Friday, May 22, 2026

The Power of Words and Duty to Country

Richard Goodwin (left), Jack Valenti, and President Johnson
January 12, 1966 (The White House/AP Photo)

Richard Goodwin, who was among the most talented and prolific speechwriters in American history, dedicated his life from 1960 to 1965 to two American presidents—John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. He understood the power of words to move a nation and, more importantly when it came to legislation, move Congress. Goodwin was a “Kennedy man” with a Harvard pedigree, but following Kennedy’s assassination in November 1963, Johnson persuaded Goodwin to remain on the White House staff. For the next two years, Goodwin crafted the words behind Johnson’s most impactful speeches on civil rights, voting rights, and the Great Society, giving voice to the president’s determination to raise America to unreached heights of equality and fairness.

“I speak tonight for the dignity of man and the destiny of democracy. Our mission is at once the oldest and the most basic of this country. To right wrong, to do justice, to serve man.” Starting with these simple and powerful words, spoken eight days after “Bloody Sunday,” when state troopers violently attacked a group of peaceful marchers on the Edmund Pettis Bridge in Selma, Alabama, Johnson spoke before a Joint Session of Congress to urge passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The nation had before endured “moments of great crises,” Johnson declared, “[b]ut rarely in any time does an issue lay bare the secret heart of America itself.” Johnson’s words were direct, morally compelling, and set forth what was at stake – “the values and the purposes and the meaning of our beloved nation.

The issue, of course, was the imperative of equal rights in the nation’s electoral process, and the need for Black Americans to “secure for themselves the full blessings of American life.” If America and the Congress were not up to the task, “we will have failed as a people and as a nation.” The cause of Black equality, Johnson insisted, was a cause all Americans should embrace. “Because … it’s all of us who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall overcome.

Johnson’s speech was powerful and impactful. His words spoke to the moral conscience of the entire country. They persuaded a bipartisan Congress to push America closer to the ideals of liberty, justice, and equality on which the nation was founded.

I have been reflecting lately on the power of words to inspire Americans to reach for its better angels, to more closely become the idealized vision of democracy to which we aspire. This is what leadership is supposed to be about. LBJ spoke with a Texas drawl and lacked the refinement of JFK. But he was an intelligent and deeply informed politician, and he knew that as the leader of a great nation, his public statements, speeches, and pronouncements required thoughtful deliberation, and sometimes poetry. This is where a talented speechwriter like Goodwin could be of service, to put into words why the country needed civil rights, voting rights, aid to education, protection of the environment, and medical care for the poor and the aged, not merely to improve the lives of some, but to allow all of America to reach its full potential.

The importance of dignified public leadership, and of words spoken with dignity by a nation’s political leaders, were driven home during my recent trip to the United Kingdom. While watching the local British newscasts, two things became apparent. First, the level of public discourse in Britain far surpasses what you see and hear every day in the United States. Political debates and competition are as ruthless in the UK as anywhere, but there are few if any gratuitous insults thrown about, no accusations of treason and sedition hurled at the opposition or the press for disagreeing with the prime minister. 

Second, when British journalists question public officials, they expect direct answers. Prescribed talking points result only in sharp follow-up questions until an answer to the original question surfaces. Talking over someone rarely occurs. Even when an unadmiring reporter asks tough questions, in Britain and most of Europe it is rare for anyone to shout at or insult the questioner. The British have a long tradition of high-level, high pressure, public debating. But as competitive and hard-nosed as political life can be in the UK, there remains an underlying sense of duty and dignity in its public discourse.

President Trump frequently boasts that he has restored respect for America around the world. But if my observations over eleven days in the UK have any bearing, nothing could be further from the truth. People outside the United States do not admire Trump’s undignified approach to leadership. Indeed, to the extent they even pay attention to him, the British public and press dismiss Trump’s daily social media posts and asinine comments as the undiplomatic rantings of an unstable man unfit for the office he holds. When he recently accused one of the world’s most respected national security correspondents, David Sanger of The New York Times, of treason and sedition—for reporting well-sourced U.S. intelligence assessments that sharply negated Trump’s assertions that the U.S. had achieved “total victory” in the war with Iran and questioned the extent of the damage caused Iranian missile capacity—the UK public recognized Trump’s insults for what they are: a desperate president’s attempts to suppress the truth, impose his will on inconvenient facts, and attack the messenger. These traits are not respected, anywhere. Anyone in the current administration who fails to see this is blind to reality.

When a nation’s leaders speak thoughtfully, when their words are principled and spoken in good faith, and when they convey a genuine concern for the nation and all its citizens, only then do people listen and engage in reflective consideration. Only when our leaders appeal to shared values over self-interest and base instinct can their words transform division into unity, elevate our moral imagination, and inspire us to reach for the stars.

As an American traveling overseas, it was embarrassing to contrast the comparative levels of discourse between the Trump White House with the statements of presidents, prime ministers, and members of parliament of most European countries. It is crude vs. dignified, uninformed vs. intelligent, crass vs. sophisticated. Maybe the American electorate wanted it this way when they voted for Trump in 2024; after all, Trump has always been transparent that he cares only about ego gratification, power, and economic self-interest.

But it should not be this way. We have lost our sense of purpose and the values to which President Johnson spoke in 1965, a moral clarity that all Americans knew, deep in their hearts, was right. A sense of right and wrong, an ethical concern for the public interest over private self-interest, and the knowledge that America can always do better and be better. Perhaps our appointed public officials have forgotten for whom they work and where their loyalties lie.

