Your most passionate piece yet. But do you really consider yourself and your colleagues apolitical? On almost every issue your position is indistinguishable from the most partisan and liberal/left of Democrats and, to be fair, that sort of political oreintation is hardly unusual when it comes to those steeped in governmental bureaucracy, whether their roles be considered "professional" or not. (Personally I find that such descriptions like "professional" tend to raise suspicions and skepticism, due to the whiff of "don't use your own brain, I'm an expert so just accept what I say" style elitism and arrogance. I understand that that's not your intention but it's a bad look. It smacks of "methinks he doth protest too much".
There is no doubt that Trump is pushing boundaries all over the place -- often outrageously so -- but I am also constantly finding myself pulled into foreign territory and end up reading about court battles, appeals etc., even with respect to the Garcia case, whom I understand was deported "in error" to the extent that there was a judicial "hold" that was missed, but otherwise my understanding is that this person was in the US illegally, etc. To me the really crucial issue is that Trump is basing these deportations on a seldom-used statute that purports to give broad powers of deportation during times of war. That, too, is currently under judicial review.
If we are talking about "professionalism" and "expertise", I for one admit that I am no professional or expert when it comes to constitutional or immigration law, yet lately I cannot avoid a constant barrage of hyperbole from both sides about whether something is "legal or illegal", or "constitutional or unconstitutional" etc. Not only are the lawyers getting rich these days, but so are apparently unqualified non-lawyer pundits and analysts. It's confusion-inducing, to say the least.
And, even though I don't agree with him, I also understand Trump's position on what people derisively call "anchor babies" ie that there seems to long have been a legal argument that says that the Constitution does NOT require the automatic grant of citizenship to any human who happens to be born on US soil, regardless of the immigration or citizenship status of that human's parents. Though distasteful, that too has apparently been a live issue for a very long time -- and I had no idea until I looked into it. I was also shocked to find that Trump himself has talked about it ad nauseum over decades. All I have been getting from media is the idea that Trump just suddenly pulled it out of his posterior -- clearly untrue. The result is that, whatever the demerits of his policies, I at least GET why he is taking aim at that long-held legal status quo.
Overall, I interpret what's happening as a rather mind-blowing series of "Roe v Wade" style challenges and a veritable near-simultaneous avalanche of them at that: attempts to resolve some of the thorniest of legal and constitutional "established" statuses quo and utterly BLAST the "established truths" with fast-moving administrative actions and legal proceedings. In some cases, he is going beyond ambiguity and is clearly looking for existing precedents to be overturned as well.
So far, the judicial system seems to be holding, thank God, so I personally have a long way to go before I am willing to reach the same conclusions you have. I was shocked by the overturning of Roe ... until I researched the actual judicial history of the decision, which had apparently since its arrival been widely regarded throughout the legal world as a fairly ridiculous decision that was bound to be overturned at some point. I had found that shocking as well, since I had always assumed that that decision was on solid legal ground, not just moral ground. But the very broad consensus has apparently always been that it was one of the worst decisions, judicially and legally and constitutionally speaking, in US history, and a poster child for for those roused to opposed unconstitutional "judicial activism". Personally, I expect more such "Roe-level" legal and judicial shocks along the way. It's as though decades of squishy complacency and smugness is being tested like never before. And, yes, that is certainly a wake-up call. But I don't think that bureaucrats, present or former, are going to be of much assistance, since their conflicts of interest are too great, for they are the cogs in the very machine that is being so aggressively tested. Of COURSE they are going to push back.
I guess my point is that, yes, I too have an elevated sense of concern. But I am also gratified to see that the judicial system seems to be holding firm, so I see your passionate piece as more of -- sorry to say -- a nakedly politicized screed, with an hysterical "to the barricades" tone that I find to be not only premature, but inappropriate and unwise, given the level of violence that is possible when reason is dispensed in favour of raw anger.
So to sum up I suspect the Supreme Court will be VERY busy in the coming days and months. But I think we should all keep the invective to a minimum if possible and at least LISTEN to the content of the arguments of the "other side", which in your current piece you seem to have ignored completely.
