Category: Uncategorized

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will hear the case of Trump v Anderson today. The case was appealed from the Colorado Supreme Court which found that Donald Trump had participated in an insurrection on January 6, 2021, and that under the language of section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, was disqualified from serving as president in the future. As a result of that decision, the Colorado Supreme Court said that Trump was excluded from being on the state’s presidential ballot.

This is not necessarily a complicated case. To decide it, the Court will need to determine:

1. if Donald Trump participated in an insurrection or gave comfort and aid to those participating in an insurrection,
2. if the language of section 3 of the 14th Amendment pertaining to “officers of the United States” includes the presidency, and
3. if the oath taken by Trump and every other president requires them to “support” the Constitution of the United States.

First, let’s look at the language of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office

Next, let’s consider each question SCOTUS will grapple with today:

1)Every court that has considered the question thus far has found that, not only was the breach of the Capitol on January 6, 2021 an insurrection, but that Trump participated in the planning and execution of the insurrection, and gave comfort and aid to the insurrectionists. It’s unlikely that this will be a close call. There’s far too much evidence available for SCOTUS to decided that Trump did not either participate in an insurrection or give aid or comfort to those participating in an insurrection.

2) Trump’s legal team contends that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment does not apply to the presidency. It is true that Section 3 does not mention the presidency by name. Instead, it says, “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State…” Section 3 includes “elector of President or Vice-President” but it doesn’t specifically include the President and Vice-President.

The Colorado District Court found that the language “officer of the United States” includes the President and Vice-President. However, on appeal in the Colorado Court of Appeals, the decision of the District Court was reversed on the basis that the President was NOT an “officer of the United States.” That case was appealed and the Colorado Supreme Court reversed it again, agreeing with the District Court that the President was an “officer of the United States.”

Looked at from a technical basis, the SCOTUS could conceivably find that Section 3 does not specifically the President and they could also find that there is historical evidence to support the proposition that the President is not an “officer of the United States. It’s an iffy proposition, but the Court could use it to reverse the Colorado Supreme Court decision.

However, as a practical matter, it is hard to argue that the framers of the 14th Amendment, who wanted to make certain that members of the Confederacy did not serve in the newly reunified government, would write and pass an Amendment that did not pertain to the two highest offices in the land. There is evidence from the proceedings of the Congress that crafted the 14th Amendment that the framers most certainly intended to include the President and Vice-President in the catch-all phrase “officers of the United States.”

Even so, this SCOTUS has not been great about using actual history as support for their decision. Instead, they have a track record of making a decision that cobbling together historical fact and fiction to justify those decisions. So, it’s anyone’s guess of they will come down on this question.

3) Trump’s legal team also claims that he (Trump) never took an oath to support the Constitution. In fact, the oath that Trump (and all Presidents) took includes the words “to protect and defend the Constitution.” Unlike Congressmen and Senators, the presidential oath does not include the words “support the Constitution.”

This argument involves a difference without a distinction. It’s easy to see that if one protects and defends the Constitution, they are also supporting the Constitution. Section 3 does not require that the oath taken includes the words “support the Constitution. Instead, it requires that the person being considered for disqualification from office must have previously taken an oath to “support the Constitution.” There can be little question that the oath taken by Trump, which required him to “protect and defend the Constitution” required him to “support the Constitution.”

I wouldn’t expect SCOTUS to side with Trump on this question, but you never know. As we’ve seen in the past, SCOTUS is full of surprises.

Is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment Undemocratic?

Although it won’t be part of the SCOTUS proceedings, many commentators–especially those on the right–have contended that, if Section 3 disqualifies Trump, it will take away a voters right to vote for the candidate they support, essentially robbing them of their right to vote. This is a specious argument that sounds good on the surface, but turns out to be exactly backwards when viewed closely.

Rather than Donald Trump, let’s imagine that Barack Obama was running for president. If he were, he would be disqualified from holding the presidency because he has already served two terms and the Constitution sets a two-term term limit on presidents. Applying the Constitutional language, it’s clear that Obama is disqualified.

“But I want to vote for him,” you might say. “You’re preventing me from voting for my preferred candidate. That’s undemocratic.””

While partially true, it’s the Constitution that prevents Obama from running for and holding the presidency. The same reasoning applies to Donald Trump.

The Constitution requires that, to run for and hold the office of the president, a candidate must be 1) at least 35 years of age, 2) a natural born citizen, 3)  had not held the office of the president for a total of two terms, and 4) had not participated in a insurrection or gave aid or comfort to those committing an insurrection after taking an oath to support the Constitution of the United States.

These are the four requirement a candidate must meet to serve as President. Although they limit the pool of people any voter can vote for, there is nothing undemocratic about the requirements. In fact, requiring that a candidate must not have participated in an insurrection or gave aid or comfort to insurrectionists, rather than be an undemocratic requirement, is just the opposite. It is designed to support and protect our democracy. Allowing any person that took action to overturn an election or giving aid or comfort to those working to overthrow an election would be damaging, perhaps deadly, to our democracy. The framers who wrote the 14th Amendment understood how dangerous it was to allow such a disloyal, undemocratic person into the leadership of our government. With the 14th Amendment, Section 3, they made certain that such a person would never hold such office.

Trump v. Anderson is arguably the most important Constitutional case SCOTUS has ever heard. It goes directly to who can lead our nation, and it will be interesting to see how the Justices decide this extremely important case.

Post Argument Thoughts

Man, was I wrong. In another post, I predicted that SCOTUS would uphold the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court by a vote of 6-3. I also said there was a chance it could be 7-2. Nope. Not even close.

After watching oral arguments this morning, I can tell you that SCOTUS is not going to uphold the Colorado Supreme Court decision. It was obvious from the the Justices’ questions that a majority of them bought into the idea that the 14th Amendment, Section 3 does not apply to the president or vice-president. Even Justice Katanji Brown Jackson bought this argument hook, line, and sinker.

I found KBJ’s position interesting. Her read of the history was that Congress was concerned about former Confederates gaining (re-gaining) power in southern states, and that the focus of Section 3 was on state and lower federal offices rather than on the presidency.

To be certain, there is some truth to what KBJ said. But her reading of history only reveals part of the picture. Congress was worried about what the impact would be on recently freed slaves in the southern states if former confederates ran things in those states. Congress wanted to avoid that potential as much as possible.

However, that doesn’t mean that the framers of the 14th Amendment weren’t concerned about a former Confederate becoming president or vice-president. They were worried about that, and in their discussions before Section 3 was committed to law, they talked about how their “officers of the United States” language covered the two highest offices in the land. I can’t explain why KJB would choose to ignore that part of the historical record.

There was also a great deal of discussion about the impact a decision in favor of Colorado would have on other states. The Justices seemed concerned that such a decision would make for a lack of uniformity, where some states allowed some candidates on their ballot while other states allowed (or disallowed) those same candidates on their ballot.