As recounted in An Unfinished Love Story: A Personal History of the 1960s by historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, who was married to Richard Goodwin for 42 years before he died in 2018, all the good Johnson accomplished during his first two years began to unravel as he escalated American involvement in the Vietnam War. Goodwin became increasingly dismayed by Johnson’s war policies and resigned in September 1965 (briefly returning only to assist with Johnson’s State of the Union speech in January). Johnson and other members of the administration never forgave Goodwin for what they perceived as an act of disloyalty, especially when Goodwin came out publicly against the war. As Doris Kearns Goodwin recalled, “[w]ords such as ‘traitor,’ ‘unpatriotic,’ and ‘disloyal’ were bandied about.” But Goodwin was right about the war, and despite his past partnership with Johnson, his duty was to his country, not his president.

This experience prompted Goodwin to write an essay on the loyalty of dissent, the words of which are well worth studying today. Goodwin wrote in part:

The government of the United States is not a private club or college fraternity. Its policies are not private oaths or company secrets. Presumably a man enters public life to serve the nation. The oath taken by every high officer of the nation, elected or appointed, is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, not an Administration, a political party, or a man.

Dissenters are sometimes accused of demeaning the presidency. That office should demand respect. Its dignity, however, flows not from private right or title or the man who occupies it, but solely from the fact that its occupant is chosen by the people of the United States. It is their office, and if they, or any among them, feel that it is wrongly used, then it is their obligation to speak.

It should be apparent to everyone that these words possess exceptional resonance today. Each day’s news brings stories of corruption and conflicts of interest at the highest levels of government, and an utter disregard for ethics, law, and morality that is rampant throughout this administration. But I hope the tide is turning. Now more than ever it is time for responsible members of the Trump administration, the Republican Party, and those employed by the federal government, to heed the call and insist on decency and honesty in all public affairs. The American citizens deserve as much, and the rest of the world will respect us for it.

18 comments:

  1. Hi Mark,

    I am reminded of your comments about Cordoba, Spain, where "Muslims, Jews, and Christians lived together centuries ago in the midst of religious foment.”  Readers were left to imagine the practitioners of the three faiths getting together for tea and crumpets and deciding which place of worship to hold the next bingo game to raise money for the new poor house.

    Likewise, your comments about the free speech going on in the United Kingdom would give your reader the impression that everyone can speak their mind in that major pillar and engine
    of Western Civilization. No one reading your essay would think that 30 people a day are arrested there for their speech. And not only for their speech but for their prayers!

    But the UK is not America under a president you despise, so why not wax poetic and ignore the barbaric change taking over the tiny island of democracy that once saved the world?

    Likewise, your continued paeans to a racist president. Amazing that you can find endless admirable things to say about that good ol’ boy, but nothing about a president spreading freedoms throughout the globe.

    I’ve tried to educate you on political discourse in the past, that it has never been polite and respectful, giving you examples back to our founding (when they really knew how to insult someone!), but you will never weigh the racist, vile, and violent comments on your side of the aisle with the same scale you use for Trump. And once again, you show no interest in actually understanding the other side: “Maybe the American electorate wanted it this way when they voted for Trump in 2024; after all, Trump has always been transparent that he cares only about ego gratification, power, and economic self-interest.”

    We voted for Trump because we believe he loves America. We understand he didn’t need the hassle, and then later the actual persecutions he and his family suffered. He has made bold moves to make this country “great again,” which is light-years away from viewing America as in need of a “fundamental transformation.” In fact, that is the perfect difference between the Left and the Right, the Democrats and the Republicans. The Right believes that this is the greatest (and most moral) country that has ever existed in the history of the world, and we need to reclaim, or at least build on, that greatness, while the Left sees it as inherently flawed (think of the absurd and offensive 1619 Project) and in need of total destruction and reorganization.

    Do you really believe that the average Trump voter pulled the lever for him because they wanted to boost his ego, increase his power, and give him more money? Does that even make sense? Stop and think about it. Are there videos of people pledging their loyalties to Trump, as there were Hollywood actors doing so for Obama? Are school children being made to sing hymns to Trump as they were for Obama? Did Trump claim to be the One we’ve all been waiting for? Are writers opining that Trump is a deity as they did with Obama?

    As I reminded you recently, you once wrote in response to my criticisms of Obama: “BUT YOUR CRITICISM OF THE PRESIDENT WOULD BE MORE EFFECTIVE IF YOU ACTUALLY GAVE HIM SOME CREDIT OCCASIONALLY. YOUR FAILURE TO SEE ANYTHING GOOD ABOUT OBAMA, or Hillary Clinton, or Bill Clinton, or Walter Cronkite, or Lyndon Johnson, or Ted Kennedy, SHOWS ONLY THAT THE EXTREMIST IS YOU.” (Caps are mine.)

    To repeat what I said then: I don't think I was an extremist then, and that you are one now. I understand that you feel exactly the same way toward Trump as I did toward Obama. I just feel that you are more wrong and I am more right, and that you disagree. But following your own advice might be prudent right now because if God continues to protect Trump from loony liberals, he will be your president for another two years and eight months.

    ReplyDelete
  2. And Goodwin was right: “Its dignity, however, flows not from private right or title or the man who occupies it, but solely from the fact that its occupant is chosen by the people of the United States. It is their office, and if they, or any among them, feel that it is wrongly used, then it is their obligation to speak.”

