Hearings Smearings

I watched and listened to part of today's Congressional hearing with Peter Strzok on the veritable hot seat. I don't know that I can ever get that wasted hour or two back. Primed for political combat, members of the committee spent considerable time trashing each other in this installment of political theater.

Listen to the Republicans on the committee and you would think Mr. Strzok was a one-man coup band, or maybe a twosome with his FBI girlfriend. After all, he did say a lot of nasty things about Mr. Trump and assorted other political figures. Although the questioning focused on Trump, a perusal of his texts also find criticism of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Congress as an institution, and others. Strzok comes across in text as all purpose cynic who especially didn't like Trump.

Democrats spent much of their question time trying to pin a medal on the man.  Republicans spent most of theirs trying to characterize him as Satan incarnate. This all comes down to a question of bias, as the I.G. Report and two congressional committees cannot point to a specific action Mr. Strzok took in the investigation that is out of line with traditional practices in the FBI. The texts however really look bad in the sense that he had antipathy toward Trump and did not wish to see him elected.

Neither did 60+ million other Americans, but none of us happened to find ourselves Forrest Gump-like at the center of the two most sensational investigation of political figures since Watergate. I half expected someone to pull out a picture of Strzok on the grassy knoll, or with a flashlight in his teeth breaking into the Watergate building. He was there and decisions were made. Shit happened!

Is it possible to hold a negative opinion about someone and investigate them fairly? For that matter, is it possible to hold a positive opinion about someone and do the same? I am sure there are some political agnostics running around the Hoover Building, but I doubt there are enough of them to run investigations like this. Can you turn the personal feelings off while in your official capacity? This is the heart of the matter.

The answer? Absent specific acts prejudicial to the person being investigated, it comes down to credibility and your own beliefs. If you asked most of us if we could do this we would say that of course we could. After all, that is what juries are asked to do in courtrooms every day. Set aside those prejudices and biases and focus on the evidence and the task at hand. It doesn't matter if you liked O.J. because you liked the way he ran through those airports or thought he was an overpaid has-been. Did the glove fit? How about those Bruno Magli shoes?

The truth is that only Mr. Strzok really knows. The guy rose to a high level in the FBI doing investigations that most agents could only dream of. This is the stuff they write books about, lecture at universities about, and add to the resume to support the next act.  Did the man really leave the thoughts about Trump at the door?

The most convincing argument to the negative would be that the guy was having an affair at the height of being in the midst of two huge investigations, and seemed to be sowing the oats of someone who had "made it", reaching about as high as any agent could ever hope to reach.  Could he really just "turn it off" when he opened the case file, interviewed a witness, or briefed the director of the F.B.I. on his progress.  Did he possibly put a little finger on the scale in a way that is not readily apparent? Its possible and I'm sure that has happened before. Do you think every cop or every prosecutor sits Christ-like in the hallowed judicial chambers dispassionately making decisions that could ruin someone's life or save it?  Decisions are made by police officers, prosecutors, and judges every day that could help someone's case or harm it. All of these people are human, and even if they make a good faith effort, that little subconscious we all have can be a tricky thing.

The biggest argument to the negative is what Strzok did not do. He didn't send an email to Rachel Maddow in October letting her know that the campaign of the Republican candidate for president was under an open counterintelligence investigation regarding possible collusion with Russia. He didn't meet a Washington Post reporter in a darkened garage to whisper about Mike Flynn or Paul Manafort. He didn't meet Maxine Waters at the French Hen to let her know about this threat to the election. He didn't and neither did anyone else at the FBI or DOJ.

Dozens of people had to know that this investigation was going on and none of them leaked it, in spite of the obvious conclusion that such an action would hurt Mr. Trump's candidacy. If this was a witch hunt then it was a damned quiet one. While Hillary's email investigation was reopened days before the election, the Russia investigation hummed along quietly beneath the surface. Mr. Trump got to talk about servers and lead his crowds in chants of "lock her up". A revelation that he had his own investigation going might have hampered that a bit. At least she could've said, "NYET!" to the chants or put out photo shopped pictures of Trump and Putin bare chested together while fishing.

