Assessing the "Anonymous Senior Administration Official's" NY Times Op-Ed

        Every time something about the Trump Administration astonishes us, look for something the next day that beats it all hollow.  This week's one-two punch was (1) a book by highly-respected journalist Bob Woodward portraying the Administration as a bickering entity shattered into factions insulting each other, with many of Trump's own officials trying to save us from the worst of Trump, then -- not 24 hours after Trump threatens Woodward and calls for stricter libel laws -- (2) an unprecedented anonymous column in the NY Times from "a senior administration official."
[My previous post touches on some of the silliness in Trump's reaction to the Woordward book, while an earlier one this week ("Trump Warns Very Clearly He'll Abandon Rule of Law" ) covers his public effort to obstruct justice for two Republican Congressmen.]
        The anonymous op-ed is astonishing.  The Times knows the person's identity; and no one who read the piece could disagree that the person's job would be in danger if Mr. Trump could indentify  him or her.

        The piece points out early that:

"President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.  . . . The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations."

        The writer adds:

"I would know. I am one of them.

"We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.  . . .

"But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office."

        That is, of course, an unprecedented statement.  In the last days of the Nixon Administration, officials might be talking like that amongst themselves; but they weren't saying anything publicly.  

        The next passage in the column is almost word-for-word what many, including this columnist, have often said, something that seemed so obvious from his words, conduct, and past record that hearing Trump loyalists dispute it has always startled me: that there's no there there, in the sense that Trump has no ideological or ethical center or base, but just -- like a dinosaur -- does what seems necessary or convenient: "The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making."

        The entire essay makes clear, as does the following passage, that the writer is probably not someone I would agree with about most of what government should or shouldn't be doing, but someone who does see that Trumpian _________ is dangerous to all of us:

"Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

"In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

"Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.

"But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective."

        I am obviously not a fan of deregulation that endangers consumers, nature, and the environment to help big corporations.  Nor is the "tax reform" anything more than a prescription for economic disaster.  But I sure see what the writer calls Trump's "erratic behavior."

        "From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

"Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier."

        He adds, "It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.."  The phrase "cold comfort" seems exactly right.  Yeah, it's nice to know they haven't all drunk the kool aid and that someone's at least trying to protect us from the worst of Trump; but this "erratic" and "amoral" fellow remains with his finger on the proverbial button.  Further, while they are trying to civilize Trump a little, they remain in his administration -- dedicated to doing, more effectively than Trump could do, some things I consider dangerous to the republic.   I'm glad this fellow -- and there's some indication the writer is male, although the Times has mostly tried not to say -- spoke up, because maybe some folks that wouldn't believe me will believe a fellow conservative with a marvelous view of the dumpster fire; but one of the few things Trump might be right about is the writer's "gutlessness" and "disloyalty."

Of course, as usual, Trump overstates everything and confuses the nation's interest with his own.  In a one-word tweet, he commented, "Treason?"   No, Donald, not treason.  Yes, disloyalty to you; but in the service of what the writer believes is best for the nation; and at some cost, so that perhaps "gutless" is unfair.

        The writer goes on to point out some things that have become obvious, adding only the fact that some of Trump's dangerous proclivities are not just for show:

"Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.

"Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.

"On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable."

        Interestingly, the writer confirms what many had hinted, that the "adults in the room", including some in Trump's cabinet, gave some thought to invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the mentally and emotionally disabled president.  "But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over."

        I could hardly agree more strongly with this observation: "The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility."  I am no deeply committed partisan of the Democratic Party.  I'm in it; but I have my doubts that either party currently represents the average U.S. citizen.  However, the Democrats are often at least in the same zip code with sane and humanitarian policies.  I also understand some of the Republicans' ideological or theoretical arguments, and take them seriously, and respect the belief in them that some Republicans demonstrate.  But watching Republicans fawn over this clown because he has power and is useful to them has been so appalling I wonder how decent people can remain in the party without speaking up.   They are the true "gutless" ones, not the anonymous administration official.

        He urges everyone to head John McCain's farewell words and "break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation."   Of McCain, this member of the Trump administration says, "Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them."

        He closes: "There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans."

         That means us.  We are U.S. citizens.  We can and must vote to change the composition of Congress to counterbalance Trump's madness and disrespect for law, traditions, and Constitution.   But we must also extend a hand to others with whom we may disagree.  And as Trump partisans, if some do, begin to see the truth about their hero more clearly, we should take no pride or joy in that, but welcome them back to the world.

 Wednesday evening, Trump tried a new tack: demanding that the Times turn over the writer to authorities "for national security reasons."

 “Does the so-called “Senior Administration Official” really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source?” he tweeted. “If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!”

However, even Trump's closest pals in the Senate weren't buying it.

Donald Trump on Bob Woodward - Another Day, Another Howler

Another day, another howler.