That’s not new. It has happened for years and is even happening now. I thought the Solicitor General for Colorado answered this concern well when she said that the discrepancies are a feature, not a bug of federalism. She’s right. The Constitution gives states the power to run federal elections. It does not tell them how to do it and it does not require that each state do it in the exact same way. As a result, we have different states conducting federal elections is different ways. And yet, several Justices were quite concerned about this, as if it was something new and something that should be avoided.

I’ve already proven my lack of predictive skills when it comes to SCOTUS, but I’ll take another shot at it. I predict SCOTUS will overturn the Colorado Supreme Court decision 7-2. And don’t be surprised if the vote is 8-1 or even 9-0. Things were really that lopsided.

Abraham Lincoln knew Donald Trump. Although he may not have known Trump by name. he most certainly knew the man.

Lincoln, perhaps this nation’s greatest president, knew something back in 1838 that we need to understand today. At the time, the United States was moving toward one of the most dangerous and divisive periods in our country’s history. The politics of the day were polarized, pitting southern slave-holding states against those in the north who supported the abolition of slavery. Tensions were running high, and there was talk of a potential civil war.

In a speech before the Young Men’s Lyceum, Lincoln uttered the now famous lines, “If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” To Lincoln’s mind, the threat was internal. And he understood that we could either be a nation committed to laws or a nation committed to a single man or political party. We could not do both.

Even back in 1838, the future president knew that a demagogue like Donald Trump was more likely to destroy our democracy than an invasion by a foreign power. At the time, Lincoln was just 28 years old, but he saw clearly how an un-American agitator like Trump could lead his followers to commit acts of violence and lawlessness. Speaking about those who would break the law (or encourage others to do it for them), Lincoln said, “Having ever regarded Government as their deadliest bane, they make a jubilee of the suspension of its operations; and pray for nothing so much as its total annihilation.”

Lincoln did not believe that all laws were good. In fact, just the opposite. He made a habit of speaking out against laws he felt were wrong. But he believed in the importance of the rule of law to our democracy, and he believed that there was a proper procedure that must be followed to challenge and repeal bad laws. It was the Constitution, Lincoln contended, that must always be followed, because he felt that it was the Constitution that guaranteed our democracy. To abandon it was to abandon the very democratic underpinnings of our society.

Lincoln believed that people who, in another time, might help build the nation, would, in times when no foreign power threatened the United States, turn their energies toward tearing the country apart. As historian Heather Cox Richardson writes, “With no dangerous foreign power to turn people’s passions against, people would turn from the project of ‘establishing and maintaining civil and religious liberty’ and would instead turn against each other.”

The time for passion was during the country’s founding. Something new was being created and passionate energy was necessary for its creation. However, once the country and the rule of law were established, the time for passion was over. Instead, what was needed to maintain and strengthen what had been created was “sober reason.” Lincoln encouraged the men of his day to display “general intelligence, sound morality, and in particular, a reverence for the constitution and laws.”

Why do I say that Lincoln warned us about Donald Trump? Consider this:

Donald Trump is facing 91 felony charges, has been indicted in four different jurisdictions, his business has been found to have committed fraud, and he was found liable for sexual assault and defamation in a civil suit that has him on the hook for $88.3 million. Yet, Trump’s support remains strong, and he is the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party in this year’s upcoming presidential election. Among the policies and programs he has promised to pursue if he is re-elected include:

• Nationwide abortion ban
• Prosecution and imprisonment of his political enemies (including Republicans who have been critical of him)
• Mass deportation of illegal immigrants and naturalized American citizens
• Ending birthright citizenship (even though it is provided for in the Constitution)
• Suspension of broadcast licenses for CNN, MSNBC, and any other broadcaster that is critical of him and/or his policies
• Concentration-style camps for illegal immigrants
• Stricter voting laws making it harder for people to vote
• Use of the military to quell protests and unrest over his policies
• Suspension of the Constitution when it prevents him from carrying out his agenda
• Replacing career government workers with Trump loyalists

And the list goes on.

These are the types of acts that Lincoln warned against. They are designed to consolidate and exercise power for the good of Trump and his inner circle rather than being true to the Constitution, the rule of law, or our democracy. In other words, Trump’s campaign promises do not honor the Constitution nor the country’s values and traditions. Instead, they are designed to override and replace both the Constitution and our democracy.

Donald Trump and his supporters/enablers are a far more dangerous threat to the rule of law and democracy than any foreign power, including Russia, China, and Iran. No country on planet Earth has the wherewithal to destroy the United States militarily. But Donald Trump and the Republican Party are not only capable of tearing down everything we have built up since our founding, they are poised to do just that if Trump is re-elected in November.

Abraham Lincoln understood this possibility. The sooner we all understand it, the sooner Trump can be stopped.

I hate olives. It doesn’t matter if they’re green or black, I hate them. I can’t think of any food that tastes worse to me than olives. They’re disgusting.

Having said that, if I was stranded on a desert island and was starving, and olives were the only food available, I’d probably eat them. My desire to survive would win out over my desire to never have to eat olives.

That’s how I view online dating. It’s not much fun, but it’s the best game in town.

I’ve used online dating on and off to find a significant other since I got divorced in 2016. I’ve met a ton of women, had a lot of dates, and those dates have blossomed into two longer-term relationships. While it’s true I never would have met any of these women had I not been on Match.com or a few other dating sites I have used, I’ve hated nearly every second of my online dating experience.

Why would I hate it? First, it’s awkward meeting someone virtually. You really can’t tell much about a person from a few pictures and a self-description. Second, it’s time consuming. At various times while trying to find “the one,” I’ve felt like online dating was a full-time job. Third, online dating involves nearly constant rejection. I can’t tell you the number of times my messages have been ignored or how common it is to be ghosted after meeting someone.

But there’s more to it than that. Aside from my own personal reasons, science points out three big problems with online dating that can’t be ignored.

The “Soulmate” Conundrum

I believe in “true love.” That’s not a controversial statement. In fact, I’m not alone. Ninety-four percent of Americans also believe in “true love.” But some of my other opinions are not so widely accepted.

For instance, I don’t believe in the concept of “soulmates,” the idea that each of us has a specific partner that is a perfect match for us. In contrast, 74% of men and 71% of women believe in soulmates.

A lot of people using online dating sites say they are looking for their soulmate. In fact, I’ve heard many women say that it is like looking for a needle in a haystack (Men may say this too, but since I’m in the market for a woman, I don’t see men’s profiles.). Finding your soulmate is a romantic notion. I just don’t think it’s realistic. 

To me, relationships take a lot of time, hard work, commitment, and good luck. I wish it was as easy as just finding your soulmate and living happily ever after, but I can’t think of any successful relationship I have ever seen that relied exclusively on being soulmates.

