The Answer to the Democratic Party Dilemma of What to Do to Defeat Trump and the MAGA Movement

A few months ago, I did a Google search for “Preserving American Values.”  Many state and local Republican Party organizations came up in the search results because they use that phrase in policy documents.  Not a single Democratic Party organization showed up in the search results.

Then the other day, as I was looking for a new platform for this blog, I entered the title "Preserving American Values" and the sub-line: "Our nation stands under attack ... from within not without.  Both our politics and culture have been corrupted."  And this one platform, using AI, designed a whole new blog.  There was one big problem—the new blog was a MAGA site!  AI had assumed because of the words I used that I was a Trumpist, a MAGA adherent.  Talk about proof for the following argument.

I have for the past 2 decades—since writing the book, We Still Hold These Truths—argued that the Democratic Party should embrace America’s founding documents—the Declaration of Independence and Constitution—as the basis for their policies, making it their Mission statement.  That they should rightfully wrap themselves in the flag.  But they have not followed my advice.

Instead, it is the MAGA Republicans who have embraced the phrase “Preserving American Values,” cherry-picking those that they choose to advocate.  While Republicans have always wrapped themselves in the flag, claiming to be more patriotic than Democrats, they have now taken this a step further.  

This broader approach probably was influenced by Matthew Spaulding’s 2009 book, We Still Hold These Truths, excoriating liberals for perverting the country’s conservative founding values.  Given that I wrote a book of the same title in 2004, arguing that our foundation documents were decidedly liberal, not conservative, I disagree with him.  FYI, Spaulding was Vice President for American Studies at the Heritage Foundation for 2 decades.

By not tying their policies to our founding documents, Democrats have left themselves open to Republican criticism for being “elite”, somehow un-American, and not supporting the working man. 

Whereas in actuality, it is the Republicans who have always sided with the true elite—large corporations and banks—in their policy priorities. They have never been for the common man.  Donald Trump certainly talks the talk, but so far he has not really walked the walk.  Instead, he has surrounded himself with billionaires whose only interest is in enriching themselves and their class.  He has done little for the average American.

It is past time for Democrats to expose Trump and MAGA Republicans for what they are … hypocrites masquerading as the party of the people.

I will say once again what I've been saying since I wrote my book in 2004: Democrats must fight for the hearts and minds of the American people by creating a vision for America that the American people understand, one that they get.  A centrist liberal vision that speaks to all Americans, that does not pit one segment against another. And this includes corporations; they have a vital role to play, but they cannot to be allowed to control government or act against the greater good.

Luckily, there is a vision that is as American as apple pie; that every American knows by heart: the words of the Declaration of Independence.  I therefore proposed in 2004, and have since, that the Party adopt a Mission statement based on the words of the Declaration of Independence that brings all these policies together in a coherent message:

“To build a country of greater opportunity where:

• each and every American has a real chance to experience the promises made in the Declaration of Independence: 'that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness' ;
• government meets its responsibility as set forth in the Declaration—‘to secure these rights’—; and
• all citizens have a shared responsibility to support the government’s efforts to secure these rights and promote the public good, each according to his ability.”

The longer Democrats wait to wake up to the reality of how they have allowed themselves to be perceived, the longer they and this country will suffer under the so-called leadership of Trump and his Republican allies. 

 

This July 4th, There's Nothing to Celebrate - America Is Losing Its Light

America has been, for most of its 250 year history, a beacon to the rest of the world.  It has been a light of freedom and humanity-regardless its own failings—in a world in which there has been little freedom and humanity.  In a world where the 20th century saw the rise of dictators for whom the words freedom and humanity were of no use, where the peoples of Europe, Russia, and China were subjected to unspeakable horrors and daily deprivations.

In some countries, like Germany and Italy, the citizens voted these misbegotten men into office.  These men did not hide what they wanted to do.  But they were forceful, charismatic men, and the despair of the people resulted in their being hailed as God-like creatures:  der Führer and il Duce.  All the powers in those countries—politicians, judges, the military, educators—bent their knee to these elected dictators and swore absolute subservience to their leader.

