The last time there was a possibility of a government shutdown, the Democrats gave in and attempted to work out something. The result?

The Republicans pushed through Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill,” with the result that less affluent families will get stuck with less (and in some cases no) healthcare, or much higher health insurance premiums, while the wealthiest of Americans got massive tax cuts, and the poorest essentially got none.

Now the Republicans are saying, “Stop the shutdown, and only then will we negotiate.”

The last time the Democrats agreed to that, they got rolled – badly. The Republicans have no real desire to negotiate, and the odds are that, even if they do, they’ll screw the Democrats.

In a special election in late September, Arizona elected Adelita Grijalva, a Democrat, as a replacement representative from Arizona. That was almost a month ago. Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, refuses to swear her in until he reconvenes the full House, but he’s already sworn in three Republican replacement representatives this year, immediately after their election without bringing the House into session. Yet Johnson has vowed not to seat Grijalva until the shutdown is over.

So why on earth would the Democrats want to give up the only power they have right now and trust Johnson and the Republicans?

Often, history is written by the victor. More often it’s written by the survivors, who may or may not be the victors. More often than that, it’s written decades or generations later by someone with an agenda.

As a result, it’s wise to be skeptical of the “lessons of history” and to pay more attention to verifiable facts and a wider range of views. “History” also changes, depending on who’s presenting it, as one can easily see by looking at the versions of U.S. history presented today by those with different views and agendas.

This has been the case throughout history. The battle at Kadesh in 1274 BCE, between the Egyptians and the Hittites, was a bloody and brutal draw, but Ramses II had celebratory inscriptions of victory chiseled into stone all over Egypt. It wasn’t until the last 50 years or so, with the discovery of the massive clay tablet library in the ruins of the Hittite capital of Hattusas, that historians were able to sort out what really happened.

For generations, there was a widely held view that Europe suffered the “dark ages” from the time of the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the fifth century CE until roughly the Renaissance. Except… it didn’t. What it did suffer was a massive fragmentation of governance. Later, the term “Middle Ages” was adopted, but there was still a perception of darkness and plagues, even though the Roman Empire also suffered darkness, anarchy, and plagues.

Recent archeological studies have shown, for example, that after the Romans withdrew from England, very little changed in people’s everyday lives over the next few centuries. The same was true in France under the Merovingian kings. Fewer massive buildings and roads were constructed, most likely because smaller kingdoms couldn’t muster the resources, especially when there was more local warfare.

In the United States, as everywhere, history has often been distorted or “revised.” Historical revisionists have persistently claimed that the Civil War was not about slavery. This persistent myth claimed the war was fought over states’ rights or economic differences, but in reality, the protection and expansion of slavery was the central cause of the Confederacy because the entire economy of the south was based on slavery. After reconstruction, a set of lies permeated the south portraying the Confederacy as a noble and heroic cause and whitewashing the history of slavery and elevating Confederate leaders like Robert E. Lee to undeserved heroic status.

In the mid-1930s Hitler and other right-wing German nationalists propagated the false claim that the army had not been defeated on the battlefield, but that it was betrayed by enemies on the home front – specifically Jews, Marxists, and other leftists, who undermined the war effort and forced the military to surrender, an agenda designed to shift blame away from the military and the politicians.

History is messy and multifaceted, and to come close to understanding any period takes a great deal of study, which is why most people go with generalizations that often bear more resemblance to what they want to believe than to what actually occurred.

I haven’t posted anything for a while for various reasons, but largely because others had said/written what I had in mind or because I had the feeling that no one was interested in listening, only spouting their pat “solutions.”

Right now, too many Americans are demanding instant solutions for problems created by cumulative actions and inactions taken by politicians over the past several decades. They’re angry, and they want instant solutions here and now. Nothing else will do.

Trump fills that need, helped in large measure by the inability of Democrats to understand the depth of festering anger with the inability and or unwillingness of government to address the larger concerns of the majority of Americans. He came up with simplistic slogans and has pushed violent “solutions” that not only go against the spirit of the Constitution, but in far too many cases also are patently illegal. In some cases, he’s also been aided by a compliant Supreme Court, which has, upon occasion, even indicated, if indirectly, that it is making decisions because Congress will not or cannot do so.

In any form of government, instant solutions are seldom possible, not without persistent and often severe adverse impacts, and that is what is already occurring with ICE, the Department of Defense/War, and the unilateral and likely unconstitutional reductions in government services and work forces. U.S. citizens are being locked up until they can prove they’re citizens. Small children are being zip-tied and detained, at times left without parents. What about the old idea of being considered innocent until proven guilty? Or is guilt being assigned by skin color and/or speech? Armed troops are being forced upon cities, based on the political leanings of local government.