Otherwise, it may not be the Supreme Court that becomes busy but instead whatever forces are required to be unleashed in order to deal with an unfolding civil war. And that, I submit, is the last thing we want or need.
I will keep your comments about sincerity in mind. It’s the least we can do in trying to communicate, particularly with those with whom we might (believe we) disagree. Thanks again for writing.
Thank you as always for your close reading of my modest musings; I hope they deserve it. I often wonder if I'm becoming shrill, like so many political observers these days, and irritatingly repetitive too, worried as I am about the fate of the republic. I hope not, but I don't know.
As for apolitical, it's a good question. I think it's a term of art with respect to federal employees, but strictly speaking it's probably more accurate to say non-partisan than apolitical. If you're a career federal employee, you're expected to serve faithfully political appointee leaders of both parties and to carry out their program in good faith, assuming you're not being t/asked to do anything illegal or against the constitution. Most do this gladly, without fear or favor. I think I did, and (as I've written before) I did so with equal opportunity enthusiasm or distaste, depending on the individual and the program.
As for my own political leanings, After my first decade in the foreign service, I began to consider myself a rabid nonpartisan centrist, for what that's worth. My father was a German-born cold warrior Nixon and then Reagan Republican, which I inherited as a newly politically conscious person before migrating in my rebellious undergraduate youth to the opposite side. And then I meandered back to the center, where (in my mind at least) I believe I belong. In fact, in my possibly un-self-aware opinion, I find I have more in common with former Republicans disaffected with the cult of Trump--folks like Tom Nichols of the Atlantic (a former Navy War College professor) or Steven Schmidt and others from the Lincoln Project, whose impassioned opposition to our current dear leader are fueled by what they view as the betrayal to their views of the grand old party for good or ill. If pressed, I'd call myself pro-Constitution (not everybody is these days, ask Curtis Yarvin and Peter Thiel and, probably, JD Vance), a middle of the roader, and a proponent of some necessary degree of inefficiency (per the wisdom of the founders). For example, had the president been required to go to Congress, to send advisors and experts and opponents and gadflies to testify to various subcommittees about the effectiveness, the costs, and the risks etc. of tariffs, I think we'd all be better off--in part because nothing would have been done. If I fault myself for anything, it's for favoring not doing anything instead of doing something stupid. That makes me conservative more than liberal (in the American sense).
I sympathize with your recoiling at words like "professional" and "expertise". That's a core part of the current problem. It's a free for all out there, with everyone's opinion as valid as anyone else's. And to the extent that our elite class, in the professions, in government, in academia, in the media et al are seen as corrupt and self-serving, the problem deepens. Not sure how to get out of it. Even superb career public servants (many of whom are currently being kicked out or leaving "of their own volition") are seen as lazy and corrupt and--as Darth Musk has said--lacking neurons. I can guarantee one thing: losing good people won't help government function better.
As for our deported Salvadoran friend, my impression is he's no angel but not necessarily a gang member or a criminal either. If so, the courts should be able to tell us. A DOJ lawyer admitted the government made a mistake by kidnapping and deporting him. One district court judge told the regime it needed to "effectuate" his return, and then the Supreme Court agreed 9-0 that the government needed to "facilitate" that effectuation. (Confusing use of language, I know). He (and everyone) deserves due process, at a minimum. If not, who knows what is really happening? And I, for one, don't trust, the government in this case. The very moment I first saw the photos of alleged Venezuelan gangbangers being marched handcuffed into the Salvadoran gulag, bent at the waist, their heads being shaved, I wondered how anyone knew who was who if no court had any say in it. My sons' mother is from Central America, and I wondered what might happen to them if they found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time. Who would I call if that happened? What would I do if the CEO President or the ICE Director claimed they were criminals and not American citizens? One of them really likes European soccer, especially La Liga.
Finally on anchor babies. I remember serving as a vice-consul in Guatemala in the early 90s, seeing pregnant women traveling to give birth in the US for that very reason. I personally disagreed with that unanticipated consequence of the 14th amendment, but there it was -- right there in the constitution. What should we do about it? An executive order does not do the trick. You need 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to amend the constitution.