If this description sounds close to home, it unfortunately is.  Trump is obviously no Hitler re the depths of his evil, but the analogy is nevertheless valid. Donald Trump was serious when he said he wanted to be a dictator or a king, and he was serious about all the outlandish things he said during the 2024 campaign, to which many Republicans responded by saying that that's just the way he talks; he won't do those things.  

Well, it turns out he did mean those things and he is implementing every aspect of the aggrandizement of power that he preached.  He is punishing his perceived enemies.  And he has taken all power unto himself.  .

He has with a flourish of his pen, through Executive Orders, not just put his imprint on government, but has turned the agencies of the federal government on their head—tearing down what Congress had ordered them to put in place over the years and changed their function to one of an adversary to the very people and institutions they were meant to protect.  

He has has turned Congress into little more than a rubber stamp; we have just seen that even when Senators and Congressmen criticize a piece of legislation in very harsh terms, when they are face to face with Trump they just roll over.  Some times he threatens, other times he flatters—the result is the same.  He knows how to handle these people.  I guess Trump isn't familiar with the words of Jesus—that the weak shall inherit the Earth.  For him, the weak, the poor, are trash who don't deserve the help of the government.

Even the judiciary has been impacted.  The judges he installed in his first term, and they are many, have been shown to be more likely to be open to his complaints than other conservative judges.  While there are still many judges that are saying that his actions are not lawful, many are finding them lawful and the Supreme Court has a mixed record of listening to his madness.

At this point, he's on a roll.  Everything is going his way.  And for the first time in my life, I fear for this country.  Even if he loses Congress at the midterms and a Democrat is elected President in 2028, it will take a long time to undo the damage that Trump has done to this country because it isn't just him, it's not just the government, it's the people that have become enthralled by him and believe in him.  

We've seen this in the reactions of the German people after losing WWII. There were many who continued to believe in Hitler and speak well of him, despite the destruction that he had brought to their country.  It took years of re-education and a generational change to bring about a reborn democratic and humane people.

America continued existence and flourishing depends on a populace who, as lawyers say, "agree to disagree."  With the exception of the Civil War, that has always been the case, and when it wasn't we were torn apart.  We have a populace now, because of Trump, who again do not agree to disagree.  That's why there's occasional talk of a new civil war.

Our only hope is for the Democratic Party to lead us back to the future, back to the founding document that was the core of the light that shown to the rest of the world—back to the words of the Declaration of Independence: 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men . . .”

 

Are the Anti-Gaza War Protests an Example of Anti-Semitism?

There is much talk everywhere about anti-semitism.  As a Jew, I experienced anti-semitism in my youth in the statements and actions of everyday people.  It is hurtful, and so I welcome any discussion that educates the public about anti-semitism and the baseless nature of its "causes."

But the cause of all the tumult today has little if anything to do with anti-semitism.  Anti-semitism is a bias against Jews for attributes supposedly descriptive of Jews or the Jewish people—rich, elite, manipulators, Christ-killers, controllers of the world.  All of these are easily disproven, which I shall address later in this post.  

But first I must address what is commonly referred to as anti-semitism today: being against the State of Israel, or more exactly, against Israel's conduct of the Gaza War against Hamas.  This is not anti-semitism.

First of all, there are many Jews in this country and around the world, myself included, who are very much against the way Netanyahu and his ultra-right nationalist supporters have turned a legitimate initial defensive response to Hamas' vicious attack on Israeli citizens on October 7 into an all-out war, out of total proportion to that attack, killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians and destroying vast areas of Palestinian occupied territory.

I and my fellow Jews who have opposed the war are not  anti-semites.  We are not even anti-Israel.   We are, however, very anti-Netanyahu and the ultra-right coalition that keeps him in power.

It is unfortunate that many well-intentioned supporters of a Palestinian state and opponents of the war have been led by provocateurs to turn that opposition into an opposition to the State of Israel, rather than the current leaders of Israel.  It's as though people who are against Donald Trump and MAGA were turned into haters of America instead.  Wouldn't that be unwarranted and ridiculous?

Yes, there has been some violence against Jewish students as part of these protests, but that violence has not been against them as Jews, but as supporters of Israel and the Gaza war.  This, again, is not anti-semitism.