Bob Woodward's book on the Trump Administration has Trump wondering "why the Washington politicians don't change libel laws."

Two points are significant: that again Trump's response is to lash out; and that he not only has no respect for freedom of expression but has no clue that the libel laws are state statutes.   (He also purports not to have noticed that he's a "Washington politician.")  Yeah, part of libel law is based on U.S. Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution.

Trump also has no blue that the law DOES prevent what he'd complaining of:

"Isn't it a shame that someone can write [something], totally make up stories, and form a picture of a person that is literally the exact opposite of the fact, and get away with it without retribution or cost," he complained.  But libel laws do prohibit exactly that.  You can't make up false stories out of thin air and write them, harming someone else.  If Woodward had done so, Mr. Trump could -- and probably would -- be suing Woodward and the publisher, specifically alleging the false statements Woodward had written which Woodward knew or should reasonably have known were false.  Trump could sue, asking the court to exact retribution in the form of actual damages.  If Woodward couldn't show his reasonable belief in the truth of what he'd written, Trump could win.

So Trump's complaint isn't real.  If it were, there's a remedy.

But it's another hint of what Trump would do if he could: return us to the law of centuries ago, in which saying bad things about a powerful public figure could get someone tried for criminal libel. 


Woodward's book contains numerous criticisms of Trump by administration officials -- some of whom spent the day "walking back" those criticisms.

In one tweet, Trump denied having used a fake southern accent to insult Attorney-General Jeff Sessions; but it sounds so like Trump.  He insults everyone, even mimics a reporter with a disability.  Why not Sessions?  Portraying Trump as calling Sessions mentally "retarded" and "a dumb southerner" sounds little worse than what Trump has tweeted or said about Sessions in public.  Just less acceptable.  "Dumb southerner" might even irritate members of his "base."

Of course, Trump's reaction is little different from his threat to "take a look" at the libel laws in response to Michael Wolff's book, Fire and Fury, in January. That "look" at the libel laws apparently convinced Trump he had no case.  Could it be because under our current laws truth is a complete defense to a libel action?

On balance, Trump's blathering about libel laws is, like a lot of what he says, distracting and obstreperous nonsense.  But it's a warning.  He sounds absurd.  But so did Mussolini and Hitler.  I don't think he'll emulate them.  He lacks Hitler's deep (if misguided) passion.  Where Hitler had a demented anti-Semitism and a theory of the betrayal of the German people, something he could articulate and which adherents shared, Trump has no such guiding beacon, but rather a shifting instinct to protect himself from whatever seems threatening.  And since a lot does seem threatening, he lashes out at others a lot. 

Trump Warns Very Clearly He'll Abandon Rule of Law

Is this what it feels like to lose a democracy?

It seems as if each week – sometimes each day, or each page of the newspaper – brings a new statement or action that makes it abundantly clear that Mr. Trump has no regard for our laws, our traditions, our sense of justice, or our Constitution – and that if he can, he will rule as a dictator, as whim-driven as any we've seen in history.

How much clearer can he make it than his current attacks on Jeff Sessions? Sessions was a far-right senator whom many consider a racist. He was one of Trump's early supporters. However, he's also a lawyer, and has some concern that if we abandon the rule of law, we abandon what is beat in our country. (Or perhaps Trump's personal attacks have awakened him – either to the danger or to an impulse to defend himself.)

As Trump notes, “Two long running . . . investigations of two . . . Republican Congressmen were brought to a well-publicized charge . . . by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. The two are U.S. Reps Chris Collins of New York and Duncan Hunter of California. They are under indictment for offenses (insider trading / securities fraud for Collins; misusing campaign funds and falsifying federal records for Mr. and Mrs. Hunter, who allegedly used people's campaign contributions for travel for releatives, children's tuition, golf outings, and other personal purposes) that are based in personal greed, not in politics. 

Both, like Sessions, were early Republican supporters of Trump. Sessions has no reason to be prejudiced against them, nor does the Justice Department. There is no evidence of anything unfair in the investigations, nor does Trump allege any. (He contents with snidely referring to them as “Obama era” investigations, as if Obama had some involvement.)

We laugh or shudder when we read about such matters in Stalin's Russia or some banana republic, where the dictator's friends and family happily loot the country without fear of arrest while the dictator also points at opposition figures and “disappears” them at will. Trump is publicly angry that Sessions did his job, or allowed others to do theirs, and indicted two men based on very thorough investigations. How much clearer can he make it that if he had his way – as he promises he soon will, by firing Sessions – the Justice Department will drop indictments against his friends and supporters; and his frequent shouts of “Lock her up” suggest that the next step could be arresting Hillary and other political opponents on trumped-up charges.