So can you put it aside at the door? We may never know with certainty the answer to the question.

The Immigration Debate and Dehumanizing Immigrants

One of the things I keep coming back to when I discuss the presidency of Donald Trump is his reference to immigrants coming across the southern border with a broad swipe as rapists, drug dealers, and criminals (he does allow that "some, I'm sure are good people"). One might excuse this as campaign excess, but he keeps doubling down on it as president.  He does this without ever referring to any valid evidence that a large number (or even a small one) of immigrants crossing the border are "rapists", "drug dealers", or other criminals. There are also references to infestation and to "animals". Infestation is commonly associated with rodents or insects....not people! These dubious claims and dehumanizing rhetoric are not only factually wrong, but serve to characterize these immigrants as something less than human.

There are valid reasons to limit the flow of immigrants into the country and to control our borders. Many have advocated better border security and yes, a wall in the recent past. Democrats, especially those aligned with the labor movement have pushed for border security under the theory that increased immigration depresses wages and forces citizens to compete with undocumented people for scarce jobs. As a matter of national security a country should control who crosses its borders and be able to keep track of immigrants once in the country. These are all valid reasons for improved border security and interior enforcement.

However, there are other forces at play here. Mexican citizens may not even be the largest group crossing our southern border as more people flee violence in Central America. Some of these are "economic immigrants" seeking a better life while others are "asylum seekers" fleeing violence and repressive governments. Either way thousands brave hardships that most of us would have nightmares about and risk crossing the border illegally or presenting themselves at legal entry points claiming asylum.

In any case these are for the most part ordinary people taking extraordinary risks to get here, many saving for years to pay someone to smuggle them across the border.  Most are not criminals, rodents, insects, or animals. Most are not drug dealers or gang bangers. I have met thousands of such people in the last decade, and while some might fall in the "bad" category, the vast majority are hard working people seeking a better life. Many work physical jobs in roofing, carpentry, sheetrock, or concrete, or clean the offices in our gleaming high rise buildings at night. My anecdotal experience may not meet a definition of proof, but it is undeniable that millions of such immigrants are in the workforce now, many for decades.

One can make an argument that more needs to be done at the border to restrict illegal immigration or that the legal immigration system needs to be revised. At some point in the future a "grand bargain" needs to be made in a bipartisan way to address how to deal with the border, legal immigration, and the status of the millions of undocumented people living within our borders right now. Right now the political will is not there as both parties would rather have the issue rather than solve the problem. No one has clean hands on this issue.


It is not necessary to demonize or dehumanize hundreds of thousands of people in an effort to move public opinion, make people angry, or harvest cheers at rallies. The national interest can be addressed while recognizing the humanity of people who have crossed or attempted to cross our borders. A great nation can do both. A president should. Congress should. We should.

Where are the statesmen when we need them? Not in the White House. Not in Congress, at least not in the leadership. It would be easy to blame this entire problem on a coarse, vulgar president who likes to whip up the crowd, truth be damned. However, this was going on before Trump took office in 2017.  President Obama had a Democratic Congress, including a filibuster proof majority in the Senate for awhile and failed to move legislation. The "Gang of Eight" valiantly tried, but the House refused to act. Our daily outrage machines (otherwise called cable news, talk radio, and various internet sites) ensured that this would die in its cradle.

This points to a problem that has festered in recent years as it appears that our parties have forgotten how to govern, how to make the trade-offs and compromises necessary to enact national policy that makes a good faith attempt to balance competing interests.

We need to secure our borders. We need to acknowledge the human rights' crises taking place south of us. We need to treat people with dignity and compassion even has not all of them will be allowed to migrate here. We need to address the fate of DACA young people along with the others who have made a home here...yes, illegally. We need a legal immigration system that meets the needs of the country now, not the country in 1965. 

We can do all that without slandering entire groups, making up statistics, or denying their humanity.