Bizarre and unreasoned tariffs are hampering all manner of U.S. industry. Alternative energy facilities under construction are being defunded willy-nilly. Exactly how does that reduce the deficit or cope with skyrocketing demand for more energy?

All this is, understandably and unfortunately, the result of anger and frustration, leavened by a significant amount of hatred, but simplistic and ill-thought-out instant solutions will only make matters worse over time. If unchecked, they’ll also destroy democracy.

Right now, neither party appears interested in well thought out solutions that address the situation, only soundbites that inflame and exacerbate, and from what I see, few are listening to voices of moderation and reason, who are being drowned out by a tide of frustration and anger that is more interested in revenge and punishing the other side than actually addressing these problems in a practical and humane way.

It’s past time to dump all the efforts to use government to enforce ideology (of any sort) and to get back to a real, practical, workable, common sense approach to government, while we still can.

And yes, for all the quibblers, “practical” can also be taken to extremes.

So… President Trump can say, “The radicals on the left are the problem, and they’re vicious and they’re horrible,” but those on the left can’t say that Trump and conservatives want a dictatorship that forbids criticism and limits free speech?”

Now, I’ve certainly criticized the “speech police” of the far left, and their mandated pronouns, and I’ll continue to do so. But I believe they have the right to advocate for their pronouns; they just shouldn’t have the right to fire people who don’t use those pronouns.

Ultra-conservatives have the right to eulogize the late Charlie Kirk, but they shouldn’t have the right to fire commentators and others who think that Kirk was the devil’s tool or worse.

In the United States we already have libel laws which allow someone to sue for damages if another person publishes a statement about an individual, either in written form or by broadcast over media platforms such as radio, television, or the Internet, that is untrue and threatens to harm the reputation and/or livelihood of the targeted person.

In past practice, the “tests” of allowable speech have limited speech advocating the violent overthrow of the government but have allowed speech advocating peaceful change and criticizing public officials for the way they carry out their duties – provided that criticism is factually based.

Currently, Donald Trump is suing The New York Times for $15 billion because the Times has criticized him. He also threatened ABC with a lawsuit and effectively extorted $16 million as a settlement, which most likely encouraged him to sue the Times as a way to stop press criticism. His actions there illustrate the dangers of appeasement. Trump only backs down to superior force, and too many politicians and businesses either can’t muster that force or are unwilling to do so, even when Trump is now stating that anyone who says anything negative about him or his policies should be removed from the media.

But allowing the President to use his powers to destroy or to attempt to destroy or mute his critics is yet another step toward a dictatorship, something that the Republicans in Congress either refuse to face or believe is necessary to enact their policies.

And those very same Republicans ignore past examples by saying, “This time is different.” Of course it is, but as Mark Twain observed, history doesn’t repeat itself, but it certainly rhymes, and, unchecked, that rhyming will lead to an authoritarian government or a dictatorship.

With all the furor about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and all the rhetoric about how political violence needs to stop, and how we’re a “better people” than that, I thought a little perspective might be helpful.

To begin with, political violence has been, if not common, certainly prevalent in the United
States over the last 175 years. We fought a Civil War over differences in basic political views. Following that, we had well over a century of violence and civil unrest over civil rights, complete with shootings, hangings, and lynchings, not to mention rampant vigilantes, certainly a political issue if ever there was.

On the political level, we’ve had four Presidents assassinated, and four others attacked with lethal force.

Former President Theodore Roosevelt was shot and wounded in 1912 while running for President on the “Bull Moose” ticket. President Gerald Ford was attacked twice in 1975. In one case, the shooter mischambered the pistol and in the second, the shooter fired twice and missed. President Ronald Reagan was shot and came close to dying in 1981, and five others were wounded, several seriously. President Trump has suffered two attempts on his life but only had a minor gash on his ear from the first, while the would-be assassin was caught before he could act in the second attempt.

I don’t know about you, but to me, eight out of forty-seven Presidents seems rather high, and that doesn’t include Presidential candidates.

Robert F. Kennedy was shot and killed while running for President in 1968, and Governor George Wallace was shot and partially paralyzed in 1972 while seeking the Democratic Presidential nomination.

Over 28 recognized U.S. civil rights crusaders have been shot and killed, most notably Martin Luther King and Medgar Evers.

Just recently, two Minesota Democratic lawmakers and their families were targeted: one was killed, and several judges have been attacked as well.

Now we’re having what can only be called an epidemic of school shootings, and we’ve always had a problem with violent domestic abuse, which is why experienced police officers always worry about being summoned for domestic abuse calls.

So all the rhetoric about our being a better people than that is exaggerated. The facts are clear. We haven’t got that good a record when it comes to violence.

One of the key questions is whether, as a nation, we’ll be willing to admit that we have a fairly high level of violence. Or will we continue to deny the facts and cling to the illusion that we’re peace-loving, while we continue to attack and shoot those who don’t agree with us.