Another reason I don’t accept the concept of “soulmates” is that it removes free will from the equation. If you believe in soulmates, you believe that God or the universe or some other omnipotent entity has already made the decision for who you should spend your life with. You have no say in the matter. That doesn’t work for me.

I would much rather choose to be with someone and work to make our relationship a success. I’m uncomfortable with the idea that the most important relationship in my life is largely out of my control.

Popular culture, especially movies, sells the idea of soulmates. It’s romantic to think that the perfect person is out there just waiting for you to find them. Then, through happenstance and coincidence, you find them, fall in love, and live happily ever after. Roll the credits.

Real life isn’t like that. And I would argue, expecting to find a soulmate on an online dating site reduces the chances that you’ll ever find true, lasting love.

In fact, it’s worse than that. Believing that some unseen force has brought two people together can actually lessen the chance that the two people will build a successful relationship. Research has shown that a belief in soulmates correlates with dysfunctional patterns in a relationship and an expectation that destiny–not hard work and open, honest communication–is what leads to a happy relationship.

Adjacent to a belief in soulmates is a belief in “love at first sight.” Can it happen? Sure. Is it a good idea to expect love at first sight to kick off the most important relationship in your life? Probably not.

According to Arthur C. Brooks, host of How to Build A Happy Life podcast and a contributing writer at The Atlantic, “Despite its popularity in stories and movies, love at first sight has little to do with reality. Researchers have found that what people describe as ‘love at first sight’ has no connection to the real hallmarks of true love, including passion, intimacy, and commitment. Rather, ‘love at first sight’ is either a phrase people use about the past to romanticize their meeting (notwithstanding the way it actually happened) or one that they use to describe exceptionally strong physical attraction.”

That “strong physical attraction” that Brooks identifies can be the start to a relationship, but is rarely enough to sustain it long-term. “Maintaining passionate love forever after is not only an unrealistic goal, but one that wouldn’t make you happy even if it were possible,” according to Brooks. “On the contrary, the most joyful, enduring romances are those that are able to evolve from passionate to companionate love—which still has plenty of passion, but is fundamentally based in deep friendship. To increase the odds of success, as your romance progresses, don’t ask yourself, “Is our passion as high as it was?” but rather, “Is our friendship deepening?”

That attitude speaks to me. When I was 25years-old, passion meant everything. Today, at the ripe old age of 64, passion is still important, but I’m mature enough now to understand the importance of friendship in a relationship. And I’ve grown enough to understand that passion with a friend is the best kind of passion.

A League Above

People using online dating can sometimes be unrealistic. They tend to overestimate their “value” as a partner and they reach out to potential dates that are out of their league.

Wait a minute. Do dating “leagues” actually exist? They do.

According to University of Michigan sociology professor Elizabeth Bruch, not only do leagues exist, but most online daters message people out of their league. “Three-quarters, or more, of people are dating aspirationally,” she says.

A recent study indicated that most people using online dating sites message potential partners who are about 25% out of their league. Bruch and her colleagues analyzed the online dating habits of 186,000 men and women, and found that the reply rate to the average message receives a response rate of between zero and ten percent. That’s horrible. But the fact that people routinely message potential mates who are 25% out of their league might explain the low reply rates. Bruch’s advice for online dating success? Note the low reply rates and send out more messages.

Stanford University sociology professor Michael Rosenfeld agrees with Bruch’s findings. “The idea that persistence pays off makes sense to me, as the online-dating world has a wider choice set of potential mates to choose from. The greater choice set pays dividends to people who are willing to be persistent in trying to find a mate.”

There’s also a gender and racial component to online dating leagues.  According to Bruch, race and gender stereotypes often get mixed up. For instance, “Asian is coded as female, so that’s why Asian women get so much market power and Asian men get so little. For black men and women, it’s the opposite.”

White men and Asian women are routinely desired more than other users. However, that’s a bit misleading. An overwhelming 70% of online dating site users are white, which tends to skew the numbers.

It’s Hard Being Old

To me, one of the most interesting aspects of the study involved age. Of course, that makes sense considering I am old. But it was also interesting because the study found a few things I would have never guessed.

For instance, when it comes to men, their desirability peaks around 50-years-old and decreases after that. That’s not good news for a 64-year old wannabe dater like me.

Women have it even worse. Their desirability peaks at 18-years old and goes down every year after that. Ouch!

“I mean, everybody knows—and as a sociologist, it’s been shown—that older women have a harder time in the dating market,” Bruch said. “But I hadn’t expected to see their desirability drop off from the time they’re 18 to the time they’re 65,”

Highly educated men are always more desirable. Men with graduate degrees are considered more desirable than men with bachelor’s degrees, and those with undergraduate degrees outperform those with high school diplomas. This may be true, but you couldn’t prove it using my experience.

Things are different for women when it comes to education level. A woman with a bachelor’s degree is considered more desirable than a woman with either a graduate degree or a high school diploma.

Having Said That…

As I mentioned at the beginning, online dating sucks. It especially sucks for people my age. But for many of us, we’re no longer into the bar scene and we either no longer work or no longer go to an office to do our jobs. Plus, many businesses frown on inter-office relationships. So, what is an older single person to do?

Online dating is like the old Sears Christmas catalog. For a young kid, flipping through the pages of the full-colored catalog could be overwhelming. And just like the catalog, most of what you see is out of your reach. But unlike the catalog, I’m only looking for one new toy, which means I need to keep sending messages to find the right toy for me.  (Okay, I’ve pushed this metaphor as far as I can and I’m afraid I’m starting to sound slightly misogynistic. I’m going to stop now.)

My point is, as bad as it is and as much as I sometime hate it, online dating is the best way to find a date, and perhaps a relationship. So, I’ll stick with it. But that doesn’t mean I have to like it.

 

I’m ushering in 2024 as a 64-year-old. Just typing that makes me catch my breath. As a kid, I remember listening to the Beatles sing “Will you still need me, will you still feed me, when I’m 64?” and thinking that 64 must be impossibly old. But now I’m here, and I don’t feel impossibly old. In fact, in my head, I feel somewhere around the age of 40.

There’s a strange disconnect between how old our bodies are and how old we feel in our heads. I walk around feeling nearly 25 years younger than I actually am, but the disconnect doesn’t become obvious unless I’m talking about my age, or I look in the mirror. The mirror doesn’t lie. My head may tell me I’m one age, but the mirror doesn’t pull any punches. No matter how young I feel in my head, the mirror reminds me of my true chronological age.

Last year, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Jennifer Senior (53 in real life, 36 in her head) wrote about this phenomenon of being a different age in your head than the number of birthdays you’ve celebrated. In her article in the Atlantic, Senior wrote of a study conducted by Dr. David Rubin (75 in real life, 60 in his head), a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke University. The study found that adults over 40 routinely perceive themselves to be about 20% younger than their actual age. This phenomenon—which is referred to as the Rubin-Berntsen Rule (Dorthe Berntsen co-authored the paper with Rubin)—identified this paradox, but they didn’t delve into why it occurs.