Where I Stand

I have already written several posts without really laying out where I come from. I should probably correct that. Perhaps this might explain my perspective on what is happening in our country right now. I am shaped by over forty years of reading, watching, and observing political life in our nation. I have been interested in politics and history since elementary school, and I have developed a set of values and beliefs based on this life of experiences.

Right now I feel challenged as never before. I came of age in the 1970's and cast my first presidential ballot for Ronald Reagan in 1980. I observed as a teen the Iran Hostage Crisis and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. I remembered the nuclear war drills in elementary school. We were in the midst of an intractable Cold War, had fought a long war in Vietnam, and the country was reeling economically. Ronald Reagan promised to bring back our pride, restore the economy, and win the Cold War. That sounded good to me and I voted for him. I graduated with a degree in political science and began my teaching career.

Since those heady days of the early 80's I have been a mostly reliable Republican voter, especially for federal offices. Until 2016 I voted for every Republican candidate for president and the same in my local senate and congressional races. I did vote for Democrats on state and county ballots as those tend to be less ideological and more focused on a smaller set of issues. In those races I looked closely at the candidate's positions on education, an obviously important issue to me.

I watched William F. Buckley on Firing Lane as he jousted good-naturedly with Michael Kinsley. I read National Review, The New Republic and sometimes The Nation as I enjoyed reading well written articles from different viewpoints. I watched Pat Buchanan debate Tom Braden on CNN's "Crossfire". I read columnists as diverse as George Will and Anthony Lewis. I regarded myself all of these years as a right-of-center voter, persuadable on some issues, with a moralistic and libertarian bent. I generally steered clear of getting directly involved in politics but was a reliable voter. I was always avidly interested in the direction of our country.

From that basis I believe in:

• Small government in theory, if not always in practice. The federal, state, and local governments have defined roles and responsibilities.
• The 1st amendment where I am close to an absolutist. Free speech, free press,freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, etc.....to me this is the heart of the American experiment.
• Free trade and free markets as they offer the greatest path to prosperity for all. Protectionism has never yielded good results. Why would it be different now?
• A basic social safety net to take care of those of us who are in need. It should not be so generous as to create permanent dependency and should offer tools and services that enable people to escape from poverty. Not Sweden but not a laissez faire free-for-all either. For the grace of God go I.
• The equality of all people to pursue their dreams. The 200+ years of history is a slow, painful, sometimes unsteady and violent, but dogged march toward equality. As Martin Luther King said, "the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward justice".
• A civil society where ideas and policies are vigorously debated, democratically decided on, and adjudicated as necessary to protect the minority. A great nation nurtures these kinds of debates in our institutions and celebrates them.
• A foreign policy rooted in realism but with a strong bent of nurturing democracy and human rights however we can. A belief that the alliances and institutions created from the ashes of World War II have led western nations to the greatest prosperity mankind has ever known. 
• The responsibility of the world's greatest power to partner with other nations to alleviate suffering. See Bono and George W. Bush for an example of people of different ideologies can work together to save countless lives. 
• A belief that the United States plays a unique role in the world and that with that comes a special responsibility to lead by example.
• That character and values matter when it comes to our elected officials. In fact, they matter as much or more than ideology. You can always overturn bad legislation. It is much more difficult to wash the stench of venal leadership from the body fabric of a nation.

Now I find myself with a president of my own party who believes or embodies few of these things. He has a 50 year history in public life that demonstrates a fundamental lack of wisdom, generosity, kindness, or virtue. He continues that pattern unabated to this very day. While I might find myself agreeing with a policy here or there, what I see is an erratic, unprincipled, untruthful, arrogant,  leader whose focus is on "winning", however that manifests itself in his mind. He is ferociously intolerant of criticism, responding to critiques of policy with personal attacks that resemble schoolyard taunts. 

I watch and wait to see if the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Reagan becomes the party of Trump. If it does, I am out for good, as I want no part of a white nationalist, anti-free trade, nativist party that appeals to the worst in us instead of to the "better angels of our nature". The party formed to stop the spread of slavery and that fought a civil war to end it is now led by someone who demonizes immigrants as "rapists and murderers".  I am stunned that so many of my party are willing to set aside their long-professed values to support someone so antithetical to those values. 

