Alex P. Keaton was delightful …

… but Nebraska’s version isn’t quite so endearing

Joseph Weber

Michael J. Fox as Alex P. Keaton, source: Instagram

In the 1980s, Michael J. Fox earned his acting spurs in “Family Ties,” a sitcom in which he played Alex P. Keaton, the right-wing young son of a pair of ex-hippies. Throughout the show’s seven-season run, the buttoned-down tie-wearing character clung to Reagan-style conservatism.

But Fox in 2020 said Keaton would have shunned Donald J. Trump. George W. Bush or Mitt Romney might have flown, perhaps, but not Trump.

I’m reminded of this because Robert B. “Bob” Evnen, a fellow we knew in Lincoln, Nebraska, was something of a Keaton-like figure to his family. While Bob’s family consisted mostly of liberal Jews, he took a different path. An attorney schooled at the liberal-leaning Gould School of Law at USC, he became a fire-breathing MAGA-backing rightist who got quite active in Nebraska Republican politics.

One longtime friend of his family once bemoaned Bob’s turn from his family’s values. How could this black sheep have gone so far astray, she wondered?

Bob Evnen, source: his campaign

But Bob’s shift certainly paid off for him professionally. He won election as Nebraska’s Secretary of State first in 2018 and again in 2022. He’s now seeking a third term, with three candidates – one Republican and two Democrats – vying to take his job in a May 12 primary. He recently emailed me, seeking my vote, even though, as a resident of Colorado now, I no longer vote in Nebraska.

Not that he’d get my vote anyway.

Bob is a fascinating study in how enablers of Donald J. Trump – often otherwise bright people – contort themselves so they can ride on the coattails of the president and other highly placed Trump toadies. They do so despite facts and logic, sometimes despite their own experiences.

They do so, perhaps, because opportunism pays off.

For instance, Bob won the state post in 2018 championing requirements that voters in Nebraska show identification in order to vote. Never mind that the numbers on voter fraud in the state – and nationally for that matter – were and continue to be minuscule.

One group that tracks such voter fraud cases listed just two Nebraska men who voted twice in 2016, each once by mail and once in person. No cases were listed for any other year except 2020, when three members of one family voted in one county while living in another.

In that 2020 Nebraska case, prosecutors said the family patriarch had become angry with the village board in a nearby community where he owned several properties but didn’t live. The board had passed an ordinance pertaining to junk on lots and nuisance properties. The man, who presumably voted against the board candidates, was fined $10,000 while his son and daughter-in-law got probation.

Voter ID, which Nebraskans endorsed by ballot question in 2022 and which was enacted into law in mid-2023, may have prevented the man from voting. Indeed, on its face, voter ID seems as reasonable as requiring a driver’s license or some other photo identification to buy booze or fly.

Bob claims he wrote the state’s voter ID law, by the way, though it appears that a few more folks were involved. His staff and a legislative committee, for instance, had their hands in.

Of course, facts are slippery things with MAGA folks. More important, as the League of Women Voters noted, the issue is that time and time again, voter photo ID laws have proven ineffective in fighting voter fraud — in the rare instances it does take place.

“While voter photo ID laws aim to prevent in-person voter impersonation, an almost non-existent form of voter fraud, other types of voter impersonation are similarly rare and not cause for significant concern,” the league reported. “According to the Brennan Center, the rate of in-person voter impersonation is extremely low: only 0.00004% of all ballots cast. It’s worth noting that this rate is even significantly lower than other rare forms of voter fraud, such as absentee ballot fraud, which voter photo ID laws do not address.”

Indeed, the league traced the history of such efforts as voter ID laws back to the Jim Crow era in the South. That was “when many states employed various tactics — including literacy tests, poll taxes, and extralegal measures such as violence and intimidation — to prevent Black Americans from voting. Following the enactment of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in 1965, many of these tactics were outlawed, but efforts to restrict voting access persisted, including implementing voter ID laws.”

Voter ID measures also restrict voting by Native American communities, low-income, elderly, and rural voters, according to the league. “This is partially because photo IDs aren’t as common as many people assume: 18 percent of all citizens over the age of 65, 16 percent of Latino voters, 25 percent of Black voters, and 15 percent of low-income Americans lack acceptable photo ID.”

But, on the right, fraudulent voting remains a hot-button issue. That’s chiefly because Trump – egomaniac that he is – could not believe that he lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden. Even today, he espouses the lie that really he won.

In a laughable case of “how far right can I be?,” Bob Evnen faced a couple Republican opponents in the 2022 primary who attacked the integrity of the vote in Nebraska in 2020. His state post then included ensuring an honest election.

Both of Bob’s opponents had based their campaigns on claims that the state’s vote-counting machines had been compromised, the Nebraska Examiner reported. They argued that fraudulent voting had occurred on Bob’s watch. Both questioned whether Biden had truly won an electoral vote in Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, where he outpolled Trump by more than 22,000 votes.

But Bob, a former general counsel for the Nebraska Republican Party, maintained that he had fully investigated all the claims by the two and by a group called the Nebraska Voter Accuracy Project and found no validity to any of them, the news outlet reported.

Had Bob faced just one of the other GOP primary contenders, it’s an open question whether he would have won. Together, the two garnered just over 56 percent of the party vote, though they split the voting with smaller shares each, of course, leaving Bob to prevail with just under 44 percent of his party’s support.

Ah, the delicious irony. What goes around comes around, eh Bob? Of course, he coasted to success in the fall 2022 general election in heavily red Nebraska with no opposition from Democrats or others.

But this is a drum that even today Bob keeps beating, usually as he marches in lockstep with Trump. For instance, he praised a presidential executive order titled “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections” as opening “a new and hopeful chapter.”

Trump signed the executive order in late March of last year, aligning it with a House Republican priority to pass the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. The SAVE Act would require proof of citizenship in federal elections. While the House passed that act, it is expected to die in the Senate.

Election watchdogs have said that some MAGA Republicans base their contentions about fraud at the ballot box on the “myth” of widespread voting by non-citizens. That’s so even though the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, analyzed election conduct from 2000 to 2025 and found just 99 instances nationally of noncitizens voting out of hundreds of millions of votes cast.

Still, this bogeyman remains one Bob is happy to raise, even as he lets in just a smidge of daylight between himself and Trump. “It’s very important that we assure ourselves that non-citizens are not voting,” Bob recently said. “But we don’t need to nationalize elections to do it.”

Source: Bob Evnen email

Apparently concerned about that sliver of daylight seeming too bright, in his email he assured me – and others he sent the note to – that “The President and I are Completely In-Sync on Mail-In Voting,” another of Trump’s hobbyhorses. Trump rode that pony with a second executive order, titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections.”

Bob likes this one a lot. He said it would “require each state to send the Postal Service a list of those who have requested early ballots. As soon as the Postal Service is ready to put this into effect, we will immediately provide the list of Nebraska early voters, which already is publicly available under Nebraska state law. The Postal Service will then be responsible for making sure that it returns early ballots only for those voters on that list.”

Imagine how efficiently that all would work.

But you don’t have to imagine that, since the Brennan Center at NYU’s School of Law did so already: “If implemented, the executive order would inject chaos into our elections, block eligible American citizens from voting, undermine voter privacy, and expose election officials and others to criminal prosecution simply for doing their jobs,” the center reported.

Oh, and recall that Trump has himself voted by mail, including just recently. Still, he calls it “mail-in cheating.”

But such measures all fall under what a former journalist and longtime observer of Nebraska politics, Steve Smith, calls “the Integrity Narrative.” Smith, who directs communications for The Good Life Institute, writes that this narrative “opens with a claim that the system needs protection. It then builds a tool to measure risk. Finally, it closes with a report that appears to confirm the original concern. Each step feels reasonable; all told, they shape how voters are treated in real time.”

Of course, the ultimate game is to drive down voter participation in a bid to help Republicans.

“It helps to ask a simple question,” Smith adds. “What problem is this system solving? Claims about widespread illegal voting always end up being debunked, overblown, or downright fictional.”

Still, such issues offer opportunists their chances to shine and to cozy up to people in power. A decade ago, Bob distinguished himself in Nebraska politics — and won over the heart of then-Gov. and now Sen. Pete Ricketts — by co-founding and leading a 2016 drive that successfully reinstated the death penalty in the state. The state legislature had abolished it.

“Capital punishment is the only penalty that is repeated in all five of the Books of Moses,” Bob told a group of Omaha Republicans. “The Old Testament is composed of three parts. The five Books of Moses, the Prophets and the Writings. The Five Books of Moses, in each of those five books you’ll find capital punishment is prescribed for certain crimes. And so we begin with capital punishment is morally required.”

“Required?” Never mind that a famous passage in the Mishnah, an early collection of traditional writings, cites a religious court’s view that one execution in 70 years was considered destructive. Or that the rabbis in the Talmud fashioned legal hurdles that made the death penalty exceedingly rare — something Bob as a knowledgeable Jewish person should have known.

Sounds a bit like JD Vance, the Catholic convert, telling the pope to “be careful when he talks about matters of theology.” Ah, the hubris of MAGA, from the top on down.

