June 6, 2025
Dear Interested Readers,
Lately, I’ve Been Upset Every Day
The last four and a half months, since President Trump resumed the presidency, have been very stressful for me. I assume that the anxiety and apprehension that I have experienced have been shared by a much greater percentage of the population than those who were upset when Kamala Harris lost the election. The fact that Trump has now frightened and confused a majority of the population doesn’t seem to make a difference. As prices rise at Walmart and across the entire economy, and as many people who voted for the president painfully experience paying more for many essential hings, plus are apprehensive about the possibility of loosing federal benefits like Medicaid, federal heating subsidies, and SNAP, I expect that the number of people who join me in my anxiety and apprehension will grow. Will a shift in public sentiment make a difference? Is it possible that Elon Musk will be some sort of savior? That would be strange.
I don’t wish the president any loss of health or wealth, but I do want a very large majority of those who voted for him to come to understand that he has lied to them and undermined their future. No one feels good when they come to realize that they are a victim of a con artist. It is bad enough to be robbed by a thief in the night or when you are not at home. Worse, is to be the victim of a con artist who robs you by playing on your fears and disappointments, and by telling you that he was the answer to all of your worries. Are we beginning to see a growing wave of anger that is moving across the country, generated from a sense of betrayal as we become more and more impacted by an “imperial” presidency and a complicit legislative majority? I hope that our problem is not enhanced by an enabling Supreme Court.
I carefully chose “anxiety and apprehension” to explain my primary emotions. I am trying hard to deny that anger is my principal emotion. In a recent column, David Brooks announced that he was very angry and then explained just what had pushed him over the edge in a column entitled I’m Normally a Mild Guy. Here’s What’s Pushed Me Over the Edge. He begins by referencing what his mentor taught him:
When I was a baby pundit, my mentor, Bill Buckley, told me to write about whatever made me angriest that week. I don’t often do that, mostly because I don’t get angry that much — it’s not how I’m wired. But this week I’m going with Bill’s advice.
So what happened to push our pundit over the edge? I was surprised to learn that it was not a direct action of the president that made Brooks angry. His anger arose from the expression of some of the philosophy that he believes underlies all the MAGA movement. He proceeds to explain his anger by revealing some of the underpinnings that explain the moment with events and concepts that most of us haven’t considered. Trump may be the tool of some darker forces. Here is his story:
Last Monday afternoon, I was communing with my phone when I came across a Memorial Day essay that the Notre Dame political scientist Patrick Deneen wrote back in 2009. In that essay, Deneen argued that soldiers aren’t motivated to risk their lives in combat by their ideals. He wrote, “They die not for abstractions — ideas, ideals, natural right, the American way of life, rights, or even their fellow citizens — so much as they are willing to brave all for the men and women of their unit.”
So, what is the tension between dying for buddies versus ideals? Before Brooks named him, I could not have told you much about Patrick Deneen other than I vaguely remembered Ezra Klein talking with him a few years ago. The conversation was entitled “What Does the ‘Post-Liberal’ Right Actually Want?” The rest of the title was “The political theorist Patrick Deneen thinks ‘liberal totalitarianism’ is plundering America. Is he right?” Brooks explains who he is and the impact that he has had on some, like J.D. Vance, in Trump’s inner circle. I have bolded some of Brooks’ words.
This may seem like a strange thing to get angry about. After all, fighting for your buddies is a noble thing to do. But Deneen is the Lawrence Welk of postliberalism, the popularizer of the closest thing the Trump administration has to a guiding philosophy. He’s a central figure in the national conservatism movement, the place where a lot of Trump acolytes cut their teeth.
In fact, in his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, JD Vance used his precious time to make a point similar to Deneen’s. Vance said, “People will not fight for abstractions, but they will fight for their home.”
Brooks is a self-described conservative from another era, when the principles of conservatism were promoted by elite intellectuals like William F. Buckley, Jr., or George Will, who has recently implied that conservatism has lost its way. So, his anger arises from Deneen and other intellectuals who are using Trump to live out their perversion of conservative theories with a conservative brand of “elite snobbery.” Brooks says it is Deneen’s “elite snobbery” that made him angry. It is good to remember that Brooks’ column was published in close connection to Memorial Day.