Please spare me talk of "draining the swamp"(I guess by filling it with lobbyists and Wall Street appointees?), stopping the "globalists"(anyone that is not a globalist now is stuck in the 1800's), "fake news" or any of the other catch phrases that are trotted out. This is not a conservative administration. It may be an "anti liberal" administration but that is not the same thing.  A conservative administration does not launch trade wars, hint darkly at the possibility of withdrawing from NATO or the World Trade Organization (both of which our nation helped found), make common cause with autocrats (see Putin, Duterte, Erdogan, etc.), while at the same time attacking our most reliable allies. It does not separate families just to send a message south of the border. It does not refuse to criticize the vile alt-right. 

I am in a small minority of my party at this point. A recent poll showed close to 90% of Republicans approve of the president's job performance. Most members of Congress seem terrified of him, afraid that he will destroy their careers with a tweet. A few brave souls have shown leadership in reminding us what conservative values actually mean, but most are marching right along.  Conservative "Never Trumpers" (I don't like the label but I guess that is what I am) are the outliers now.  The funny thing is I am exactly where I have always been. I'm just not getting with the program! 

All is not lost. Our country, its institutions, and the system of checks and balances, is strong enough to survive this administration. I can only hope that it doesn't permanently plant the seeds for the destruction of the conservative movement in the meantime. 

Whither Civility?

In the latest example of personalizing political differences, Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked to leave a suburban restaurant because of the staff's discomfort in serving her. Not only is this ridiculous on its face, it is also bad business. Do we as a nation really want to walk down that path where service is contingent on agreeing politically with the owner of a business? The restaurant then received a deluge of negative reviews from Trump supporters on various platforms while progressives gave it five stars. Now the restaurant's web site has been hacked.

All of this is just part of a continual path into the gutter where debating and discussing political differences is replaced by personal attacks. Something important is lost when we cannot stand to even be in the same room as someone whose politics we disagree with. Of course I wouldn't want to break bread with a member of the Ku Klux Klan or a revolutionary minded communist, but we aren't talking about the crazies out there.

This latest incident takes place during a fierce and emotional debate regarding separating children from their parents who have crossed into the country illegally or who are petitioning for asylum.  This is a result of a ramped up "zero tolerance" policy at the border, one that I disagree with. Zero tolerance is what gets an elementary student suspended for making a pop tart into the shape of a gun.
In any case, it is illogical and immoral to separate young children from their parents over a crime which is a misdemeanor. However, there are many ways to protest policies you disagree with. one of them should not be withholding service from someone on the other side. Not only is it not civil but it is also ineffective. I doubt that missing out on the frog legs would cause Mrs. Sanders to change her opinions.

Lack of civility is nothing new. Modern history abounds with examples from a congressman shouting "you lie" at President Obama at a State of the Union address to protesters waving bloody hands at Condoleeza Rice, to Ted Nugent inviting an American president to, "suck on my machine gun." We have so personalized our differences that anything seems to be on the table. I am astounded at how many on the left defend this latest incident even as people like Bernie Sanders decry it.

Nor does the current president innocent of blame in all of this. We have elected a president who lacks even the basic ability to engage those who disagree with him. His Twitter feed attacks groups or individuals on a daily basis, many in crude terms or derogatory nicknames. He must be the most thin-skinned person I have ever seen in national office.  He has taken the bile already out there and turbocharged it. He's a big part of the problem, but even if he resigned tomorrow the issue would still remain.

As a people we have lost our way and it is only exacerbated in the current climate. Its not enough the Obama was wrong on health care. He hates America and wants to destroy it! Its not enough that Trump is wrong on immigration. The Holocaust has begun! Don't like Elizabeth Warren's policies? She's a communist Pocohontas!! Many think the other half of their friends, neighbors, and co-workers are the enemy.