What's amazing is, this ain't me making wild charges against Donald Trump. This ain't some far-left publication publishing half-truths – or even the mainstream newspapers, which are also under attack for their independence from Mr. Trump. 

This is Donald Trump, in his own words, telling you frankly what he'll do if he can. Telling you frankly that if he can free himself and his friends from the rule of law, he'll do so. Unambiguously.

Don't say you weren't warned. 

There is a little push-back from Republicans. 

Mr. Trump leaves no doubt of his intentions for the Justice Department: he wants these indictments dropped because the indicted men had good chances of winning re-election, and is meanwhile demanding that Sessions push to prosecute Democrats.

Sessions says he will “not be improperly influenced by political pressure. Arizona U.S. Senator Jeff Flake condemned Trump's effort to use the Justice Department to “settle political scores.” He added that Trump shouldn't criticize Sessions for not letting political considerations sway him from warranted indictments, adding, “This is not the conduct of a President committed to defending and upholding the constitution.

Meanwhile, Brit Hume from Fox News, more or less a house organ for the Republican Party, asked, “Will DJT never learn that an attorney-general's job is not to play goalie for a president or his party, or any party for that matter?”

But Sessions will be gone after November. Flake will be gone in January. Hume will do what he's told, most likely.

So here's one more clear warning. Of course, I thought watching Trump in Helsinki would wake up a whole lot more people than it did.

Watching Trump was like the time we watched Barack Obama meet publicly with the leader of ISIS and announce that he believed the Caliph, not the FBI, CIA and fifteen other U.S. intelligence agencies. Oops. Wait a moment. That didn't happen, except maybe in some pretty loony imaginations. In fact, sane people would have a hard time imagining such a scene with Obama.

need to get laid or his perjury or some of his political decisions. But I don't remember him trying to fire Kenneth Starr. Or demanding his attorney-general stop criminal investigations of Democrats in Congress because indicting them would be politically inconvenient.

Trump has warned us, yet again, loudly and clearly – with conduct and statements that would have shocked us in any previous president. 

One problem with cheering him on, or saying nothing, merely because he's on your team is that if you ever disagree with him, you could get the same unjust treatment he wants to free the DOJ to mete out to Democrats. But maybe you'll never disagree.

Will we lose our democracy? I don't know. I know it's in danger. I know Trump doesn't understand or respect it, and that now that he's finding the rule of law inconvenient, he's resolving to knock it out of the way as soon as he can. What I don't know is how far he can go. But I sure don't see Republicans stopping him; and it ain't gonna get any easier for them as he consolidates power. 

                              -30-

Note: the day after I posted this, an article on theHill.com stressed the silence of Congressional Republicans and noted, "Trump's Labor Day tweet may represeent the most egregious example to date of the president enterfering with ongoing Department of Justice (DOJ) investigations and engagin in what many are calling blatant obstruction of justice.
The piece quoted legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin as something that i wondered about too: "This tweet alone may be an impeachable offense." 
Former U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder termed the tweet "so dangerous and stupid it's mind-boggling.  This is a fundamental threat to the rule of law." 
Ian Prior, a former Justice Department spokesman in the Trump Administration, commented, "That's just not how the Department of Justice works."  He added that the kind of selective prosecution based on people's political offenses that Trump was recommending results in cases that get thrown out of court.
Of course, as more Tumpian judges try cases, that could change.

Civil Political Discourse - an Endangered Concept

J Paul w Cynthia Garrett

J. Paul Taylor's 98^th birthday and U.S. Senator John McCain's death at 81 spark reflections on civility in political discourse.

For twenty years, J. Paul was “the conscience of the Legislature.” Everyone liked and respected him, although his progressive politics weren't to everyone's liking. At 98, he gets out less and less; but at the annual celebration at Farm and Ranch, he still remembered everyone and greeted well wishers with that marvelous smile. He can still hold an audience.

J Paul w Terry Miller

J Paul w Win Jacobs

He was frank and funny discussing uncertainty whether he'd be gone next August or live to 110. He acknowledged that it wasn't up to him. His face expressed joy in the moment – not fear of the next.

McCain invited two men who'd beaten him for the Presidency, George Bush and Barack Obama, to eulogize him. That was meant as symbolic advocacy of less partisanship. 

I often disagreed with McCain's views and votes. But how can you not respect him: as a prisoner-of-war, offered the chance for an early release because of his father's high position, McCain declined, because his comrades would remain imprisoned. It's telling that Mr. Trump, despite heavy pressure from his associates, couldn't even bring himself to express respect for McCain initially. 

Is civility in public discourse dying? It seemed so in the decades before the civil war; during FDR's New Deal; and during the turbulent 1960's. But civil political discourse came back after the 1860-65 wildfire; and during the 1960's, senators and congressmen from different parties still dined together or carpooled to their home states for recess. So far, we've always recovered from rampant incivility, which is tiring at best.

