Hazing poor Jay Clayton

I almost felt sorry for Jay Clayton, the nominee to be the director of national intelligence.

Clayton looked foolish, but truculent. He was trapped. He was helpless.

Senator Jon Ossoff wouldn't let up. 

Jay Clayton

Jon Ossoff

Senator Jon Ossoff: "Who won the 2020 election?

Nominee Jay Clayton: "Ah, you know, I'm not going to do this with you."

Ossoff: "This is a job interview. We've established that you have an obligation to be honest and forthright with the committee?"

Clayton: "Yes."

Ossoff: "Who won the 2020 election?

Clayton: "Like I said I'm not going to get into that with you."

Ossoff: "You're not being honest or forthright. It's a simple question, Mr. Clayton. Who won the 2020 election? Answer the question."

Clayton: "I have answered it."

Ossoff: "Answer it."

Clayton: [shrug]

Ossoff: "You refuse to answer a basic question about who won a presidential election, but you ask to lead America's intelligence community? Isn't it humiliating to be unable to answer this question, to have to indulge the president's delusions? We know. You know. Everybody in this room knows the truthful answer to that question. Why can you not give it?"

It goes on and on. 

Jay Clayton is forbidden to say that Joe Biden became the U.S. president because he won the election. Those words cannot be uttered and remain in the good graces of the man who had nominated him to be director of national intelligence. It is another iteration of the people in the Hans Christian Anderson story who see what they see, but cannot admit that they see that the emperor is naked.

This was a hazing ritual. It is a loyalty test to be part of a select group, a kind of fraternity: a position in Trump's administration. The fraternity out-sources the humiliation part to the Democrats on a Senate committee, this time the Intelligence Committee. Everyone knows it is coming. The nominees are prepared with their approved language of evasion, the passive voice. "Joe Biden was confirmed." The hazing proves the nominees' loyalty to Trump by forcing them to do something humiliating in front of witnesses and cameras, something that will prove they will suffer any indignity to stay true to the boss. They are forced to claim they are honest and forthright while saying they cannot see that the emperor has no clothes. 

Clayton stood his ground. He maintained a tough "you can't make me" demeanor. He never hung his head. He took the whipping like a man.

Senator Ossoff advanced his presidential chances. He looked cruel enough to be a president. He doesn't have a gravelly voice, and he has not yet grown a beard, and he looks fit but not jacked. Still, he appears to have plenty of testosterone, at least a T-level sufficient to torture a helpless pledge. On the day that the Secretary of Defence (War) Pete Hegseth announced the Department would do testosterone testing and augmentation of the troops with a goal of increasing the fighting spirit of our military, Ossoff displayed the masculine aggression Hegseth admires in a warrior. Ossoff turned the screws of the torture device, forcing Clayton to perform a submission ritual, choosing career advancement over truth and honor.  It is consistent with the Republican brand and expectation for fierceness. American soldiers give no quarter. When someone is down and helpless, they are where we want them. American soldiers don't take prisoners. 

Clayton stuck to the claim of blindness. We know the routine. Boomers recall the TV show Hogan's Heroes and the Sergeant Shultz character.

"I know nothing. I see nothing. I hear nothing. I did not even get up this morning."

If being willing to torture a Republican is proof of ability to command troops into danger or order federal execution of a prisoner, Ossoff passed the test. He is masculine enough.

The job of the national security director is to walk into the Oval Office and tell the president things he doesn't want to hear — that an adversary's capability is real, that the assessment of the sources do not support the policy, that the intelligence says "no." 

The hazing was not a gotcha. It was a litmus test. Clayton passed Trump's test but failed the nation's.

Click below for a six minute video of Clayton answering questions by Senators Ossoff.

Click here

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Political tribes: Take the test and learn your political home base.

Politics is way more complicated than a left-right continuum.

There is a reason you felt bad about being pigeonholed on a left-right line. It didn't describe you. It didn't really fit.

It is more accurate to say there are political "tribes," each with a cluster of values and opinions. 

Answer a few questions. See what tribe you are in.

The appeal of a single left-right liberal-to-conservative line is that it is simple and it is not totally wrong. It somewhat predicts whether a voter would vote for a Democrat or a Republican.

A better understanding of an American voter is to describe tribes, but those are complicated. Here is a map.

From the website: https://echeloninsights.com/tribes

You would probably find yourself fitting pretty comfortably somewhere on this map.