You know what the great thing about it is? You can feed your rage daily. You rarely have to interact with ideas or opinions that you don't like. Think Trump is on God's mission to save America from those traitorous Dems? Watch Fox and read Breitbart. You think Republicans are Satan's spawn? Head right over to MSNBC and feast on the Huffington Post. There are decent people to be found across the spectrum, but many of us aren't ready to hear each other. Its so much easier to be a circular nation of victims and haters. Red Hen owner, Michael Moore, Steve King, Maxine Waters, and others are there for you to drink deeply from the cup of victimhood and paranoia, providing sustenance for attacking the "other".

Civility really boils down to the Golden Rule. It is is more important that we actually listen to what the other side is saying and attempt a reasoned debate and discussion. I read daily articles that I profoundly disagree with, but I still read them. I don't need to read a lot of things I do agree with. I already know what I think! I don't need it reinforced, even though that sometimes has value. I don't need to be told over and over how evil half of the country and the politicians that represent them are. Thats how I want to be treated. I don't want to be judged or demonized based on a letter after my name, a bumper sticker on my car, or a "like" on Facebook. Most of us are more complex than that, and often we are closer to the thinking of each other than we realize.

I believe that Donald Trump is a blight on the presidency, the conservative movement, and on the Republican Party. His brand of politics is the polar opposite of everything I believe in, and many of his policies are illogical, rooted in misunderstanding, and in some cases immoral. That being said I don't hate the man. He's the symptom of a greater disease of resentment, anger, bigotry, and yes, the failings of mainstream politics. He won a primary with a number of highly qualified candidates who did not possess his failings, but win it he did. He received 60 million of our votes. That needs to be understood fully. I love and respect some of his voters even as I disagree with them.

I don't own a restaurant, but if Mr. Trump walked in I would great him politely, and try to serve him the meal of his life. If given the opportunity I might try to engage him and express some of my thoughts. Would it do any good? Probably not...but civility has to start somewhere. If everyone waits for the other side to go first it will never happen.

As in so many facets of life, good things happen one person at a time.

Alternate Universe

Long ago there was a Star Trek episode where the intrepid Star Trek crew were thrust into an alternative universe aboard the Enterprise. In that  universe Spock had a beard and in a Machiavellian way had overthrown Kirk and taken over the ship. They managed to persuade "bad Spock" to help them get back to their world.

I propose an alternative universe speech from the President in the Oval Office a few days after the 2016 election:

Good evening my fellow Americans. I speak to you in my first time as president from the Oval Office. Now that the election is over, the inauguration complete, and I am settling into my role as your president, I want to speak to you on some important issues of the day.

As a first time candidate for political office I was perhaps unprepared for the intensity of a presidential election, the day-to-day back and forth. I'm a New York guy who speaks my mind, so I often found myself battling the opposing candidates, responding to attacks, and yes, launching some of my own. I regret my part in dragging down the discourse, and I hope my opponents feel the same way. However, being president is not being a candidate. It is time for me and for everyone else to put aside personal attack politics and focus on the needs of our country. I'm retiring the nicknames and will focus all of my energy toward driving our agenda and working with Congress to achieve our goals. Please watch my Twitter account for a daily reminder of what we are trying to accomplish.

One of the first things I wish to address is the attack on our democracy by the Russian nation. While I hope to have a positive relationship with President Putin and the Russian nation, I cannot as a guardian of our democratic institutions stand by and ignore the clear evidence that individuals and institutions close to the Russian government attempted to interfere with this election. Tonight I am directing the following as a response:

