Call me a masochist, but I watched the entirety of Donald Trump’s March 25 rally in Waco, Texas. I watched it to confirm my belief that he is getting crazier. I was curious about what he might say about his possible indictment by the Manhattan DA. I wondered what sort of crowd he would attract and how it would react to a typical Trump rant. I got all those answers, but I also got a primer on the policy proposals that Trump would pursue if (heaven forbid) he returned to the White House.

I had assumed I knew all about Trump’s policies. In a way, we all have made such assumptions. Ask people on the street what Trump stands for, and they will mention Trump’s wall, trade, America First, lower taxes, fewer regulations, opposition to climate change, and “culture wars.” Those who hate Trump will mention racism, his history of sexual assaults, grift, the January 6 insurrection, and The Big Lie.

In Waco, Donald Trump delivered a 92-minute speech. I did not have my stopwatch out, but more than an hour was about himself. Trump lamented the “weaponization” of the justice system that he claims has victimized him with endless unfair and ungrounded investigations. He vilified his supposed torturers, calling them Marxists, scumbags, globalists, and Democrats. 

He also surprised me by playing a rendition of the right-wing anthem, “Justice for All,” performed by a choir of people jailed for the January 6 insurrection. While they sang, a video screen showed pictures of the riot. Later in the speech, the defeated ex-president said, “some of them are patriots.”

Watching the first hour of Trump’s speech was a challenge. Unlike in-person attendees, I could press the pause button to take a break from the endless stream of complaints about the 2020 election and much more. Press reports suggest that a noticeable number of attendees streamed out of the event before it was over. That’s not surprising given the Texas heat and what, to that point, was Trump being Trump.

Eventually, Trump turned to what he would do if re-elected. Focusing on those proposals or claims that are not already widely known, here are a few things worth remembering:

After suggesting that President Biden is leading the world into World War III, Trump claimed that only his election could prevent it. He did not elaborate on which Biden’s policies were making a world war inevitable, but they appear to focus on Ukraine.

Trump claimed the Russian invasion of Ukraine would never have happened if he were president. He implied that his relationship with Vladimir Putin was the key. He then indicated that if elected president in November 2024, he would settle the Ukraine war “within 24 hours,” acting even before he was inaugurated.

Trump promised to “clean up America” not only by curtailing illegal immigration but by executing “the largest mass deportation” in history. After claiming that “smart” dictators and others were emptying prisons, insane asylums, and mental institutions and sending the inmates/patients to the U.S., Trump indicated he would send them back. If the “original countries” refused to take them back, Trump said he would cut off all American aid.

Trump also said he would address growing Chinese economic and military power. He plans an all-out trade war against China to stop the importation of most Chinese goods. Trump did not address how such a trade embargo might impact the U.S. economy or how the Chinese might react.

Education is also a focus of Trump’s policy proposals. He did not call for improving the quality of schools or making American students more competitive in science, technology, engineering, or math. Instead, he promised to prohibit federal funds to any school with a vaccine or mask policy or that permitted the teaching of critical race theory. Also, taking a page from Florida Governor Ron “DeSanctimonius,” he called for parental control of schools. He condemned the “mutilation of children” and an end to “the participation of men in women’s sports.” Trump indicated parents should have the right to fire school principals who “are not getting the job done.” 

Not part of Trump speech, unsurprisingly, was any discussion of an issue essential to our future on the Eastern Shore—climate change. Trump bragged about his withdrawal from the “disastrous” Paris Climate Accords in his speech and repeatedly called for “restoring” American energy independence.  

These are not the only Trump policy proposals mentioned (or not mentioned) in the speech, but, in my view, are the most important.                                                                               .   .   .

Curiously, while writing this piece, I searched in vain for a transcript of Trump’s remarks. I found none. I reviewed Trump’s speech by listening to the entire hour and 40 minutes and reading various news reports. Does the “fake news” industry have it in for Trump? In a way, it does. Trump has lied so often and engages in so much offensive rhetoric that the mainstream press tends to ignore him. Trump considers that unfair. Maybe it is, but it is also unfortunate. To understand the risk of Trump winning the White House in 2024, it is necessary to understand the issues he is running on and the promises he is making. 

Some of the nation’s most prestigious newspapers and media outlets have ceased following Trump. I could not find coverage of the speech in The New York Times. The Washington Post had an article, but it was a feed from the Associated Press—the paper that prides itself on its coverage of politics apparently did not send its own reporter to Waco.  What does that tell you? 

If you still support Trump or believe he is being treated unfairly, I urge you to watch the video. It is available on C-SPAN without any editorial comment.   If you have already rejected Trump and pray nightly for him to disappear from the political stage, I urge you to listen to the speech. Only by knowing Trump can you ensure his defeat. 