Overall, I hope you're right about our judiciary. I see the Chief Justice being very careful to avoid "commanding" the executive to do anything they may refuse to do. It's a delicate dance, a fragile, deeply frayed consensus. I hope it holds. And I hope this criminal president is impeached, with the resounding support of Republicans. Fat chance, I know.
Thanks for all that info. It tells one a lot about your leanings and viewpoints. You've lived a full life, probably more enriched by your moments of irritation than you think.
I think your observations are most useful (to me) when they get highly specific. Then I have something that may eg send me down a rabbit-hole of reading and thinking, which I enjoy. Something to "chew on", if you will. But that's just me.
As for other people and the content they consume, the entire field of people making highly partisan-sounding inflammatory and / or hyperbolic comments is already vastly overcrowded and I think people are tiring of it, regardless of whether they identify themselves as "left" or "right". They just want to know what's true and what's not.
People crave sincerity right now. I think there's a powerul sincerity in writings like yours, and that that sincerity "powder" needs to be kept dry, just for a bit, because I think there is a high likelihood that a lot of higher-ups of both Democrat and Republican persuasion will be facing trials for various alleged crimes and other wrongdoing. In other words, things will likely get a bit ugly, a bit shocking, and also scandalous -- but perhaps with a reckoning for both "sides". So I think the world will shortly be needing sincere observers with enough sincerity powder left and measured finely enough so as to maximize illumination over blast radius.
That's the only way each of us engaged in observing current events with concern can help to prevent a political wildfire of some kind. There is too much inflammation in the body politic right now and, as we all know, severe inflammation leads to illness and even death. Lots of people are in need of some soothing, even if the soothing only arrives after a process akin to painful occupational therapy.
I'm not a Christian in the religious sense but have read plenty of scripture from various sources and was surprised to find that It's a treasure trove of philosophy that seems to have been left untouched or ignored by big-haired mega church ministers. With Easter having just passed I've been struck by the many mentions of the various aspects of ancient concepts like "sacrifice" -- a word always mentioned in the context of war too, of course, and not at all limited to Christian thought obviously.
Your most passionate piece yet. But do you really consider yourself and your colleagues apolitical? On almost every issue your position is indistinguishable from the most partisan and liberal/left of Democrats and, to be fair, that sort of political oreintation is hardly unusual when it comes to those steeped in governmental bureaucracy, whether their roles be considered "professional" or not. (Personally I find that such descriptions like "professional" tend to raise suspicions and skepticism, due to the whiff of "don't use your own brain, I'm an expert so just accept what I say" style elitism and arrogance. I understand that that's not your intention but it's a bad look. It smacks of "methinks he doth protest too much".
There is no doubt that Trump is pushing boundaries all over the place -- often outrageously so -- but I am also constantly finding myself pulled into foreign territory and end up reading about court battles, appeals etc., even with respect to the Garcia case, whom I understand was deported "in error" to the extent that there was a judicial "hold" that was missed, but otherwise my understanding is that this person was in the US illegally, etc. To me the really crucial issue is that Trump is basing these deportations on a seldom-used statute that purports to give broad powers of deportation during times of war. That, too, is currently under judicial review.
If we are talking about "professionalism" and "expertise", I for one admit that I am no professional or expert when it comes to constitutional or immigration law, yet lately I cannot avoid a constant barrage of hyperbole from both sides about whether something is "legal or illegal", or "constitutional or unconstitutional" etc. Not only are the lawyers getting rich these days, but so are apparently unqualified non-lawyer pundits and analysts. It's confusion-inducing, to say the least.
And, even though I don't agree with him, I also understand Trump's position on what people derisively call "anchor babies" ie that there seems to long have been a legal argument that says that the Constitution does NOT require the automatic grant of citizenship to any human who happens to be born on US soil, regardless of the immigration or citizenship status of that human's parents. Though distasteful, that too has apparently been a live issue for a very long time -- and I had no idea until I looked into it. I was also shocked to find that Trump himself has talked about it ad nauseum over decades. All I have been getting from media is the idea that Trump just suddenly pulled it out of his posterior -- clearly untrue. The result is that, whatever the demerits of his policies, I at least GET why he is taking aim at that long-held legal status quo.
