Are we just going to let this happen?

It might be hard for us to remember a time when we could consume our daily news and not have Donald Trump at or near the top of the cycle. We might ask ourselves if it's even possible to go back to a pre-Trump life in America. Republican candidates for high office would come and go, some having more success than others. That was normal life. The Democratic Party has never departed from normal life. The Democrats present their policy proposals and then we can weigh them. Really we are thinking more about policy than personality. 

Well, you know what my next observation is here: Trump is the overwhelming presence with his personality. When his supporters say they agree with him on something, anything, it really seems a case of those followers being told what to think. 

Can't we let go of him?

Would his followers, if left alone to hash things out, really arrive at skepticism about Ukraine's interests? Or, to feel sympathy with Putin and Russia? You know the answer I am suggesting. 

This morning there is a news item about how Canada is struggling to put forth sufficient support for Ukraine. The reason being: influence from south of their border from the MAGA element. 

Another item this morning is Trump's pronouncement that when he's in office again, he would readily use the military for domestic law enforcement. His supporters would simply nod as they always do. 

We in the Morris area are heavily MAGA. I don't know what it is about living in rural western Minnesota these days. We all have to try to understand it. 

Sometimes political fashions will rise and fall. But consider how old Trump-ism is now. Going way back to the fall of 2016, maybe even a little earlier. Ever since then, we can awaken on any given morning to find Trump's face in a photo at or near the top of the news. Is this "Alice Through the Looking Glass?" I mean, with the many serious and legitimate indictments against him, the protracted legal battles, the jousting with Judge Chutkan who was actually confirmed for her judgeship on a unanimous vote? 

Can you imagine that, get your arms around it? 

 

The halting response

A sane mind would have concluded in no time that what happened on Jan. 6 was a horrible abomination that required intervention from our law enforcement resources, quite readily. Should have been a total no-brainer. And by this I mean, going right to the top instead of picking off one-by-one all the really inconsequential "small fish" - in many cases damaging or ruining their lives - when in fact they were just following specious proclamations from on top. 

Specious? Wouldn't nearly all people with a modicum of intelligence have realized that Trump's pronouncements were such? So why the fog of irrationality and denial? Why not ask more questions about why someone like Rudy Giuliani with his alcohol abuse issues was put in such an important position? 

What about Steve Bannon? Remember the well-known photo of him shortly after his arrest in which he looked so horribly disheveled? In every way imaginable like with his long hair? Unkempt overall appearance? So incredibly ironic that people who fashion themselves "conservative" would attach themselves to this shady person. Were I to present myself with his appearance here in Morris, I'd be told off and insulted right to my face. 

Trump pardoned Bannon.

Some people didn't want Giuliani in the same room with them because he'd "break things." Remember that news item? And yet a near plurality of Americans, perhaps a real plurality, want to go along with Trump as his photo appears at or near the top of the news every day. 

Why can't we instead feel embarrassment or some sadness about what has been unleashed on this country? Women having to fight back on abortion, an issue that we felt had been pretty much settled by "Roe." Of course it's an uncomfortable issue. Always will be. But, it was more or less settled.  

Big headline recently was about this J.D. Vance fellow, a real untrustworthy sort, now speaking of "exceptions" on abortion. Some of you fail to think these things through at all. Because, it's more involved than you think. "For the health or life of the mother." Well, which is it? And if you sign up for either of these "exceptions," doesn't your normal good sense tell you there's ambiguity you could drive a truck through? 

It isn't good enough for a law to seem reasonable on vague principle. Terms must be defined once the legal machinations kick in. Lawyers wearing suits get enlisted. What really constitutes "life of the mother?" Where are the parameters? 

And women as a whole are offended that matters like these are thrown into the public arena to be hashed out - makes them seem like pawns, as if they're causing inconvenience for us all. 

"Leave us alone," women appear to be saying en masse. They just want their reproductive freedom and health choices left for themselves. "Roe" was never a complete buffer vs. Republican politicians anyway. It has always been a battle. 

Steve Boyd, candidate

So we have a new GOP congressional candidate here in western Minnesota, Trump country. And he's going at Republican incumbent Michelle Fischbach from the right. One concludes as much reading Steve Boyd's positions and philosophy. So western Minnesota looks like a barometer for how far MAGA can go. 

At present I cannot bet against MAGA, not at all. So I feel very little Christmas spirit this year, not with the specter of Trump unleashing the military for domestic law enforcement. Trump is saying that he "would have wide latitude to call up units." 

I remember when the author Tom Clancy was on Larry King (CNN) once. They were talking about law enforcement at the border. Use the military to arrest people? King asked. Clancy had a look like he was going to have to educate Mr. King. He said "soldiers don't arrest people, soldiers kill people." 

Oh, it could never get that far? Our fears about Trump and MAGA are always borne out. When there's ambiguity, Trump will seize whatever power he can get. I remember the news anchor saying "it is unclear if Trump can fire the chair of the Federal Reserve." Unclear? Why is it unclear? Maybe the firing would be based on conduct unbecoming or something like that? Trump would argue that it's conduct unbecoming for the chair to advance certain policy positions. 

Oh, you think that's a reach? Trump would have his cadre of lawyers at the ready as he always does. And they try to sue anyone and everyone. Even Bob Woodward. They might come after me someday. Well, I have had a good life. I am staying in rural western Minnesota regardless. 

Will Steve Boyd be our new congressman? Could well happen. He's probably a decent guy to know personally. I have personal friends like that, some of whom have drifted from me because of politics. I have a friend who thought the estimable Robert Mueller was really behaving like he was part of a "banana republic." Such is America, 2023. 

I cannot say "Merry Christmas" under these circumstances, really. I did not write an original Christmas song to have recorded this year. First time in ten years. I may resume next year if some of our normal sanity returns. If Trump storms back into power, maybe people like me will disappear, be sent to "re-education camps." 

Russia with the help of Trump may invade and conquer Sweden. Are you OK with that? Remind you of stuff that happened in the 1930s? But this time we'd be "the bad guys." I guess we already have been, in Vietnam, I mean with chemical weapons too.

We could always elect people who are lovers instead of haters.

- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com