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

 

I’ve been lambasted by a number of Spy readers after declaring Everything Everywhere All at Once trash after watching only 20 minutes of the film. I was called unprofessional, stupid, bigoted, and worse. The more polite readers shared their experiences with the film, with several indicating that they, too, found the opening of the film tedious or chaotic but came to like, or even love the film after giving it a chance.

Setting aside the name-calling, the Spy readers who criticized me are right, sort of.  If I could write the piece again, I would watch the entire movie before commenting on it.  But I say “sort of” because what I did—rely on a first impression—is something most of us do most of the time.  

I trust my gut, rely on my own eyes, and “know what I like.”  But I also agree with Ronald Reagan’s advice of trust but verify.  I “verify” when my first impression leaves enough of a doubt that I suspect error or conclude that my first impression is not sufficient to serve as the basis for a conclusion.

Over the years, I have reached thousands of conclusions based on first impressions and live comfortably with those conclusions every day.  Some conclusions may be wrong, but if they have minimum impact on others, what is the harm in living with them?  As I see it, it is my business.

A few examples of first impressions that led to conclusions are my distrust of Fiat and Chevrolet branded vehicles. I worked at a gas station in Germany many years ago and encountered what I recall was an endless string of mechanical failures that the drivers of the Fiats who stopped in for gasoline had experienced.  I remember parts falling off the interiors of the cars and owners seeking help in reattaching them. In the case of Chevrolets, a friend had a miserable little car called a Chevette (not to be confused with a Corvette).  One day we were driving down Route 95 and the engine suddenly died. I have not trusted a Chevy since.

Other examples of first impressions include food (if the first bite tastes awful, the rest likely will stay the same), music (if the first few bars cause a headache, the remainder could kill you), and politicians (Trump lost me in 2015 with his bigoted rhetoric as he rode down a golden escalator to announce his candidacy for the presidency.)

If I extrapolated the criticism I received on my comments on Everything Everywhere, I would buy a Fiat and drive it for a year or two to determine whether the company has resolved its quality issues. I would give Donald Trump a second chance, reread The Art of the Deal and a dozen or so of his other books, and quit describing him as a threat to American Democracy.

As you might guess, I’m not about to shut up about Trump until he leaves the political stage. In so doing, I accept that I will continue to provoke anger on the part of his base of supporters, whom, by the way, seem to consist of people who seem indifferent to sedition, sexual harassment, grift, racism, and a lot more.  

Speaking out against Donald Trump is, in my view, doing readers a favor.  Even if my “research” on Trump is incomplete, if my opinion prompts anyone to reconsider their support of Trump, I am doing good.

Similarly, when I offer an opinion about Easton, saying that it is a great place to live or visit, I confess that there are things about Easton that I don’t know.  Maybe if I knew more about Easton I would tell people to visit Chestertown or Cambridge before visiting Easton.  Is that a problem? Is it unprofessional to praise Easton, endorse a restaurant where I enjoyed a good meal, or to opine that Toyota makes better cars than another company?  I do not think so. 

Even when writing comments on the Oscar awards and particular movies, I think it is OK to share one’s opinions.  A condition on commenting, of course, is that one’s comments should not be racist or hurtful to anyone.  But advising people to avoid particular films, silence certain music, support Ukraine in repelling Russia, and to embrace social equity and justice, is not wrong.  Isn’t opinion writing what that term means—sharing opinions?  When a writer puts his or her name on a piece, it implies it is an opinion. And for those who accused my criticism of Everything Everywhere of being racist, how do they defend the gratuitous violence against police and IRS agents in the film?

After reviewing the criticism of my criticism of Everything Everywhere, I have decided to continue to offer opinions on politics, culture, social justice, and even movies. I made that decision after reading and considering the comments I received. I did not read every comment, but I read enough to know that I should have watched all of Everything Everywhere before commenting on it.  I also am confident that had I watched the entire film, I still would not have liked it.  It is not a crime to admit that. And, come to think of it, I told my readers I had not watched the entire film before condemning it as “trash” so they could take that into account in deciding whether my opinion was worthy of their consideration. 

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

 

What am I to make of Everything Everywhere All at Once’s huge victory at the Oscars on Sunday? As expected, the film was the night’s big winner. Seven awards, including Oscars for best picture, best director, best actress, best supporting actress and best supporting actor.  Congratulations to the winners. My only problem is that I watched part of the movie and walked out. I deemed it trash. 