How can we begin to recover now? By each pitching in, however we can.

A retired minister I interviewed recently said, “I've met very few evil people in my life.” I'm not sure I've met any. One key to civility is to recall that, despite what all the political memes suggest, people are not evil. Rather, we humans can (sometimes through contortions worthy of a circus performer ) see our acts and words, and those of our political heroes, as right, no matter what. 

Though you may reject someone's belief, rejecting the whole person is unproductive. Fighting the Hydra-headed wrongness of some re-post on Facebook can be diverting, if you like Wac-a-Mole. A better bet is trying to understand them, and the soil their misconceptions thrive in, and asking them reasonable questions, particularly if you can project that despite it all you like them. It helps to find common points, or a shared affection for basketball or babies or bon bons. 

Nowadays, having some haven from politics and constant consciousness of current events is critical. And harder to maintain, when every time you open the computer to write a poem or check a baseball score or gaze lovingly at your grandkids, that Facebook icon demands to be clicked – and gobbles up the next two hours if you let it. But we need breaks from our reasonable worrying about the world's fate. Sit in silence, read, listen to music (or make it), walk outdoors, write a poem. 

Insults or slights are poisons people offer you; but you need not drink! Fight only what needs fighting. Letting bitterness devour you helps no one.

Sure, you're angry at Trump – or at George Soros. But let JPT and McCain inspire us to recognize people as neighbors, and rebuild community.

                                                      -30-

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 2 September 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News and on the newspaper's website and KRWG's website.  During the week a spoken version will air on KRWG Radio and on KTAL, 101.5 FM (www.lccommunityradio.org).]

[I don't mean to make civility our paramount value.  The fact that our ruling/managing classes are often so civil may be related to the fact that they are having the best of it at our expense most of the time.  Quite politely, the Democrats and Republicans enact laws that help corporations and the wealthy, and the financial industry, with little regard for us (particularly the poorest among us) or our health or environment.  A little incivility in the cause of a fairer and more just world, or in favor of getting our heads out of the sand about climate change, or in favor of forests, wildlife, nature, healthy food, and cutting down on the dangerous chemicals that are all around us and inside us because avoiding them is inconvenient for big business operations -- such incivility might be a welcome note, even something we desperately needed.

However, that's a far cry from an administration where one man's ego and insecurities are primary, not our country, while he and his cohorts destroy what they can of our country.]

 

[Our political incivility is not just the product of one man. It was growing before 2016; and we should remember that. Yeah, Mr. Trump indulged in insults and played some racist cards; but he didn't invent either. He took advantage of our deep divisions, and deepened them.

Thus it's hard not to note reports from John McCain's funeral of a more graceful political moment in which Mr. Trump was not present, or perhaps even mentioned – though awareness of him was obvious. Two men who had defeated McCain in Presidential races, George Bush and Barack Obama, from two different political parties, both spoke – and at one point Mrs. Bush passed to Mr. Bush a candy or chocolate or something, which he passed on to Mrs. Obama. Trump, uninvited, and unmentioned, was a stark contrast to their remarks on the dead senator.

Bush mentioned that, “Above all, John detested the abuse of power. He could not abide bigots and swaggering despots." Obama praised McCain's ability to transcend partisan fights and alluded to the "bombast and insult and phony controversies" of the current political climate.

"So much of our politics, public life, public discourse can seem small and mean and petty, trafficking in bombast, and insult, and phony controversies, and manufactured outrage," Obama said. (Jeez, is there a prominent public figure who insults people and tweets bombstically about pettty disputes, picking all kinds of unnecessary fights?)

"It's the politics that pretends to be brave and tough but in fact is born of fear," Obama said. "John called on us to be bigger than that. He called on us to be better than that."

Obama recalled McCain visiting him sometimes at the White House for private policy discussions. "Our disagreements didn't go away during these private conversations," Obama told attendees.  "Those were real and they were often deep. But we enjoyed the time we shared away from the bright lights, and we laughed with each other, and we learned from each other."

Perhaps significantly, Obama noted that, despite their political differences, he always knew he and McCain were acting out of a shared desire to do what was best for the country. (Do many truly believe the same of Mr. Trump?)

Meghan McCain called her father "a great man," adding, "We gather here to mourn the passing of American greatness. The real thing, not cheap rhetoric from men who will never come near the sacrifice he gave so willingly, nor the opportunistic appropriation of those who lived lives of comfort and privilege," she added.

"The America of John McCain has no need to be made great again because America was always great," she said to applause.]

What will "running NMSU like a business" turn out to mean?

It is difficult

to get the news from poems

but men die miserably every day

for lack

of what is found there.

                         – William Carlos Williams

Many at NMSU and in our community are aghast at the sticker price of the new Garrey Carruthers: $950,000 (vs. $373,000), and two sets of benefits; but we get two brains and four hands. Faculty raises have been rare and minimal, some profs are concerned, and now we hear more high-priced administrative positions are planned.