Since Bob’s death-penalty effort paid off, Nebraska has executed one man, Carey Dean Moore. Moore killed two Omaha cab drivers in 1979, when he was 21. He was sentenced to die, but the decree was twice reversed and then stayed in 2007, when Nebraska’s Supreme Court had reservations about electrocution, and again in 2011, that time over concerns about lethal injections. After 38 years on death row, Moore was killed by injection in 2018.

Moore’s death drew the ire of death-penalty opponents.

They included Sister Helen Prejean, a Roman Catholic nun whose novel about a Louisiana execution was made into the movie “Dead Man Walking.” Prejean pilloried Ricketts over his championing of the death penalty. “‘An important tool,’ Gov. Ricketts calls it,” Prejean said. “A tool for what? To show that we’re capable as a state of imitating the worst possible violence under the worst possible conditions, the most pre-meditated death of a human being you can imagine?”

“What’s going to happen after the execution … is anybody really safer? Has it really helped the state? All these things come to mind when I think of this and what’s about to happen in Nebraska,” she said. “Nothing will be accomplished by it, and that’s hardly what you call pro-life.”

By the way, Bob proudly claims to be pro-life, too. Never mind the moral and intellectual inconsistency – as one might politely call it – of advocating state-sponsored killing while calling oneself pro-life.

Inconsistency – perhaps we might call it hypocrisy — isn’t a problem for many MAGA Republicans, though. They claim they are furthering democracy with their efforts to restrict voting. They argue that gerrymandering is fine in Texas, but not in blue states. And they back a philandering felon’s invocations of law and order when his minions murder protesters in Minnesota.

So, Bob, Alex P. Keaton was entertaining and appealing in the 1980s. But your version of him just isn’t all that charming. I won’t be voting for you, volunteering or donating to your reelection bid. As your president might say, thank you for your attention to this matter.

Divinely ordained?

In a flap between Trump and the pope, guess who takes the high road

Joseph Weber

Henry VIII meets Anne Boleyn, source: World History Encyclopedia

Popes and kings have often rubbed one another the wrong way.

Consider Henry VIII. When Catherine of Aragon couldn’t produce a male heir for the obese British king, he grew infatuated with one of her ladies-in-waiting, Anne Boleyn. Pope Clement VII stalled for years on granting a divorce. So, the monarch broke with the Roman church, appointed a Protestant clergyman as the Archbishop of Canterbury, got his divorce from him and married the heavily pregnant Anne.

Then, in 1534, Parliament passed a law making Henry the Supreme Head of the Church of England. The randy ruler also soon had Boleyn beheaded and married four more times. The fates of the six were not happy: “divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived.” For his sins, Clement’s successor excommunicated Henry in 1538 and the king died nine years later.

Three centuries earlier, Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II went to war twice against papal armies, battling them in 1229 and 1230 and again in the 1240s. Pope Gregory IX had excommunicated Frederick a couple times and taken his lands in Italy while the king was off on crusades. His successor, Pope Innocent IV, later again excommunicated the emperor. In their war of words, the popes called Frederick “the antichrist,” and he, in turn, labeled Innocent the same, adding that the pope’s name was “the mark of the beast,” arguing that his initials equaled the Roman letters for the Satanic 666.

Pope Leo, sourceL OSV News

So, in comparison, the contretemps between the obese would-be monarch, Donald J. Trump, and Pope Leo XIV seems like small beer. Certainly, it’s as paltry and petty as Trump himself, who demonstrated his anger, irrationality and knack for non-sequiturs as he took on the leader of 1.4 billion Catholics in a Truth Social post.

While Trump hurled personal insults, calling Leo “WEAK on crime and terrible for Foreign Policy,” and accusing him of “catering to the Radical Left,” the pope preferred to take a higher road. Speaking to reporters at the beginning of a 10-day tour to four African nations, Leo said: “I have no fear, neither of the Trump administration, nor of speaking out loudly about the message of the Gospel. And that’s what I believe I am called here to do.”

Leo said he had “no intention to debate” Trump. “I am not a politician,” he told reporters, as he defended his earlier remarks asking the world to end “the madness of war.” He added: “The message is the same: to promote peace.”

The pope did offer a slight jab, however. When he was asked specifically about Trump’s comments on Truth Social, Leo said: “It’s ironic — the name of the site itself. Say no more.”

For all the small-mindedness in Trump’s blast, though, what is astonishing – if consistent – is his egocentrism. It’s all – and always – about him, of course.

Leo, the first American-born pope, was chosen by the global College of Cardinals last May not because he headed the worldwide Augustinian order of priests or because he is an expert on canon law who taught as a seminary professor while ministering in Peru for a decade. No, according to Trump, the now-70-year-old was “a shocking surprise” who owes his appointment to Trump.

“He wasn’t on any list to be Pope, and was only put there by the Church because he was an American, and they thought that would be the best way to deal with President Donald J. Trump,” the president posted. “If I wasn’t in the White House, Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican.”

The pope, Trump added, should be “thankful” to him – though this randy and often-philandering royal wannabe made it clear he doesn’t “want” the Chicago-born pontiff leading the Church (as if he has the say-so).

“And I don’t want a Pope who criticizes the President of the United States because I’m doing exactly what I was elected, IN A LANDSLIDE, to do, setting Record Low Numbers in Crime, and creating the Greatest Stock Market in History.”

Never mind that Trump was elected his second time with less than half the popular vote, 49.8 percent to 48.3 percent for Kamala Harris, a margin of less than 2.3 million votes. And just what crime and stock markets have to do with the pope is a mystery, one perhaps clear only in Trump’s unsettled mind.

Leo, for his part, has avoided direct criticism of Trump in most of his admonitions about the president’s military adventurism.

In his opening months as pontiff, he quietly dodged an early invitation from Trump to visit Washington. But in January, Leo delivered a speech voicing concern about the Trump administration’s capture of President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela.

As The New York Times reported, his admonishments on the war in Iran have grown more pointed as the conflict has continued, and as Trump administration officials began invoking theology to justify the war that Trump ordered up.

Pete Hegseth, source: The Guardian

First, he appeared sour on efforts by Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, to portray the U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran as a Christian mission. Hegseth, a supporter of a peculiar Christian sect, asked the American people to pray “every day, on bended knee” for a military victory in the Middle East “in the name of Jesus Christ.”

The pope saw things differently. In a homily during a Mass on the Thursday morning before Easter, the pope said that the Christian mission had often been “distorted by a desire for domination, entirely foreign to the way of Jesus Christ.”

Then, on Easter Sunday, he renewed his call for peace. “On this day of celebration, let us abandon every desire for conflict, domination and power, and implore the Lord to grant his peace to a world ravaged by wars,” Leo told tens of thousands of faithful gathered in St. Peter’s Square.

“We tend to consider ourselves powerful when we dominate, victorious when we destroy our equals, great when we are feared,” the pope said at the Basilica of St. John Lateran, the cathedral of the bishop of Rome. “God has given us an example — not of how to dominate, but of how to liberate; not of how to destroy life, but of how to give it.”

In late March the pope warned against invoking the name of Jesus for battle, saying in a Sunday homily that Jesus “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them.”

After Trump threatened to wipe out “a whole civilization” in Iran, the pope said that “this threat against the whole population of Iran” was “really not acceptable.” He urged citizens to contact their political leaders to ask them to “to work for peace and to reject war always.”

As the Times noted, Trump’s angry reaction to the soft-spoken Leo, who was born Robert Francis Prevost in Chicago, showed “how differently two of the world’s most powerful Americans handle conflict.” The paper noted: “One pleads for resolution, while the other reflexively increases the temperature.”

While the pope mostly kept his comments focused on issues, Trump has preferred to make them personal.

“I like his brother Louis much better than I like him, because Louis is all MAGA,” the president posted. “He gets it, and Leo doesn’t!”

Lou Prevost, the eldest brother of the pope, has repeatedly praised Trump in online posts, applauding his attacks on the trans community and the Democratic Party, and once even shared a video that referred to former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as a “c–t.”

“These f—ing liberals crying about tariffs is just unreal,” read the caption under the video, posted by someone else and reported on by the Daily Beast. “Do they not know that there is a thing called video? Just listen to what this drunk c— has to say in the mid-90’s long before her husband had grindr dates.”

Prevost’s efforts, first noted by the Daily Beast last May 2025, quickly earned him an invitation to the White House, and to a Mar-a-Lago bash hosted by the president in December.

Source: Truth Social

But today some of Trump’s latest postings are not sitting well with others in the MAGA base, as The Washington Post reported. Several were offended by Trump’s post of an image depicting him in Christ-like robes, holding a glowing orb and blessing an ailing man.

“I don’t know if the President thought he was being funny or if he is under the influence of some substance or what possible explanation he could have for this OUTRAGEOUS blasphemy,” wrote Megan Basham, a prominent conservative Protestant Christian writer and commentator. “But he needs to take this down immediately and ask for forgiveness from the American people and then from God.”

The president has since had the image removed.