    Trump was chosen by the people. Twice. And no, he wasn’t chosen because of his social skills. He wasn’t chosen because his tweets are sometimes hilarious, mostly brutal, and on point. But certainly, part of the reason he was elected was that he does not show the media the respect they have not earned. The MSM has lied endlessly and carried water for the Democratic Party, and now we have a president who treats them with the same disrespect they have shown him and everyone who doesn’t read the NYT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rich,

      I did not write about the comparative levels of free speech in Britain vs. the United States (my essay had nothing to do with free speech rights). I agree the United States generally provides higher legal protection for free speech than the United Kingdom, primarily because the First Amendment protects most forms of speech (including hate speech) as an absolute right, whereas the UK views it as a qualified right subject to certain restrictions for reasons like public safety, health, or protecting the reputations of others. It’s an interesting issue, but not relevant to my essay. I wrote about the heightened level of public discourse in the UK vs. here, at least in the Age of Trump. If I have properly interpreted your Trump lacks “social skills” and “disrespects the media” comments, it appears that you do not dispute my basic assertion. Trump’s rhetoric, speech, daily insults, vulgar comments, and unintelligent and uninformed statements and social media posts have debased and degraded the office he holds. I will never forgive him for that.

      I, of course, agree that we see the world differently and disagree passionately on whether Trump is good for the country. But what offends me is your inability to acknowledge that my criticisms (and that of most liberals) of Trump arise from a deep and abiding love for country, the same love of country that you so piously claim as your reason for voting for Trump. It is because I love my country and genuinely believe that Trump has done long-term damage to the United States, our social fabric, and our reputation and credibility around the world, that I am so opposed to him.

      But beyond Trump’s refusal to uplift Americans (the power of words) and attempt to unite us, is the unprecedented culture of corruption in Trump’s White House, where official government acts are traded for personal and financial gain. Just consider the following:

      (1) Days before Trump’s second inauguration, Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, one of the most powerful members of Abu Dhabi’s royal family and a senior United Arab Emirates (UAE) security official, invested $500 million in World Liberty Financial (WLF), a Trump family cryptocurrency venture. This 49-percent ownership interest in WLF made a foreign national security official the largest shareholder of Trump’s company. Months later, the administration handed over America’s most sensitive AI chips technology to the UAE despite serious national security concerns. This was corrupt “crypto-pay-to-play” profiteering that betrayed U.S. national security.

      (2) The WFL deal also routed $31 million to the family of Steve Witkoff, who became Trump’s Middle East envoy, and led to further financial deals between Sheikh Tahnoon and the Trump and Witkoff families.

      (3) In May 2025, WLF announced that its stablecoin would be the chosen currency for MGX, the firm owned by Sheikh Tahnoon, to finance a $2 billion investment in Binance, a crypto exchange company. The deal routed the $2 billion through the Trump family’s cryptocurrency, generating massive fees that directly profited the Trump family, which has reportedly made over $1 billion from these digital currency ventures.

      (4) Following huge campaign donations, the SEC dropped or paused enforcement actions against Binance and Coinbase. Trump also pardoned Binance founder Changpeng Zhao following his significant investments into Trump-aligned ventures.

      (cont'd)

      Delete
    2. (cont'd):

      (5) After the 2024 election, Trump appointed his largest donor, Elon Musk, to lead DOGE, and his administration subsequently paused or dropped over 40 investigations into Musk’s companies, including SpaceX, Tesla, and Neuralink.

      (6) In January 2026, Trump pardoned billionaire Julio Herrera Velutini after his daughter funneled $3.5 million to a Trump-supporting super PAC.

      (7) After Qatar gifted a $400 million Boeing 747 to serve as a new Air Force One, the Trump Organization partnered with the Qatari state-owned company Qatari Diar to develop a Trump-branded luxury golf resort and villas north of Doha. The US had to commit $1 billion of taxpayer money to outfit the plane, which will eventually be transferred to the Trump Presidential Library and not be available for use by successor presidents.

      (8) Eric Trump, Executive Vice President of the Trump Organization, which manages the family’s global business interests, accompanied Trump on his recent state visit to China. Alt5 Sigma, a fintech company where Eric holds an observer board seat, signed a memorandum of understanding with the Chinese chipmaker Nano Labs to build AI data centers in the U.S., even though Nano Labs has ties to the Chinese military, raising further national security concerns about Trump family business dealings.

      (9) Now we are learning about the so-called "Anti-Weaponization" Fund. Trump sued the IRS (which works for him), then ordered the DOJ (which also works for him) to “settle” the lawsuit (when it was clear a federal judge was going to dismiss the case). The settlement established a $1.776 billion taxpayer-funded account to compensate Trump’s perceived allies who claim they were unfairly prosecuted (despite being convicted by judges and juries) by the Biden administration. The money is almost certain to be paid to the insurrectionists convicted (and later pardoned by Trump) of the January 6, 2021, attack on the nation’s Capital and its law enforcement officers.

      (10) On May 20, 2026, the DOJ issued a directive expanding the above “settlement” by granting Trump and his family blanket immunity from pending tax audits and future lawsuits, investigations, and prosecutions. The directive states that authorities are “FOREVER BARRED and PRECLUDED” from “prosecuting or pursuing” tax claims against Trump, members of his family and his businesses. This is an incredible, and almost certainly illegal, abuse of power by Trump and the DOJ designed solely to protect the monetary interests of Trump and his family. (Trump reportedly has over $100 million of potentially unpaid taxes at stake).