• I have summoned FBI Director James Comey and leaders of the Justice Department to the White House for an update on the investigation into Russian interference. I have signed a Presidential directive to ensure that investigators have all of the resources our nation can provide to get to the bottom of this. I have instructed Mr. Comey to submit a monthly report to my office and demanded that he vigorously investigate any individuals who participated in this attack. If anyone employed by my campaign was involved, they should be prosecuted to the extent the law allows. In my administration no one will be above the law. I expect a full report from Mr. Comey on my desk no later than six months from today. If investigators need more time they will be given it, but a matter of this urgency should be given top priority.
• I am appointing a Presidential Commission to examine this interference from a policy perspective. I have asked former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and former C.I.A. director Leon Panetta to serve as co-chairs, with the remaining members appointed in equal numbers by me and the Democratic leaders in Congress. The commission will examine all aspects of election interference and recommend changes in law to prevent it from happening again. I will present their recommendations to Congress and demand expeditious approval to protect our nation.
• Today I called the Russian ambassador to the United States to the Oval Office to meet with me. I told him in no uncertain terms that the United States of American will not tolerate this interference in our electoral process. I will ask Mr. Putin for a meeting at the earliest possible time and relay the same message to him unequivocally. Hopefully we can build a good relationship with Russia, but friendly nations do not behave this way toward one another. If it is true that the Russians attempted to influence the election in may favor, they badly miscalculated who I am. American democracy is our birthright and I will fight for it.

Of course, Russia is not the only issue that we face today. While I will save many of these issues for my State of the Union address, I wish to speak from the heart on the issue of immigration. During the campaign I said many things about our immigration system. I believe that our immigration laws need to be updated and that a nation needs strong borders. However, I also understand the plight of those currently living here in undocumented status, the Dreamers, and those who attempt to enter our country seeking a better life. I campaigned on building a wall and still believe that this is one of many things that need to happen to modernize our immigration system. I also recognize that we speak with many voices as a nation on this subject and that finding a path we can agree on will be difficult.

In a meeting with the Congressional leadership today I committed to working with them to develop a comprehensive immigration law to replace our current system.  The key components of this law will include border security, reforms in legal immigration, increases in courts to handle immigration cases, and resolving the status of those currently here. I asked them to erase all of their "red lines" and told them I would do so myself. I want a proposal that will receive a bipartisan majority in both houses of Congress and I want it during my first 90 days in office. We may not satisfy the most zealous advocates on either side of this debate, but we will do what we were sent here to do...govern this nation in a responsible manner. I will be holding weekly meetings with Congressional leadership in the White House, and will continue to do so until we can see action.

You elected me in part because I'm not part of the status quo, the inaction that has plagued our government under Congresses and presidents of both parties on challenging issues.  I urge my partners in Congress to throw out their preconceived ideas, their political talking points, their inflammatory rhetoric, and their appeals to the extreme bases that often exist in all parties. I commit to doing the same and will instruct all in my administration to do so. If we work together we will find a common sense solution to this vexing problem. 

In the coming days and weeks you will hear me discuss health care, problems in the Middle East, excessive regulation, our crumbling infrastructure, and many other issues our nation faces. I approach all of these issues as president of all the people, working with anyone who has a good idea that will improve the issues we face. I will bring in experts from both parties to advise me on these issues and will continue to assemble some of the best and most creative minds in the country to serve in my administration.

The Bible notes that there is a season to all things. Tonight marks the season in my administration to get to work on the most important issues we face.  The election is over and it is time to work together to accomplish great things.  I will not hesitate to speak my mind, but I will always do so from the point of view of wanting to move us forward as a nation. I ask you to pray for me and for our elected representatives as we begin this journey together.

Thank you......and God bless the United States of America.

The Immigration Conundrum

In spite of my distaste for President Trump the immigration issue did not just arise when he was elected. In fact, a good argument can be made that his election was in a very large part a reaction to the increased numbers of immigrants, both legal and "illegal" of the past few decades, along with the changes brought by this influx and other changes in society.The  We see this across Europe now as populist governments opposed to immigration have sprung up across the continent, most recently in Italy.

The post-war consensus that has governed the western world has been fraying on the edges as nationalist candidates opposed to immigration and generous refugee policies have risen to power in the United States and Europe. Both sides of the continent have been governed by center-right to center-left parties and coalitions who had their own distinctive philosophies, but remained in broad agreement with the set of values that has defined our civilization since the end of the war. This consensus was rooted in international institutions, a world trade system governed by a set of rules and treaties, a defense system rooted in cooperation against outside threats, and an immigration system that allowed for the importation of refugees from war-torn nations and immigrants from the 3rd world.