Isabel Brown, a Catholic podcaster with the Daily Wire outlet and a conservative influencer allied with the Trump White House, also spoke out against it. “This post is, frankly, disgusting and unacceptable, but also a profound misreading of the American people experiencing a true and beautiful revival of faith in Christ in the midst of our broken culture,” Brown wrote.

David Brody, an evangelical journalist with the Christian Broadcasting Network, blasted the image, as the Times reported. “This goes too far. It crosses the line,” Brody wrote on social media. “A supporter can back the mission AND reject this simultaneously.”

The newspaper also noted that Representative Debbie Dingell of Michigan, a Catholic Democrat from the Detroit suburbs, called the image “deeply offensive and disrespectful.” She added: “This is not a matter of politics or humor — it touches the core of our faith. Our Lord represents humility, sacrifice, compassion, empathy and truth. Everything he is not.”

After Pope Francis died last spring, Trump kicked up similar dust when he posted an image of himself as pontiff. He had a ready answer when reporters asked who he would like to take the job in Rome, according to the Times. “I’d like to be pope,” he joked to reporters at the White House. “That would be my number one choice.”

Source: Truth Social, via The New York Times

For the notoriously humorless Trump – now clearly stung by Pope Leo — the joke was likely more than half-serious.

Do we need hope and change again?

With Trump’s rage going too far, Americans could be ready for something better

Joseph Weber

Source: WBUR

When Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008, he was a fresh face offering “hope and change,” his signature campaign message. He vowed to help the middle class, then struggling in one of the nation’s worst modern recessions, promised an end to the Iraq War, and pledged to install ethical government.

Obama pioneered the use of social media, data-driven voter targeting, and grassroots, small-dollar fundraising. Using platforms such as MyBarackObama.com, his team mobilized 2.2 million volunteers for ground-level organizing and personal outreach. The “campaign team used social media and technology as an integral part of their campaign strategy, not only to raise money, but also more importantly, to develop a groundswell of empowered volunteers who felt that they could make a difference,” academics at Stanford reported.

The technology allowed the junior Illinois senator to deliver an upbeat message, one surprisingly like Ronald Reagan’s “shining upon city on a hill,” his 1980 campaign theme.

“Yes, we can” – a phrase Obama borrowed from the Spanish version used by Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta of the United Farm Workers – became his rallying cry. It worked at a time when Americans craved hope and optimism, successful enough to give Obama two terms.

But when Donald J. Trump came to power – in his two successful presidential campaigns – much of the electorate wanted something far different. They were angry and feeling unheard. White voters, in particular, seemed to feel like they were losing their grip on the country, a message Trump delivered with no embarrassment. The undereducated, especially, felt sidelined economically.

Trump reflected, channeled and ultimately rode to power on their rage at a system that seemed to leave many of them out.

But now that we’re seeing the effects of rage as a governing principle, are many Americans feeling differently? With murderous attacks on alleged drug dealers, followed by military raids on foreign countries and war in the Middle East, as well as masked and armed federal agents rounding up tens of thousands within our borders (and killing some), are growing numbers of Americans appalled by their choice?

And, starting with the midterms and then in the presidential contest of 2028, will they seek a different message?

Will they want that delivered, moreover, in less conventional ways than the old techniques of position papers, local media tours and debates? Perhaps a daily “permanent show” distributed on “traditional TV, connected TV, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, Reddit, podcasts, Snapchat, radio, video games, community events, door-to-door canvassing, phone calls and texting,” as former Obama political adviser David Plouffe contends in a New York Times commentary.

And will they respond once again to upbeat messaging or something else?

David Plouffe, source: Politico

Plouffe, backed by some academic research, holds that anger will carry the day once again – this time disgust at Trump’s legacy. “The messaging must focus squarely on making vulnerable G.O.P. candidates, not the president, the face of the things voters are angry about: higher prices, local businesses closing, farm community devastation,” he argues.

At least one presidential hopeful, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, has embraced both some of the technology and some of Trump’s messaging style. He has gotten a lot of ink with constant posts on social media that troll the president. Newsom has used what Politico called “an inescapable, smashmouth, all-caps-laden and meme-filled X account” to counter Trumpism.

“There’s Newsom on Mount Rushmore,” the news outlet reported last year. “There’s Newsom getting prayed over by Tucker Carlson, Kid Rock and an angelic, winged Hulk Hogan. There’s Newsom posting in all caps, saying his mid-cycle redistricting proposal has led ‘MANY’ people to call him ‘GAVIN CHRISTOPHER ‘COLUMBUS’ NEWSOM (BECAUSE OF THE MAPS!). THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.’”

But I wonder. Do we really want a Trump-style alternative to the president, especially someone who strikes many as just a bit too slick?

Maybe we’re better off with a cooler head, a less everywhere candidate such as Josh Shapiro, perhaps. “He doesn’t host a podcast or spend much time on cable news,” The Atlantic reported. “Even as he engages in regular skirmishes with the White House over policy matters, the governor goes out of his way to not antagonize the MAGA base. Shapiro, who is expected to run for president in 2028, believes that his party’s prospects of regaining power depend less on combatting Donald Trump than on courting the president’s supporters.”

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro

Or would Pete Buttigieg, Rahm Emanuel, J.B. Pritzker, Chris Murphy, Mark Kelly, Andy Beshear or someone else be best? The pundits are split, of course, and both the messenger and the message will be crucial.

Do Trump and MAGA make us more angry or just more exhausted by ugliness, self-dealing and rampant institutional disrespect in the top reaches of government? It seems likely that many of us — perhaps most – are offended by such unhinged and unpresidential messages as “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell — JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah.”

In time, polls will help us get a handle on public reaction. But, for now, we have the disparate responses of politicians.

For instance, Marjorie Taylor Greene, a former staunch ally turned Trump critic, said everyone in the Trump administration who claims to be a Christian needed to “beg forgiveness from God” and intervene in the president’s “madness,” as The Guardian reported. In a lengthy post on X, the former Republican congresswoman wrote: “I know all of you and him and he has gone insane, and all of you are complicit. I’m not defending Iran but let’s be honest about all of this.”

Bernie Sanders, an independent senator, said on X: “One month after starting the war in Iran, this is the statement of the President of the United States on Easter Sunday. These are the ravings of a dangerous and mentally unbalanced individual. Congress has got to act NOW. End this war.”

And Democratic Senator Chris Murphy also called it completely unhinged. He wrote on X: “If I were in Trump’s Cabinet, I would spend Easter calling constitutional lawyers about the 25th Amendment. This is completely, utterly unhinged. He’s already killed thousands. He’s going to kill thousands more.”

Even some Republicans have been appalled by Trump’s rhetoric, especially his so-far delayed threat to destroy Iranian civilization. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) also criticized Trump’s latest threat, arguing on X that “This type of rhetoric is an affront to the ideals our nation has sought to uphold and promote around the world for nearly 250 years.”

Rep. Kevin Kiley (I-Calif.), who recently switched from a Republican to an independent, wrote on X that the U.S. “does not destroy civilizations… Nor do we threaten to do so as some sort of negotiating tactic. We should all desire a future of freedom, security, and prosperity for the people of Iran.”

It’s an open question whether Trumpism will in time burn out, its rage spent. Economic disenfranchisement, especially among the undereducated, seems likely to grow as income inequality widens. And racial strains may be an ever-present reality in our politics (see Kamala Harris’s fall).

But, given the lurches between extremes that now define our system, the time may be ripe in the coming couple years for candidates who embrace and eloquently deliver more positive messages. As Plouffe suggests, they’ll have to tap into all the many channels available now. Forget detailed policy papers and gauzy ads celebrating commitments to family and country. Surely, modern voters will need plenty of sizzle, along with the steak.

Still, decency, morality, a sense of presidential propriety and a promise akin to Reagan’s “shining city upon a hill” or Obama’s “hope and change” — two eminently successful pitches — may offer a much-needed alternative to the anger-driven, self-dealing and self-deluding politics of the moment.

When do editors say “wait a minute?”

Iran war coverage raises tough questions

Joseph Weber

Source: Ethical Journalism Network

Eons ago, Fred Friendly, who worked as a reporter for an Army newspaper during WWII and later rose to serve as president of CBS News, posed a few interesting questions in a seminar in my journalism graduate program.

Should journalists withhold news during a war? Or, are they obliged to abide by the ethic that a reporter must air even difficult facts — if they are important — as soon as possible, wherever they may lead?

Friendly, who died in 1998, then told of a real-life case where a reporter learned of plans to sneak endangered children out of a European war zone. The journalist held back on reporting on the effort until the mission was complete. Releasing any word beforehand could have cost the children their lives, he reasoned.

Of course, the journalist was right to stay mum.

With that example it became apparent to us all that when lives are at stake, a journalist’s first responsibility is not to his or her audience, but rather to preserve life. This idea was demonstrated repeatedly in WWII, when news organizations withheld information they knew about the Manhattan Project, as well as on troop and ship movements, so as not to tip off enemies about sensitive matters.

The Manhattan Project, source: Arcadia Publishing

But does this principle mean, as Donald J. Trump has argued, that reporters broke the law – and their own sense of ethics, though Trump didn’t mention that – when they disclosed that an F-15 fighter had been shot down in Iran? When they learned that one aviator had been rescued while another remained unaccounted for?