Senior offered some possibilities. She writes:

“I’m 53 in real life but suspended at 36 in my head, and if I stop my brain from doing its usual Tilt-A-Whirl for long enough, I land on the same explanation: At 36, I knew the broad contours of my life, but hadn’t yet filled them in. I was professionally established, but still brimmed with potential. I was paired off with my husband, but not yet lost in the marshes of a long marriage (and, okay, not yet a tiresome fishwife). I was soon to be pregnant, but not yet a mother fretting about eating habits, screen habits, study habits, the brutal folkways of adolescents, the porn merchants of the internet.”

Richard Primus, a constitutional law professor at the University of Michigan, like Senior, is also 53 years old, and feels 35 in his head. “I think it’s because that’s the age I was when my major life questions/statuses reached the resolutions/conditions in which they’ve since remained.” In other words, for Primus, his “head age” was set at a time when he settled into his life. His major relationship and career statuses were set, and while his body continued to age, his “head age” remained the same.

Primus went on to explain: “Medieval Christian theologians asked the intriguing question ‘How old are people in heaven?’ The dominant answer: 33. Partly because (of the) age of Jesus at crucifixion. But I think partly because it feels like a kind of peak for the combined vigor-maturity index.”

I’m not sure if the “vigor-maturity index” is a real thing or if Primus made it up. Either way, I like it. It proports to measure the age at which we feel the most physically capable while also reaching a point where our lives—primarily our relationships and careers—are reasonably set.

If you are good at math, you may have noticed that my “head age” doesn’t correspond with the Rubin-Berntsen Rule. Rather than feeling like I’m 20% younger than my actual age, I feel I’m a whopping 37.5% younger.  As Senior points out: “Internally viewing yourself as substantially younger than you are can make for some serious social weirdness…I’ve had this unsettling experience, seeing little difference between the 30-something before me and my 50-something self, when suddenly the 30-something will make a comment that betrays just how aware she is of the age gap between us, that this gap seems enormous.”

Sometimes, the large gap between actual age and “head age” can be traced to a traumatic event or meaningful life experience. For instance, one person Senior wrote about saw herself as 32, the same age her sister was when she died. Another was stuck at the “head age” of just 12, which is when her father joined a cult. Yet another had a “head age of 19 because that is the age when she became sober.

Although the Rubin-Berntsen Rule doesn’t work so well for me, the vigor-maturity index does. At 40, I was in good physical health, I was having success in my career, and I was married, with one child born and another one on the way. Life was good. Maybe the best it had ever been. It makes sense that I would feel 40 in my head.

Sadly, a few years later, my life seemed to head downhill, and it stayed that way for the next 20 years or so. I gave up a promising corporate career to start my own business (I’m still not sure if that was a smart thing to do), I battled cancer (twice), I got divorced (probably for the best), I ended another relationship (probably a mistake), and was diagnosed with a brain tumor (sounds worse than it actually is). Of course, that’s not all that has happened over the past couple of decades. During that time, I’ve also completed two masters degrees, published seven books, built a house, sold that house (again, probably a mistake), and moved to a log cabin in the woods, where I live like a recluse (both good and bad).

As I look forward to 2024, there’s so much I still want to do with my life. I have many more books to write. In fact, I have 20-25 books in various stages of development, and I’m redoubling my efforts to get them all written.

I’ve considered returning to school to get a PhD or law degree. I’ve had various people tell me I’m nuts for going back to school. They say I’m too old. But am I really? With any luck, I still have a lot of years to live. In fact, if I’m lucky, about a third of my life remains. I want this final third to be the most productive, consequential period of my life.

I’d like to travel more. There are places I’ve always wanted to go but have never made the time. I want to experience places like the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone National Park (and several other national parks), Alaska, Ireland, Scotland, Italy, Spain, Portugal (Okay, all of Europe), and Cuba. I’d like to return to Romania, the Virgin Islands (American and British), and spend much more time in the Northwoods of Wisconsin.

I know that’s a lot of stuff. It all takes gobs of time and effort. But it shouldn’t be all that difficult. After all, I’m only 40.

Happy New Year!

Welcome to 2024. It’s going to be a great year, right? Right?

I ran across a commencement address I’d like to share. The speaker, Tim Minchin, an Australian comedian, shared some ideas that I think might be helpful as we begin a new year.

I have to admit, I’m not big on New Year’s resolutions. Trying to change too much too quickly rarely works. But I do like the idea of getting better, even if just a little bit. After listening to Minchin’s address to the graduating class at University of Western Australia, I’m feeling good about the coming year and the changes I’d like to work on.  Keep in mind, Minchin is addressing a group of graduating students, but much of what he has to say applies to all of us, regardless of our age or education level.

Here’s the transcript of Minchin’s “Nine Life Lessons.” Below the transcript is a video of the entire speech.

---

Nine Life Lessons
by Tim Minchin

Lesson #1 – You don’t have to have a dream

Americans on talent shows always talk about their dreams. Fine, if you have something that you’ve always wanted to do, or dreamed of, like in your heart, go for it. After all, it’s something to do with your time, chasing a dream. And if it’s a big enough one, it’ll take you most of your life to achieve, so by the time you get to it, and are staring into the abyss of the meaninglessness of your achievement, you’ll be almost dead, so it won’t matter.

I never really had one of these dreams, and so I advocate passionate, dedication to the pursuit of short-term goals. Be micro-ambitious. Put your head down and work with pride at whatever is in front of you. You never know where you might end up. Just be aware, the next worthy pursuit will probably appear in your periphery, which is why you should be careful of long-term dreams. If you focus too far out in front of you, you won’t see the shiny thing out of the corner of your eye.

Right? Good advice. Metaphor. Look at me go.

Lesson #2 – Don’t Seek Happiness

Happiness is like an orgasm. If you think about it too much, it goes away. Keep busy and aim to make someone else happy, and you might find you get some of the side effect. We didn’t evolve to be constantly content. Contented homo erectus got eaten before passing on their genes.

Lesson #3 – Remember, It’s All Luck

You are lucky to be here. You are incalculably lucky to be born and incredibly lucky to be brought up by a nice family that helped you get educated and encouraged you to go to uni. Or, if you were born into a horrible family, that’s unlucky and you have my sympathy, but you’re still lucky. Lucky that you happen to be made of the sort of DNA that went on to make the sort of brain which, when placed in a horrible childhood environment, would make decisions that meant that you eventually ended up graduating uni.

Well done, you, for dragging yourself up by your shoelaces. But you were lucky. You didn’t create the bit of you that dragged you up. They’re not even your shoelaces.