Now the center is not holding, and large swathes of people have looked to non-mainstream candidates and parties to address their frustration with the changes in society that have occurred over these decades. This is misguided in my view because the post-war years have brought unprecedented peace and prosperity to the western world and I am deeply uncomfortable with replacing it with a yet-to-be-known set of values centered around nationalism, resentment, and anger. The rhetoric and sentiments blowing back and forth across the Atlantic Ocean have led us to the possibility of trade wars that benefit no one, and increasingly strident language and actions regarding immigration.

It has been said that if the political mainstream does not address issues that are roiling public sentiment that politicians outside the mainstream will step in to fill the void. Public polling on this issue can be a bit confusing, but it is obvious that there is at least a substantial minority of voters that are very upset by decades of large scale immigration. Into this void stepped Donald Trump and the angry man became the voice of these angry voters. Enough mainstream voters were repulsed by the other candidate to support him as well, and he rode this wave narrowly into the White House. His rhetoric about rapists and making Mexico pay for a wall resonated with these voters and thrilled them. He gets it! He's mad like us! Build the wall! Toss them out! Make Mexico pay for it!

But a Trump was only possible because of the inaction of both parties during the past twenty years on a growing issue. Congress has failed repeatedly to come up with a comprehensive immigration plan that address both border security and the status of the millions of undocumented people living in our nation right now. George W. Bush had a moment where action was possible but Congress failed to act. Barrack Obama had a filibuster-proof majority and Congress again failed to act. Each side has jockeyed for position and preferred to have this an issue rather than come up with a solution. This is a failure of leadership across the political spectrum.

There are a few things that are true that many politicians and a large chunk of the public refuse to acknowledge:

1. The public has no confidence (with good reason) to believe in the enforcement of our southern border. It is not unreasonable to accept that a nation should have defined borders and control over who enters the country. Without a stable and enforceable border it will be difficult to convince voters that other changes need to occur. A 3000 mile wall may not be the way to do it, and it is silly to ask Mexico to pay for it, but strong, sensible, compassionate, and highly effective border enforcement is a pre-requisite to a solution.
2. Estimates of undocumented people in the United States range from 10-30 million people. Without turning the country into a police state you are never going to expel even a fraction of these people. Its a fantasy to believe otherwise.
3. People come here out of desperation and in a hope of a future. We in this country have never been faced with that kind of hopelessness and desperation.  This doesn't mean we have to accept all comers or have "open borders", but we need to understand why they come. Much more should be done to assist in stabilizing the nations south of our border to reduce the demand.
4. These immigrants are doing a lot of the work no one else wants to do. Just watch roofers carrying shingles up a ladder in the 105 degree Oklahoma heat and hammering shingles all day long, laying concrete, cleaning office buildings at night, picking vegetables, etc. Yes, I suppose if wages were raised high enough there might be Americans willing to do some of these jobs. Don't count on it. We have become addicted to the cheaper labor and the economic benefits it provides to us all.
5. I have known many of the "Dreamers" or "DACA" population. While it runs the gamut, a lot of these young people are just looking for a better life in a nation they came to when they were young. Many have no memory of the country of their birth and have never visited it. Some don't even speak Spanish well and many of them don't read or write it well. It is senseless not to come up with a solution for them.

The makings of a deal are there, but it would require leadership and a commitment from both parties to compromise. Right now the political will is not there on either side of the aisle.  It is easier to rile up the angry on the Trumpian side or elicit outrage and hashtags on the progressive side. It is time for the center to assert itself again and come up with a broad solution that encompasses an effective border and a practical way to deal with people who are already here. 

This is where Trump could have an opportunity to make a positive difference if he chose to do so. It was said that, "only Nixon could go to China".  He would have to accept that he won't get everything he wants and that his "four pillars" will probably not emerge from a deal the way he would prefer. Chuck Schumer would have to risk alienating the "no borders" progressive partisans and be willing to legislate real and verifiable border enforcement in exchange for real and meaningful resolutions for people already here (yes, including a path to citizenship!) They would both anger their base Do have the courage and vision to do so? Are they willing to provide cover for their members of Congress to support it?