But, there has also been an up-tick of violence against Jews, whether in synagogues or elsewhere.  This is clearly anti-semitism, and it is very worrying.  But whether the perpetrators are white supremacists taking advantage of the tumult or people against the war is not known; from the reports I've read, I suspect the former..

What of Trump's assertion of anti-semitism against Columbia and other universities and his assertion that he is the best friend Jews ever had?  As I've just shown, actions against these protests has nothing to do with anti-semitism; they are more actions against free speech.  This is just a ruse for him to attack liberal institutions and withhold funding for liberal issues that have nothing to do with anti-semitism.

As for his claim that he is the Jews best friend—how ludicrous.  Here is a man who as President has cozied up to white supremacists who are known to be anti-semites, as well as Blacks such as Kanye West.

And now to the supposed attributes of Jews that are the underpinning of anti-semitism:

  

* Rich - while it is true that a somewhat greater proportion of Jews are well-off relative to the rest of the white population, a large proportion of Jews are low-income  (31%).

* Elite - while it is true that a larger proportion of Jews are college graduates than the rest of the white population, Hindus and several Protestant denominations have as high or higher rates. The Jewish rate is a function of how Jews view the importance of education, mainly because as an historically oppressed people, education was an avenue to improve their lives. 

* Manipulators - The human race is full of people who manipulate others. This is not an attribute that can be attributed particularly to Jews.

* Christ-killers - While the Temple priests considered him a rebel and according to the New Testament urged Herod to crucify him, the Jews as a people, while mostly not considering Jesus the Messiah, were not involved in the process and so were not his killers.

* Controllers of the world - This charged is based on the so-called "Protocols of the Elders of Zion."  This fraudulent fabrication, which originated in Tzarist Russia—a very anti-semitic society—purports to show that Jews plan to dominate the world.  It would be laughable were it not still in this day a document that moves many to become anti-semites.

But even if these specific "causes" of anti-semitism are debunked, the real cause of anti-semitism is that it's been around so long that it's in some people's blood.  They heard it from their parents, and so they believe it.  As the song in Rogers & Hammerstein's South Pacific says, "You've got to be taught before it's to late, before you are six or seven or eight, to hate all the people your relatives hate, you've got to be carefully taught,"

Anti-semitism, just like racism, will be with us until the leadership of this country and its cultural institutions decide it's time at long last to have a national discussion of these issues, to show people the baselessness of these attitudes and their lack of humanity.

 

Trump/MAGA in Denial of the Historic Fact of Racism

Trump has taken an aggressive stand against any acknowledgment of racism or other society--sanctioned discrimination in our history as well as any efforts to address these issues.  He has, not surprisingly, missed an opportunity to do something good for this country.

First of all, for him to deny, by not acknowledging or letting anyone that the federal government funds speak to these matters, is classic denial.  These things have happened in our past and are still happening today.  And they have a grave impact on our country in many respects.

So eradicating any discussion of these issues creates a situation where they fester and become even stronger than when they were discussed.  Blacks and others may have used DEI efforts to fight the establishment, but by denying them a voice it actually makes the situation, the alienation and anger, worse.

Yes, there are problems, as I wrote in my post, "Pluralism or DEI?" with the way DEI has been implemented.  But there were important reasons behind DEI that affect the welfare of our country.  Instead of throwing out all DEI efforts, what Trump should have done was repurpose the DEI efforts into a broader effort to instill Pluralism in our society.

The need to acknowledge the past and work towards improving the present and the future in terms of discrimination is vital, but it needs to be done within the context of pluralism, where everyone has a seat at the table, all voices are heard and respected.  We are all one; we are all children of the same God or the creation miracle of the Universe—however one wishes to see it.  

In keeping with the doctrine of balancing rights and responsibilities, nothing that benefits one person should be to the detriment of another.  So to it must be with measures that remediate the discrimination that various groups have suffered in the past and in the present.  By doing something that helps Blacks or women, for example, to move forward, white males should not experience any detriment beyond that caused by the increased competition for positions, offices, etc..  There is enough wealth and opportunity in this country that these two things should be possible to implement at the same time.