Overall, I interpret what's happening as a rather mind-blowing series of "Roe v Wade" style challenges and a veritable near-simultaneous avalanche of them at that: attempts to resolve some of the thorniest of legal and constitutional "established" statuses quo and utterly BLAST the "established truths" with fast-moving administrative actions and legal proceedings. In some cases, he is going beyond ambiguity and is clearly looking for existing precedents to be overturned as well.
So far, the judicial system seems to be holding, thank God, so I personally have a long way to go before I am willing to reach the same conclusions you have. I was shocked by the overturning of Roe ... until I researched the actual judicial history of the decision, which had apparently since its arrival been widely regarded throughout the legal world as a fairly ridiculous decision that was bound to be overturned at some point. I had found that shocking as well, since I had always assumed that that decision was on solid legal ground, not just moral ground. But the very broad consensus has apparently always been that it was one of the worst decisions, judicially and legally and constitutionally speaking, in US history, and a poster child for for those roused to opposed unconstitutional "judicial activism". Personally, I expect more such "Roe-level" legal and judicial shocks along the way. It's as though decades of squishy complacency and smugness is being tested like never before. And, yes, that is certainly a wake-up call. But I don't think that bureaucrats, present or former, are going to be of much assistance, since their conflicts of interest are too great, for they are the cogs in the very machine that is being so aggressively tested. Of COURSE they are going to push back.
I guess my point is that, yes, I too have an elevated sense of concern. But I am also gratified to see that the judicial system seems to be holding firm, so I see your passionate piece as more of -- sorry to say -- a nakedly politicized screed, with an hysterical "to the barricades" tone that I find to be not only premature, but inappropriate and unwise, given the level of violence that is possible when reason is dispensed in favour of raw anger.
So to sum up I suspect the Supreme Court will be VERY busy in the coming days and months. But I think we should all keep the invective to a minimum if possible and at least LISTEN to the content of the arguments of the "other side", which in your current piece you seem to have ignored completely.
Otherwise, it may not be the Supreme Court that becomes busy but instead whatever forces are required to be unleashed in order to deal with an unfolding civil war. And that, I submit, is the last thing we want or need.
I will keep your comments about sincerity in mind. It’s the least we can do in trying to communicate, particularly with those with whom we might (believe we) disagree. Thanks again for writing.
Thank you as always for your close reading of my modest musings; I hope they deserve it. I often wonder if I'm becoming shrill, like so many political observers these days, and irritatingly repetitive too, worried as I am about the fate of the republic. I hope not, but I don't know.
As for apolitical, it's a good question. I think it's a term of art with respect to federal employees, but strictly speaking it's probably more accurate to say non-partisan than apolitical. If you're a career federal employee, you're expected to serve faithfully political appointee leaders of both parties and to carry out their program in good faith, assuming you're not being t/asked to do anything illegal or against the constitution. Most do this gladly, without fear or favor. I think I did, and (as I've written before) I did so with equal opportunity enthusiasm or distaste, depending on the individual and the program.
As for my own political leanings, After my first decade in the foreign service, I began to consider myself a rabid nonpartisan centrist, for what that's worth. My father was a German-born cold warrior Nixon and then Reagan Republican, which I inherited as a newly politically conscious person before migrating in my rebellious undergraduate youth to the opposite side. And then I meandered back to the center, where (in my mind at least) I believe I belong. In fact, in my possibly un-self-aware opinion, I find I have more in common with former Republicans disaffected with the cult of Trump--folks like Tom Nichols of the Atlantic (a former Navy War College professor) or Steven Schmidt and others from the Lincoln Project, whose impassioned opposition to our current dear leader are fueled by what they view as the betrayal to their views of the grand old party for good or ill. If pressed, I'd call myself pro-Constitution (not everybody is these days, ask Curtis Yarvin and Peter Thiel and, probably, JD Vance), a middle of the roader, and a proponent of some necessary degree of inefficiency (per the wisdom of the founders). For example, had the president been required to go to Congress, to send advisors and experts and opponents and gadflies to testify to various subcommittees about the effectiveness, the costs, and the risks etc. of tariffs, I think we'd all be better off--in part because nothing would have been done. If I fault myself for anything, it's for favoring not doing anything instead of doing something stupid. That makes me conservative more than liberal (in the American sense).