      No Kings anyone? Is this putting country first?

      Delete
  3. Mark,

    Let’s recap, shall we?

    You spent an impressive 10 years writing your blog, which coincidentally began with the rise of Obama, during which you wrote many glowing essays, nary a one mentioning his endless scandals. Worse than that, you furthered the silliness that his was a scandal-free administration. In between Obama paeans and baseball essays, you spent impressive time celebrating other scandal-ridden heroes of yours including the Kennedy brothers, LBJ, and a host of others. The theme, even when you addressed their scandals obliquely (it still amazes me, your exorcism of Mary Jo Kopechne from your Teddy tribute!), was that although they were flawed, they could be excused because of the greater good they did. Although you stopped your blog at the beginning of the rebirth of America, right when it would have been really interesting, I assume your opinion of Biden and his scandal-ridden administration was much the same, especially since you agreed with him that he was on the side of the angels in his struggle against Trump “for the soul of America.”

    Although you never addressed it in a blog I know you thought the Russian Collusion Coup was a legitimate investigation, and I assume you still do, despite it being the greatest scandal in this country’s history (certainly in the top five) and I further assume (see the soul bit above) that you approved of the election-rigging nonsense with Hunter’s laptop being morphed into Russian interference, requiring the orchestration by the Biden White House of 51 intelligence officials sacrificing their integrity to support it. Just the rough and tumble world of politics, right? And let’s not forget, “Well, son of a bitch. He got fired!”

    Which is a long way to say, you’re not in a position to claim that the Trump Administration comprises an “unprecedented culture of corruption.” Especially since you are a proud member of the Democratic Party, and support, by your vote, Lawfare, the level of which has not been seen in this country before Trump scared the bejesus out of the Left. Two baseless impeachments, followed by indictments on the state and federal levels for nonsense. I would love to learn that you disagreed every time Rachel Maddow exclaimed “We got him now!” but it’s not how I’d bet. So you and the Left have cried “Wolf!” one too many times to be taken seriously.

    There is one hilarious aspect to your charges: some of them involve China! Now there is irony. The Democratic Party has been in bed with Red China for half a century, but more importantly for this conversation, since Clinton. You may have missed all that corruption since the NYT has a history of whitewashing the horrors of communism, but book after book on this corruption and endless other scandals have been written. I’ll be happy to give you a list of books to get you up to speed. Right now I’m in the middle of “Made in America” by Xi Van Fleet, and “The Invisable Coup” by Peter Schweizer. I recommend both.

    But bottom line, can I assume that the advice you gave to me, to give Obama credit occasionally, because my failure to do so casts me as an extremist, doesn’t apply to you? Have you been that mesmerized by the Big O, or that traumatized by the Orange Man, that it makes sense to forgive Obama for blowing children to bits with drone strikes because YOU trust his instincts, while going all apoplectic when Trump blows drug runners to bits? Well, hey, using Mark Ehlers’ logic meter, you have no case ‘cause Rich Reck trusts Trump’s instincts!

    ReplyDelete
  4. So you will not practice what you preach. I get it. But perhaps you can learn from your inability to do so. Maybe you can compare and contrast the reactions on the Right to Obama, who viewed him as just God-awful, but were not inflicted with a psychosis because they knew in four years, eight at the outside, that he’d be gone, with the unhinged reaction of the Left to Trump (remember the Left saying Trump would barricade himself in the Oval Office if he lost to Biden?). I’m willing to bet you never did what I routinely did during Obama's presidency: prayed that God would protect him. And not just because I didn’t want every high school renamed in his honor! Have you said even one prayer? Sadly, as I said before, perfectly normal liberals have actually celebrated the failed attempts and prayed for better aim next time, and were positively orgasmic when a Lefty loon succeeded in blowing out Charlie Kirk’s neck. It is one of the most soul-crushing things I’ve witnessed and has affected how I view those on the Left.

    This is why I continue to read you, Mark. I need to know… I yearn to learn that there are still sane liberals out there. I need to be convinced that there is good on the Left, and once satisfied, I need to solve the question that the answer provokes: Just how does a good liberal continue to vote for the Democratic Party? The party that supports the mutilation of children? The party that demands abortion at any stage? The party that can’t define what a woman is and in fact believes men can become women and vice versa; that wants grown men in women’s bathrooms and lockers and pounding them to a pulp in women's sports? The party that is filled with more anti-Semites every day; that votes for a man with a nazi tattoo on his pec; that embraced an actual Klan member for decades; that no longer believes, if it ever did, in judging a man by the content of his character; that skin color reigns supreme and that the only cure for racism is reverse racism? The party that embraced LawFare as acceptable and assassination as understandable, because when you're fighting the reincarnation of Adolf, violence is necessary? The party that destroyed lives and livelihoods over refusal to be a lab rat for an experimental drug (a horrifying example of “king-like” behavior)? The party that treated “1984” as an instruction manual and not a cautionary tale, and made real a Thought Police and canceled any thought disagreeable to them… like, maybe Covid came from a Chinese lab funded by the US? The party that shouts Israel is evil and marching in the street for Hamas is righteous? And on and on…

    What can I say, I’m an eternal optimist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This may be your most lame set of comments yet. I give you ten evidence-based examples of blatant acts of corruption, bribery, and financial self-dealing in which Trump abused his office to directly benefit himself and his family members, and you say not a word about that, but come up with a hodgepodge of false “what about isms” that make no sense and rehash right-wing jargon that you have been spewing for years. It is downright predictable how much you miss the point, and it is getting old.