I am an "American Institutionalist." That puts me in the political center, somewhat to the left on social issues like abortion and racial justice, and somewhat more inclined than most to regulate and tax businesses.

It won't surprise regular readers than I am not a member of the "Loyal Left" nor am I am nihilistic tear-it-all-down "Young and Disillusioned" cynic. If I were to run for office as a Democrat I might well face a primary challenge from the left, and I would likely lose.

I am probably distinguished from a similar tribe of pragmatic people who typically vote for Democrats, the "Electability Democrats," because I have belief that most people in America who "work hard and play by the rules," as both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama described it, can achieve life, liberty, and happiness in America.  I recognize that the political and economic system both advantages and disadvantages some people, and there is a lot of luck and circumstance involved, but it is also set up to reward people who put in the effort to take advantage of opportunities. Success is a little bit about the zip code in which one is born, but it is also about personal behavior and effort. I believe upward mobility is possible, even likely, if one puts in the effort.  

I suspect one of the reasons I am so offended by Trump's election-denial and the January 6 Capitol riot is that it breaks a rule of fair play. I am OK with competition and there being winners and losers. I don't want to give an "A" grade to everyone who takes a test. I like merit hiring. I dislike sore losers who claim "rigged" when there is no evidence of it.  

I shared a political opinion with both U.S. Senator Ron Wyden and Oregon Governor Tina Kotek, coincident when I had just told them I would happily donate money, and therefore when they were likely to think my political instincts were reasonable. I told them that I thought Democrats were screwing up on the trans-in-sports issue. I said I was absolutely OK with trans people attempting to live their best lives. Live and let live. But I said that women's leagues in sports are a good thing, and fairness is an important value. I said it is OK for Democratic politicians to value "fair competition" as a value over "inclusion." An athlete who goes through male puberty has an unfair advantage, I said, and a biological female who loses to a trans athlete who had that advantage has a legitimate gripe. The situation is similar to the use of steroids. We don't allow it ruin the competition. We need to preserve the sense of fair play and a level playing field.

I make the point -- persuasive, I hope, given that I had just told them that I would be happily contributing to their campaigns -- that I was speaking as a fellow Democrat, and that this opinion was a legitimate opinion from the Democratic tent, not a heresy infection from the political right, based on prejudice against trans people. 

I was an American Institutionalist at work, trying to define Democratic policy in a way that wrests it toward fair play and away from the inclusion-in-every-case advocated by the partisans of the Loyal Left, who generally define Democratic positioning.

Readers will be intrigued by this website, which defines the attributes of the tribes. I urge readers to set aside 10 minutes, now or in the future, to take the on-line test of their opinions and to get a report back instantly on their likely tribe. There is no signing-up, no subscription, no commercialization, no strings. Just enter your opinions and get a read-out.

https://echeloninsights.com/tribes

Here is a description of the various political tribes. On the left the chart shows what percentage of Americans are in your tribe. On the right, it shows the movement between 2024 and 2025 in opinion.

Go to the site. Take the test. Report back here in the comments, if you like.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Field Report: Chris Beck fundraiser

Chris Beck is the Democratic candidate for Oregon's Second Congressional District. It is a bright-red district.

Beck is out meeting voters, telling his story, and raising money.

He did a good job at a Saturday event.

Beck's uphill battle is not uncommon. There are 131 districts with a Republican skew of 10 points or greater; this district is given an R+14 rating by the Cook Political Report.

Disclosure: I attended the fundraiser both as a voter and as an opinion journalist expecting to write a report on the event. I expect to vote for Beck in November. Moreover, we talked by phone after the meeting when I—in my role as an opinionated campaign know-it-all—gave him observations on what I thought he did right and what he should change. I am not impartial; I donated $500.

The event took place on the lovely patio of a couple in an East Medford neighborhood. About 35 people attended. Most attendees were about my age (in their 70s). That is not surprising for an invitation-only RSVP event hosted by people also in their 70s, as people naturally invite their own network of friends.

Beck began by establishing his bona fides as a politically-engaged person going back to his childhood. His parents knew former governor Tom McCall well. Beck grew up in Portland and was a three-term state representative representing a Portland district, so within one minute of speaking, he began establishing his in-district connections. He now lives in the Second Congressional District. His father was from Central Oregon, and they vacationed, hunted, fished, and spent time "east of the mountains"—the part of the district that is Mountain-West in geography and politics, rather than "west of the mountains," which is wetter, more urbanized, and more Democratic.