Elite snobbery has a tendency to set me off, and here are two guys with advanced degrees telling us that regular soldiers never fight partly out of some sense of moral purpose, some commitment to a larger cause — the men who froze at Valley Forge, the men who stormed the beaches at Normandy and Guadalcanal.
I can understand that anger. The idea that our soldiers don’t fight for a patriotic principle would cast a shadow across the sacrifices of tens of thousands of patriots going back to Lexington and Concord. Brooks moves on to show us that Deneen’s position points toward what I would refer to as the stench of Trumpism. Brooks calls it “the moral rot” at the core of Trumpism.
But that’s not what really made me angry. It was that these little statements point to the moral rot at the core of Trumpism, which every day disgraces our country, which we are proud of and love. Trumpism can be seen as a giant attempt to amputate the highest aspirations of the human spirit and to reduce us to our most primitive, atavistic tendencies.
Brooks is throwing darts at some well-known people. He wants there to be no confusion about what burns him, what he believes to be true, and the possible ambiguities of the argument.
Before I explain what I mean, let me first make the obvious point that Deneen’s and Vance’s assertions that soldiers never fight for ideals is just plain wrong. Of course warriors fight for their comrades. And of course there are some wars like Vietnam, and Iraq, where Vance served, where the moral causes are unclear or discredited. But when the moral stakes are made clear, most soldiers are absolutely motivated in part by ideals — even in the heat of combat.
Brooks then gives us some data and evidence from the writings of soldiers who expressed their motivations in letters to their families. I won’t copy the whole section, but here are a couple of moving references from letters written during the Civil War.
“Sick as I am of this war and bloodshed as much oh how much I want to be home with my dear wife and children,” a Pennsylvania officer wrote, “every day I have a more religious feeling, that this war is a crusade for the good of mankind.” An Indiana man wrote, “This is not a war for dollars and cents, nor is it a war for territory — but it is to decide whether we are to be a free people — and if the Union is dissolved I very much fear that we will not have a republican form of government very long.”
Brooks is clear about what galls him, and what he dislikes about Deneen and Vance before expanding his anger to include the vacuous nature of Trumpism:
Deneen and Vance stain the memory of the men who fought in that war, especially the men who fought to preserve the Union. Perhaps they are simply extrapolating from their own natures, rather than acknowledging that there are people who put ideals over self.
Deneen’s and Vance’s comments about men in combat are part of a larger project at the core of Trumpism. It is to rebut the notion that America is not only a homeland, though it is that, but it is also an idea and a moral cause — that America stands for a set of universal principles: the principle that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with inalienable rights, that democracy is the form of government that best recognizes human dignity and best honors beings who are made in the image of God.
Brooks is accusing Trumpism of denying all the ideals in our founding concepts that we celebrate on our national holidays. During his first term, Trump disparaged the sacrifices of John McCain as a prisoner of war, and is reported to have made disrespectful comments about soldiers who died in World War I, calling them “losers and suckers.” Trump is transactional. Patriotism is not transactional. It is driven by loyalty to principles and ideals that we honor even when, in our individual and collective imperfections, we fall short of fully living up to those principles. We are redeemed in part when our failures are followed by new attempts to move closer to living out our ideals.
I feel that the policies and practices of Trumpism threaten the future of our healthcare. At its best, our care is not transactional. No “deals” should be involved in giving everyone of us what we all deserve. Healthcare, like breathable clean air and educational opportunities for everyone, should be an inalienable right of everyone in America and everyone on the planet. I must believe that the large majority of those of us who chose a career in healthcare did so accepting the principle that everyone deserves quality care that is distributed equitably. That is not a transactional principle. It is a principle that demands that we find ways that move it from an aspiration to a reality. If you honored that principle, you would never establish policies that undermine the social determinants of health or aggravate Global Warming. You would not undermine access to care by cutting Medicaid to help finance an ill-advised tax benefit for the wealthy. You would not withdraw resources for medications from the ill in disadvantaged countries that we can afford to provide, when that action would cause multitudes to die as a result. Brooks is angry for good reason, and perhaps we should join him in his anger. His anger is righteous:
There are two forms of nationalism. There is the aspirational nationalism of people, ranging from Abraham Lincoln to Ronald Reagan to Joe Biden, who emphasize that America is not only a land but was founded to embody and spread the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address. Then there is the ancestors and homeland nationalism, traditionally more common in Europe, of Donald Trump and Vance, the belief that America is just another collection of people whose job is to take care of our own…
…Trump and Vance have to rebut the idea that America is the embodiment of universal ideals. If America is an idea, then Black and brown people from all over the world can become Americans by coming here and believing that idea. If America is an idea, then Americans have a responsibility to promote democracy. We can’t betray democratic Ukraine in order to kowtow to a dictator like Vladimir Putin. If America is an idea, we have to care about human dignity and human rights…
Brooks is on a roll. He is talking like a prosecuting attorney. He is making a good case as he underlines the difference between a collaborative, inclusive, and aspirational “non-zero” outlook versus the zero-sum, “I win you lose” philosophy of Trumpism.