Originally, the “university” was Socrates sitting under a tree with younger folks who thought they could learn something from him. As more students came, and maybe Plato started teaching too, they needed someone to collect the trash (or water the tree). That's the origin of college administrators -- an origin too few of them care to recall.

I've heard some good things about Dan Arvizu. 

I've also read Sun-News stories on his plans to “run NMSU like a business.” 

I second his urging that New Mexico improve K-12 education. Then improve it further. It's central to everything else. A state's financial return on dollars spent on early-childhood education is extremely high.

I might also agree with “teaching students to think like entrepreneurs.” I hope that means “creatively” or “outside the box” or “open to innovations.” But what if it's limited to “think greedy” or “how can I manipulate others to get absurdly rich”? Those are understandably prized in our capitalist system; but they have their limits, and unpleasant byproducts. (Without the ethical base and wider perspective you get from the humanities, why not destroy natural resources or other people's lives if it helps the bottom line?) 

There's a lot of knowledge that really matters, even if it doesn't pay for itself in any obvious way.

If you haven't read history, and don't care about it, you end up like Donald Trump, basing decisions on whims. Or, if you're cagier, like Vladimir Putin: quite successful but with a defective moral compass.

I understand times change. Latin and Greek used to be required, then optional, but encouraged. Now most kids wouldn't know what they are. That would appall some of my teachers, but it's how things are. 

Poems don't sell. Reading history won't teach you the electronic equivalent of how to hammer in a nail or weld a pipe. Shakespeare doesn't specifically mention antitrust law or arbitrage.

But thinking creatively and logically and having a wide and deep base of knowledge can be helpful, in any field. There are few careers where speaking coherently and writing clearly and concisely aren't incredibly important. 

Scientific research? Scientists at universities used to do independent and relatively unbiased research. They experimented – and found what they found, whether or not it supported their hypotheses. Now research in medical, pharmaceutical, agricultural, and other fields is increasingly bought and paid for (openly or otherwise) by large entities who have already spent bundles on their products – and aren't real open-minded about how the research will turn out. 

What might “running a university like a business” mean in that context? (Some profs would say the Regents are already imitating business, by paying NMSU's top execs disproportionately.)

Chancellor Arvizu has his mantra: STEM; but science and engineering won't teach us what to use them for.

I hope he understands that a stem exists to support fruit and flowers. 

                                                   -30- 

[The above column appeared this morning, Sunday, 26 August, 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website.  A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and KTAL-LP 101.5 FM, streamable at www.lccommunityradio.com.]

[I look forward to meeting Mr. Arvizu.  I've invited him on my radio show.  As I mentioned above, I've heard some good things about him from folks who've talked to him.  And I do recognize that we live in a world where it takes a whole lot of dollars to run a university, and improve that university.]

[Meanwhile, "Happy Birthday!" to J. Paul Taylor.  He's 98!  The Friends of the Taylor Family Monument will celebrate with him at their annual membership party, from 3:30-5:30 at the Farm and Ranch Heritage Museum.  A local hero and a great friend!]  

  

[

Not with a Bang But a Whimper - the Apodacas Can't Handle Losing

Lives, like the world in T.S. Eliot's The Hollow Men, often end not with a bang but a whimper. Same for political lives.

The sad spectacle of Jerry Apodaca, our long-ago governor, endorsing Steve Pearce, poles apart from Jerry politically – and invoking John F. Kennedy, who'd have made short work of Pearce – reminded me of a better day.

On June 1, 1974, I was sitting in a hot tub with Jerry after we'd run 13 miles through the streets of Albuquerque.  It was a campaign event.  Jerry, who loved running, got to run and campaign simultaneously. And he shaved eight minutes from his previous best time! Not a runner, I stupidly bought new sneakers for the event. After a mile or two, blisters on the tops of my toes were unbearable. I tossed the sneakers into the back of a truck and ran the rest of the way barefoot.

I was a young reporter, spending much of that weekend with Jerry and Clara Apodaca. They reminded people of the Kennedys, because they were young and liberal and charismatic. I liked them. Had to be objective in my reporting. But I liked them. 

More recently, I'd been aware Jerry had serious health problems. Then I heard rumors that Clara wanted their son, Jeff, to run for Governor. When Jeff ran, I interviewed him. Engaging guy, although I didn't know how much to trust him.

Now Jerry (or someone) has written an endorsement comparing far-right Congressman Steve Pearce to Kennedy. The JFK comparison is silly. Pearce helped found the extremist “Freedom Caucus” in 2015 and is one of the most extremely conservative current Congresspersons. (Government shutdown, anyone?) JFK went to an early meeting of the Americans for Democratic Action and championed relatively progressive ideas. On most issues, Lujan Grisham's positions are much closer than Pearce's to the ones Jeff Apodaca ran on.