I sympathize with your recoiling at words like "professional" and "expertise". That's a core part of the current problem. It's a free for all out there, with everyone's opinion as valid as anyone else's. And to the extent that our elite class, in the professions, in government, in academia, in the media et al are seen as corrupt and self-serving, the problem deepens. Not sure how to get out of it. Even superb career public servants (many of whom are currently being kicked out or leaving "of their own volition") are seen as lazy and corrupt and--as Darth Musk has said--lacking neurons. I can guarantee one thing: losing good people won't help government function better.
As for our deported Salvadoran friend, my impression is he's no angel but not necessarily a gang member or a criminal either. If so, the courts should be able to tell us. A DOJ lawyer admitted the government made a mistake by kidnapping and deporting him. One district court judge told the regime it needed to "effectuate" his return, and then the Supreme Court agreed 9-0 that the government needed to "facilitate" that effectuation. (Confusing use of language, I know). He (and everyone) deserves due process, at a minimum. If not, who knows what is really happening? And I, for one, don't trust, the government in this case. The very moment I first saw the photos of alleged Venezuelan gangbangers being marched handcuffed into the Salvadoran gulag, bent at the waist, their heads being shaved, I wondered how anyone knew who was who if no court had any say in it. My sons' mother is from Central America, and I wondered what might happen to them if they found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time. Who would I call if that happened? What would I do if the CEO President or the ICE Director claimed they were criminals and not American citizens? One of them really likes European soccer, especially La Liga.
Finally on anchor babies. I remember serving as a vice-consul in Guatemala in the early 90s, seeing pregnant women traveling to give birth in the US for that very reason. I personally disagreed with that unanticipated consequence of the 14th amendment, but there it was -- right there in the constitution. What should we do about it? An executive order does not do the trick. You need 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to amend the constitution.
Overall, I hope you're right about our judiciary. I see the Chief Justice being very careful to avoid "commanding" the executive to do anything they may refuse to do. It's a delicate dance, a fragile, deeply frayed consensus. I hope it holds. And I hope this criminal president is impeached, with the resounding support of Republicans. Fat chance, I know.
Thanks as always for your thoughtful comments.
Thanks for all that info. It tells one a lot about your leanings and viewpoints. You've lived a full life, probably more enriched by your moments of irritation than you think.
I think your observations are most useful (to me) when they get highly specific. Then I have something that may eg send me down a rabbit-hole of reading and thinking, which I enjoy. Something to "chew on", if you will. But that's just me.
As for other people and the content they consume, the entire field of people making highly partisan-sounding inflammatory and / or hyperbolic comments is already vastly overcrowded and I think people are tiring of it, regardless of whether they identify themselves as "left" or "right". They just want to know what's true and what's not.
People crave sincerity right now. I think there's a powerul sincerity in writings like yours, and that that sincerity "powder" needs to be kept dry, just for a bit, because I think there is a high likelihood that a lot of higher-ups of both Democrat and Republican persuasion will be facing trials for various alleged crimes and other wrongdoing. In other words, things will likely get a bit ugly, a bit shocking, and also scandalous -- but perhaps with a reckoning for both "sides". So I think the world will shortly be needing sincere observers with enough sincerity powder left and measured finely enough so as to maximize illumination over blast radius.
That's the only way each of us engaged in observing current events with concern can help to prevent a political wildfire of some kind. There is too much inflammation in the body politic right now and, as we all know, severe inflammation leads to illness and even death. Lots of people are in need of some soothing, even if the soothing only arrives after a process akin to painful occupational therapy.
I'm not a Christian in the religious sense but have read plenty of scripture from various sources and was surprised to find that It's a treasure trove of philosophy that seems to have been left untouched or ignored by big-haired mega church ministers. With Easter having just passed I've been struck by the many mentions of the various aspects of ancient concepts like "sacrifice" -- a word always mentioned in the context of war too, of course, and not at all limited to Christian thought obviously.
That's what this is: an information war.
Now where did I put my Truth Musket?
Well, that about sums it up! It's all about consolidation of power.