As matters of life and death, the questions multiply.

Should the outlets have kept quiet on that, as the government did for more than 24 hours after the shootdown? Should journalists have withheld the news from their audiences until the second airman was rescued? Did they jeopardize his life—and those of his rescuers—by alerting Iranian authorities about the search-and-rescue mission?

And, now, as Trump has threatened, should journalists be interrogated and jailed if they refuse to disclose sources that tipped them to the details?

Trump blamed an unknown “leaker” for sharing the information, vowing to haul in reporters to find the source. “We’re going to go to the media company that released it and we’re going to say, ‘national security, give it up or go to jail,’” Trump said. He added that whoever shared the information is “a sick person.”

But this may not be easy, which may be why Trump refused to point his finger at a single news outlet. Multiple news organizations had reported on the crash, including the Israeli TV outlet N12, Axios, The Washington Post, The New York Times, NBC News and Reuters. Several referred to unnamed “U.S. officials” – plural — as sources.

And just which media outlet broke the news first is not clear, though a few Israeli journalists appear to have gotten the news out before any the others.

Ariel Kahana of Israel Hayom and Haaretz columnist Amir Oren appear to have posted the news on Telegram before their rivals, according to another Israeli journalist who jumped on the story, Amit Segal. Segal and Axios’s Barak Ravid had both posted early on about the shootdown, the New York Post reported.

The Military Times credited Israel’s Channel 12 with being the first to report that a second American pilot was missing, according to the New York newspaper. But Segal and Ravid were among the earliest to post the information to Telegram and X, respectively.

“An American fighter jet was shot down by Iranian fire. A search is underway to locate the two crew members, according to a source familiar with the details. Read my article at @axios,” Ravid wrote at 8:54 a.m. on Friday. Similar posts by Kahana and Oren appeared a half-hour earlier, Segal told the Post.

It is also possible, however, that Iranian state media beat them all on the news. Iranian media circulated photographs and video footage on Friday that purportedly depicted debris from the downed aircraft, Israel Hayom reported.

Images of debris from Tasnim, source: Israel Hayom

The Tasnim news agency, affiliated with Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, reported that at least one pilot apparently ejected. It incorrectly claimed he was captured by Iranian forces following a failed American rescue attempt. The agency also published an image of an ejection seat.

So, the responsibilities and ethical challenges of the American and Israeli media are not clear here, not to mention their legal risks, despite Trump’s certainty about the irresponsibility of their actions. If it was just a matter of preserving an American’s airman’s safety by keeping quiet, that would have been an easy call: of course, you hold back, just as the reporter in Friendly’s case study did.

But this all was far murkier.

First, did the Israeli reporters, who seem to have gotten the first word out on the F-15 shootdown, get their tipoff just by monitoring Tasnim? Had Tasnim really gotten the information first, even if incorrectly so? And, if so, did the Israelis just get confirmation from the Israeli military with the crucial detail that no one had been captured?

But then, when American media outlets got confirmation of various details, should they have withheld all of that, even though the others had released fragmentary or flawed information on Net? Did the U.S.-based outlets, in fact, do the public – if not the military — a service by providing correct information, even if only from anonymous sources?

Or was that the tipoff that, as Trump claimed, told “the entire country of Iran” that a pilot was “somewhere on their land,” making it “much more difficult for the pilots and the people going into search for him? Did they “put this mission at great risk,” as he insisted?

While lots of questions remain, we do know that the Net, with its power to instantly share information – and misinformation – has changed the calculation for media. They now must add a key element to decisions on publishing sensitive information – what if bad information is out there? Is there not a responsibility to set things right, and quickly?

Government leaders always want war information to serve their interests, not necessarily the larger public interest. Certainly, when journalists reported on the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam in 1968, U.S. authorities were unhappy. But that savagery prompted a rethinking of the war and of the behavior expected of American soldiers, alike.

And now, with Trump threatening to bomb every bridge and power plant across Iran, accurate reporting is essential.

The media need to cover the president’s statements, ranging from the recent Truth Social post saying “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will” to his earlier one: “Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran. There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell — JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah.”

To the extent possible, journalists must report in detail on the destruction in Iran, should that occur. Already, they are covering the moral and legal questions involved in Trump’s threats.

“Such seemingly unrestrained statements have alarmed legal experts and former military officials, who argue that the president’s threat to conduct broad attacks on civilian infrastructure — ‘very little is off-limits,’ he said Monday — could undermine America’s aims in Iran and create legal jeopardy for military leadership,” The Washington Post reported.

As the newspaper reported, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has long supported U.S. military members accused or convicted of war crimes. He has claimed that the U.S. would take its “gloves off” in military conflict and show “no quarter” to its enemies, alarming some legal experts.

For American generals and even lower-level service members, who have the right to refuse to follow illegal orders, the orders that may come from both men are particularly problematic. All that needs to be covered by the press.

Trump, of course, has long been at war with the press, usually for covering him accurately. In his blinkered and hostile world view, the media just complicated a search-and-rescue operation, endangering hundreds of people involved. But for the news outlets interested in reporting thoroughly and correctly, as well as doing things ethically and properly, the issues are anything but simple.

April is what we make of it

Though this one seems more Eliot than Chaucer

Joseph Weber

T.S. Eliot in 1956, source: National Catholic Reporter

April is the cruellest month, breeding/Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing/Memory and desire, stirring/Dull roots with spring rain./Winter kept us warm, covering/Earth in forgetful snow, feeding/A little life with dried tubers.

So begins The Waste Land, where T.S. Eliot wrestled with his personal demons in shellshocked post-WWI Europe. Unhappily married, toiling away in a bank despite his studies at Harvard, the Sorbonne and Oxford, and perhaps feeling at 33 that he was midway through an unfulfilled life, the poet suffered a breakdown and was recovering in a Swiss sanatorium when he wrote the work.

Rife with classical references, The Waste Land’s opening inverts the meaning Geoffrey Chaucer infused into springtime in his General Prologue to The Canterbury Tales. As Tyler Malone notes in a guide to Eliot’s poem, Chaucer paints April as a month of restorative power, when spring rain brings nature back to life:

Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote/The droghte of March hath perced to the roote,/
And bathed every veyne in swich licóur/Of which vertú engendred is the flour 
… In modern English, that’s: “When April with its sweet showers has pierced the drought of March to the root, and bathed every vein (of the plants) in such liquid by which power the flower is engendered/created.

By contrast, of course, Eliot gives us an April (in 1921) whose promise is little but hollow and mean-spirited deceit in a world rendered barren by war, a civilization ruined by cultural and physical desolation. His depressing spring reflected both widespread sentiment about a Western world gone awry and his personal mental crisis.

I’m reminded of all this because on the eve of Easter and midway through the Jewish celebration of Passover – both of which are all about hope and rebirth – we also seem immersed in a modern Waste Land.

Guided by an inept president who underestimated the enemy and a self-styled Secretary of War who is busily firing experienced military leaders, we are in a war whose course seems impossible to predict. An unsettling New York Times piece suggests that Iran could well become yet another of our country’s unresolved battlegrounds.

Writer Charles Homans notes that “never-ending wars” have become “the dominant condition of American foreign policy throughout the 21st century.” He holds that this is “a once-dystopian-seeming possibility that, somewhere in the long shadow of Sept. 11, became a quietly accepted reality.” Homans adds that the United States has been actively involved in military conflicts at home or abroad for most years of the 19th and 20th centuries and in the quarter-century since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Pete Hegseth, source: Feminist Giant

And with the Christian nationalist Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, at the helm, the current battle has taken on perverse messianic overtones. Of course, the former Army National Guard Major and ex-TV host not only knows better than his generals, but he’s happy to take on the foremost global leader of Christianity. Hegseth, a supporter of a peculiar Christian cult, has asked the American people to pray “every day, on bended knee” for a military victory in the Middle East “in the name of Jesus Christ.”

Pope Leo XIV, the first American-born pope, has been having none of that. In a homily during a Mass on the Thursday morning before Easter, the pontiff said that the Christian mission had often been “distorted by a desire for domination, entirely foreign to the way of Jesus Christ.” Earlier, in late March, the pope warned against invoking the name of Jesus for battle, saying in a Sunday homily that Jesus “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them.”

Meanwhile, there are plenty of other troubles to fret about both globally and in the U.S. The post-WWII order, particularly regarding NATO, is at risk. Democracy at home is in danger and our economy hangs in the balance, with 72 percent of Americans rating economic conditions as fair or poor and only 31 percent expecting better conditions in a year.

Oh, and masked and armed federal agents continue to round up immigrants across the U.S., shipping them off to detention camps by the tens of thousands (over 68,000 so far, many with no criminal backgrounds). So far, in such custody, at least 46 people have died. Two others, of course, were murdered by such agents in Minneapolis.

It is, indeed, difficult to see this as a hopeful spring.

Heather Cox Richardson, source: The Guardian

Somewhere, no doubt, a modern Eliot is writing verse that captures this gloomy time (or perhaps he or she is doing a podcast about it all). Of course, we do have Substacker Heather Cox Richardson, the Boston College academic who regularly puts all this in historical context and calls out lies from Donald J. Trump. As she discussed it, his recent TV address about Iran marked a new low.