Because this was a Democratic group, he described his six years working for the U.S. Department of Agriculture as time he "worked in the Obama administration."

Then he delivered what I think is his simple value proposition—one that gives him a small but real shot at winning in this district. He would be a Democratic check on President Trump. He may have read and absorbed what I wrote two weeks ago, that winning a campaign like this requires self-discipline from the candidate to keep the focus on the main thing: Donald Trump. 

Who Chris Beck is is secondary. If anything, the unique qualities of a Democratic candidate in a bright-red district is a distraction from the main point. This election must not be a head-to-head comparison of personalities. The question is whether to elect a Republican, who will vote to let Trump have his way on everything, no matter how corrupt and dangerous, or whether one will be part of a majority that says NO to Trump. The Democrat would restore checks and balances. Just be a reasonable, acceptable person—and Beck is.

Trump supporters will vote for Cliff Bentz, the Republican incumbent. Beck's campaign goal is to give a simple clear choice to people who want a change from the status quo because they think Trump is on the wrong track. There is a majority there.

Beck spent just the right amount of time—maybe three minutes—establishing himself as an intelligent, well-spoken, competent adult with a qualifying backstory. Then he began listing the things that a majority of Americans find uncomfortable or dangerous about Trump. Cliff Bentz is a cipher who votes with the GOP majority to enable Trump. He brings nothing interesting to the table to engage voter interest. He is a red dot on the graph.

Beck listed the things Trump did that make him unpopular and Bentz complicit:

--  Trying to overturn the 2020 election

--  Supporting the health insurance changes that make coverage unaffordable for many working people, which could bankrupt district hospitals due to uncollectible bills

--  Purging federal agencies

--  Attacking vote-by-mail systems

--  Disregarding the problem of affordable housing

--  Overseeing inflation and high gasoline prices

--  Iran. Beck said, "The Iran War we just lost. We are pretending we didn't, but we did."

--  Covering up the Epstein scandal

Beck then executed an essential element of every fundraising event: He explained his strategy and mechanism to win, giving hope to donors that their contributions have a purpose. Democrats are energized, he said, and non-affiliated voters are unhappy with the status quo. He will have social media. He will have field workers. He will knock on doors and remind Democratic-leaning voters to turn out. 

The candidate's speech and Q&A lasted about an hour and a quarter, after which the event segued into one-on-one visits with attendees.

I have attended or hosted well over a hundred events of this kind in the past 55 years. The Anna Karenina rule is in effect: All happy fundraisers are alike; every unhappy fundraiser is unhappy in its own way. This was a happy one. This is how they look when the candidate does well.

Can Beck win? If Trump continues to frighten and offend people with his corruption and a deteriorating economy, and the public's restless desire for change persists, then yes he can.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Weathervane

My sister bought this garden art weathervane and named it "Lindsey Graham."

Maxim de mortuis nil nisi bonum. (Of the dead, say nothing but good.)

Maybe Graham was a master manipulator playing the long game.

Lindsey Graham humiliated himself in his final decade of life. He gave support and legitimacy to Donald Trump. He is getting remembered in many other venues with comments like this:

Lindsey Graham was a spineless sellout, a treasonous political hack, a consummate conscienceless opportunist, a prime architect of the revolting thing that the Republican Party has rolled over and become.

This is harsh, but it isn't wrong, based on the public record. Graham could have used his reputation, and the memory of his friendship with John McCain, to be a public rebuke of Trump. Graham could have been a symbol of resistance to the GOP abandoning honorable character as an essential virtue for a leader. Graham went the other way. He became famous as a weathervane who switched to become a sycophant of Trump. He became a prime example of a hypocritical, unprincipled Trump enabler.

I am trying to think if there is any shred of good in this. Maybe there is. 

I suspect Graham had contempt for Trump. I suspect Graham saw himself as an undercover agent working covertly, an inside-man steering Trump away from his worst instincts. In this view of Graham, this was self-sacrifice and honor, worthy of a true friend of John McCain. Graham knew he was damaging his own legacy, becoming the butt of jokes, but did it anyway. He did it for his country. John McCain would be proud of him.

I watched Lindsey Graham for three decades. First as a senator who was a frequent guest on the Sunday shows, then up close as a presidential candidate campaigning in New Hampshire and South Carolina in 2015. Graham displayed hero-worship of McCain. It was a bit silly, like puppy love, but McCain had a heroic past as a prisoner of war who refused early release from confinement and torture out of solidarity with other Americans. It isn't silly to look up to a man of high character.

