is true. There are all types of men and women. Some have more of this, some more of that. I’m not trying to be flippant, but to say nature is complicated so “let it go.”

Sex refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define a person as male, female, or intersex. Those characteristics are defined by chromosomes, hormones and reproductive organs.

Where there is a disconnect, misunderstanding, conflict, is from defining “gender.” Gender is a construct to describe a person’s identity as a man, woman, non-binary, or other gender individuals. While sex is based, from a scientific perspective, on biological factors, gender is more fluid as is defined in more fluid contexts.

I have ZERO expectation to change the post writer’s view of this, or the millions of people who also struggle with any understanding outside of their own social and cultural perceptions, but I would point to the fact that many things are not understood until they are. There are truths that have yet to be understood or accepted. Some appear then dissolve into history, others ebb and flow. But to castigate human beings for not aligning with your definition at this moment in time contributes to nothing positive. Simple as that.

11) Education is to establish a learning core that prepares a child for the real, working world. Anything else is wrong.

There is nothing wrong with that statement except the implication at the end. I am certain they are implying that our public educational system is betraying their 10th tenet; that there are only men and women. There is a fundamental misunderstanding here and it has morphed into a conservative cause celebre.

The fallacy is that the public school system is teaching sexual biology that contradicts the “only men and women” concept. I am not in every school or privy to every curriculum, but after raising 5 children who attended different schools, I am pretty clear on their experiences as far as school philosophies and curriculum were concerned.

In every situation, the schools were not attempting to indoctrinate any student with what the writer would likely call “liberal sexual ideology” but were trying to be a safe haven for differences. There were legislative mandates to comply with, but most commonly the conflicts arose between students identifying differently and the societal norms others students subscribed to. Teachers and school policies tried hard to protect students and to make materials available to persuade acceptance. That is not indoctrination.

My criticisms within that reality are reserved for some teachers who allowed bullying because of the ideological differences they held that left vulnerable students alone or subjected to chastisement. THAT is wrong.

Finally….12) Donald J Trump is the President of the United States and he won by a landslide- both the popular vote and the electoral vote. Get over it.

Finally…I can’t get over it. The country I love has fallen into a pit of demagoguery from a celebration of ignorance. It has adopted selfishness and obstinance that places our most treasured tenets of freedom, equality and humanity, in jeopardy.

Donald J Trump is the President, I cannot deny that, and he won by a sizable electoral college margin. My hope for the future lies in the post writer’s own views from an ideology that will ultimately collapse from the weight of its own lies.

Trump did not win a popular “landslide.” The margin between those who dream of a strong, compassionate, innovative, America and those who believe only the white, non-secular, fairytale of the not so distant past, is not that wide.

Sincerely, and with continuing hope,

Gary

I fly the flag on my front porch. I’ve flown the U.S. flag wherever I’ve lived for 20 years and I’ve been confronted several times over the years by people on both the right and the left side of political ideology asking me why.

People on the right have challenged my right to do so because, in their words, I am not patriotic and do not uphold the value of American exceptionalism as they do, and because I routinely criticize the current government and status quo values of the United States.

People on the left have asked how I could possibly wave the flag of this country when it betrays justice and civil rights historically and in actively systemic ways. They are concerned by the assumption others will make that I am a flag-waving-America-love-it-or-leave-it conservative (ironically among the same conservatives who think I have no business displaying the flag).

I’ll tell you why I fly the flag. It is a symbol of our ideals and demands constant vigilance to calibrate our course toward equal rights, equal justice and unwavering freedom. I believe that the flag stands for our future and not our past and I will not let that be taken away from me by being co-opted by those who believe that our best work is done.

More recently I was asked why I don’t, therefore, join others who display the flag but fly it upside down to indicate the very point I am making. My answer was simple: “There is no reason for me to change my flag; I am not in protest of what it means and I will not let those who fashion it into jackets and boxer shorts to ‘prove’ their patriotism be the ones to own it right-side-up.”

This paradox between what America is and where it is going, is central to the conflict between those gathering for “No Kings” marches and those who identify as MAGA conservatives. There is an impasse at the intersection of each understanding of greatness and if the loggerheads we face are ever to be untangled, this is where the discussion has to begin. This is also where I am crystal clear as to where I stand.

The United States of America has never upheld its own promise of freedom other than its pursuit of such a construct. Our Revolution, the declaration of war against a King, the Constitution that emerged from it, were all forged from the ideals procured by the better angels of people in conflict, but not from the traditions and practices they were born into. When it was declared that “all men are created equal” the popular understanding was that the rights of such “men” are exclusive to white, male, landowners.