“Sounding tired and speaking in a monotone, Trump reiterated his claim that the U.S. doesn’t need the oil that travels through the Strait of Hormuz and demanded that other nations who need the oil more force Iran to reopen it,” Richardson wrote. “In reality, the U.S. is tied into international oil markets, and prices not only of oil, but also of products that use oil to get to market, are already rising.”

She also noted Trump’s skewed priorities of late, referring to his comments about his new budget at an Easter lunch reception. “I said to [Office of Management and Budget director] Russell [Vought], ‘Don’t send any money for daycare because the United States can’t take care of daycare,’” Trump said. “That has to be up to a state. We can’t take care of daycare. We’re a big country. We have fifty states, we have all these other people. We’re fighting wars. We can’t take care of daycare.”

As Richardson suggested, kids are low on his list. Like Trump’s budget requests for 2026, his new budget calls for an enormous boost to the nation’s military spending, $1.5 trillion, to be paid for with cuts to domestic programs, the academic noted.

Of course, we’re very much in the early days of this Trumpian catastrophe. It’s as if we’re not even through the early German advances in the four-year-long world war that thrust Eliot and many of his generation into their funks. Things may yet turn upward for the U.S., perhaps with November elections that will repudiate the bleak national course Trump has set.

As for Eliot, his understandable pessimism about humanity never disappeared, though his personal life and attitudes did undergo big changes. Some years after writing The Waste Land, he dismissed the poem as “the relief of a personal and wholly insignificant grouse against life…just a piece of rhythmical grumbling.”

By then, his first wife had died and he was happily married to a second woman. He also had given up the Unitarianism of his American youth and converted to Anglo Catholic Christianity, while also becoming a British subject. His writing at that point focused on religious themes, notably The Four Quartets, regarded by some as the major Christian poem of the last century.

Redemption, in whatever form it will take, seems a long way off for us now. Still, Chaucer’s April is a far more welcome one than Eliot’s.

Can the courts save us?

So far, many have shot down Trump’s foulest efforts

Joseph Weber

Just over a half-century ago, a federal judge appointed by an honest Republican president stood up to a corrupt Republican president and made history.

John J. Sirica, a son of Italian immigrants who put himself through law school by boxing, demanded in 1973 that Richard Nixon cough up secret Oval Office recordings. On one, Nixon plotted with aides to quash the infamous Watergate burglary investigation. The late judge’s subpoena – and later release of the tapes, as well as the trials of the Watergate burglars over which Sirica presided – led to Nixon’s humiliating resignation.

Ah, if only humiliation worked on this shameless White House.

But, today, we again see other courageous judges taking on a far more corrupt president and setting him back on his would-be regal heels. Donald J. Trump and his minions have been scorched by one court decision after another in their long parade of efforts to twist, stretch and violate the law.

Trump has lost decisions ranging from one damning a company’s blacklisting from defense contracts to proof-of-citizenship requirements for voting. He’s been slapped down in areas as diverse as tariffs and deportations, as well on his efforts to dismantle the U.S. Agency for Global Media. The administration lost a big vaccines case, was forced by a court to pull back on National Guard deployments in cities and suffered setbacks on revenge cases he brought at critics.

The list of judicial defeats goes on and on. The president and his colleagues have lost cases dealing with congestion pricing in city streets, withholding federal funds from schools in diversity, equity and inclusion cases, and on cuts in funding to sanctuary jurisdictions.

And the judges involved have been withering in their rulings against the administration.

Judge Coughenour, source: Seattle Times

Senior U.S. District Judge John Coughenour in Seattle, a Ronald Reagan appointee, called Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship “blatantly unconstitutional,” for instance. Another Reagan appointee, Appeals Court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, said of the illegal deportation of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia: “There is no question that the government screwed up here.” The judge, sitting in Virginia, added: “This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.”

Even deep in Trumpland, judges have been blistering.

Judge Fred Biery, source: TexasMonthly

District Judge Fred Biery, serving in Texas and ordering the release of a 5-year-old illegally detained by immigration authorities, didn’t hold back, for example. “Observing human behavior confirms that for some among us, the perfidious lust for unbridled power and the imposition of cruelty in its quest know no bounds and are bereft of human decency,” Biery, a 78-year-old Clinton appointee and grandfather, wrote in a three-page ruling. “And the rule of law be damned.”

Still other judges have taken aim directly at Trump.

U.S. District Judge William Young railed against the administration in a free-speech case involving pro-Palestinian protesters such as the Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts student Rümeysa Öztürk. In his 161-page opinion, the Reagan appointee accused the president of violating “his sacred oath” to faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and . . . to the best of [his] Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States … by ignoring the Constitution’s command that the president take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Judge Young, source: Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly

Indeed, Young wrote that Trump favored muzzling free speech. “After all, the facts prove that the President himself approves truly scandalous and unconstitutional suppression of free speech on the part of two of his senior cabinet secretaries,” the judge thundered.

Young, who sits in Massachusetts, also took aim at Trump’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, particularly its love of masks.

After hearing from a top ICE official, Young wrote that the court “rejects this testimony as disingenuous, squalid and dishonorable.”

“ICE goes masked for a single reason — to terrorize Americans into quiescence,” he contended. “Small wonder ICE often seems to need our respected military to guard them as they go about implementing our immigration laws. It should be noted that our troops do not ordinarily wear masks. Can you imagine a masked marine? It is a matter of honor — and honor still matters. To us, masks are associated with cowardly desperados and the despised Ku Klux Klan. In all our history we have never tolerated an armed masked secret police.”

Ouch.

Of course, to Trump the law is just an annoyance, a small obstacle to be overcome. And judges, to him, are lackeys in a system that just gets in his way. Beating the system and the judges is a kind of game that, if stretched out long enough, he is sure he can win or sidestep.

“The time has also come for Republicans to pass a tough new crime bill that imposes harsh penalties for dangerous repeat offenders, cracks down on rogue judges. We got rogue judges that are criminals. They are criminals, what they do to our country. The decisions that they hand down and hurt our country,” Trump said at a March 25 National Republican Congressional Committee event in Washington.

He previously called Supreme Court Justices who had ruled against him in a tariffs case “fools and lap dogs” for political opponents. “They’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution. It’s my opinion that the court has been swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think.”

He recently ratcheted up his language, saying that Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett “sicken me.” He had appointed both of them, but they joined four other Justices in ruling against him in the tariffs case. The majority held that Trump had illegally sought to authorize some levies under an emergency law that was not suited to the charges.

Justices Barrett and Gorsuch, source: National Law Journal

Such tariffs are a mainstay of Trump’s 18th century view of economics. After he lost that Supreme Court case, Trump just found other rules to rationalize the charges, albeit temporarily.

So much for respect for judges and the laws they are upholding.

The “lap dog” judges that “sicken” him on April 1 will be among the nine who will hear oral arguments on one of the hobbyhorses Trump rides to limit the rights of immigrants, birthright citizenship. Recall that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1868, grants citizenship to everyone born in the U.S. (with a few exceptions, such as for children of diplomats).

Ever since then, it has been understood that the language of that amendment is clear and inarguable. Nonetheless, Trump on his first day back in office in January 2025 issued an executive order aimed at overturning that, holding that a child born to parents in the U.S. unlawfully is not entitled to citizenship.

Several judges have shot down Trump’s so-called EO.

“The plain language of the Citizenship Clause—as interpreted by the Supreme Court more than a century ago and routinely applied by all branches of government since then— compels a finding that the plaintiffs’ challenges to the EO are nearly certain to prevail,” one such judge, Leo Sorokin, wrote in enjoining enforcement of the order. “The Citizenship Clause speaks in plain and simple terms.”

As quoted by the judge, the amendment says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” And the judge then wrote: “The words chosen by the drafters and ratified by the states, understood ‘in their normal and ordinary’ way, United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 731 (1931), bestow birthright citizenship broadly to persons born in the United States.”

Now, it will be up the Supreme Court to rule on whether Trump has the power to, in effect, rewrite the amendment.

Praising Sorokin’s ruling last July, former New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin said he was “thrilled the district court again barred President Trump’s flagrantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship order from taking effect anywhere.” Platkin, who helped lead the suit the judge considered, added: “American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation’s history … The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen.”

Decades ago, an appeals court considering one of Judge Sirica’s orders about the Watergate tapes rejected efforts by Nixon’s lawyers to “refashion the Constitution” to suit him.

“Though the President is elected by nationwide ballot and is often said to represent all the people, he does not embody the nation’s sovereignty,” the court wrote. “He is not above the law’s commands. Sovereignty remains at all times with the people, and they do not forfeit through elections the right to have the law construed against and applied to every citizen.”

A No Kings Day protest, source: The New York Times

These days – and today happens to be the nation’s third “No Kings Day “– we are seeing once again whether a president is “above the law’s commands.” Sirica, one imagines, would be appalled by this president but likely would take heart from the many judges standing in the way of Trump’s monarchical impulses.