Graham's presidential campaign fizzled. He could only find a crowd if he joined one by stepping into a busy ice cream shop.

Lindsey Graham was a sincere foreign policy hawk. He was a proud member of the Army Reserves. The military is his tribe and identity. He wanted an America that engaged with European allies. He opposes Russia's effort to expand into Europe. He wants a military staffed by professions promoted by merit, and motivated by non-partisn, non-political patriotism. 

Trump's instincts were the opposite, and Graham knew that. Trump believes large powers have every right and need to dominate their sphere of influence. That means Russia absorbs Ukraine.

Graham died having returned from Ukraine where he met with Ukraine President Vladimir Zelenskyy. Graham understood that the mechanism for having any influence on Trump was to present himself as an unwavering Trump supporter. Every Democrat who sneered at Graham was proof for Trump to see that Graham would give up every shred of dignity for Trump. Trump loves a loyal flatterer. That is the ticket to being able to tell Trump that the route to popularity at home was to support Zelenskyy, not Putin.

Does Trump listen? Maybe a little. Maybe it created the muddle of our on-again-off-again policy toward Russia and Ukraine, a muddle that would not have existed if Trump followed his own instincts. I want Ukraine to survive. Maybe Graham did some good. After all, Trump has not openly announced that he wants Russia to crush Ukraine, and then Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Then Poland. 

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]

Easy Sunday: I am trying to grow great grapes.

You may want to skip this post. It is about my vineyard, not politics.

And it is about something pretty mundane: pulling grape leaves off of vines to expose grapes to the sun. 

The task is for a good purpose: to make superior grapes.

On Saturday my nephew and I got updated vine management advice from Adelberto Paz from Valley View Vineyards. We were plugging away at the job of removing selected leaves from the east side of Pinot Noir plants. He said we needed to pick up the pace and start on the Cabernet Sauvignons soon. 

I am hoping Valley View Vineyards will buy my grapes this year, the first real harvest year at scale. I am growing them under their advice to meet their standards, but they are under no obligation to buy them. And given the hazards and uncertainties of farming, I cannot guarantee that I will have them to sell. There is a wine-grape crisis underway. Tariffs have badly damaged our export markets, and there has been a downturn in domestic wine consumption. Alcohol suddenly became less popular. Instead of being, maybe, a little bit good for you, people have decided that red wine is, maybe, a little bit bad for you. Markets change. Then sometimes they change back. People have been drinking wine for thousands of years, and people like how it makes them feel and how it lubricates sociability: cheers! Supply and demand will balance out, but maybe not this year.

My best shot at selling my grapes is to grow spectacularly good ones.

Last year the Cabernets were the weakest of the three varieties. Still small plants. Few grapes. The Cabernets are the  most commercially viable of the three varieties this year: I have a heavy set of good-looking grape clusters. Cabernet Sauvignon vines blossom, ripen, and are picked later in the year than Malbecs and Pinot Noir grapes. My Cabernets hadn't blossomed yet when the April frost came that hurt the earlier varieties in my and many other local vineyards.  

The rows are in a north-south direction. Leaves that cover the grapes on the east side of the plants get pulled off so that they are exposed to the morning sun. Leaf-pulling reduces the chance of mildew that might grow from dew that lingers on grapes amidst dense foliage. Exposed grapes also means that the spray program against powdery mildew is more effective. The sun also sweetens grapes and improves flavor. We let the leaves grow on the west side of the plant where they would otherwise get the hot afternoon sun in the hot dry summer days of the Medford-area climate. Direct sun is a mixed blessing. 

Here is what the Cabernet vines look like before the leaf-pulling job that we are starting now:

Here is what that vine looks like after those leaves are removed:

Take 14 seconds to view this video to see how an experienced vineyard worker pulls leaves. He is amazingly fast. He won't be replaced by artificial intelligence anytime soon.

Click here: https://youtu.be/QHwpfQ99x-A

Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be. 

Constitutions: Our North American neighbors.

   "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

               The Declaration of Independence, 1776 

American schoolchildren learn that the Founding Fathers were great men of unsurpassed wisdom, and that the Constitution is a near-sacred document. 

We grow up to learn there were problems with it, problems that persist. 