Without a doubt, the writings of Jefferson, Madison, and others, made it clear that the contradiction of slavery betrayed their own proclamation, but the status quo (and their own practices) failed to include the rest of humanity. Nevertheless, the documents that emerged as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights contained the wisdom and clairvoyance that would guide this country toward inclusion, realizing that only the authentic spirit of freedom and justice can light the path toward that future; and that the future is never finished or secure.

The struggle for freedom is constant and the conflict is cyclical. 70 years after the ratification of the Constitution came the Civil War which established the 13th and 14th Amendments recognizing the rights of African Americans. 60 years later the passing of the 19th Amendment acknowledged a woman’s right to vote. The civil rights movement took shape 30 years later and led to ending public segregation and created the Voting Rights Act. Yet, every movement has existed all along while consciousness cycles through conservative channels.

Women’s Suffrage became reality but not equal pay or equal opportunity. Slavery was abolished but Jim Crow Laws kept discrimination alive. And so every struggle continues while the spirit of freedom and justice, articulated through Constitutional laws, push us toward better realizations of our original promise. That’s how I identify “Progressivism.”

Put the narrative of Gay Americans, and everyone who identifies as LGBTQ, into any of the aforementioned struggles for equal justice and the epiphany is the same; it is a measurement of America’s promise against the forces of a status quo living in the past.

There has alway been a MAGA movement, it just didn’t contain acronyms. It is populist conservatism and it weighs anchor in every era as the disenfranchised who feel left behind or ignored by new directions forced upon them. They stood as “Loyalists” in 1776, as the “Lost Cause” after the Civil War, as the “Anti’s” who opposed Women’s Suffrage, the “Conservative Coalition” to fight new civil rights legislation in the 60’s, and they attached themselves to the Reagan Revolution in the 80s, becoming the Tea Party in 2009 which morphed into the slogan of the candidate that would lead them: “Make America Great Again.”

At the center of that populist movement/revolution is nothing more than a feeling; there is no doctrine, no actual dogma, but rather an amalgam of mistrust and misinformation that feels that things were better in the past, before the latest progressive siege on the way things were. Everything fits into that bucket: When things cost less, when boys were boys and girls were girls, when you didn’t have to lock the front door, and when Dick, Jane and Spot didn’t have to have a Black friend.

Yes, I am perfectly aware of my oversimplification of something more complex, but any idea of “when things were great” can only be described by a feeling; there is nothing concrete to point to. What was, for example, the “Lost Cause” if not a yearning for the way things were before the Civil War? When there was no government intervention over human bondage as a lawful right. It was MAGA-South. But were things “greater” in America when the country and its government looked away from having institutionalized slavery?

What was the “Conservative Coalition” if not a movement to reverse legislation to the way they were when Jim Crow laws restricted Black Americans from opportunity or the exercise of freedom?

The Tea Party which labelled itself in 2009 was a movement to return to the conservative principles they saw as fundamental to the U.S, Constitution, which would be inarguable except for the fact that the Constitution flexed as it was designed to do by creating definitions to secure the exercise of free speech and freedom of religion. So the Tea Party made up demons to fight; they opposed the raising of taxes that hadn’t been raised, they opposed restrictions of firearms which hadn’t been restricted, and they promoted the idea of a Christian nation, even though the First Amendment “prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion.”

It was riddled with contradictions, but that didn’t matter to the new populists who felt unheard and unrecognized in a changing America. When Donald Trump emerged from having bankrolled the Tea Party’s fabrication that Barack Obama was not an American, they were happy to bankroll him. His slogan “Make America Great Again” became the new moniker for a revolution that was about to find out they could actually win.

And now, here we are. The party in power has no doctrine short of a Doctrine of Belief in paternal leadership that will make them feel good by making America great again. When candidate Trump told them he will make “America First” by focusing our resources on them and not expensive foreign wars and nation building, their mission was fait accompli. Trump would keep gas prices low and groceries would come down immediately. Instead, Donald Trump, who, if there is anything we should all agree on, will do what Donald Trump wants to do regardless of anything he’s said in the past, turned America First into “Peace Through Strength” in order to justify expensive foreign wars and nation building.

And....his populists came with him. Because it never was about anything other than how it makes them feel.

Which comes back to my flag. It flies every day on my front porch because my cause, and the cause of millions of others, never stops. There is no finish line, there is only a line to finish when America embraces its promise of expanding freedom and justice by overcoming the forces trying to confine her to something she never was.