I suppose I worked hard to achieve whatever dubious achievements I’ve achieved, but I didn’t make the bit of me that works hard, any more than I made the bit of me that ate too many burgers instead of attending lectures when I was here at UWA (University of Western Australia). Understanding that you can’t truly take credit for your successes nor truly blame others for their failures will humble you and make you more compassionate. Empathy is intuitive, but is also something you can work on intellectually.

Lesson #4 – Exercise

I’m sorry you pasty, pale, smoking philosophy grad, arching your eyebrows into a Cartesian curve, as you watch the human movement mob winding their way through them, the miniature traffic cones of their existence. You are wrong and they are right. Well, you’re half-right. You think, therefore you are. But also, you jog, so therefore you sleep. Therefore, you’re not overwhelmed by existential angst. You can’t be Kant, and you don’t want to be.

Play a sport. Do yoga. Pump iron. Run. Whatever. But take care of your body. You’re going to need it. Most of you mob are going to live to nearly a hundred, and even the poorest of you will achieve a level of wealth that most humans throughout history could not have dreamed of. And this long, luxurious life ahead of you is going to make you depressed. But don’t despair. There’s an inverse correlation between depression and exercise. Do it! Run, my beautiful intellectuals! Run!

Lesson #5 – Be Hard on Your Opinions

A famous bon mot asserts that opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one. There is great wisdom in this, but I would add that opinions differ significantly from assholes, and that yours should be constantly and thoroughly examined.

I used to do exams in here. It’s revenge.

We must think critically, and not just about the ideas of others. Be hard on your beliefs. Take them out onto the veranda and hit them with a cricket bat. Be intellectually rigorous. Identify your biases, your prejudices, your privileges. Most of society’s arguments are kept alive by a failure to acknowledge nuance. We tend to generate false dichotomies and then try to argue one point using two entirely different sets of assumptions. Like two tennis players trying to win a match by hitting beautifully executed shots from either end of separate tennis courts.

By the way, while I have science and arts graduates in front of me, please don’t make the mistake of thinking the Arts and Sciences are at odds with one another. That is a recent, stupid, and damaging idea.

You don’t have to be unscientific to make beautiful art or write beautiful things. If you need proof: Twain, Douglas, Adams, Vonnegut, McEwen, Sagan, Shakespeare, Dickens, for a start. You don’t need to be superstitious to be a poet. You don’t need to hate GM technology to care about the beauty of the planet. You don’t have to claim a soul to promote compassion.

Science is not a body of knowledge or a belief system. It is just a term which describes humankind’s incremental acquisition of understanding through observation. Science is awesome.

The Arts and Sciences need to work together to improve how knowledge is communicated. The idea that many Australians, including our new PM and my distant cousin, Nick Minchin, believe that science of anthropogenic global warming is controversial is a powerful indicator of the extent of our failure to communicate. The fact that 30% of the people in this room just bristled is further evidence still. The fact that that bristling has more to do with politics than science is even more despairing.

Lesson #6 – Be a Teacher

Please, please be a teacher. Teachers are the most admirable and important people in the world. You don’t have to do it forever, but if you’re in doubt of what to do, be an amazing teacher. Just for your 20s, be a teacher. Be a primary school teacher. Especially if you’re a bloke. We need male primary school teachers.

Even if you’re not a teacher, be a teacher. Share your ideas. Don’t take for granted your education. Rejoice in what you learn and spray it.

Lesson #7 – Define Yourself by What You Love

I found myself doing this thing a bit recently where if someone asked me what sort of music I like, I say, “Well, I don’t listen to the radio because pop song lyrics annoy me” or someone asks me what food I like, I say “I think truffle oil is overused and slightly obnoxious.” And I see it all the time online. People’s idea of being part of a subculture is to hate Coldplay or football or feminists or the Liberal Party. We have a tendency to define ourselves in opposition to stuff.

As a comedian, I make my living out of it. But try to also express your passion for things you love. Be demonstrative and generous in your praise of those you admire. Send thank-you cards and give standing ovations. Be pro stuff, not just anti-stuff.

Lesson #8 – Respect People with Less Power Than You

I have, in the past, made important decisions about people I work with—agents and producers—big decisions based largely on how they treat the waitstaff in the restaurants we’re having the meeting in. I don’t care if you’re the most powerful cat in the room. I will judge you on how you treat the least powerful. So, there.

Lesson #9 – Don’t Rush

You don’t need to already know what you’re going to do with the rest of your life. I’m not saying sit around smoking cones all day, but also, don’t panic. Most people I know who were sure of their career path at 20 are having mid-life crises now.

I said at the beginning of this ramble, which was already three-and-a-half minutes long, that life is meaningless. It was not a flippant assertion. I think it’s absurd, the idea of seeking meaning in the set of circumstances that happen to exist after 13.8 billion years’ worth of unguided events. Leave it to humans to think that the universe has a purpose for them.

However, I’m no nihilist. I’m not even a cynic. I am rather romantic, and here’s my idea of romance: You will soon be dead. Life will sometimes seem long and tough, and God, it’s tiring. And you will sometimes be happy and sometimes sad, and then you’ll be old, and then you’ll be dead.

There is only one sensible thing to do with this empty existence, and that is fill it. Not filet. Fill it. And in my opinion, until I change it, life is best filled by learning as much as you can about as much as you can, taking pride in whatever you’re doing, having compassion, sharing ideas, running, being enthusiastic. And then there’s love and travel and wine and sex and art and kids and giving and mountain climbing, but you know all that stuff already.

It’s an incredibly exciting thing, this one meaningless life of yours. Good luck and thank you for indulging me.

Back in my younger days, when my hair was long and thick, my waist was thin, and my future was bright, I was a tuba player. That’s right, that big, brass instrument seen mostly in German Oom-Pah-Pah bands.

I sat first chair in my high school band, was chosen to participate in the Fox Valley Festival Orchestra (one of my fondest tuba memories), and I was invited to join a national high school honors orchestra in Washington D.C. ( although I ultimately didn’t participate). Even though it sounds like I was a pretty good tuba player, the truth is, I was a bit of a hack. I rarely practiced and I didn’t take my playing very seriously. But that doesn’t mean I didn’t love it. I loved playing tuba.

Sadly, tubas and tuba players get a bad rap. In the rare movie or TV show that includes a storyline about a tuba, the tuba player is almost always a fat, nerdy kid. It’s as if the show writers are straight out saying, “Well, who else would play that big, dumb instrument?”

But it’s not a “big, dumb instrument.” It is a beautiful, bass-toned  instrument that sadly doesn’t get to take centerstage very often. But in 1974, a man named Harvey Phillips set out to change that.

Phillips, a tuba player himself, wanted to honor his teacher and mentor, the legendary William J. Bell, whose birthday just happened to be December 25. By honoring Bell, Phillips also hoped to pay tribute to all tuba players and teachers who had displayed high performance standards, professional pedagogy, and personal integrity.