If you have not seen the film, don’t. It is described as a “gonzo adventure of a Chinese-American laundromat owner grappling with an IRS audit and interdimensional attackers.”  The film is technically science-fiction but also could be described as a light-duty martial arts movie with gratuitous gun violence as a bonus. I describe it as a tedious two- hour long Saturday Night Live skit gone wrong.

My views, I suppose, reflect the fact that I am not a teenager and, until last night, naively assumed the purpose of the Oscars is to recognize excellence.  Everything Everywhere now will take its place next to Citizen Kane, The Godfather, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Schindler’s List, Moonlight, Casablanca, and It Happened One Night. Somehow these and other more serious firms have been degraded.  Their Oscar wins seem less impressive.

What happened? For one thing, Everything Everywhere generated interest as a film with a largely Asian cast. (Michelle Yeoh is Malaysian.)  A story in the Sunday New York Times reported “Asian actors have been nearly invisible at the Oscars.” That’s a true statement, a failing that demands correction. But was giving Everything Everywhere seven Oscars the way to address the problem?  With apologies to the film’s winners, I would have preferred the Oscar academy to wait for a better film.

If you haven’t seen Everything Everywhere, prepare for what might be charitably described as “a challenging experience.”  What the film is about is not immediately clear.  Whether the movie is a comedy, science fiction, a martial arts film, or some sort of avant-garde art film is not clear. The acting is good, but, given the chaotic storytelling, it is difficult to judge whether it is great.  And the special effects, apparently necessary for the “battle to save the multiverse” part of the film, are second class.

One part of the film, the initial confrontation between the IRS agent played by Jamie Lee Curtis and Michelle Yeoh, is particularly Saturday Night Live-like.  Curtis, barely recognizable, portrays the IRS agent as a mentally ill bureaucrat. I wonder whether the union representing IRS agents (and other federal employees) will complain. 

I like Jamie Lee Curtis and am happy she won an Oscar, but giving her the award was a slap in the face to other actresses in the category of supporting actress. Angela Basset, who clearly expected to win, did not rise when Curtis’ win was announced.  I do not blame her. I don’t know whether Bassett deserved to win, but it is hard to imagine that she didn’t deserve the award more than Curtis.

I also watched Steven Spielberg as he sat through the awards ceremony.  He knew his autobiographical film, The Fabelmans, wasn’t going to win.  His image was flashed when Everything Everywhere’s win was announced. You could imagine him wondering what he has to do to ever win another Oscar. The academy owes Spielberg, and a lot of other people, apologies.

The Fabelmans is a great film. I recommend it. I also recommend Tár, the Kate Blanchett film about a troubled classical music conductor. Blanchett deserved to win the best actress award. Tár was serious filmmaking. Apparently that no longer is enough to win an Oscar.

One other award, one not given to Everything Everywhere, is worth mentioning.  Brendan Fraser won the award for best actor. I can’t say he earned it because I haven’t seen the performances of all the other nominees.  I noted, however, that The Whale won for the best make-up. Brendan Fraser plays a morbidly obese man. When the make-up award was announced, we learned that much of Fraser’s makeup was “digital.”  Does that mean that we were watching some sort of special effect as opposed to Fraser? That is a question worth asking, even while recognizing Fraser’s performance as a great one.

It is too early to say I will not tune into next year’s Oscar ceremony, but chances are that I will not.  

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

 

Are you woke? That’s the question a friend of mine asked me last week after reading a few of my recent columns. The friend assumed I would answer “yes,” but I hesitated. What exactly does woke mean? If you think of yourself as an objective person, do you want to be woke?  And who decides what types of beliefs constitute “wokeness?”  Does wokeness refer to a defined set of left-leaning political beliefs, or beliefs that continue to evolve?

I don’t know the answers to these questions, and I’m not sure anyone else does either.  Realizing that, I asked my friend what he meant by the term. I told him I’d answer his question after he told me what he understood “wokeness” to mean.  That question prompted my friend to change the subject.

Since that exchange I have thought a bit about wokeness.  I see it as a positive thing in that it suggests an awareness of the need to reassess social and racial justice. But I also see it as implying support for a number of social policy proposals that I do not know enough about to support. Slavery reparations is an example. I understand the concept but am not sure about the cost, how to determine who would receive reparations, and whether it is fair to other groups of Americans who also suffered from injustice during our history.

While I am uneasy with the term “wokeness,” I am not ready to walk away from it. For that you can credit Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, Donald Trump, and dozens of other Republicans who regularly condemn wokeness and sponsor legislation in a scary attempt to ban it. Fahrenheit 451 comes to mind, or the nazis burning books.