Conservative socio-political thinking is also binary. It creates two choices: black or white, for us or against us, good or evil. No room for grey. Too many choices deviates from the principle binary code: there is only right and wrong. It is inconsequential that I may be “for” some things and “against” some other things. And never mind that truth is found in the exploration of that polarity; the latter can be difficult and frightening. It’s easier to “know.”

That predilection to “know” is the essence of conspiracy theory. Theorists are somehow (in their minds) a conduit for the privileged information that garners the truth.

George Soros, the Hungary born billionaire who gives philanthropically to progressive causes, is the modern bogeyman to the far (and sprinting closer to mainstream) right because he satisfies the need for a financier for all of their liberal conspiracy theories. He is their devil incarnate from which to base their improbable binary choice: Listen to us who “know” or suffer the consequences.

In terms of politics that is the conspiracy to destroy America.

Within that narrative there has emerged the idea that Obama is running the White House, actors have been hired to discredit Trump and this “Deep State” is being financed by… George Soros.

While that sounds too complicated to provide the comfort of binary thinking, it actually provides more of a black or white choice. In short: All of our problems come from this Deep State conspiracy and if we just recognize that truth (by believing those with the innate power to know) everything will be right again.

That paradigm does not just exist within the ranks of extremists, however, it is mainstream because it is another belief within myriad binary belief systems that say “join us or perish.”

Curiously, in the Trump-era the Deep State moved from a cabal of rich industrialists in bed with politicians pulling the strings of the entire apparatus, to a liberal conspiracy to upend Trump himself. And with Trump saying and doing so many things to warrant investigation into his character and business dealings it was fait accompli for QAnon, Alex Jones and other fringe organizations to justify their evidence. It became a closed loop of self-fulfilling prophecy.

Polls have shown that nearly half of America buys into the idea of at least some gradation of a Deep State’s existence. And maybe there is one. It seems odd to this writer that it would be “snowflake” liberals who created such an intricate, clandestine, mega-powerful, sub-government to rival James Bond’s nemesis “Spectre,” but that doesn’t seem to matter to conspiracists.

What matters is to have the binary alternative to good: EVIL.

There is no simple conclusion to draw here; this wasn’t meant as a binary choice between beliefs and pragmatism. They are two separate things. In fact beliefs may be more natural to assume. They certainly require less effort.

Our education paradigm has been matched to our economic paradigm and shifted from expanding ideas and invention toward chasing income. When income is the goal, the arts, philosophy, academia, as well as research, flies out the window. And with the ever rising cost of things, chasing money becomes an imperative pursuit.

An imperative but also a detriment to genuine sustainable economic growth. Funding for the arts from federal coffers to state has taken a dramatic turn downward. Over the past 25 years in Iowa funding for the arts has dropped by 34%. That means appropriations to fund operating support for arts organizations, education programs, and community arts initiatives have dramatically decreased. That includes performing arts centers, community orchestras, school facilities, museums, grants for city beautification projects, public festivals, and strengthening non profits. These funds enhance public accessibility, supporting local artists and cultural institutions.

What does all that stuff matter when there are greater economic concerns like unemployment, hiring a workforce, and the daily costs of living? Wouldn’t it seem logical that states (and federal government) should cut the fluff to make budget room for more pressing matters than sculptured bushes downtown?

THAT is the great misstep and is perhaps the result of our diminished critical thinking skills. Iowa may be the textbook example of how austerity shoots us in our collective foot. States with robust creative industries see faster economic recovery and growth by leveraging arts as a strategic advantage in the modern economy. The arts enhance state desirability.

The arts generate jobs, tax revenues, and boost tourism, contributing significantly to a state’s GDP. They attract talent seeking a rich cultural scene. Young creative professionals and companies seeking a high quality of life for their employees invest where there is artistic opportunity and diversity.

Creative projects in neighborhoods turn areas into safe and desirable communities, that increase engagement and investment. And the arts define a community and a state’s brand and unique cultural heritage which, in turn fosters innovation and community pride. Attracting students, families, and business.

Attracting population growth is not achieved simply by cutting taxes or even just by modernizing infrastructure and reducing costs of doing business. These things are important parts of the equation but are not more important. Leaving the arts out of the budget or diminishing their value is like building a beautiful restaurant and leaving out the menu. A museum, a vibrant orchestra, the beautiful pedestrian mall with local artists sculpture, the high school band, a play, community theater, an outdoor amphitheater, the mom and pop pottery barn, the music festival in the bandshell, these are reasons people choose communities and these are revenue streams that endure.