This dictator cosplay is tiresome

Trump’s scowling images make him look a bit ayatollahish, but also like a clown

Joseph Weber

Sources: iranintl.com

Perhaps Donald J. Trump and the new supreme leader of Iran, Mojtaba Khamenei, have more in common than they think.

Images of the younger ayatollah started flooding Tehran soon after he was anointed to succeed his assassinated father. Now, they seem to be ubiquitous, appearing in photos carried by demonstrators and on lightpoles. Soon, no doubt, we’ll see them on buildings, much as happened with the earlier two ayatollahs.

Sources: The Guardian

But Trump isn’t to be outdone. Posting his photo on buildings in Washington, D.C., isn’t enough for him. Now, he wants to project his strength and dominance on a commemorative gold coin and a circulating $1 coin.

Planned commemorative coin

Isn’t all this dictator cosplay just a bit tiresome?

Apparently not for Trump, whose egomania stretches back decades, perhaps to his damaged youth. Recall that the president’s niece, psychologist Mary Trump, described his upbringing as “malignantly dysfunctional,” calling his father, Fred Trump Sr., a”high-functioning sociopath” who crippled Donald emotionally. She argued Fred Sr. bullied Donald into becoming a “killer” before sending him off to military school at 13. There, instructors struck him if he misbehaved.

So, perhaps in some desperate bid for adulation, Trump strewed his name over all his businesses. He affixed it to casinos and hotels, even to steaks that his company unsuccessfully marketed (the casinos also went bust).

Source: ABC News

And, since he’s been in the White House — the second time — he has scattered his visage and name all over D.C. There’s the “The Donald J. Trump and The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts,” which is closing for a couple years amid defections of performers. We also have the “Donald J. Trump U.S. Institute for Peace,” which seems like an Orwellian joke these days (and which is defunct, with the building now serving mainly as a backdrop for ceremonies with foreign leaders). We also have glowering banners of Trump hanging on the Departments of Labor, Justice and Agriculture, something that the Daily Beast mocked as “Going Full North Korea.”

Source: NPR
Source: The New York Times

We have Trump’s likeness on National Park Passes, which the National Park Service warns will be voided if visitors paste stickers on Trump’s face. Less tangibly, his name graces TrumpRx, the pharmacy program that he promised would deliver the lowest prices in the world for patients. As The New York Times and three German news outlets found, however, drugs listed on TrumpRx “can cost American patients up to hundreds or thousands of dollars, while a patient walking into a German pharmacy pays next to nothing.”

Source: E&ENews PM

All this is more than just ego. Whether it’s an Iranian ayatollah, a North Korean dictator or the totalitarians of Germany and the Soviet Union of old, plastering the great leader’s image on buildings, coins and pretty much anywhere where much of the citizenry can’t avoid it is about power. If the leader is everywhere, he must be all-powerful, right?

On the other hand, it also shows how weak the figure might be. Steve Heller, a former art director for The New York Times and author of “Iron Fists: Branding the 20th Century Totalitarian State,” argued that even despots were dependent not only on brute force, but on harnessing popular support (or acquiescence) to preserve their monopolistic hold on power, as a scholar for Florida International University’s Wolfsonian Library has written. They need to stir the masses to keep up the illusion of their unassailable strength

“Consequently, totalitarian regimes created, reproduced, published, and distributed images of ‘the leader’ so ubiquitously as to transform these heads of states into venerated ‘brands,’ the FIU Library scholar wrote. That library holds thousands of items of propaganda from Soviet Russia, Fascist Italy, and Nazi Germany.

Of course, Trump was a brand as much as a person when he first coasted down the escalator into the presidency. His image as a tough guy and demanding boss was forged in his TV days in “The Apprentice.” As he ran for the White House, he added anger to the mix and that now largely defines him.

Consider “Operation Epic Fury,” the name Trump chose for the Iran War. As Peter Baker of The New York Times writes, the term captures much about how Trump seems to see himself and wants to be seen. “Everything Mr. Trump does, at least as he sees it, is epic — the biggest, the most, the first, ‘like we’ve never seen before,’ as he likes to say,” Baker notes. “And much of what he does seems to be driven by fury, a deep and abiding enmity toward the forces arrayed against him or those he blames for what he considers the downfall of the country under other presidents.”

And now, with the severe look he casts in the imagery on his posters and planned coins, he’s driving home this “take no prisoners” style. No grandfatherly smiles for Trump. A scowl is his preferred expression.

As Washington Post Style writer Philip Kennicott writes, the coin imagery reflects “recurring themes of resolution, anger and determination.” This contrasts with earlier displays in Trump’s digital trading cards and elsewhere that projected “vitality, competence, vision and sometimes even humor or irony.”

Trump’s Digital Trading Card Collection, Source: The Washington Post

Warrior and man-in-charge Trump has little use for humor, it seems. For the rest of us who are subjected to this cartoonish narcissism, humor may be the healthiest response. Really, all that’s missing from some of the Trump images is a dunce cap — or, perhaps, an ayatollah turban.

History’s oldest hatred

Jews in the U.S. are in danger because of people like Joe Kent

Joseph Weber

Source: Good Authority

For Joe Kent, who just quit as Donald J. Trump’s counterterrorism chief, it’s all about the Jews.

“I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran,” he wrote in resigning as director of the National Counterterrorism Center. “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”

Then he went further. In his March 17 letter, which he posted on X, the Trump appointee blamed Jews – especially Israelis — for the 2003-2011 Iraq War, as well as the current Iran war.

“Early in this administration, high-ranking Israeli officials and influential members of the American media deployed a misinformation campaign that wholly undermined your America First platform and sowed pro-war sentiments to encourage a war with Iran,” he argued. “This echo chamber was used to deceive you into believing that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States, and that should you strike now, there was a clear path to a swift victory. This was a lie and is the same tactic the Israelis used to draw us into the disastrous Iraq war that cost our nation the lives of thousands of our best men and women.”

It’s tempting, of course, to dismiss Kent’s diatribe as the ranting of yet another conspiracy theorist. That’s what critics called Kent during his confirmation hearing, after which he squeaked into his job on a 52-44 Senate vote.

After all, he argued that federal agents had instigated the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the Capitol and supported Trump’s claims that the 2020 election was stolen. Also, he was quite chummy with white supremacists, paying a Proud Boys member for consulting work when he ran for Congress in 2022.

There’s little doubt that Kent is a few fries short of a Happy Meal. With a sensible president and a less supine Senate, he wouldn’t have gotten past the Capitol Rotunda, much less into an important Administration position.

But, on the other hand, like too many in the tinfoil-hat set who have come out of the woodwork in recent years, Kent also is an antisemite, casually invoking longstanding anti-Jewish tropes. Somehow, the Jews manipulate non-Jews into wars with shadowy “misinformation,” he holds. Operating behind the scenes, they form an “echo chamber” that bends the ears of national leaders.

“His reference to Israel and claims about Jewish Americans’ political influence highlight Kent’s previous ties to antisemitism and right-wing extremism,” reported the Associated Press. “It’s an antisemitic trope to suggest Jewish Americans have disproportionate control of media narratives.”

To be sure, an aggressive approach to Iran is something that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has urged on American presidents for years, dating back at least to George W. Bush. It’s clear, too, that more recently the Israeli leader stepped up the pressure with an obliging Trump, pressing for military action at least as far back as last December, as The New York Times has reported.

Iranian missiles fired at Israel last June; source; Al Jazeera

And there’s no surprise in that. For Netanyahu and Israel, Iran has long been an existential threat. If the viciously antisemitic regime had a nuclear bomb, Israelis have every reason to believe it would use it against them. Indeed, that – and general nuclear deterrence – is why presidents going back to Bush have tried to contain the country’s nuclear efforts.

But don’t ignore the reality that the U.S. has long had skin in this game, too. Beyond the risks to the world of a theocratic repressive regime getting a nuclear bomb, the U.S. has long been a victim of Iran’s hatred of what it calls “the Great Satan,” with Israel as “the little Satan.” Since the 1979 revolution, the Iranians have badly bloodied America’s nose.

Recall that Iran supplied the I.E.D.s, or roadside bombs, that killed or maimed over 1,000 American troops during the war in Iraq. Consider its plots to assassinate former senior U.S. officials, including John Bolton, Mike Pompeo and Trump himself. And remember that Iran backed the terrorists who in October 1983 killed 241 American Marines, sailors and others, and 58 French paratroopers who were in Beirut to keep the peace. The Iranians were also behind bombing the barracks for the United States Air Force 4404 Provisional Wing in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American airmen in 1996.

Iran has been acting out a slow-moving war against the U.S., as well as Israel, for decades, even as it sowed tumult across the region. “From Lebanon to Yemen and Syria to Iraq, the regime has armed, trained and funded terrorist militias that have soaked the earth with blood and guts,” Trump said in announcing his recent attack.

So, even if Netanyahu encouraged this war, the suggestion by Kent – and like-minded antisemites – that the Israeli leader is a puppet-master pulling Trump’s strings is crapola. Given reasonable fears about the country’s well-shielded nuclear research efforts, Trump had ample reason last June to attack Iran’s fortified facilities. And, with diplomatic moves to contain those efforts faltering, he had reason to attack again even more decisively.