If not, we can keep going the way we are going. Trump will get re-elected and the issue will rage on without much resolution. He won't get his wall and the DACA population will remain in limbo. A Democrat might defeat him and the current muddle will continue onward. They won't enforce the border and Congress will not be able to pass DACA relief.

A conservative president of the past generation said this in his farewell address to the nation:

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.

It is time to update our immigration system based on these values consistent with effective borders and compassion for those who have struggled to get here. 

Its time for the center to hold once again.

Whither Trump?

I wish I could say that my antipathy toward Donald Trump is because I don't like the man. I don't have to like everyone in politics or in any other field of endeavor. I've known people in my own profession that I didn't particularly "like", but acknowledge their general competence and good intentions. "Like" is a visceral term. Sometimes we don't like someone and can't even explain why.
I don't find that hard here.

I could begin with a lot of things, but it might be useful to review a few of Mr. Trump's forays into racially charged issues.

Mr. Trump has shown the public for over 50 years who he is and continues to do so today. He has spent his entire adult life in the public eye, much of that by his own choice, his own thirst for fame and publicity. He built a brand and a real estate empire as a "playboy" whose name embodied glitz and the finer things in life ("Get your Trump steaks here!"). He chased women throughout those fifty years, married or not. He liked that brand, the playboy with a woman on his arm, the glamour of it all, the appearance it created. It was part of his brand. The beauty pageants, the casinos, the big man about town, the controversies....all nourished and fed his need to be noticed and known.

He also liked to wander into the political and public opinion arena, pontificating on this or that issue. One may remember his insistence that the "Central Park Five" were guilty even after another man plead guilty, DNA evidence found only the confessor's DNA on the woman, and prosecutors dropped the charges. He continued to attack the young men even after they won a wrongful imprisonment settlement from the city of New York. After all, "maybe hate is what we need if we're going to get something done." He continued to defend his belief as recently as 2016. 

But hey, we've all been wrong before and held on to our wrongful beliefs a bit long, right? Life is so much easier when you are never wrong.  It can happen to anyone. Alas, this is not just a one shot deal.

Mr. Trump paid a $250,000 fine after he secretly funded attack ads on the Mohawk Tribe in an attempt to halt their development of a competing casino. In the ads he showed pictures of needles and drugs, asking, "are these the neighbors we want?", smearing the tribe as a bunch of thieves and drug addicts. He paid the fine because he concealed his funding of the ads, violating New York law.  Well, at least he didn't call them rapists and murderers.  He could have at least added that some of them are good people to balance it out. 

He criticized the law signed by President Reagan that allowed Indian gaming, stating that allowing Native Americans into his gaming world would bring out, "the biggest organized problem since Al Capone." When asked to substantiate his charges he told Congress, "well, people talk and have told me that."  Its ok though because he did note that, "no one loves Native Americans more than me."

He does wonder how some Native Americans just don't look Indian to him. Who needs Ancestry DNA? Maybe we can just ask the man if the issue arises. 

Then there was the Hispanic Miss Universe contestant that Mr. Trump referred to as "Miss Housekeeping" and "Miss Piggy".  Or you could go with, “I have black guys counting my money. … I hate it. The only guys I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes all day.” (USA Today, May 20, 1991)

I can already hear you out there now..."He's just not politically correct!" "He's changed now!" "The media take his perfectly innocent statements and actions and mischaracterize them!"  or "Maybe he's obnoxious but he's better than Hillary!"  

Sigh.

These brief snippets are direct quotes or from official records.  I never saw where he denied any of them.

Not being politically correct is not a license to smear broad groups of people, casual racism, or using stereotypes. I don't like political correctness either, but I don't understand how someone could read this and not have their stomach churn just a bit.  

I didn't vote for Hillary either and could not support her then or now. But she doesn't get to be the voodoo doll that is waved around to excuse the moral excrement that oozes from this guy.  She won't be president. He is the president. I understand that the choices were lousy and that people voted for who in their  mind was the "lesser of two evils". 

Just don't tell me you don't know who the man is. He's been telling you exactly who he is for a long time.