      You cannot dispute that Trump is the most corrupt, scandal-plagued president in American history. Your claims about President Obama are laughable. There was not a single act of financial self-dealing or personal corruption alleged against Obama in his two terms as president. Trump brags about his self-dealing. He is the only president in modern history to fight tooth-and-nail to hide his tax returns, and now he has his lackey AG “settle” his baseless lawsuit against the American taxpayers by granting complete immunity to Trump, his family, and their businesses from any and all tax-related audits, lawsuits, and investigations. That alone makes Trump the most corrupt president in American history, hands down, and no one else comes close. Of course, you know this is true, just as you know that Obama is a more ethical, honest, and thoughtful human being. Whatever you think of his policies, it simply cannot be disputed that Obama offered a model of personal behavior and ethical leadership in the White House.

      I will not dignify any of the disgusting things you imply from the rest of your comments. You know I oppose violence of any kind in the political arena, and I have never wished for any physical harm to Trump or any of the people on the right with whom I disagree. And you conveniently ignore that I have written many essays (including the latest one) on the need for more civility and respectful debate in American politics. Doing so might help reduce the triggers that inspire mentally-ill people to commit hideous acts of violence. But every time I make this suggestion, you go ballistic. I have also advocated for better gun safety and mental health treatment in the United States, both of which would do more to reduce the violent acts we both abhor. And yet, you oppose those measures. What does that say about you?

      I am sure that there are people (on both the left and the right) that have said a lot of stupid and abhorrent things, but they have nothing to do with me. I don’t answer for them any more than you must answer for all the racist, right-wing Christian nationalists, homophobes, and antisemites that dominate the current Republican Party. You also know better. Trump, apparently, does not. After Robert Mueller died, Trump said, “I’m glad he’s dead.” He said equally disgusting things when Rob Reiner was murdered. He made fun of Nancy Pelosi’s husband being violently attacked and nearly murdered. Trump frequently incites his most extreme supporters in ways that encourage violence, not least of which was the January 6th insurrection (before he pardoned the 1,600 cop-assaulting criminals, which he now wants to compensate with taxpayer funds). So, who has the high ground on this one? Give it up. You’re dead wrong, and it’s morally bankrupt to defend Trump anymore.

      Okay, so you want me to acknowledge something good that Trump has done. No problem. I agree wholeheartedly with Trump on getting rid of the penny. Hurray!

      Delete
  5. Mark,

    This gets old, but words mean things!

    I love what you did there, though. I comment about the corruption of the left and of the trinity of bad presidents, Clinton, Obama, and Biden, and you narrow it to the financial wrongdoing of Obama. Clever.

    “Lame set of comments” means nothing; show me where I waste words like that. And yes, words are valuable, too!

    What was “false” about my “what about isms,” and why do they make no sense?

    I did AI your examples, and they disagree on the “blatant acts” part, but I know how you hate it when I get into the weeds. Needless to say, nothing you wrote has been tested in court.

    I absolutely can dispute that “Trump is the most corrupt, scandal-plagued president in American history.” Who has he tried to frame for treason? Whose lives, like the patriots Flynn and Page and others, has he destroyed?

    Which claims about President Obama are “laughable”?

    Did I claim Obama’s corruption was in the realm of “financial self-dealing or personal corruption”? That most certainly applies to Biden and his son, and since maybe Biden's dementia ride through the White House was Obama’s third term, that confused you?

    Why do you say things like this: “Of course, you know this is true, just as you know that Obama is a more ethical, honest, and thoughtful human being.” You know I don’t believe this and have told you why.

    Now, the most important (and offensive) point you made is to accuse me of “disgusting implications” I made against you. Didn’t we once discuss your unfortunate habit of implying what I meant and then arguing against your own implication? In fact, what I said is that you may be my last hope! That I read you because I refuse to believe an intelligent man like yourself could be fully in line with the current Democratic Party. If I thought for a second that you didn’t “oppose violence of any kind in the political arena,” and that you ever “wished for any physical harm to Trump or any of the people on the right,” I would never read you.

    And it gets worse! While I do oppose additional gun laws, and advocate for the laws already existing to be enforced, which is common sense — and proof that you haven’t yet read John Lott — I have never been opposed to better health treatment. Please provide the evidence, and then we’ll decide what it says about me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. And once again, I did not say you agreed with the “stupid and abhorrent things” Democrats say, but that I read you as a hopeful balance to all the common vileness on the Left.

    Now, I beg you… I’M ON MY KNEES BEGGING YOU to substantiate this claim: “…racist, right-wing Christian nationalists, homophobes, and antisemites that dominate the current Republican Party.” Evidence, I implore you! If they dominate, it will be easy to give me your top three examples. (And I will help you by stipulating to “right-wing Christian nationalists.” I am on the Right, am a Christian, and do believe this nation is the best and must come first in any consideration.)