There are also two conceptions of society. One is what we’ll call the universalist conception — that our love of family and our love of neighborhood are the first links in a series of affections that lead to our love of city, love of nation and love of all humankind. The other is the identity politics conception of society — that life is a zero-sum struggle between racial, national, partisan and ethnic groups.
Brooks asks us, “Which is it?”
If America is built around a universalist ideal, then there is no room for the kind of white identity politics that Trump and Stephen Miller practice every day. There is no room for the othering, zero-sum, us/them thinking, which is the only kind of thinking Trump is capable of. There’s no room for Trump’s immigration policy, which is hostile to Latin Americans but hospitable to the Afrikaners whose ancestors invented apartheid. There’s no room for Tucker Carlson’s replacement theory…
I would add that if we were built around and still honor a universalist ideal, then there is no room to cut off anyone who needs the support from Medicaid, fuel assistance, SNAP support, or the many public programs that Trump’s executive orders and policies seek to undermine and eliminate.
Brooks has much more to say. As he said, he has been “pushed over the edge.” He continues on by referencing the “golden rule” and the “Sermon on the Mount” as abstractions of principle that Trump, Vance, and Deneen should consider. He then sums it up in one solid sentence:
Trumpism is a giant effort to narrow the circle of concern to people just like us.
Brooks will not let go:
Trump’s own message on Truth Social commemorating Memorial Day is a manifestation of political tribalism. Here’s how it opened: “Happy Memorial Day to all, including the scum that spent the last four years trying to destroy our country.”
The use of the word “scum” in that context is called dehumanization. It is a short step from dehumanization to all sorts of horrors. Somebody should remind Trump that you don’t love your country if you hate half its members.
People who are more theologically advanced than I have a name for that kind of dehumanization: spiritual warfare. All of us humans have within us a capacity for selfishness and a capacity for generosity. Spiritual warfare is an attempt to unleash the forces of darkness and to simultaneously extinguish the better angels of our nature.
I will let Brooks finish his accusations without interruption:
Years ago, I used to slightly know both Deneen and Vance. JD has been in my home. We’ve gone out for drinks and coffee. Until Inauguration Day, I harbored him no ill will. Even today, I’ve found I have no trouble simultaneously opposing Trump policies and maintaining friendship and love for friends and family who are Trump supporters. In my experience, a vast majority of people who support Trump do so for legitimate or at least defensible reasons.
But over the past four months, a small cabal at the top of the administration — including Trump, Vance, Miller and the O.M.B. director, Russell Vought — have brought a series of moral degradations to the nation those Union soldiers fought and died for: the betrayal of Volodymyr Zelensky and Ukraine, the cruel destruction of so many scientists’ life projects, the ruination of PEPFAR. According to the H.I.V. Modeling Consortium’s PEPFAR Impact Tracker, the cuts to that program alone have already resulted in nearly 55,000 adult deaths and nearly 6,000 dead children. We’re only four months in.
His accusations and concerns have been well stated. He is self-aware. As a coda, he ends with:
Moral contempt is an unattractive emotion, which can slide into arrogance and pride, which I will try to struggle against. In the meantime, it provoked this column from a mild-mannered guy on a beautiful spring day.