 Because nobody seems to know exactly what wokeness is and is not, efforts by politicians to regulate what is and is not taught in schools, what care doctors can and cannot  provide, what corporations can and cannot endorse must be opposed. The legislative proposals of Florida Governor DeSantis and others are blatantly political. They have little to do with “protecting” children or America. Instead, they are an attempt to put a blanket label on diverse groups of people who oppose the MAGA agenda.

The problem with Republicans hijacking a term originally used by Black Lives Matter to encourage others to rethink American history and accept the reality that much of that history was racist and cruel is that Republicans use it to oppose the LGBQT+ community, environmentalists, advocates of ESG investing (considering environmental, social and governance issues in making investments), and a host of other groups and issues.

So, how do I answer the question when someone asks me whether I’m woke? I equivocate. “Sort of,” I answer. If pressed (and only if pressed), I will admit welcoming a reexamination of America’s history, which is necessary to make real progress on race issues. I also am woke on environmental issues. If America doesn’t acknowledge the reality of climate change and do something about it, the Easton Shore will be history in less than a century.  

My list could go on, but the problem is that if I admit I’m woke, most people I know will assume I have embraced a number of policies on which I remain neutral or opposed.  An example is the idea of “sanctuary cities.” I support a sane, welcoming immigration policy. I do not support cities defying federal law. 

I have concluded that, like the idea of “making America great again,” the term “woke” has been poisoned. Rather than serving as a valuable tool to get people thinking, it has become a political cudgel wielded by the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene, Trump, Boebert, DeSantis, and others. At last week’s CPAC convention, presidential candidate Nikki Haley described wokeness as “a virus more dangerous than any pandemic.”  What?

 Perhaps in a misguided attempt to out-trump Haley, Republican Senator John Kennedy (R-LA), a man with a way with words, told the group that America cannot be governed by “deeply weird, nauseously woke people who hate George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Dr. Seuss, and Mr. Potato Head.”  Saturday Night Live needs to hire Senator Kennedy, don’t you think?

 I want to deny the right-wing access to the term “woke.” One way to get there is not to try to “fix” the concept of wokeness or to argue with the right over what it means (who wins arguments with the far-right these days?), and let the term die.  Simply put, if you want to argue wokeness with me, I’m going to walk away.  There are better ways to support equitable, progressive policies or to call out racism, homophobia, environmental recklessness, greed, and Trumpism.

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

 

I owe our man in Washington, Representative Andy “Handgun” Harris, something of an apology. Periodically, I have accused him of not letting first District Voters know what he is up to. That has been frustrating. I want to know why Harris was at a December 2021 White House meeting where strategies to set aside the 2020 presidential election were discussed. Explanations for some of his other activities in Washington have also been nonexistent, or nearly so. For these reasons I have said that Harris is more interested in representing Trump in Congress than his constituents.

Last week I received Harris’ latest newsletter, addressed to “Dear Friend.”  It includes a short report on the start of the 118th Congress. It is worth a look. You can sign up for Harris’ newsletter on his official website.  My comments here focus on parts of the report that are troubling.

Harris tells us, “Republicans in the House of Representatives began the legislative year by reining in Biden’s reckless policies, opening up the People’s House, and delivering on our promises to the American people.”  I wouldn’t put it quite that way. My introduction would be, “Republicans began the legislative year by wasting the time of the House of Representatives by passing legislation with no chance of enactment (given a Democrat-controlled Senate and President Biden’s veto pen) and  passing rules changes that will make the House of Representatives less efficient and arguably more dysfunctional for the next two years.”  

Harris’ statement that Republicans have “delivered on promises” is curious. Nothing has been delivered other than the empowerment of the fringe group of Republicans sometimes referred to as the Lunatic Caucus, members of which include Matt Gaetz, gun-loving Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, the right-wing dentist Paul Gosar, and a dozen more MAGA Republicans.  Harris is a member of this group but keeps his head down.  He’s too smart to go on Fox News and tell African Americans they should like Confederate monuments because they are reminders of “how far they have come.”

Here are some of the things that, Harris boasts, Republicans have done in the first two months of Congress:

• Passed the 118th Congress Rules Package  creating the most open, transparent, and accountable House Rules in at least two generations.

The rules package facilitates the ability of fringe groups and minorities in Congress, such as members of the right-wing Freedom Caucus, to slow down legislation and demand meaningless “message” votes.  Experts expect the 118th Congress will be the least productive in recent history. Sadly, that is the real intent of the Republican rules package—to prevent government from functioning. 

• Passed The Family and Small Business Taxpayer Protection Act, which defunds Joe Biden’s army of 87,000 new IRS agents and sends a clear message that we will not allow the Biden administration to continue to target middle-class Americans.