In fact, Trump has been on Iran’s case for decades, as The Atlantic reported. In 1980, during the Iran hostage crisis, Trump agreed with a TV interviewer that “we should have gone in there with troops.” In 1987, The New York Times reported that Trump had told a New Hampshire audience that “the United States should attack Iran and seize some of its oil fields in retaliation for what he called Iran’s bullying of America.” In 1988, Trump told a Guardian interviewer that if he were a political leader, he’d be “harsh on Iran,” Later, in 2013, Trump tweeted “maybe we should knock the hell out of Iran and their nuclear capabilities?”

Soon after assuming the Presidency the first time, he scrapped the Obama administration’s nuclear deal (2018) and then assassinated Qassem Soleimani, a notorious leader of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (2020).

Admittedly, when Trump announced the current series of attacks in a far-too-short and unpersuasive video, he pointed to the 2023 atrocities in Israel to help make his case. “And it was Iran’s proxy, Hamas, that launched the monstrous Oct. 7 attacks on Israel, slaughtering more than 1,000 innocent people, including 46 Americans, while taking 12 of our citizens hostage,” Trump said. “It was brutal, something like the world has never seen before.”

But recall that it was Israel, of course, that responded with extraordinary force against Hamas in Gaza after the Oct. 7th monstrousness, losing many Israeli lives and taking far more Palestinian ones in the process. And it now is responding with force against another Iranian proxy, Hezbollah, in Lebanon, putting more Israelis at risk. It can shoulder its own burdens, albeit with plenty of American military materiel.

The problem, however, is that people like Kent will fuel the already feverish antisemitism on the rise in the U.S. He and his ilk will drive the notion that Americans are being put at risk to fight Israel’s battle, a fight in which they don’t see a stake for America. That notion could put Jews across the country at even greater risk.

And that risk has been growing. The troubles in the Middle East have put every synagogue – indeed, every American Jew — in the crosshairs for anyone seeking to lash out.

Michigan synagogue attacked by Ghazali; source KTLA

Consider Ayman Mohamad Ghazali, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Lebanon. He drove a truck on March 11 into a Michigan synagogue filled with young children, apparently to avenge the deaths of four of his relatives who were killed in an Israeli airstrike on March 5. One of Ghazali’s brothers, it turned out, was a Hezbollah commander.

Last June, in Boulder, Colorado, a man hurled homemade incendiary devices and used a flamethrower to attack people gathered at a rally supporting the release of Israeli hostages held in Gaza. Fifteen people were hurt and one later died. The suspect, 45-year-old Mohamed Sabry Soliman, said he’d been planning the attack for a year and that he had no regrets, instead “wished they were all dead.”

Less than a month before, on May 21, two Israeli embassy employees—Yaron Lischinsky, 30, and Sarah Lynn Milgrim, 26—were shot and killed outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C., shortly after attending an event hosted by the American Jewish Committee. The murderer, Elias Rodriguez, said “I did it for Gaza” and “Free Palestine,” a witness told CNN.

According to the State of Antisemitism in America 2024 report, published in February 2025, 33 percent of American Jews said they have been the personal target of antisemitism, in-person or virtually, at least once over the prior year.

The rise of reported antisemitic incidents in the U.S. has followed a wider trend, as Time reported. According to the Anti-Defamation League, surveys show that “anti-Jewish sentiments are at an all-time high globally.” A report published in January 2025 found that 46 percent of the world’s adult population “harbors deeply entrenched antisemitic attitudes,” equating to an estimated 2.2 billion people worldwide.

Much of such antisemitism is not physical. Much has come in antisemitic hate speech on social media platforms such as TikTok and Instagram.

“However, we shouldn’t be surprised that in a climate where all kinds of hatred and harassment are being normalized, eventually it spills over into deadly violence. It’s horrifying,” Mark Oppenheimer, a professor of practice at Washington University and editor of Arc: Religion, Politics, Et Cetera, told Time.

Whether Trump acted precipitously in joining with Netanyahu to launch this war is something we won’t know for a long time. Their endgame hasn’t been clear, with shifting explanations and goals. And we don’t know how long Trump – and war-averse Americans – will keep up the effort to get to some such endgame.

But, in the meantime, Jews around the world – and particularly in the U.S. and Israel – are in danger. And such peril begins with attitudes such as those of Joe Kent.

The cost of hubris

Trump’s war on Iran so far has failed to deliver his expected quick win

Joseph Weber

Bonaparte’s retreat from Russia, source: Not Even Past

When Napoleon Bonaparte drove his “Grande Armée” – Europe’s most powerful military force – into Russia in 1812, it seemed impossible that the continent’s seemingly invincible leader could fail.

Surely, Russia’s Tsar Alexander I would comply with Bonaparte’s economic blockade of longtime enemy England. Certainly, Russia would give up its designs on Poland. The war, Napoleon bet, would last maybe a month and would leave France towering above all its enemies.

Sound familiar?

Donald J. Trump on March 1 suggested that his war on Iran would last “four to five weeks.” Just under halfway into that timeline, on March 13, the president struck a different tone, saying the war would end “when I feel it, feel it in my bones.” He added that the U.S. has “virtually unlimited ammunition…. We can go forever.”

“Forever?” Is that what he has in mind now?

Bonaparte’s excursion – a term Trump now uses, calling the Iran War a “little excursion” – ultimately led to the loss of much of his army, his abdication and his exile to Elba in 1814. The French leader had leveled much of Moscow, but the Russians in time rebuilt the city and their country. France was humbled.

Such are the miscalculations of hubris.

Nobody knows how Trump’s war on Iran will turn out, of course. Maybe he’ll wind up with a pliable government, à la Venezuela, as he has speculated. But, with the selection of Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of the assassinated Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as Supreme Leader, that seems unlikely in the short run. Certainly, the “unconditional surrender” Trump demanded hasn’t happened.

Posters of the father-and-son ayatollahs, source: Wall Street Journal

Indeed, as analyst Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has written in The Atlantic, the Iranians are digging in. Trump has “spawned a budding Iranian Kim Jong Un” in the younger Khamenei, creating “a hereditary dictatorship poised to double down on ideology and repression.”

In fact, Sadjadpour argued, this Khamenei may prove more intransigent and bloodthirsty now that Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have killed his family. For this new leader and his governing circle, this war will be deeply personal.

Of course, it may be that the Israelis will kill off the new leader, just as they were able to destroy his family. When asked about what actions Israel might take against Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei and Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem, Netanyahu issued a not-so-veiled threat, as Reuters reported: “I wouldn’t issue life insurance policies on any of the leaders of the terrorist organization … I don’t intend ​to provide an exact report here about what we are planning or what we are going ​to do.”

The reason the younger Khamenei survived the assault on his family by Israeli weapons appears to have been accidental. He was taking a walk in the garden when the bombs and missiles fell, perhaps suffering a leg injury.

It may be that Iran’s leaders, feeling as crippled by the war as Khamenei may be, will ultimately yield to relentless air assaults by the U.S. and Israel. But, so far, they’ve shown no sign of capitulating, denying even any interest in a truce or some sort of “deal,” as Trump has suggested. Trump told NBC News on Saturday that Iran was ready “to make a deal, and I don’t want to make it because the terms aren’t good enough yet.”

But on Sunday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi denied that. “No, we never asked for a ceasefire, and we have never asked even for negotiation. We are ready to defend ourselves as long as it takes,” Araghchi told CBS News’s Face the Nation.

For both sides in this fight, words are cheap, of course. And bluster is part of the game.

At least for now, though, the Iranian public hasn’t risen up in revolution, as Trump urged in the war’s opening days. And the Iranian military is busy sending missiles across the region, attacking an array of Arab states that are allied with the U.S. Tehran’s leaders also likely greenlighted the Hezbollah attacks on Israel from Lebanon, rocket assaults that have triggered a fierce Israeli response – opening a second front in this war that now includes a ground assault by Israeli soldiers.

What’s more, the Iranians are striking the U.S. and the West economically. Their shutdown of ships carrying oil and natural gas through the Strait of Hormuz has thrust oil markets into a maelstrom, driving up gas prices for Americans and others. Europeans, whom Trump has long scorned and alienated for other reasons, so far have not taken up his call to help unblock the strait. “This is not our war, we have not started it,” German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius told reporters Monday.

So, just how this all will play out is far from clear. Journalist Bret Stephens has suggested that regime change or “modification” isn’t impossible, that a cease-fire could yet be agreed on, or that Iran could descend into a civil war like Syria’s, complete with refugees spread across the region. He has suggested more American force may be needed, perhaps in seizing a critical Iranian asset, Kharg Island, which serves as the terminal for roughly 90 percent of Iran’s oil exports.

Kharg Island, source: The Guardian

“American control would give the administration the whip hand over most of the regime’s remaining revenues, including its ability to pay salaries for soldiers and civil servants alike,” Stephens has argued. “That could help clarify to even the most hard-line elements in the regime whether it is really worth it to enrich uranium or send more munitions to Hezbollah in Lebanon so they can be destroyed by Israel.”