There has not been a more pivotal moment in healthcare since 2017 when, in a dramatic late-night moment on the floor of the Senate, John McCain became a hero for sure when he turned down his thumb on Trump’s first attempt to repeal the ACA. Click on the link to relive the moment. Ironically, McCain did not vote against the bill because he wanted to save the ACA as it was. He voted against it because the replacement that was being offered was inadequate and would make things worse. Perhaps he was in an empathetic mindset because he had recently been diagnosed with the brain tumor that would ultimately take his life. He released a statement that explained his vote against the bill. It seems to me that in a nutshell, he thought it was a harmful bill and was following the primary principle of medical practice, primum non nocere, or in translation, “first do no harm.” I have always dumbed down the language to say, “If you can’t make it better, don’t make it worse.” Read what Senator McCain said of his motivation:
“From the beginning, I have believed that Obamacare should be repealed and replaced with a solution that increases competition, lowers costs, and improves care for the American people. The so-called ‘skinny repeal’ amendment the Senate voted on today would not accomplish those goals. While the amendment would have repealed some of Obamacare’s most burdensome regulations, it offered no replacement to actually reform our health care system and deliver affordable, quality health care to our citizens. The Speaker’s statement that the House would be ‘willing’ to go to conference does not ease my concern that this shell of a bill could be taken up and passed at any time.”
Those were the words of a very wise and courageous man who understood and lived by laudable conservative principles. The Senate is full of men and women who proudly call themselves conservatives. Primum non nocere is, in essence, a very conservative position. What I wonder is whether any of them have the courage to vote against the “Big Beautiful Bill,” which will undermine many of our meager efforts to improve the lives of many and will push millions deeper into poverty while denying millions the healthcare they need.
An article in yesterday’s New York Times suggests that the bill represents a new and creative way to undermine the ACA and deny millions of people the “flawed” care that they enjoyed through the ACA. I hope that the ghost of John McCain walks the halls of the Capitol and finds the three “no” votes necessary to kill this disastrous bill. An article in The Hill says that Rand Paul and Ron Johnson object to the bill. Josh Hawley has problems with it. Where are Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski? Elon Musk is criticizing it as bad policy, likely for self-serving reasons, but I am hopeful for any coalition that can save us from what will likely be a significant disaster for the nation’s health. I doubt that there are many subjects on which I agree with Senators Paul and Johnson, but on this bill, I pray that they pick up John McCain’s mantle and attract others to their resistance. I pray that a miracle occurs again as it did in 2017, and we will avoid the potential damage that the bill will cause in the lives of millions of Americans. Trump’s war on reason needs to suffer a big loss, and conservative “elite snobbery” needs to be defeated before it damages our efforts to move a little closer to the Triple Aim.
Summer Has Arrived, And There Are interesting Things To See
My neighbor, Peter Bloch, has done it again. Regularly, he publishes a video that informs and inspires me. I wish that I had the energy that he has. Peter explores with his cameras and in his kayak the many lakes, small ponds, and wetlands of our Kearsarge/ Sunapee Region of New Hampshire. The picture in today’s header was taken while he was kayaking in a marsh in North Sutton, probably less than seven or eight miles from the lake where we both live.
The birds are Dowitchers, and I have never seen them before. Peter encountered a flock of 15 that were just passing through, I presume, on their way north. Click here to enjoy the short video and learn more. In the introduction, Peter writes:
I happened upon this flock of 15 Dowitchers in late May while kayaking on a marsh in North Sutton, NH. They were unexpected and spectacular, and were happy to allow me to float within 6 feet of their favorite log. At one point, they flew off for 50 yards to scatter over an impressive beaver lodge, then they flew back to their log perch.
I had never seen dowitchers before, so I had to look them up. This is from Cornell’s All About Birds website:
- •• In breeding plumage, Short-billed Dowitchers are lovely orange, brown, and golden shorebirds with chunky bodies and very long bills (despite the name). Look for them in wetlands across North America, from coastal mudflats to sewage ponds and flooded fields. Like the very similar Long-billed Dowitcher, it probes for food by rhythmically inserting the bill straight up and down like a sewing machine needle at work. On tundra breeding grounds, males perform flight displays on quivering wings, delivering a grating, bubbly song.
https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Short-billed_Dowitcher/overview
I envy Peter’s skills. I guess the real key to his success is that he is always on the lookout for a unique experience. He seems to know how to be where surprises can occur. I think summertime is a good time for a “resolution.” This summer, I resolve to help myself endure the anxiety and apprehensions induced by President Trump’s bizarre behavior by being in nature more. I think that it is preferable to just being angry. Will you join me?
Be well,
Gene