    And as if there wasn’t a deeper end that you could find to go off on: “Trump frequently incites his most extreme supporters in ways that encourage violence, not least of which was the January 6th insurrection (before he pardoned the 1,600 cop-assaulting criminals, which he now wants to compensate with taxpayer funds).” First, an observation. Despite saying bad things that “incite,” the only aspiring and successful assassins have come from the Left. To return to the beginning, what does that say about the Left and the Democratic Party? And about those on the Right? The Right is too busy working to stalk a democrat? We’ve also discussed this before, and I made the case that the Left is always overrepresented in the violence department. You may want to review. But first, please justify the ridiculous Leftist talking point, “The January 6th insurrection.” It’s disappointing to hear you use THAT word. And I’m wondering how many of the “1,600 cop-assaulting criminals” you can actually name?

    WORDS MEAN THINGS!

    And I’d love for you to quote me anywhere, here or on social media, where I’ve said anything that suggests those who assaulted cops should get a pass. I’d also like to see the cops who behaved horribly, like the one who pushed the protester off the edge (deadly force) instead of arresting him, and the officer who shot Ashley in cold blood, also be held accountable. (And please challenge me on Ashley! Oh, the education you will get!)

    Now happily, I see you didn’t much challenge the charges I made about the Democratic Party, which warms my heart because that was exactly my point! A point that soared right over your head, but nevertheless serves as a good kumbya moment to end on.

    Rich

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was not going to respond, since arguing with you is a waste of time, but since you begged, here are just a few examples:

      Before becoming FBI director, Kash Patel appeared eight separate times on a podcast hosted by far-right conspiracy theorist Stew Peters, a Christian nationalist and Holocaust denier who has espoused antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories about COVID-19 and the Rothschild family.

      Paul Ingrassia, formerly the White House liaison to DHS and currently general counsel to GSA, is closely tied to multiple figures widely known for promoting antisemitism. In 2023, Ingrassia repeatedly praised "manosphere" influencer Andrew Tate, who according to the ADL "has leaned heavily into unabashedly antisemitic rhetoric, perpetuating Holocaust revisionism, spreading conspiracy theories about Israel, praising Hamas, performing Nazi salutes and encouraging people to embrace and openly engage in racism." Ingrassia was also seen at a June 2024 rally in Detroit led by Nick Fuentes, a Holocaust denier and white supremacist, who holds antisemitic views, including referring to the October 7 Hamas as “staged.” This is the same Fuentes who was invited by Trump to Mar-a-Lago in 2022 along with well-known antisemite Kanye West.

      Then there is Ed Martin, whom Trump nominated for U.S. attorney in DC. That nomination failed when it was learned that Martin was tied to Timothy Hale-Cusanelli, who was convicted of multiple crimes for storming the Capitol on January 6. Hale-Cusanelli is a known Nazi sympathizer and white supremacist who once went to work at a naval weapons station with a Hitler mustache, said “Hitler should have finished the job,” and recorded a lengthy antisemitic video rant in which he compared Orthodox Jews to a "plague of locusts." In August 2024, Martin praised Hale-Cusanelli as an "extraordinary man" and "extraordinary leader" and gave him an award for promoting "God, family and country." Trump has since appointed Martin to multiple positions within DOJ.

      Trump’s Defense spokesperson, Kingsley Wilson, has repeatedly pushed neo-Nazi-linked conspiracy theories regarding the 1915 lynching of Leo Frank, a Jewish man who was falsely accused and unjustly convicted of murder. Wilson has insisted that Frank was guilty and she has attacked the ADL for defending him. She has also openly endorsed and promoted the "Great Replacement" theory, a white supremacist and antisemitic conspiracy theory that claims powerful Jewish figures are intentionally orchestrating the displacement of white populations. And she has utilized right-wing podcasts and social media to express anti-immigrant sentiment and used extremist phrases like "Ausländer raus" ("foreigners out") and "Deutschland den Deutschen" ("Germany for the Germans"). Pete Hegseth continued to praise Wilson even as more evidence of her antisemitism emerged.

      Carrie Prejean Boller, a Trump appointee to the Religious Liberty Commission, in February 2026 promoted the antisemitic belief that Jews are responsible for the killing of Jesus. She also promotes the views of Candace Owens, a former close ally of Trump who defended Kanye’s anti-Jewish rants and claimed that a “Zionist media cartel” controls Washington.

      Jeremy Carl, who Trump nominated for a senior position at the State Department, has mused about the need to address the “Jewish Question” and characterized Jews as in need of conversion. He has also talked about “cultural genocide” against white people and referred to Juneteenth as a “race hustling and white shaming” holiday. As you like to say, “words mean things”.

      In November 2025, Trump defended Tucker Carlson for platforming Nick Fuentes,. And when he was a close ally of Trump, Carlson used his platform to mainstream the white supremacist “Great Replacement” conspiracy theory.

      Dozens of Republican aides on Capitol Hill have been outed by reporters as Groypers, who follow Fuentes and advocate for white nationalism, the Great Replacement Theory, and other offensively anti-immigrant views.

      (cont'd)

      Delete
    2. (cont'd):

      An investigative report from 2020 found that at least 12 Trump aides had ties to neo-Nazi and anti-immigrant hate groups.

      Laura Loomer is a self-described Islamophobe and conspiracy-theory promoter who is closely tied to Trump and has successfully urged him to fire administration officials she does not like.