According to the TubaChristmas website:

“The first TUBACHRISTMAS was conducted by Paul Lavalle in New York City’s Rockefeller Plaza Ice Rink on Sunday, December 22, 1974. Traditional Christmas music performed at the first TUBACHRISTMAS was arranged by American composer Alec Wilder who ironically died on Christmas Eve, 1980. Wilder composed many solo and ensemble compositions for tuba and euphonium. He was a loyal supporter of every effort to improve the literature and public image of our chosen instruments. Through Alec Wilder we express our respect and gratitude to all composers who continue to embrace our instruments with their compositions and contribute to the ever growing solo and ensemble repertoire for tuba and euphonium.”

Now, after 50 years of celebrating Phillips brainchild, TubaChristmas events are held in nearly every state and around the world. In 2018 in Kansas City, a TubaChristmas event set a Guinness World Record for the most tubas playing in one place at one time. On that day, 836 tubas played the Christmas classic, “Silent Night.”

Here is a video of the record-breaking event in Kansas City:

Here is the nearly hour-long concert held this year (2023) at the Kennedy Center in New York:

From this (former) tuba player to you, Merry Christmas!

Things were very different back in 1968. The war in Vietnam was raging, civil rights protests across the United States were at their zenith, and people got their news from one of three television networks or their local newspaper.

The daily newspaper was a big deal. For five cents a day (twenty-five cents on Sunday), you could find out what was going on around your town and around the world. You could also get a laugh reading the newspaper. Nearly every local newspaper included syndicated comic strips. During the week, the comics were printed in black & white. But on Sundays, they were printed in color and had their own pull out section.

Some of the more popular comics were Beetle Bailey, Marmaduke, Dennis the Menace, and the Katzenjammer Kids. Perhaps the most popular comic of all time was Peanuts. Even back in 1968, everyone knew the characters like Charlie Brown, Snoopy, Lucy, Linus, and the rest of the gang. Over time, Peanuts morphed into an international brand, being adapted into TV shows and movies, and selling a ton of merchandise.

That same year of 1968 also saw a great deal of tragedy. In April of that year, civil rights leader, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was gunned down as he stood on the balcony of the motel where he was staying in Memphis, TN. The nation was shocked and saddened. No one more so that Los Angeles schoolteacher, Harriet Glickman. Glickman was a follower of MLK and believed that his nonviolent approach to protesting for civil rights was making headway. Even though President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1968 just one week after MLK’s death, Glickman feared that his murder would set back the civil rights movement.

“Glickman was disturbed by the racial upheaval that was shaking the country and wanted to do something about ‘the vast sea of misunderstanding, fear, hate, and violence’ that caused it. She believed that at a time when whites and blacks looked distrustfully at one another from across a wide racial divide, anything that could help narrow that gap could provide an immensely positive service to the nation.”

Glickman was also an avid reader of the Peanuts comic strip. Although she loved Charlie Brown and his pals, it bothered her that Peanuts did not contain any characters of color. So, on April 15–just eleven days after King’s murder and four days after Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1968–Glickman wrote a letter to Charles Schultz, the creator of Peanuts.

Peanuts was read by millions of Americans every day. But since its creation in  1950, the Peanuts comic strip had never included a black character. Glickman felt that had to change. She hoped that by adding a black character, the cultural clout enjoyed by Peanuts could help to usher in a more positive relationship between whites and blacks in America.

In part, her letter to Schultz said:“

“It occurred to me today that the introduction of Negro children into the group of Schulz characters could happen with a minimum of impact. The gentleness of the kids … even Lucy, is a perfect setting …

“I’m sure one doesn’t make radical changes in so important an institution without a lot of shock waves from syndicates, clients, etc. You have, however, a stature and reputation which can withstand a great deal.”

Schultz was sympathetic with Glickman, but wasn’t sure if he was the right person to help Glickman or if Peanuts was the right vehicle to carry her message. In part, here is how he responded to Glickman:

“Dear Mrs. Glickman:

“Thank you very much for your kind letter. I appreciate your suggestion about introducing a Negro child into the comic strip, but I am faced with the same problem that other cartoonists are who wish to comply with your suggestion. We all would like very much to be able to do this, but each of us is afraid that it would look like we were patronizing our Negro friends.

“I don’t know what the solution is.”

Rather than being discouraged, Glickman saw Schultz’s letter as a hopeful sign. She asked Schultz if he would mind if she shared his letter with some of her African-American friends to get their reaction.

Not only did Schultz not mind, he was excited to hear what Glickman’s friends had to say.

“I will be very anxious to hear what your friends think of my reasons for not including a Negro character in the strip. The more I think of the problem, the more I am convinced that it would be wrong for me to do so. I would be very happy to try, but I am sure that I would receive the sort of criticism that would make it appear as if I were doing this in a condescending manner.”

Glickman’s friends were excited at the prospect of having Schultz include a black character in his comic strip. They thought that it was important to see black people represented in a comic strip as popular as Peanuts. One African-American mother wrote:

“At this time in history, when Negro youths need a feeling of identity; the inclusion of a Negro character even occasionally in your comics would help these young people to feel it is a natural thing for Caucasian and Negro children to engage in dialogue.”

Schultz was pleased with the responses Glickman shared with him and told her that he might have a surprise for her in the July 29, 1968 comic strip. On that date, Charlie Brown went to the beach and met a young black character named Franklin.

Schultz did not pander when he introduced Franklin. There was no special announcement that a black character was being added to Peanuts. He didn’t make a big deal out of it at all. Other than his skin color, there was nothing different or special about Franklin. He was just a kid like Charlie Brown.

Glickman and her friends were thrilled with the introduction of Franklin. But not everyone was happy. Several readers wrote to Schultz and his syndicator, United Feature Syndicate. One letter said:

November 12, 1969
United Feature Syndicate
220 East 42nd Street
New York, N.Y. 10017

Gentlemen:

In today’s “Peanuts” comic strip Negro and white children are portrayed together in school.

School integration is a sensitive subject here, particularly at this time when our city and county schools are under court order for massive compulsory race mixing.

We would appreciate it if future “Peanuts” strips did not have this type of content.

Thank you.

Some Southern newspapers refused to carry the strips that included Franklin, which made United Features Syndicate nervous. The president of United Features Syndicate, Larry Rutman,  asked Schultz to leave Franklin out of future strips, but Schultz wasn’t giving in. Schultz told Rutman, “Well Larry, let’s put it this way: Either you print it just the way I draw it, or I quit. How’s that?”

Schultz had gone to great lengths not to jam Franklin down his readers’ throats. In fact, although Franklin was depicted as a black character, Schultz never discussed race in his comic strip. Franklin was simply one of the kids.

Around the same time Franklin was introduced in Peanuts, other cartoonists were taking a different tact concerning black characters. Allen Saunders, who wrote the Mary Worth comic strip, refused to include a black character for fear that “militant blacks” would protest his strip. On the other hand, Hank Ketchum, who wrote Dennis the Menace, included a black character in May 1970, but purposely modeled the character after Little Black Sambo, a racist cartoon from the 1930s.