Jerry's endorsement claims Pearce is a moderate, reaching across the aisle to work with Democrats. Half the time Congressman Pearce can't even work with Republicans. Is Jerry hallucinating?

Jerry's example of Pearce reaching across the aisle is that when Jerry called, Pearce answered. (Jerry says Michelle Lujan Grisham didn't. Her office says Jerry never called.) 

Meanwhile Jeff has a new radio gig on a conservative pro-Pearce program. As a radio host, I'd be the last to say he shouldn't do that. We need civil inter-party discussion. However, watching the first show on Facebook Live, I noticed that Jeff criticized Lujan Grisham, but never criticized Pearce. As to Donald Trump, whom Pearce follows like a dog but wants voters to forget, Jeff said what Pearce's campaign would have him say: “The President has less to do with New Mexicans' daily lives than their Governor.” In other words, please ignore Pearce's support of Trump's dangerous policies. And please listen to what Pearce says this week, not what he's done and said for years.

Jeff posed as the Progressive alternative to Grisham. Now he's getting friendly with her far-right opponent. Eloquent testimony that he's about ambition, not conviction.

Assuming your brains aren't addled, you don't write something like Jerry wrote unless you're peeved that someone whipped your son in the primary, scoring three times as many votes; or unless you're desperately ambitious for that same son, who may want something from Pearce. Either way, it's kind of a sad last political gasp from someone who once commanded respect.

                                                              -30-

[The above column appeared on Sunday, 19 August 2018 in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website.   A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and on KTAL, 101.5 FM (streaming at www.lccommunityradio.org).]

I started this column  with sadness.  The sadness deepened as I read the El Paso Times article I wrote about that 1974 half-marathon.  Sixty-three of the 70 runners finished the race.  I remember running right along with Jerry, listening and watching the folks interacting with him, until my blisters stalled me.  Jerry finished in 1:48, I in 1:58.  But the old article strengthened my memory of the energy in his campaign for governor.

The evening before the run, we'd been in Taos, where (as I described it in the paper). "Both the towns rally and the race were symbolic of the kind of campaign Apodaca has run.
"He has declined to seek endorsements, and almost intentionally avoided them at times, he says.  'We didn't think that was what we needed to win,' he said Saturday.  'People are reacting against that.  What we needed was a groundswell of popular support.'
"In Taos, where the Democratic Committee had endorsed [gubernatorial candidate] Tibo Chavez, Apodaca was greeted enthusiastically and feted by an overflow crowd at Los Compadres.
  It was an Apodaca type crowd in a casual, warm, almost homey atmosphere.  One man read a poem to the candidate in Spanish, several young pwople joked with him about next morning's marathon, and one local political leader recovering from a heart attack surprised Apodaca and worried his doctors by showing up at all.
"Typically, Apodaca was taking the time and spending his energy on thiskind of rally in a small town.  He expects to do well in such areas both in the north and in the south, but he still will have to run strongly in Bernalillo County to win.
"Although he has spoken frequently on issues, he seems to be banking on personal appeal -- as in the Taos rally -- and energy -- like the energy he displayed Saturday morning."
It's ironic, in the context of this blog post, that in 1974 Apodaca said he spurned endorsements in favor of the kind of "groundswell of popular support" Pearce is not seeing across the state.  (i'm sure he was exaggerating when he said that to me, but certainly in Taos he wasn't the choice of the County Democratic Committee.)  My memory, which may or may not be accurate, is that Jerry was an underdog in seeking the Democratic nomination.  He was vigorous and articulate and progressive.  I didn't know him well, but I liked and respected him.

In the column I refer to Jerry calling and Pearce responding.  The actual words of the endorsement are a little cryptic on that: "I know the new politicians of the 21st century don’t need my advice. But friends recently suggested I sit down with both gubernatorial candidates to discuss the concerns I outlined above. I agreed to but didn’t expect anyone to call.

"I never heard from Congresswoman Michelle Lujan Grisham. I did receive a call from Congressman Steve Pearce. I was surprised how open he was and how we agreed on about 80 percent of the issues that plague New Mexico."
He never says he called Lujan Grisham.  Her office says he didn't.  It would appear that "friends" -- or, more likely, a son who had recently met with Pearce and spoken highly of  the congressman -- initiated the connection between Pearce and Jerry Apodaca.  
By the way, I left phone messages for Jeff Apodaca, to ask him a couple of questions.  I know indirectly that he's been defending his father's endorsement.

While I was working on this column, I also read a Facebook post by Bill McCamley that raises numerous pertinent questions about the elder Apodaca's written endorsement of Pearce:

Bill McCamley

17 hrs · 

I was asked by a constituent about my thoughts on former NM Gov Jerry Apodaca endorsing Rep Pearce over Michelle Lujan Grisham. I'd like to share my response, as the reasoning in the Alb Journal column he used doesn't make much sense.