So far, Trump has resisted sending American forces into Iran. But the Pentagon has deployed as many as 2,500 Marines to the Middle East in what suggests a change in Trump’s approach. They could soon find themselves battling an Iranian military backed by a regime convinced this is an existential fight to stay in power.

Could the Iran War devolve into a quagmire akin to Iraq, which led to a long costly occupation? Or worse, Afghanistan, the failed war that lasted two decades? Or will this “little excursion” of Trump’s end in his hoped-for three weeks or so? Will it end with some sort of stalemate, akin to the Korean War, with a Kim Jong Un clone at the helm of an implacable enemy?

The truth, of course, is that no one has a clue. And perhaps the most clueless of all is Donald J. Trump. Even as he remains sequestered in Washington or Mar-a-Lago, he may find that bluster, bravado and even the most powerful military in the world can’t deliver his expected quick win. Certainly, that’s what the consummately arrogant French leader of long ago found out.

Videogames?

Trump’s marketers are falling short in selling the Iran war

Joseph Weber

Source: The Library of Congress

Convincing Americans that war in distant lands is necessary has often been a tough job.

World War I posters urged citizens to enlist in the Army to “destroy this mad brute,” the German who threatened civilization, and to “Halt the Hun!” by buying bonds. World War II posters delivered similar messages, depicting fists smashing swastikas. And, of course, Uncle Sam encouraged enlistments with the classic “I Want You” imagery.

Source: Chicago Tribune

Today, the Trump Administration faces an especially tough job in selling Americans on its war against Iran. More than half of our countrymen oppose the war (56 percent in a new Marist poll, nearly six out of 10 in a slightly older CNN poll). Marist found that only 36 percent of U.S. residents approve of how Donald J. Trump is dealing with Iran. That’s down from January of 2020, during a period of heightened tension, when 42 percent of Americans approved of the president’s approach.

So, how is the administration marketing its new war effort? It seems to be a matter of conflicting language from Trump and his acolytes, a bizarre sense of theatrics and a reliance on videogames — yes, videogames.

In one video released on X, the administration uses clips from the videogame “Call to Duty” interspersed with imagery of the destruction of Iranian facilities. In another, called “Justice the American Way,” it features scenes from Ironman, Gladiator, Braveheart, Top Gun Maverick, Better Call Saul, John Wick, Tropic Thunder, Superman, Breaking Bad, Transformers, Deadpool, Star Wars and Mortal Combat, along with real bombing scenes.

Nothing about the real threats Iran poses to the West. Nothing invoking patriotism or asking Americans to sacrifice or chip in. Just macho imagery that shows war as a game, something thrilling that is led by the most manly men of them all.

The “Justice” clip opens with a scene from Iron Man with Tony Stark played by Robert Downey Jr. in his lair. “Wake up, daddy’s home,” Downey says. If you aren’t sure who “daddy” is, the clip ends with a logo for “The White House” and “President Donald J. Trump.”

Dunderheaded? Self-glorifying? Juvenile? These are just some of the words that come to mind. There are others, of course:

“War is not a video game,” Joshua Reed Eakle, a board member of Project Liberal, wrote on X. “The parents of the half a dozen American service members who already lost their lives can attest to that.” He called the “Call to Duty” ripoff “morally abhorrent” and “despicable messaging from the White House.”

And there was this from a commenter on TMZ: “Such poor taste. This is not a game or a joke. Can’t wait until this administration is just an ugly mark on US history.”

But it’s more than just a matter of bad taste. Trump and his minions are either blind to the human misery they cause or even exult in it. More than 1,000 Iranians have died already, according to some reports. They include a reported 175 people, many of whom were schoolgirls, at a school that it appears American weapons destroyed. Not a whisper of regret has come from Trump or Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who merely said the attack is under investigation.

At least a half-dozen Americans have been killed in Iranian military responses, which occasioned bizarre comments from both Trump and Hegseth (who styles himself as the far more gladiatorial “Secretary of War.”)

After the first three American deaths were reported, Trump told NBC News: “We have three, but we expect casualties, but in the end it’s going to be a great deal for the world.”

“A great deal?” Spoken like the true dealmaker who sees human costs as just another line item.

Then in a video posted to social media, as CNN reported, Trump again seemed to ask for people’s understanding about the need for such deaths. “And sadly, there will likely be more [deaths] before it ends,” Trump said, before adding: “That’s the way it is. Likely be more.”

“That’s the way it is?”

During a briefing at the Pentagon, Hegseth criticized the media for supposedly focusing too much on the dead soldiers in an effort to make Trump “look bad.” He suggested those deaths were getting disproportionate play, compared to the military’s successes.

“But when a few drones get through or tragic things happen, it’s front-page news,” Hegseth said. “I get it; the press only wants to make the president look bad. But try for once to report the reality.”

It’s as if they both are gamer bros, for whom casualties are just parts of videogame kill tallies – certainly not worth even reporting. The administration seem to have stacked its propaganda arms with twentysomethings who spend their lives in front of computers, out of touch with reality. Their aim, it seems, is less to gin up support for an unpopular war and more to glorify its perpetrators, themselves.

But can this media strategy – such as it is — succeed? And who are they reaching beyond the incels whose blinkered lives don’t include much real human contact? Are they trying to recruit them into our military?

Certainly, many in the West — and in Israel — would like to see real change in Iran. A government that rejects terrorism, accepts a multi-religious and multi-ethnic Middle East and ends any nuclear ambitions would be an ideal outcome. But how likely is that? How likely is this war to drive such fundamental change?

Bizarre as the Trump media approach is, in its confusion and naivete it seems to mirror a similar befuddlement about the objectives of the war itself. Seeking regime change, Trump has repeatedly urged Iranians to rise up and overthrow their government. But Hegseth has denied that aim, instead saying it’s all about destroying “the missile threat” from Iran, obliterating its navy and leaving it with “no nukes.”

And Trump more recently has argued that Iran would “soon” have missiles that could hit targets inside the United States. As he did so, Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested that administration officials knew Israel was going to strike Iran, which would lead to counterattacks against U.S. forces and potential casualties. So, it decided to strike first to minimize the risk.

“We knew there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties,” Rubio said.

Rubio later backtracked, saying “I was asked very specifically… did we go in because of Israel? I said no, this had to happen anyway.”

Of course, the war has given antisemites plenty of ammunition to paint Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as the Rasputin who pushed Trump into the war, as the prime minister unsuccessfully tried to do with prior presidents.

Source: Aish

The Anti-Defamation League warned that “antisemitic and anti-Zionist groups are framing the U.S.-Israel operation against the Iranian regime as the latest evidence of the so-called ‘Zionist war-machine’s’ efforts to co-opt American foreign policy to advance Israeli and/or Jewish interests.” The ADL added that “Influencers who regularly traffic in antisemitic or anti-Zionist rhetoric are leveraging the U.S.-Israel operation… to promote longstanding conspiracy theories about Israel, such as blaming Israel for 9/11.”

As the Times of Israel reported, “These accusations are coming from far-right and far-left accounts as well as anti-Israel groups, such as Students for Justice in Palestine, that are inclined to discredit Israel. An SJP Instagram post read: ‘Imperialism and Zionism are one enemy — the common enemy of the entire region, and indeed, the people of the world.’”

Such accusations build on statements by both Democrats and Republicans that the war serves Israel’s interests more than America’s.

“A war between Israel and Iran may be good for Netanyahu’s domestic politics, but it will likely be disastrous for both the security of Israel, the United States, and the rest of the region,” Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat, said. “We have no obligation to follow Israel into a war we did not ask for and will make us less safe.”

Republican influencer Tucker Carlson, who reportedly met with Trump three times in the weeks preceding the war, implied in an interview with U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee that Trump was threatening to strike Iran at the behest of Israel — a sentiment Huckabee slammed as “offensive.” The New York Times later reported that Carlson urged Trump to “restrain” Netanyahu, saying that Israel’s desire to attack Iran “was the only reason the United States was even considering a strike.”

For his part, Trump has said the drive for the war came the other way around. Asked if Israel had pushed the U.S. into the strikes, he said, “No, I might have forced their hands,” referring to Israel. The Iranians, he said, “were going to attack. If we didn’t do it, they were going to attack first. I felt strongly about that.”

Meanwhile, Trump drew on his experience in his quick-hit strike on Venezuela to sketch out how a post-war Iran should look. He told Axios that “I have to be involved in the appointment” of Khamenei’s successor, and that the late leader’s 56-year-old son “is unacceptable to me,” and “a light weight.”

“We want someone that will bring harmony and peace to Iran,” Trump said. He added that he must “be involved in the appointment, like with Delcy in Venezuela.” The acting president of Venezuela is Delcy Rodríguez, who Trump says is “doing a great job.”

“Harmony and peace,” sure.

Just how this war will turn out remains a huge question, of course. But it is likely that many more people will die and that Trump and his minions will remain just as callous to that as they have been so far.

Despite how the Trumpies see it, this war is no game. Real people are dying. Real uncertainty clouds the future. A bit more reality would be welcome in Washington.