I mention Iowa because for the past 20 years Iowa has been a personal frustration. Our once top 3 ranked state in education has dropped below the middle. Students leave Iowa not only for better wages but for more creative opportunities. That leaves Iowa’s workforce unable to attract corporations even with the tax breaks they are offered. And Iowa ranks 39th in per capita spending on the arts.

Whereas Minnesota just to the north spends from 7 to 10 dollars per capita, Iowa spends 45 cents. The national average is $1.88. Vermont where I live today is right there at $1.87 per capita.

I will always hold Iowa close to my heart; I was raised there and worked in Iowa for 22 years enjoying the people, the landscape, and in earlier days a progressive viewpoint toward civil rights and education. The vibrant potential of those qualities are what led me back and the dramatic turn away from them in recent years are why we moved away. But the mission never stops.

Vote for progress this Fall no matter where you live, and open up the conversations about bringing the arts into the equation to create sustainable, quality growth.

We need to create a Foreign Policy Constitution. A document we hold up to the light to reveal how we should approach every foreign engagement. We can refer to this document so that America can consistently carry the moral authority expected of this free and powerful nation without compromise.

Is this facetious? Not really. Naïve? Maybe.

What we have is a vague set of evolving principles that have been subjected to so many diverse and conflicting interests that our authority on the world stage has become a liability.

There are principles, in theory, if not even actual pieces of paper tucked away in State Department drawers, but they are not necessarily consulted.

The officially stated goal of the foreign policy of the United States, from the Foreign Policy Agenda of the U.S. Department of State, is “to create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community.”

Could anything be more vague and open to interpretation? What determines security? Prosperity? What are the parameters? By what measure? When are we benefitting? How far do we go?

In addition, the United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs states: “Export controls, including nonproliferation of nuclear technology and nuclear hardware; measures to foster commercial intercourse with foreign nations and to safeguard American business abroad; international commodity agreements; international education; and protection of American citizens abroad…”

Forgive me, but the best, and most ironic, part of that is “intercourse with foreign nations…”

I like the specificity regarding nuclear proliferation, but we are witnessing today that “export controls” has wide latitude. It doesn’t say “Strangle or obliterate perceived rogue nations that have nuclear potential,” yet that has been added to the debate.

Constitutionalists and modern Federalists will reiterate the foreign policy themes expressed in George Washington’s farewell address. These included: Observing good faith and justice towards all nations and cultivating peace and harmony with all, excluding both ‘inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others’, and “steering clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”

The primary trend of U.S. foreign policy since the American Revolution has been the shift from non-interventionism to hegemony, becoming the dominate world power during World War II. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s support of the Allies against Germany and Japan resulted in an intense internal debate that initially determined that our policy was to become the “Arsenal of Democracy”; financing and equipping the Allied armies without sending American combat soldiers.

Roosevelt then defined fundamental freedoms to rally American involvement which he said ought to be enjoyed by people “everywhere in the world.”

These were “freedom of speech and religion, as well as freedom from want and fear.”

From here on a new expansionist American Foreign Policy objective was realized, and trouble has followed a never-ending, exponentially expanding, and impossible set of directives to accomplish. How, when, where and what will a sovereign, democratic Republic determine how, when, where and what we can accomplish?

We have rules to direct and contain how our forces are deployed, but even these have become lost and vague as sincere objectives become obscured by myriad political and corporate interests.

While the President is Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces, only Congress has authority to declare war. The United States Secretary of State is our foreign minister and is the primary conductor of state-to-state diplomacy and both the Secretary of State and ambassadors are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

But those are just the rules. Rules need to have purpose, vision and clear directives to retain relevance.

This may be the fundamental dysfunction of government, in general, but it is a conflict that we must resolve if we are ever to find balance domestically and abroad. Just as we refer back to the Constitution of the United States of America, and a Supreme Court was created to interpret the application of its laws, we should have a document as accepted and revered for its timeless wisdom, by which to inform and guide our involvement in an ever changing world.

We should call for a new Continental Congress (I’m being a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I do believe that Thomas Jefferson suggested that we hold one every 50 years or so to remain relevant) to draft: The Constitution of American Foreign Policy.

Such a charter will always be subject to interpretation, just as the breadth of our Constitution is continually challenged, but its essential purpose to outline fundamental laws protecting our freedom is respected around the world.

As we continually face military action in the Middle East, and as we consider loss of life and global impact, we must be clear on what it is we’re doing and why. Chemical warfare and genocide are unthinkable crimes against humanity, but can we be sure that our policies are preventing any of it from happening?

Have they so far?