Posts the past two days have looked at what may come to be understood as America's "third founding." There was the first one in the 1770s and 1780s.  There was the second one when the Civil War and Reconstruction Amendments established equality as a value along with life and liberty. This third founding did not require formal constitutional amendments. It is taking place now through new practices and norms. We have a strong executive who does as he pleases, rewarding friends, punishing opponents, using Congress as a force multiplier -- a squad of synophants and applauders -- not as a check and balance. We have a unitary executive immune from prosecution for breaking the law. 

The U.S. has never been stuck with the old way of doing things. There have always been options on how to organize a government. Erich Almasy makes that point with today's guest post by describing the U.S. in the context of our two North American neighbors. Almasy is a college classmate who had a long career in business consulting and management. The photo shows him wearing class reunion gear from the 55th reunion in front of racing boats: shells. He rowed in college.

Guest Post by Erich Almasy

SPQR (Senātus Populusque Rōmānus)

(The Senate and People of Rome, i.e. the Roman Republic)

 

The Roman Republic lasted over 480 years, from 509 to 27 BCE*. Ours is now at 250 years. I have had the luxury over the past thirty years of living in all three republics that comprise North America: Canada, the United States of America, and the United States of México. I have lived in each of these distinct cultures, each with a different approach to governance and social welfare. Here are some thoughts about what I have witnessed.

 

Form of Government

The United States was founded in 1776 as a breakaway set of thirteen colonies of Great Britain. It chose a form of democratic republic with a President, a bicameral (two houses) legislature, and a judiciary headed by a Supreme Court. All members of each branch, except the judiciary, are elected either by direct election via congressional districts or through an Electoral College. Canada, colonized by both France and England, became the Dominion of Canada, a self-governing entity within the British Empire, in 1867. Canada is a constitutional monarchy, with the English monarch as the ceremonial head of state, a lower house elected from electoral districts (ridings), an appointed upper house, and an appointed Supreme Court. The Prime Minister is considered the Head of Government and is elected by the Members of Parliament (the lower house). México became a democratic republic after its independence from Spain in 1821. However, until the 1920s, it had two emperors, was invaded by the United States and France, and had one President (Porfirio Díaz) who served for 31 years. México has three branches, including a President who serves a single six-year term; a bicameral legislature with a Chamber of Deputies elected every three years and a Senate elected every six years. As of 2025, México’s Supreme Court justices are elected to staggered 12-year terms.

 

Citizenship and Voting

The United States originally granted citizenship only to White men. Ratified in 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted citizenship to anyone born within the United States. Canada and México also honor jus soli (right of the soil) for any child born within their territories. Women in the United States got the right to vote after the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. Women in Canada got the right to vote at different times: as early as 1916 in Manitoba and as late as 1940 in Quebec. Asian and Indigenous Canadians had to wait until 1948 and 1960, respectively, to vote in federal elections. Women in México got the right to vote in 1953. México’s political parties are required by the Constitution to offer gender equality with a 50/50 split in legislative and executive positions at all levels of government. Women in both México and Canada are also legally guaranteed equal pay for equal work. Both Canada and México have established paths of roughly 5 to 7 years toward citizenship for immigrants. Grandchildren of both Mexican and Canadian citizens are also eligible for direct citizenship via jus sanguinis (right of blood).

 

Health Care and Social Security

In the United States, health care is paid for individually until age 65 federally or based on income level, according to state mandates. Two federal government systems established in 1965, Medicare and Medicaid, support older and poorer citizens. In 1947, Tommy Douglas (actor Kiefer Sutherland’s grandfather), the Premier of the province of Saskatchewan, created a universal hospital plan that, in 1957, became Canada’s national health program, Medicare. This provides free health care to all citizens and permanent residents of Canada. México is finalizing a national public health system for all citizens to be completed by 2027. It also has extensive private hospitals for those with higher incomes. All three countries have Social Security systems funded by employees and employers, with retirement benefits available after age 60 or 62.

 

When living in Canada, I used to tease Canadians that their system depended on a benevolent Prime Minister because he or she appointed the Supreme Court and the Senators, and ran Parliament. So far, I guess they’ve been lucky, smart, or both. In theory, the United States has coequal branches of government with distinct roles that provide checks and balances to prevent the consolidation of power in the Executive. Neither the Founders nor I ever anticipated a party and President that would usurp power as we are seeing today. For 71 years, from 1929 to 2000, México essentially had a single party, the PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party). That monopoly was broken in the new century, and while parties tend to dominate for years, there is still competition. And a female Jewish President!