      Ted Nugent, one of Trump’s most vocal celebrity promoters, who has frequently acted as a warm-up act for Trump's presidential campaigns, posted a series of antisemitic rants on social media in 2016. For example, Nugent shared a graphic featuring headshots of 12 prominent American Jewish figures. Each picture was overlaid with an Israeli flag. The image asked, "So who is really behind gun control?" and featured antisemitic labels, including referring to Michael Bloomberg as the "Jew York City Mayor". In subsequent posts, he argued that "Jews for gun control are Nazis in disguise." Trump never denounced Nugent’s posts and instead deepened his political alliance with him.

      During his 2024 campaign, Trump repeatedly invoked Hitler and the Nazis in positive terms. [See, e.g., https://forward.com/fast-forward/615880/donald-trump-hitler-nazi-references/]. As you say, “words mean things”.

      In July 2025, at a rally in Iowa, Trump described corporate bankers as “shylocks”, an explicitly antisemitic slur denoting greedy money lenders. He has also repeatedly attacked the intelligence of Black members of Congress, referring to them (e.g., Maxine Waters, Hakeem Jefferies) as “low IQ individuals.” He has referred to several Black-majority countries as “shithole countries” and told four minority Democratic congresswomen (three of whom were born in the US) to “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.” As you say, “words mean things”.

      In October 2025, Politico reported on leaked Telegram messages from leaders of various state chapters of the Young Republican National Federation. The chats included high-ranking local Republican Party operatives and a state senator routinely using racial slurs, praising Adolph Hitler, and joking about slavery and sending political opponents to gas chambers. As you say, “words mean things”.

      In December 2025, the Coast Guard downgraded the swastika and nooses from a hate symbol to “potentially divisive.” They reversed this decision only after receiving pressure from Jewish Democratic Senator Jacky Rosen and the broader Jewish community.

      Official ICE recruitment and social media materials released by DHS have faced intense criticism from law enforcement analysts and civil rights groups for containing white supremacist dog whistles, Neo-Nazi codes, and references to white nationalist literature (I have seen it, but too much to get into here). The dog whistles are so overt that it alarmed mainstream law enforcement intelligence agencies. In May 2026, the Colorado Information Analysis Center (a state-level threat intelligence hub) warned that the official DHS recruitment strategy was creating a dangerous "permissive environment" that would actively attract violent neo-Nazis and vigilantes directly into the ranks of federal immigration enforcement.

      I left out a lot (Rep. Paul Gosar, Rep. Lauren Boebert, Elon Musk, MTG before she changed course, etc.). But I need to get back to my life. I am done with this conversation.

      Delete
  7. Mark,

    I share your fatigue, although, being the eternal optimist, I will not characterize our give and take as a waste of time. And I will only comment on your first example since I had begged for your three best and assume you led with the best (I’ll be happy to comment on the others if you insist), although I’ll observe that the first thought as I read them all was “Six degrees of Kevin Bacon!”

    So your first and best was Marco Rubio, a man I always felt wishy-washy about until he entered the crucible of TDS-inspired hate and hysteria, and then, damn did he bloom!

    So before I make my obvious inference from your best example, I must ask, would you in good faith ever write this sentence: “Marco Rubio is a homophobe and anti-Semite”? (Obviously, Rubio is proudly right-wing, proudly Christian, and obviously believes in the “idea that the interests, culture, identity, and sovereignty of one's nation should be prioritized.” Not sure why you thought the first three adjectives were insults?)

    So! By Mark Ehlers own standards, we know a few things. President Obama is a raging anti-Semite. Why? Because he attended the church of a raging anti-Semite for twenty years. Eight separate times, you say? Hmmm, 20 years times 52 Sundays comes to 1,040 times Obama enjoyed Reverend Wright waxing poetically about “Them Jews.”

    We also know that President Clinton raped children. After all, he was on Epstein’s plane 26 times.

    For the record, while I know Clinton is an absolute pig of a man, and while I believe Juanita Broaddrick’s accusations, I am not convinced that your logic should condemn Clinton as a pedophile. I could be wrong!

    And based on your logic, I have a confession: I was once in the presence of Wilson Goode and even have his autograph. Yes! And I went there willingly… Oh, wait, holy crap, it’s worse than that… I actually voted for him. Dear God in heaven! But I swear, I did not approve of his bombing of the MOVE compound!

    Oh me oh my, what other fiendish associations have I subconsciously blocked out?

    I’ll think about it, and you let me know if I should continue.

    Rich

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rich - Sorry to refute your assumption, and perhaps I should have made clear that these were listed in no particular order, but the Kash Patel example (I said nothing about Marco Rubio) was simply the first one listed. I think the examples get increasingly worse as you go, but that was not intentional. Do you really wish to defend each and every example listed, or can you at least acknowledge there may be a bit of a problem here? You have spent much of the past 20 years attacking every perceived blemish and imperfection on the Democratic side, so I find it curious that, when confronted with a rather lengthy list of horrible behavior, words, associations, and actions on your side of the aisle, your instinct is to deflect and attack, rather than reflect.

      Delete
  8. My bad!

    But the logic is the same, whether it is Rubio or Patel (who I always liked!). Problem, of course, is that Kash is not Christian, so your first one is off base from the start. Yet my logic works with Kash just as well. Would you write “Kash Patel is a homophobe and anti-Semite”?

    You ask questions but refuse to answer them. Is my logic not sound?

    I would be more than happy to go down the list and give you my honest assessment. Would you do the same with the retched Democratic Party… or maybe the Obama or O’Biden Administration? Van Jones, anyone? The “wing man” Holder? Yadda, Yadda.