Although Schultz’s depiction of Franklin was far more sensitive than some of his colleagues, he did not escape criticism from black readers. Some felt that Franklin was too perfect and didn’t suffer the same type of personality flaws as Schultz’s white characters. Franklin was intelligent and thoughtful, and he suffered far fewer anxieties or obsessions than the other characters. He also is the only character who doesn’t criticize or taunt Charlie Brown. Schultz did this on purpose to avoid the African-American tropes of the day and to make Franklin easier for readers–both white and black–to accept.

African-American columnist, Clarence Page, understood Schultz’s dilemma. In his Chicago Tribune column he wrote:

“Let’s face it: His perfection hampered Franklin’s character development…

“But considering the hyper-sensitivities so many people feel about any matters involving race, I did not blame Schulz for treating Franklin with a light and special touch.

“Can you imagine Franklin as, say, a fussbudget like Lucy? Or a thumb-sucking, security-blanket hugger like Linus? Or an idle dancer and dreamer like Snoopy? Or a walking dust storm like Pig Pen? Mercy. Self-declared image police would call for a boycott. If Schulz’s instincts told him his audience was not ready for a black child with the same complications his other characters endured, he probably was right.”

Franklin appeared on and off in the Peanuts comic strip for thirty years, until Schultz’s death in 1999. One person who was impacted by Franklin’s inclusion was Robb Armstrong, a young black aspiring cartoonist. When he got older, Armstrong met Schultz and the two became friends. As Schultz was working on a video that included Franklin, he realized that his character would need a last name. Schultz called Armstrong for permission to borrow his last name for Franklin. Armstrong agreed, and the rest is history.

Including Franklin in Peanuts was both a small thing and revolutionary. Schultz could have played it safe and stuck just with white characters. Instead, he not only made the hard decision to include Franklin, but did it in a way that neither relied on tropes nor “holier-than-thou” lectures. As a result, Franklin made an undeniable mark not only in comic strips, but in the wider culture, helping to usher in Glickman’s goal of changing the perceptions whites and blacks had of each other.

Merry Christmas, Franklin (and Schultz and Glickman)!

If you’ve been a follower of my blog for a while, you probably know that my favorite movie is It’s a Wonderful Life, the timeless classic from Director Frank Capra. I watch the film almost every year, usually around the holidays, and it hits me in the feelings every time I watch it.

There’s a little known story surrounding the film and it’s star, Jimmy Stewart, that I wanted to share. It speaks to the type of man Stewart was, as well as the sacrifices made by the “Greatest Generation.”

In 1941, Stewart won the Academy Award for his performance in The Philadelphia Story. At the age of 33, Stewart was one of Hollywood’s brightest stars. Yet, when the United States entered World War II, he was one of the first big-name celebrities to join the war effort. He enlisted in the U.S. Army, and as a private pilot, became an Army Air Corp aviator (This was in the days before the Air Force was a separate branch of the military).

In 1942, Stewart was commissioned a 2nd Lieutenant, and, as a celebrity, was assigned to star in recruiting films, attend rallies, and train younger pilots. The assignment did not sit well with Stewart, who wanted to fly combat missions, not remain stateside. He pushed for a transfer to Europe, but was initially rebuked by his commanding officers. Stewart persisted, and in 1944, not only did he get his wish  to enter the fight, but was also promoted to Captain.

For the next 18 months, Stewart flew B-24 Liberator bombers over Germany from his base in England. His commanding officers tried to arrange it so Stewart wouldn’t fly over enemy territory, but Stewart wasn’t having it. Not only did he buck his superiors’ wishes, but as a Captain, he assigned himself to as many combat missions as possible. By the end of the war, Stewart, who completed a total of  20 combat missions, was one of the most respected and highly decorated pilots in his unit.

Unfortunately, Stewart’s service came at a high price. By the end of the war, he was grounded with, what at the time was called being “flak happy.” Today, we’d call his condition post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Stewart returned to the United States in 1945 a changed man. He had lost weight and was unusually thin, he suffered from depression, and had trouble sleeping. When he did sleep, he had horrible nightmares of planes exploding and men dying. Stewart had seen his share of planes shot out of the air and men killed. In one mission alone, his unit lost 13 planes and more than 130 men were killed. Stewart knew many of those men.

Stewart had trouble focusing and refused to discuss his war experience. He was a mess, and his acting career was all but over. A biographer of Stewart wrote, “Every decision he made [during the war] was going to preserve life or cost lives. He took back to Hollywood all the stress that he had built up.” The war was over, but for Stewart, he was fighting the aftermath of his time in combat.

In 1946, Stewart was asked to play a suicidal man in a small film entitled It’s a Wonderful Life, opposite actress Donna Reed. In the scenes where Stewart’s character, George Bailey’s life was unraveling, both actors and crew members recognized that Stewart wasn’t acting. He was reliving the horror of his time in the war.

Years later, Stewart admitted that his time filming It’s a Wonderful Life was therapeutic for him and helped him address some of the demons that were eating at him.  Of course, he went on to become one of the most accomplished and popular actors in American film history.

Unfortunately, Its a Wonderful Life was panned by critics and largely shunned by filmgoers. The film did so poorly at the box office that director Frank Capra had trouble getting the money to make other films. The movie was largely forgotten, and in 1974, due to a clerical error, Republic Pictures, owner of the rights to the film, lost its copyright. This allowed television stations to show It’s a Wonderful Life without paying royalties to Republic. The film became a staple around the holidays and gained a popularity it had never before experienced.

A Supreme Court case involving one of Stewart’s other films, Rear Window, (Stewart v Abend) allowed Republic to regain its copyright, and they subsequently signed an exclusive licensing agreement with NBC to show It’s a Wonderful Life on TV. In recent years, more and more theaters are showing the film on the big screen during the holidays.

Stewart died in 1997, but not before seeing It’s a Wonderful Life become one of the most popular of his films and one of the most beloved holiday movies in America. And despite the PTSD he suffered and the difficulties he encountered once he returned home, Stewart did not immediately leave the military. Instead, following the war, he joined the United States Air Force Reserve and was eventually promoted to the rank of Brigadier General. He finally retired in 1968, twenty-seven years after first enlisting. During his military service, Stewart was awarded two Distinguished Flying Crosses, four Air Medals with three bronze oak leaf clusters, the French Croix de Guerre with bronze palm, as well as several other commendations. In 1985, he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor.

Jimmy Stewart was among the best of his generation; a generation that fought  authoritarianism and defended freedom. And It’s a Wonderful Life went on to become a classic, beloved film, showcasing what made America a beacon of light for the world in the 1940s, and today, shows us what is still possible if we’re willing to work for it.