 

*While the Republic of San Marino has been around for over 1,700 years and the Venetian Republic lasted 1,100 years, Rome was by far the largest republic in history. So far!

Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be. 

 

Guest Post Response: "Peter made a compelling, if infuriating, argument."

Here was yesterday's audacious idea:

In 20 years the January 6 attack on the Capitol will be celebrated the way we celebrate the Boston Tea Party.

The Capitol rioters were advancing a new constitutional system for America: serial dictatorship.

The Boston Tea Party was citizen direct action. It was illegal and destructive. But Americans celebrate it because it was part of a process of forming a new government. We won the war, so we write the history and celebrate the milestones. 

President Trump, by his willful and energetic flouting of laws, and his contempt and disregard of the checks and balances written into the Constitution -- and by his getting away with most of it -- is creating a new de facto system of government. The president is a strongman, a dictator, the CEO, limited only by impeachment and conviction, an impossible burden in a two-party environment, unless the president really, really screws up. This new form of government is settling into place. It was ratified by Trump's election in 2024. A majority of voters are OK with an elected strongman. After all, Congress is worthless and someone needs to take charge.

I am unhappy about this, but it is what is happening.

John Shutkin is a college classmate. He is a retired corporate attorney with experience both at Big Law firms and as in-house general counsel for two large accounting firms. He jokes that the photo shows him to be an "old timer."

Shutkin is holding up the time-keeping device at a 55th college reunion panel 

Guest Post by John Shutkin

My college classmate and friend Peter Sage is one of the most open-minded people I know. And I say that as 95-percent a compliment. After all, as a litigator for many years, I am used to starting legal analyses with the phrase, “On the one hand….,” so I have enormous professional respect for such a viewpoint. My reservation is only because, in my view, open-mindedness should be waived on occasion, especially in extraordinary times. Sometimes there are simply black-and-white issues and, as to those issues, to be blunt, I am right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong. And yes; I’m still open-minded enough to know there are people who feel the same way who are on the opposite side of the issue. But they’re wrong.

Which brings me to Peter’s latest post, “What if school children are taught that the January 6 rioters were heroes?” Of course, Peter gives away the game as to where his heart really lies by using the term “rioters,” rather than a more neutral word like “participants,” but I do appreciate his forcing us to think about this issue and making some compelling, if infuriating, arguments. And certainly there are good examples, like the Boston Tea Party which he cites, where “heroes” and “rioters” depended mainly on which side of the Pond one lived on. And, indeed, even in 1773, there were plenty of Loyalists in the Colonies who had strong criticism of the Tea Party “participants.”

Moreover, I am well aware of the observation (misattributed to Churchill, but still valid) that “History is written by the victors.” And, more specifically as to January 6th, we are already seeing clear evidence of Trump and his MAGA followers, both in the federal and red-state governments, trying to re-write history into their fever dream of European white male Christian heroism. Here’s the most recent example: CNN.

And Peter is also correct in noting that Trump has proved that the US Constitution allows for this country to have an elected dictator as president who is both willing and capable of such an historical re-write. Simply put, the Founding Fathers never believed that a megalomaniacal President, an enabling Supreme Court and a feckless Congress would allow it. Jennifer Rubin aptly noted this exact point in her recent column, “Founders Maybe Weren’t Geniuses,” channeling Larry David’s equal parts hilarious and terrifying episode of “Life, Larry and the Pursuit of Unhappiness”: Contrarian News.  

As Larry delicately put it in his tag line. “We’re f*cked.” And, of course, Trump’s pardoning of all the January 6 rioters (for that is what they were) and his equally odious effort to create a $1.776 billion slush fund (note the non-coincidental amount) for them underscores that this is precisely what he is trying to do with regard to that horrific, treasonous event.

Finally, if one wants analysis of this phenomenon that is substantially older and viewed with more gravitas than Larry, one can always look to “1984.” As Orwell famously concluded: “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

In short, full credit to Peter for acknowledging what we are currently seeing, no matter how much we in the fact-based universe know that it is both entirely wrong and incredibly dangerous. To put it in Larry’s vernacular, “It’s total bullsh*t.”

As for me, I am much more closed-minded than Peter, but I like to consider myself at least an optimistic realist rather than a despondent cynic. As such, I look for inspiration in MLK’s famous declaration, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” And I’d like to think that that arc begins on November 3 of this year (Election Day) and starts to truly soar on January 20, 2029.

Otherwise, we’re f*cked.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.