    (In fact, that just reminded me of my satire of one of your posts: “In watching the nightly news, I am struck by the intensity of the present political divide. The spirit of compromise, unity of purpose, and working together for the common good are concepts emblematic of a distant past. The extreme political Left, symbolized by the Acorn Voter Fraud, broken promises to air healthcare debate on C-SPAN, a White House administration filled with self avowed Marxists and communists, backroom dealing to buy votes and the aggressive hostility to American ideas expressed by our administration (Secretary of Treasury Geithner: tax cheat; Attorney General Holder: pardons for old terrorists, Miranda warnings for new terrorists; National Endowment of the Arts: encouraging artists to promote the Obama agenda; Van Jones: Marxist and Truther; Science Czar Holdren: “compulsory abortions”; Safe Schools Czar Jennings: pornographic reading list for kids; key adviser and bioethicist Dr. Emanuel: “allocation (of medical care) by age is not invidious discrimination”; communications director Anita Dunn: Maoist) contributes to the growing polarization of American politics as our country drifts ever deeper into a sea of hatred and division. President Obama, not even trying to be statesman-like, takes to the airwaves almost nightly to blame former President Bush for everything including making terrorists even madder at us and coming soon, blaming Bush for jinxing him on that girlish first pitch in July. The Whitehouse continues to suggest that a government run healthcare, complete with “government-authorized end-of-life consultations,” would not lead, inevitably, to rationed healthcare, known euphemistically, but accurately as Death Panels. Democrats daily accused President Bush of lying when he was in office and unlike Joe Wilson, never apologized, and now mean-spirited, left-wing congressional representatives stand on their soapboxes and warn Americans that "Republicans want you to die quickly." If Congress is but a microcosm of the larger society, then we risk never again achieving a consensus in addressing national concerns that affect our nation’s future. It was not always so.”)

    I have no problem with admitting I might be uncomfortable with some choices, but as you spent years demonstrating, you do not throw the Obama out with the Omar bath water.

    Trump is making epic moves to make this country, and the world, a much safer place. Your daughters are safer now with the border closed and Iran out of the nuclear business… assuming they burned through all the Obama cash. Soon, your family will be vacationing in Cuba, smoking real Cubans. The list goes on and on, so while I might be more uncomfortable with Trump’s choices than you were with Obama’s, that is only a reflection of our individual standards.

    But sure, if you’d like to go back and forth, I’m game. You know that I’m the one who never ignores a question. I find questions mostly easy to answer, but I don’t mind when they are tricky.

    Let’s play?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think I know why you didn't want to play! And I love AI! So I simply asked if your statement, "An investigative report from 2020 found that at least 12 Trump aides had ties to neo-Nazi and anti-immigrant hate groups," was true. The response (in part):

    "No major mainstream fact-checkers (AP, Reuters, etc.) appear to have validated the exact 'at least 12' as rigorous journalism; it fits a pattern of 2017–2020 media narratives around Trump, Charlottesville, and figures like Bannon/Miller/Gorka. Some individual cases (e.g., Gorka) were heavily contested.

    "Counterpoint: Trump repeatedly condemned neo-Nazis and white supremacists (e.g., post-Charlottesville). No evidence emerged of widespread neo-Nazi infiltration of the administration. Many accusations relied on SPLC-style designations, which are criticized for bias.

    "In short, the report exists and says exactly that. Whether it represents fair, well-sourced journalism versus motivated classification is a separate (and contested) question. Claims like this were common in 2020 election coverage."

    I predict that AI is going to make your writing so much more accurate and substantial, if for no other reason than you know I'll be even more vigilant in checking you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You should be careful with AI, as my list in the comments was initially researched through AI (so, it works both ways). I use AI and Google to fact-check my essays, which is helpful, but only if one checks the actual sources cited. When I asked AI "Did an investigative report from 2020 find that at least 12 Trump aides have ties to neo-nazi and anti-immigrant hate groups," the answer was: "Yes, an investigative report found that at least 12 Trump administration staffers and advisers had ties to white supremacist, neo-Nazi, and anti-immigrant hate groups. The report, titled 'The White Supremacist House: Extremism in the Trump Administration,' was produced by the investigative news organization Capital & Main. It detailed how more than a dozen officials appointed during Donald Trump's presidency possessed deep connections to extremist organizations or openly promoted their ideologies. The investigation highlighted several high-profile aides and the nature of their ties to hate groups."

      I will grant you that, unlike the other more specific points on the list, this one was a little tougher to pin down (and I almost deleted it before I published that comment). I watched the 9-minute video that Capital & Main produced, which supports their thesis with names and examples, but I am generally more conservative in my self-edits and, with more thought, I may have not included this one. Not because it is not true, but because I know nothing about Capital & Main and their video style is not one I am comfortable with, and it appears to be overly subjective in how it interprets certain associations.

      But the reason I don't want to debate you because it does neither of us any good and is a waste of time. And, as happened here, your comments stray into areas having nothing to do with what I originally wrote, repeats old arguments, is full of "what about-isms," which does nothing to refute the facts and essential points I make and is an implicit admission that my main point was correct. And when I do take you up on your dares, you ignore most of the information provided. (BTW, I plan to address AI in the near future, once I have more time to reflect on Pope Leo's thoughtful encyclical).

      Delete
  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete

Most Popular Posts in the Last Year