First, I heard his son on the campaign trail numerous times as we were both running for statewide office. He spoke passionately about investing endowment resources in to a stimulus package. While Pearce two weeks ago wrote about investing some of one of our permanent funds in NM businesses, Lujan Grisham has been talking about this exact same solution for months as part of a well thought out job creation plan. Furthermore while Lujan Grisham has been a strong and constant supporter of using some of our Permanent Fund revenues for Early Childhood Education, in May Pearce came out against the idea.

Additionally, during the campaign:

Apodaca supported legalizing cannabis. Lujan Grisham does as well, but Pearce is strongly opposed.
Apodaca supported a $10 minimum wage that would be raised over time. Lujan Grisham supports a higher minimum wage as well, but Pearce voted against raising it in 2007 and 2013.
Apodaca supported equal pay for women. Lujan Grisham does as well, but Pearce voted in 2007, 2008, and 2013 against legislation that would have strengthened regulations enforcing equal pay.
Apodaca supported the NM Health Security Act. While Lujan Grisham doesn’t go as far, she does support the Medicaid Buy-In program to give New Mexicans a true public option for health care. Pearce voted in 2006 to cut Children’s Health Insurance, in 2012 to privatize Medicaid, and in 2017 voted for the disastrous health care bill that would have stripped Medicaid from over 250,000 New Mexicans.

So while Pearce copied one of Lujan Grisham’s proposals, her platform actually comes much closer to the younger Apodaca’s ideas. Therefore, why endorse the person your son agreed with much, much less?

Second, the elder Apodaca mentioned Pearce as willing to “reach across the aisle”. Yet, he referenced no proof that Pearce has ever done this in his political career. So I looked at every bill he sponsored during his four years in the State House. Not one shows a Democrat co-sponsor.

As a US Rep he helped found the ultra right wing “House Freedom Caucus” in 2015. This is the group that works against compromise on immigration and health care while constantly threatening to shut down the government because they want to gut Medicaid. And according to govtrack.us out of 435 House members there were only 30 who co-sponsored Democratic bills LESS than Pearce while he ranked the 8th most conservative member overall.

He has railed against the LGBT community, saying in 2008 they would only get married to fraudulently receive AIDS treatment. In 2014 his wrote in his book that a wife “is to voluntarily submit” to her husband. In 2017 he voted against a bill that would have protected public lands from being sold off to the highest bidder. And while Lujan Grisham has released her tax returns, Pearce has mirrored Donald Trump (whom he supports strongly) in keeping them from the public and hiding who he may be indebted to should he be elected.

So, at what point in his political career has Pearce ever expressed a willingness to work with anyone except hard line Republicans? The answer is none. He has the track record of an ideological hard liner with no will to collaborate with anyone he disagrees with.

I will stick with Michelle Lujan Grisham. Her values will translate to policies that make life better for people here. Pearce’s sure won’t.

By the way, a few days later, at least one hilarious response on Facebook to the column:

Chet Steadman · 5 mutual friends

If anyone is whimpering its you and your socialist group of losers. YOUR president has been winning since he took office and you cant handle it. You also cant handle your own democrats who see the truth of your socialist movement. And why the hell are you in a hot tub with another man. thats disturbing. Gross.

Manage

LikeShow more reactions

 · Reply · 1d

C Olivia Irwin JD Shouldn't you be out shopping for school clothes, honey? The 4th grade's just around the corner...When you get older you'll learn to use big words and actually read all about the many aspects of political science--like the difference between the socialism, communism, and fascism--democracies, aristocracies and plutocracies---Things like that. Then after sex ed, you may learn that men take baths together in many cultures including our own and it doesn't mean you have to hump them. Cheers. :)

1

Manage

Like

 · Reply · 23h

Peter Powers Goodman You sound like a caricature! Never been in a gym where people play ball and maybe sauna or hot tub afterward? It's funny, in writing that sentence I wondered if anyone reading it would be so uncomfortable about his own sexuality as to feel the need to be insulting -- or be, as you describe, "disturbed." Are you afraid you couldn't control your urges? Meanwhile, your president is destroying much of the best in our country, and guaranteeing a near future that'll be pretty ugly economically, probably politically, and certainly in terms of the environment and consumers and such; but, gee, enjoy.

Socialism, Civility, and Us

Hosting an intense radio show Wednesday, with guests from “Retake our Democracy” and the local chapter of Democratic Socialists of America, left me reflecting on socialism, civility, tactics, and my advancing age.

Socialism is a sweet concept espoused mostly by Christians until it became a curse word during the 20^th Century, when the ideology got intertwined with Russia's nationalist ambitions; and Soviet Communism's “godlessness” was a deal-breaker for many here.