Harris doesn’t tell us that this bill has zero chance of enactment. And Harris knows as well as the rest of us that the “87,000 new IRS agents” authorized in legislation last year are not intended to target middle-class Americans. The agents would improve customer service (answering phones, delivering competent answers to tax questions asked, etc.) and crack down on tax cheating. President Biden has promised not to increase taxes on middle-class Americans, so why should the middle class fear a modernized IRS focused on getting people and corporations to pay already authorized taxes?

• Established a committee to investigate weaponizing the federal government.

First, it should be noted that the Republicans established a “select subcommittee” of the House Judiciary Committee to investigate “weaponization.”  Chairman Jim Jordan plans to use the subcommittee to stage political theater, to disrupt on-going investigations of Trump and others involved in the January 6 insurrection, and to otherwise undermine the ability of the executive branch to govern. I don’t remember First District voters asking Harris to support this type of nonsense, do you?

• Condemned attacks on pregnancy centers.

Attacks on pregnancy centers should be condemned. How about attacks on family planning centers? Dr. Harris doesn’t remind readers of his newsletter of his anti-abortion position.

• Passed a Resolution denouncing socialism in all its forms and opposing the implementation of socialist policies in the United States of America. 

Do you know what “socialism in all its forms” is?  I do not but I like social security and Medicare.  And I wonder whether Harris would support a resolution denouncing fascism in all its forms and opposing the implementation of fascist policies in the United States of America?  

In fairness to Harris, his list included two items that were not problematic for me, including the establishment of a Select Committee on China to investigate the Chinese Communist Party’s corrupting influence.  I welcome Congress probing into what the Chinese are up to.

I have a few other nits to pick with Harris’ newsletter. First, it is ridiculous to blame President Biden for the increase in the cost of eggs.  As a member of the House Chicken Caucus, Harris knows, or should know, that avian flu is wreaking havoc on the poultry industry.  Secondly, Harris doesn’t address a few issues that are important to many of us in the First District.  He offers no report on what he is doing to address climate change (unless you reference his call for a moratorium on offshore wind farms, which he supports out of the possibility it is contributing to whale deaths).  He also doesn’t mention the war in Ukraine. Harris is co-chair of the Congressional Ukraine Caucus. On February 24, the Caucus issued a statement reiterating its full support of Ukraine, including providing military assistance. Harris should keep us informed of his leadership on this important issue.  It is one of the few constructive things he is doing in Congress. I want to hear about it. 

Andy Harris, please do not address me as “Dear Friend.” Until you divorce Donald Trump and start representing the First District, you will continue doing more harm than good in Congress.

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

 

A lot is going on these days on Capitol Hill and some of it is funny.  A video of Marjorie Taylor Greene strutting down the halls of an office building dressed in white while carrying a large white balloon made me smile. Congresswoman Boebert (R-CO) got my attention by bombarding tech executives with questions about why her Twitter account was suspended. And, of course, there is the image of George Santos smiling and lying. I watched his exchange with Senator Mitt Romney before the State of the Union address. Romney told Santos he should resign. 

The saga of the Long Island Liar is just a small part of the multi-ringed circus brought to us by the Republican party. Other featured players have almost household names:  Gaetz, Gosar, Biggs, and Jordan. As a group, they have delivered “news” every day since Kevin McCarthy was elected Speaker of the House. The news consists of outrageous stunts, tweets, and, in the case of the newly empowered Judiciary Committee Chairman Jordan, subpoenas.  None of the news involves working with Democrats, solving problems, or otherwise trying to make life better for their constituents.

Have you noticed that the freak show gets more press than the entire Senate does? It also comes close to trumping coverage of President Biden, which is one reason the President spent about 40 minutes of his 73-minute State of the Union address telling the public about his legislative accomplishments. 

Why doesn’t the public know much about Biden’s legislative victories? One answer is that they are not as engaging as Lauren Boebert joking about Representative Ilhan Omar (D-MN) carrying a bomb on a Capitol Hill elevator.  

These days, with the population of possible Chinese spy balloons exploding, we need a good laugh. The problem with the Republican nonsense is that it really isn’t funny. The freak show isn’t taking place in a circus tent. The forum is the U.S. Capitol, the same building in which more than a dozen of the most freakish legislators aided and abetted the Trump insurrection.

Speaker McCarthy is a large part of the problem. Hungry to satisfy his own ego-driven quest for the Speakership, McCarthy struck deals with more than a dozen Republicans who threatened to vote against him. Marjorie Taylor Greene was not only welcomed back onto Congressional Committees, but she was also assigned to two plum assignments of her choosing, the Committee on Oversight and Accountability and the Committee on Homeland Security.