It’s time for another installment of “Don’t Sell Me A Car. Tell Me A Story.” This is the fourth installment in the series. You can find previous posts here (#1), here (#2), and here (#3)

Chevrolet has come out with another holiday commercial. This one is a real tear-jerker, and as in past years, Chevrolet features an older vehicle. This year, they feature a 1972 Chevrolet Suburban.

I won’t get into the story itself. You should see it for yourself. What I will say is that commercials like this, when done properly, are incredibly powerful. The holidays are the perfect time to release this type of commercial, but I wonder if brands couldn’t benefit from them all year long. I know I’d like to see more commercials like this, and I’d like to see them at times other than just during the holidays.

Here’s Chevy’s 2023 holiday commercial. Enjoy! (And be sure to have the tissues handy.0

It’s not uncommon for members of the Republican Party—particularly those that identify as MAGA Republicans—to refer to themselves as “conservatives.” In fact, in almost every Republican primary race, candidates go to great lengths to show how far right they are on the political spectrum to convince voters that they are the most conservative of all the candidates. The problem with this scenario is that candidates often move so far right that they cease to be conservative.

For most Americans, we view political ideologies in the context of our history and democracy. Today, we associate Democrats with being liberal and Republicans with being conservative. However, when we view the political beliefs of our politicians through a larger, more historical lens, it becomes clear that many Republicans have abandoned conservatism and have instead embraced authoritarian and fascist ideologies.

To fully understand how we use the term “conservative” incorrectly, let’s start from a big picture view and then zoom in on what Republicans in the United States believe today.

Let’s consider the various political systems on a continuum. This is a very basic way to view political systems. Many academics have proposed different ways to compare the various political systems, and many can get incredibly complicated. But for the sake of this conversation, a basic way of viewing political systems should suffice.

Viewing the graphic above, you see that to the far left is Anarchy, and moving right we have Communism, Socialism, Democracy (illustrated by a donkey and an elephant signifying Democrats and Republicans), Monarchy, Nazism, and to the far right, Fascism. You’ll note that Democracy is in the center of the continuum, and the farther you move either left or right, the fewer rights individuals have and the more powerful the government becomes.

One thing I quibble with on the graphic is the placement of Monarchy. We are no longer creating monarchies, so its placement on the chart tends to confuse the issue. If Republicans move farther right, they do not enter into Monarchy territory. That’s not the next step right. Even so, since monarchies do exist in the world, I suppose it is technically correct.

Next, let’s zero in on our American democracy. On the following continuum, you’ll note that to the left of the graphic is Radical (far left), Liberal (left of center), Moderate (center) Conservative (right of center), and Reactionary (far right). Generally speaking, this is how we view political ideology in the United States. However, in recent years, the term “conservative” has been expanded to include values and beliefs that were never part of conservative ideology. In fact, many of the things so-called “conservatives” stand for today are anathema to what American conservatives have long believed.

American conservatism is based in large part on the writings of Edmund Burke, an 18^th century Irish author, economist, and political philosopher. Burke was opposed to the unrestrained power of the monarchy in Great Britain and believed political parties were necessary to prevent abuses by the monarch or the government. He believed in the lessons of experience and in gradually improving through tried and tested arrangements rather than in a priori reasoning and fast-moving revolution.

Ronald Reagan is credited with revitalizing the conservative movement in the United States. The American conservative movement stood for individual freedom, limited government, the rule of law, peace through strength, fiscal responsibility, and free markets. Above all, American conservatives believed in the primacy of our democracy, the sanctity of the Constitution, and the inalienable rights of all citizens.

It’s worth noting that in hindsight, conservatives didn’t always act in ways that were in line with their declared belief in these principles. Nevertheless, these principles were the foundation of conservative belief.

Through the post-war era of the 1940s, into the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, the Republican and Democratic Parties both had members that were liberal, moderate, and conservative. At the time, there was no absolute linkage between liberal-Democrat and conservative-Republican. That began to change in the 1990s, particularly with the rise of the Tea Party movement.

Today, the Democratic Party consists of moderate and liberal members, and Republican Party members proudly self-identify as “conservative.” However, the policy positions of the leaders (and many members) of the Republican Party are far out-of-step with the principles traditionally associated with conservatives.

For instance, rather than advocating for individual freedom, today’s MAGA Republicans push for a rolling back of individual rights. In recent years, Republicans have almost universally advocated for the suppression of voting rights, the repeal of a woman’s right to have an abortion, and many Republicans are pushing for a repeal of same-sex marriage and the right to contraception. Until recent years, we saw an expansion of rights for American citizens. But for the first time in our country’s history, we see a major political party working to deny American’s their hard-earned rights.

Republicans over the past eight years have espoused a commitment to the rule of law, even while fighting against the use of the legal system against their leaders. You don’t have to look any further than the four indictments and 91 felony charges against former President Donald Trump to see that most Republicans don’t truly believe in the rule of law. Trump himself views our legal system as a “political witch hunt,” and many of his fellow Republicans claim that government—particularly our federal law enforcement agencies and Department of Justice—are being weaponized against not only the former president, but Republicans writ large, including the January 6 defendants.

Speaking of Trump, he recently laid out his plans for a second term in the White House, and his vision gives a good indication of how far Republicans have moved away from conservativism. Trump promises mass deportations; open air camps at the border for illegal immigrants; a ban on immigrants from “Muslim countries; forced relocation of homeless Americans to tent cities; Implementation of “stop and frisk” laws and deployment of the National Guard to fight crime in our larger cities; pardoning January 6 defendants; a complete overhaul of the government, including firing most career employees and replacing them with loyalists committed to carrying out his wishes; and a Department of Justice that will arrest and imprison his political opponents. As if this wasn’t scary enough, Trump wants to invoke the Insurrection Act on his first day back in office, which will allow him to use the military as a domestic police force, capable of quelling any protests or unrest in response to his draconian policies.

Of course, none of what Trump is planning to do if he wins the presidency is conservative. It certainly spills over into the Reactionary area of the above graphic, and much of what he wants to do goes even farther right on the chart, into fascism. And sadly, many, if not most, Republicans in Congress support the actions Trump wants to take. In recent weeks, Senators such as Ron Johnson (R-WI), Mike Lee (R-UT), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Tom Cotton (R-AR), as well as several Republican members of the House have shared unfounded conspiracy theories and outright lies that tend to support the actions Trump wants to take as president. These elected Republicans have abandoned conservatism—as well as democracy—in an effort to regain control of the government.

My point is this: the word “conservative has a definition. True conservatives have well-defined values and political beliefs. Those values and beliefs may change slightly over time, but they remain basically the same. We do a disservice to our fellow citizens when we misuse words like “conservative.” Trump and his supporters are, at best, reactionaries, and many qualify as authoritarians and fascists. We shouldn’t redefine words to fit the actions being taken by MAGA Republicans. Instead, we should use the words that already exist and the definitions that already describe what Trump and his followers are and what they plan to do.