Trump is not stupid.  Why did he not take this route?  I believe he chose not to because his base does not want a truly pluralistic society in which all are respected.  They do not want to view people of color or even women as their equal.  And so Trump did not take this route.

Trump has done many things in his first 100 days that have gravely damaged our democracy, but perhaps his actions against DEI are the worst because they go against all sense of decency, against humanity.  And a respect for humanity is perhaps the most essential spirit that underlies the American experiment that began in 1776.

  

The Radical-Right/MAGA Perspective Is Not True to the Intent of Our Founding Fathers

The Radical Right of the Republican Party—whether it's the MAGA movement or radical jurists and historians who may not be MAGA—all hold to the same basic tenet:  that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are to be interpreted as the words were intended at the time it was adopted.  The theory is called "strict construction" by jurists weighing the Constitution or it's called "self-evident" truths by historians analyzing the Declaration.  They find a difference between what was intended when written and the way the words have been interpreted in modern times.

This theory is contrary to the perspective of liberal thinkers who view the Constitution as a "living" document, meaning that the words retain their essence, but their application changes as the world the words are applied to changes. They find the intent of the Founding Fathers to be different than the Radical Right does.  Are these two ways of looking at our founding documents contradictory or complementary?

First, let's discuss the idea of strict construction.  The Constitution was written to last a long time.  Jefferson may have famously said that having a revolution regularly would be a good thing and that the Constitution should be reevaluated every 20 years, but for most of the Founding Fathers, the Constitution was written in such a way that it could be applied as written for a long time, with appropriate amendments when needed. It was thought to be a flexible document.

And indeed, that's the only way of looking at the Constitution that makes sense.  Literally rewriting the Constitution periodically would create harmful instability.  Jefferson's thought about reevaluating the Constitution is exactly what the courts do—deciding what is covered and what is not; applying the original intent to current circumstances—so there has been no need to rewrite it, except for adding amendments.

If we look at the Founder's intent—and it always comes back to their intent—we see that they were creating a document for the future, not just the here and now.  The question should be how would the Founder's interpret their words applied to the current situation, not how we interpret their words looking at the context in which they lived.  See below.

Next, let's look at the meaning of "self-evident."   Matthew Spaulding, formerly Director of American Studies at the Heritage Foundation, says he is a believer in the self-evident truths proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and argues that liberals do not believe in the self-evident truths.

On its face, his statement seems incredulous, for who more than liberals, i.e. Democrats, believe fervently in the principle of equality and that all of us, each and every one, has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

What becomes clear in reading Spaulding is that "self-evident", meaning obvious, is determined for him by what the a person would see or think looking around at the world he exists in.  As he sees it, the truth of equality then would not be the concept of equality that we have today.  The meaning of the word "men" would not have the all-inclusive implication we give to that word today.

But while the phrase "self-evident" does indeed mean obvious, requiring no reasoning, he uses the man on the street in 1776 to interpret what the words "equal" or "men" mean.  This is where Spaulding's interpretation is in error.  

John Adams and his fellow Founding Fathers were not the average man on the street in 1776.  The were men of the Enlightenment, the philosophical movement that held sway among learned men in the 18th century.

What did "equal" mean to John Adams?  While Adams said that there were many false notions of equality—words the Heritage Foundation focuses on—he goes on to say that equality "really means little more than that We are all of the same Species: made by the same God: possessed of Minds and Bodies alike in Essence: having all the same Reason, Passions, Affections and Appetites."

This is what the Declaration means when it says that it is self-evident that all men are created equal.  A more modern notion of equality could not be stated, except the reference to God.  (Today, those who don't believe in God would say that we are all the same miracle of creation.)  Clearly, Adams believed that regardless of color, regardless of social status, we are all basically the same when we are born, even as to how we are wired.

As for the meaning of "men,"  those who subscribed to the Enlightenment often used that word as a shorthand for "humanity."  Thus the use of that term by Jefferson in writing the Declaration means that all people are created equal.

In both cases, the intellectual/philosophical justification for the narrow reading of our Founding Documents used by both the intellectual thinkers of the Radical Right and the average Radical Republican or MAGA adherent does not hold water.  It is contrary to the intent of the Founders. And so their whole system of interpretation falls.