Those assignments make me nervous. Greene will work to use the Oversight and Accountability Committee to attack the Biden administration.  If the Georgia Congresswoman has any interest in government integrity and efficiency, she hasn’t shown it.  She is a follower of QAnon. Until the Shaman decides it’s more important to weed out waste at the Defense Department than to stop Hillary Clinton from eating babies, don’t expect anything constructive from Greene.

The assignment to the Homeland Security Committee is even more worrisome. As a member of the committee, she will have access to confidential information related to threats of domestic terrorism.  Given Greene’s complicity in the January 6 Trump insurrection, McCarthy appointing her to this committee was legislative malpractice (or something worse).

The first hearings of the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Jim Jordan, have given us a preview of what to expect for the next two years. The Select Committee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government has already outlined a list of grievances it will seek to investigate, including “weaponization” at the FBI and Justice Department. Call me a cynic, but is it possible that the Select Subcommittee will seek to undermine the pending investigations of Trump and more than a dozen Republicans, including our own Andy Harris, who are suspected of aiding and abetting the Trump Insurrection?

What are the members of the McCarthy freak show doing about the pending debt ceiling crisis?  Nothing other than reminding Speaker McCarthy that they are against all compromise.  If McCarthy decides to search for common ground with democrats despite them, expect a motion to remove him from the Speakership.

Will the McCarthy freak show get worse? Count on it. Since I started writing this piece, a second newly-elected Republican, Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), has been found to have “embellished” her resume. The falsehoods are not as dramatic as Mr. Santos’ but you have to wonder whether somehow Trump has made Republicans more comfortable with lying to gain power.

Also, when reviewing Kevin McCarthy’s early record as Speaker, it is worth noting that he removed two of the most qualified, experienced members of the Intelligence Committee, apparently as retribution for their role in the impeachments of Donald Trump.  Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Erick Swalwell (D-CA) were major contributors to the Committee in the last Congress and will be missed by anyone interested in the Intelligence Committee doing its work.

And where is Andy Harris these days? I have to admit he is both smarter and better educated than Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Matt Gaetz (R-FL), or the right-wing dentist Paul Gosar (R-AZ). Harris is keeping his head down. He’s not part of the McCarthy freak show.  (That’s the only positive thing I’ve ever written about him.)

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

 

Joe Biden surprised America last night. The president gave a passionate, energized State of the Union address.  The 73-minute speech was engaging and, reassuring.  I worry about the president’s age and his upcoming decision on whether to run for reelection in 2024.  The president was telling me and others, “Slow down, take a closer look at me, make sure you know who I am and how I’m doing before you make a decision on my future.”

A transcript of the entire speech, as delivered, is here. 

Did the president craft his speech as a response to his doubters?  Yes. Did he succeed? Maybe. The answer depends on what aspects of the Biden presidency you are focusing on.  President Biden is to be applauded for his compassion and authenticity.  His policies, for many of us, are another matter.  America wants to see bipartisan cooperation. Last night the president talked the talk but did not walk the walk. 

Prior to last night’s speech, the White House released previews that suggested he would build on his “Unity Agenda,” proposals designed to secure bipartisan support. The agenda includes more funding to fight cancer, expanded mental health resources, police reform, and better support for veterans and their families.  These are proposals that, in a saner world, most Republicans would support. Good luck with that.

Republicans ask how will we pay for these new services? Biden’s answer, through higher taxes on billionaires and corporations, is a non-starter with the GOP. To Republicans, any tax increase opens the door to more, including tax increases for families making less than $400,000 a year. Republicans do not believe or trust the president.  

The president also addressed the stalemate between Democrats and Republicans over raising the debt ceiling. Republicans are demanding spending cuts as a condition of acting. The president chided the Republicans on the issue, reiterating his opposition to compromise. That was not encouraging. 

A majority of Biden’s speech was focused on the success of his first two years in office. The president’s approval ratings remain well below 50 percent. The president was saying, “You may think I’ve done nothing, but look at the facts.”  Unfortunately for Biden, a majority of Democrats already know he has been a success but still don’t want him to run for re-election.  The Republicans are not listening, having already concluded the administration is a disaster. 

If the Republican response to the president’s “victory lap” is any indication as to how the speech was received in red states, the approach didn’t work.  At least on TV, our Andy Harris was nowhere in sight.  If he was in the chamber, he most likely was sitting on his hands like the rest of his caucus.  Kevin McCarthy, the new House Speaker, on the other hand, was on screen for the entire hour and thirteen minutes of the speech. Maybe he is suffering from a hemorrhoid, but he seemed in real pain as he listened to Biden champion his accomplishments, make several callouts to unions, and call for higher taxes.  