Socialism means equality and democracy; turning public assets, resources, and energies to the public good, making things at least livable for all. Should everything belong to a few rich folks?

But are humans too selfish for socialism? Will the comrades running the police and the army always end up more equal than the others? (The Soviet example is cautionary. Kerala (an Indian state) and some European social democracies are more encouraging.)

Ideology is largely nonsense. No nation has long existed without elements of both capitalism and socialism. Governing is like cooking, continuously perfecting the ingredients, stirring, tasting, and adding more . . . chile! Unfortunately greedy folks usually seek and obtain more than their share, under any system. 

There's no earthly reason to fear democratic socialism. It's not witchcraft, or devil-worship. It's a pile of ideals we could use more of and values we say we support. We could use state-run universal health care, something other civilized nations have. And more democracy. Whether socialism could serve as a system of government here, successfully or for a long time, is a question we're unlikely to face during my lifetime.

We argued over civility. DSA folks had shouted “Shame!” at Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen until she left a Mexican restaurant. I expressed mixed feelings about whether that was right, or tactically effective. (My DSA friends say membership numbers jum

ped when the video went viral.) As Retake co-founder Roxanne Barber said, the impolite incident was minor beside the crimes and blunders being committed in our name, by our federal government. It's also true that Trump has ratcheted up discourtesy and ethnic prejudice.

Is civility lost forever? Can a democracy survive without it? Yeah, Congressmen caned each other just before the Civil War. But, uhh, that was just before what, again? 

Or am I just old? Conventional citizens thought we were impolite when we protested the Viet Nam War. We probably were. We started out real polite, as we'd been during the Civil Rights Movement; but it didn't stay that way. 

Current events often seem like repeats of old movies. Every insurgency has to figure out how to be loud and disruptive enough to wake folks up without estranging more than you inspire. Is a third-party candidacy a matter of conscience or a waste of votes? In 1968 I cast my first vote for President for a black convicted felon -- and asked everyone who got into my cab “which of the Three Little Pigs are you voting for?” But in 2000 I saw enough difference between Gore and Bush to wish Nader would end his candidacy, though my daughter worked for him. Changed circumstances – or my aging? In 2016, progressives grieving for Bernie instead of campaigning for Hillary probably helped elect Orange-Hair. 

In 2018, should we shout for abolishing ICE because in a perfect world it's right – or shut up about that because we might help Republicans manipulate frightened voters? 

I know only that we need to effect positive change.

                                                     -30-

[The column above appeared on Sunday, 12 August 2018, in the Las Cruces Sun-News, as well as on the newspaper's website and on KRWG's website. A spoken version will air during the week on KRWG and on KTAL, 101.5 FM (www.lccommunityradio.org).]

[For younger readers, let me add a word on 1968.  The civil rights movement had made real progress, and the War in Viet Nam was controversial.  President Lyndon Johnson had decided not to run for re-election because the war was making him too unpopular, as evidenced by the fact that anti-war challenger Senator Gene McCarthy got a respectable share of the vote against a sitting president in the New Hampshire primary.  Robert Kennedy got into the race when Johnson left it, and might have become the nominee, but for an assassin's bullet.  Richard Nixon was the Republican nominee. The Democrats nominated Hubert Humphrey -- originally a dynamic young liberal but a man who'd become Johnson's vice-president, gaining power but making compromises -- such as supporting the war -- that made him unpalatable to many of us.  Meanwhile segregationist George Wallace, the former governor of Alabama, ran as a third-party candidate.  I voted for Black Panther Eldridge Cleaver.  Nixon won a close popular vote, 43.42% to 42.72%, with Wallace taking 13.53%, and a not-so-close electoral college vote, 55.95% to 35.5% to 8.55%.  Near as I could tell, the Wikipedia account doesn't even mention Cleaver.  It does note that "Other" won 243,259 votes.  And one of its sources reports that Cleaver's votes were 36,571 of that. ]

[Again, what's to fear in Democratic Socialism?  Will our government ever become Democratic Socialist?  No.  Should it?  I don't know, though I think I'd prefer it to the current situation.  Do we need to move a whole lot closer to Democratic Socialist ideals as soon as feasible, to survive and prosper as the kind of country we could be, and the kind our founders would approve of?  Yeah.  Clearly.  If you want to figure out what you might think about it, read some of the material on the DSA website, https://www.dsausa.org/.]

[On the same radio show, we talked with the co-founders of a group in Santa Fe, Retake our Democracy.  Formed in 2016, by disappointed supporters of Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination that went to Hillary Clinton, it's a thoughtful group with useful ideas about how to survive in a time of Trumpism.  I recommend a look at their website, too:  https://retakeourdemocracy.org/ .  Good people.]