The Founding Fathers were not "small" men.  They were great men with huge intellectual capacity.  Some, like Jefferson, were bound to earth by their association with slavery, but their minds soared.  It is that soaring mind that is reflected in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  And it is their minds and intent that should form the basis for interpreting these documents and applying them to the present.

It's easy to cherry-pick statements from a life of writing to make your point as the Radical Right does.  Conservatives have done the same with the Bible in order to make their arguments.  But when the Founding Fathers' life work or the Bible is looked at as a whole, then the real self-evident truth is revealed.  There is no conflict between looking at the Founders' intent and looking at the Constitution as a living document.

 

The Ongoing Negative Cultural Impact of the Pandemic

How many times have I heard that things are the way they are today because our practices changed during COVID, because of the then-need to distance ourselves or isolate ourselves?

For example, it used to be that auditions for actors for parts in plays were done in person.  Today, there is almost no such thing as an in-person audition. Instead, actors are told to send the producer/casting director an audition video.

When I was told this, I was dumbfounded by this change because it not only robs the actor of the whole community experience of auditioning and practicing his craft before a live audience, but because it robs the the producer/director/casting director of the ability to see how the actor performs on stage. Performing on a video is something quite different for many reasons, one of which is that it can be done over and over again till the actor feels he is satisfied.  On stage, both in performance and the audition, one gets one chance and it is what it is.

Looking into this recently, I discovered that while there was some movement towards this type of auditioning for reasons of efficiency and convenience prior to COVID, it was COVID that made this practice universal.  And of course the rigors of COVID protection lasted for almost two years.  

During that time, producers got so comfortable with the system and used to its efficiencies, that they didn't want to go back to the old system.  Actors have no power or voice, so they just had to do as directed.  Although there are some actors that favor the new system as well for reasons of convenience and efficiency.

It seems that today, for so many things, considerations of efficiency and convenience rule the day, regardless of their impact on quality.  This point can be made, for example, about vast portions of the professional workforce working remotely.  It is certainly convenient and efficient, but the employer looses the ability to interact with employees on a frequent and more casual basis, and employees loose the ability to feel and be part of the larger dynamic which is a company.

Some will say that zoom meetings take care of much of that, but I would beg to differ.  I have been in many zoom meetings, both as an outside presenter and as a member of the group, and I have always been aware that I have not had the same interactive experience as I would have had had the session been in-person.

So to answer the question of why things have not returned to the practices which were in place pre-COVID and which almost everyone would agree were better from a quality perspective, the answer is efficiency and convenience.  These considerations have always been present, but in today's technological environment, they have become more than buzz words; to technology, they are the holy grail.

 

Why the Declaration of Independence Argues for the Removal of Trump

The Declaration of Independence set forth a list of grievances against the English king that warranted the revolution that the Declaration announced.

Some of these grievances dealt with the king's relationship with the judiciary.  To quote: “He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.”

To quote a Heritage Foundation paper, "The declaration stated that the executive was intent on bending the judicial power to his will. In short, these are the actions of an aspiring tyrant."

Trump's actions and words in his first 100 days against the judiciary certainly are an example of trying to bend the judiciary to his will. His call to impeach judges is like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland demanding, "Off with their heads!"  It is clear that he feels that there is no legitimate law other than his.  

Regarding the king's perspective on administration, the Declaration stated, "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to Harass our people."

While Trump has not erected a multitude of new offices, he certainly has destroyed a multitude of existing offices that protected the people.  And the descent of DOGE, Musk, and his acolytes on the agencies of government certainly sounded like a swarm off people harassing government officials.

Finally, while not enumerated in the Declaration, by trying by hook or crook to invalidate the 2020 election and even now refusing to accept that the people voted him out office—despite a multitude of court decisions rejecting his claims of fraud—he has defied one of the most central aspects of our democracy: free elections and the peaceful transfer of power.

These grievances, along with many others, would be sufficient for Americans to rise up against Trump and remove him from office.  

But that is not the American way.  Trump was fairly elected and there he must stay unless impeached.  The people can voice their displeasure, however, by backing Democrats for Congress in the 2026 midterms and electing Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate.  And returning a Democrat to the White House in 2028.