I suspect that the speaker was hoping a tired, tongue-tied president would show up. That did not happen. While the president did stumble over a few words, especially as he ad-libbed major parts of the speech, he compensated with passion and energy. The president told Americans he “has their back.”  His words were convincing.

Passion and energy are two qualities needed in a president.  But what about the ability to forge compromises? Given the state of the Republican party and the widening ideological chasm between the two parties, expecting compromise may be naïve. But if the Biden administration doesn’t step-up efforts to find common ground, the path back to civility and unity in government will be a long one.

At age 80, despite the energy displayed in his State of the Union address, is the president up to the task of bridging the political divide?  If not, the Biden presidency is in trouble.                                                        .       .      .

Are you curious what the official Republican response to the State of the Union address?  It was delivered by former Trump Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, now Governor of Arkansas.  Here’s the heart of her speech:

“In the radical left’s America, Washington taxes you and lights your hard-earned money on fire, but you get crushed with high gas prices, empty grocery shelves, and our children are taught to hate one another on account of their race, but not to love one another or our great country. Whether Joe Biden believes this madness or is simply too weak to resist it, his administration has been completely hijacked by the radical left. The dividing line in America is no longer between right or left.  The choice is between normal or crazy.”

If your stomach is up for it, you can read the entire Sanders speech here. 

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

 

Every February I check my garden for the first daffodil sprouts. They are signs of hope and renewal. Once I see them, I know spring is on the way, even if it snows a few days later. This year, sprouts will again show up on schedule, but nonetheless, I am a bit gloomy.  It isn’t only the many recent gloomy days of rain, but the news. Internationally, nationally, and locally things are not going well.  There is reason to fear that we’re in for a difficult year.

Internationally, Putin’s Blitzkrieg, while less blitzy than Hitler’s is about to enter its second year. Ukraine has inspired the West with its tenacity and courage, but people are still dying, and the war is escalating.  A year ago, sending Patriot missile systems and M1 tanks was rejected out of fear it could prompt the certifiably insane Putin to use nuclear weapons. Today, those weapons are on their way to the Ukraine battlefield. Will China decide to match the West and offer a few weapon systems of its own? Will Putin call the West’s bluff and use a tactical nuclear weapon?

Speaking of China, US General Mike Minihan wrote a memo warning the U.S. to prepare for war with China in two years. He is concerned that the U.S. could lose. And, if the war begins with a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, will the U.S. immediately respond, or, more likely, wait until China attacks the U.S. directly by sinking a U.S. aircraft carrier, or shooting down a few planes?  

Let us also not forget about climate change. Although Congress approved massive funding to combat climate change last year, China is not cooperating on international efforts. Each year we get closer to the “point of no return,” but many still do not take climate change seriously. If you know how to solve this problem—getting people to take the existential threat seriously—please leave the answer in the comments section of this article. 

Although I could list several other international threats, let’s close on the pandemic. Simply put, it is not over.

Domestic worries are every bit as troubling. Mass shootings have become so common that we only read about the “big” ones. To make the national news, you need to shoot at least eight people. Gun sales continue to rise. The prospects for effective gun control legislation (now referred to as gun safety legislation in the hopes that a rebranding might increase the slim chances for enactment) are dismal.

Police also just murdered another Black man. After watching the gruesome videotape, I wonder if police watch the news or whether something else leads to suspects being kicked while on the ground or officers slugging a suspect while a colleague holds the suspect’s hands behind his back.

I also am worried about Ron DeSantis. Why is a governor reviewing high school advanced placement courses?  The answer is to seek political gain by pandering to the racist right wing.  Regardless of your thoughts on the merits of African American studies, shouldn’t professional educators and school boards make these decisions?  Bigotry is alive and well in the U.S. Just look around.

And let us not forget that many economists still predict a recession. The debate now is not whether we will suffer a serious economic downturn, but about whether it will be mild or severe. How high will unemployment be by the end of the year? Will we need a massive “Recession Recovery Act” by Thanksgiving?  I hope not, but I fear I’m wrong. And don’t forget that the U.S. may default on its debts by June if the federal debt ceiling is not raised.

Let us also talk about the Republican party. I have long hoped for its implosion because Trump broke it beyond repair. That was wishful thinking because the GOP, led by a spineless Speaker who sold his soul to a group of 14 devils, now controls the House of Representatives. A dysfunctional Congress, stymied by political division, may not be able to respond to a national economic crisis. That is scary. 

Trump, while finally facing the probability of indictment (but, when?) is still kicking. Pundits tell us he will never be elected president in 2024 but still could win the Republican nomination.  Will Andy “Handgun” Harris remain loyal to Trump, regardless of how much more insane Trump becomes?  Of course, he will.

Former House Speaker “Tip” O’Neill and many others have said “all politics are local.”  One might say “all worries are local.”  In the case of the Eastern Shore, we need to worry about undisciplined development. With good reason our area is becoming increasingly popular. Do we want a 30 percent or greater population increase?  Are our schools, medical facilities, roads, police, sewers, and everything else ready for this type of growth?  No. My fear, most recently highlighted over the confused mess of the Lakeside development debate in Talbot County, is that developers are puppeteers who will decide the future of the Eastern Shore. I worry that we are suffering a serious deficit in political leadership that will change our way of life. Talbot County Council, if you read this, please prove me wrong.

Forgive me for seeing the glass as half empty. It is easier to write about daffodils blooming and the many positive things here and elsewhere that we still enjoy.  I mention my worries in the hopes that something can be done about them.  Perhaps that is not naïve.

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

 

Republicans and Democrats are at it again. Republicans refuse to negotiate on legislation to raise the national debt ceiling, currently at $31.4 trillion, without a commitment to cut federal spending. Democrats accuse Republicans of reckless brinkmanship that could lead to an inability of the federal government to pay its bills. If that happens, Democrats say, the country could be thrown into economic chaos.

Outside Washington the impasse on the debt ceiling is receiving little attention. For the last week, I have heard more about Lisa Marie’s funeral, the NFL playoff games, George Santos, and the fourth batch of Biden classified documents, the ones found in an FBI search of the President’s Delaware home. Even on MSNBC, there was more coverage last weekend on abortion rights than on the debt crisis. 

What gives? One explanation is that, unlike “high-rated” trending news, the debate on the debt ceiling is complicated. It is hard to explain objectively without vilifying one side or the other. If you add an attempt to explain why Congress has to vote on a “debt ceiling increase,” it gets even more challenging. Most news organizations punt, deferring coverage of the issue until the debate is resolved.

Another explanation, one that I believe has more merit, is that the public does not believe the debt ceiling crisis is a crisis. Even those of us who have passionate opinions on the debate believe that, eventually, the impasse will be broken. We do not believe that House Republicans insisting on spending reforms will really allow the U.S. to miss interest payments. The Democrats, led by President Biden, refuse to negotiate. They believe that the Republicans will fold and that an agreement of some sort—one supporting more federal spending—will be reached.

The public, meanwhile, not only is not weighing in, but they are also not even watching. Have you written to our intrepid Congressman, Andy “Handgun” Harris, to ask him to work towards a compromise? I have not. Given Harris’ extreme views on federal spending (generally speaking, he is against it), writing him is a waste of time. But how about our two Democratic Senators, Van Hollen and Cardin? I bet you have not written them either.

The problem, in my view, is that our confidence in Congress as a forum to resolve tough issues is at a low level. We do not trust either side to work in good faith with the other. Most of us would add that one party or the other is dishonest, corrupt, or simply crazy. A good case in point is an Elizabeth Warren editorial written this week in the Boston Globe. The Massachusetts Senator calls Republican opposition to raising the debt limit a “con job.”  She suggests there would not even be a debt ceiling debate without Republican “tax giveaways” to the rich and “huge corporations.”  The heart of her solution is to tax the rich, not only on income but assets.  

Warren may be right, to a degree.  But does her rhetoric contribute to a compromise?  

Logically, there is a middle ground between freezing the debit limit at $31.4 trillion and raising the debt limit indefinitely. Did you know the national debt was “only” $16.394 trillion in 2013, less than 10 years ago? Maybe an ever-increasing national debt is a problem. And on the other side, given current national needs, can federal spending be frozen in an inflationary environment without increasing taxes?

Until some political leader steps forward to put a stop to the current posturing on both sides, the country will inch closer and closer to a true fiscal crisis. Believe Treasury Secretary Yellen when she says that the “extraordinary measures” she is taking to continue to meet federal debts will not be possible after May.

President Biden should not refuse to negotiate with House Republicans, regardless of his conclusion that they are not ready to negotiate in good faith. Similarly, some courageous Republican, maybe one who does not plan to run for re-election next year, should file a “motion to vacate” the Speaker’s chair if McCarthy does not tell the Democrats he wants a compromise. If Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz can bully McCarthy, why can’t other Republicans?

Congress urgently needs to rebuild its credibility as the forum for the resolution of the Nation’s problem. This current debt ceiling crisis is a good place to start. 

So, to sum up, why is an agreement on the debt ceiling so hard to reach? The answer is that neither side is working to reach a compromise because the public, having lost confidence in Congress to govern in good faith, is not demanding that both parties quit playing games and get the job done. 

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