View this post on the web at [link removed]

On the corkboard over my desk, I have a few reminders. One of them asks, “What are my biases?” It reminds me to consider my explicit and implicit biases as I research and edit my work. Pinned right next to that question is Daniel Dennett’s four-step process for responding to other people’s arguments:
Attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”
List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
Mention anything you have learned from your target.
Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
My wife sees these things and rolls her eyes in a way that can be read as either, “You are such a ####ing Democrat,” or “And you wonder why you have so many headaches?”
Today, she is angry with the Democratic Party in a way which can be summed up as this: There should be exactly as many Democrats at Donald Trump’s inauguration as there were Donald Trumps at Biden’s inauguration. He set the norm.
I am not saying that she is a hothead and I am a cool intellectual. I don’t look at Mr. Dennett’s steps for a fair critique and apply them to every situation. I don’t always check my biases. Sometimes I write while angry and publish with great satisfaction only to feel a while later like I was probably unfair in that one paragraph and now everyone will hate me and think I have an anger management problem. Those are also sometimes my most well-received newsletters, so maybe you have an anger management problem.
I hold within me a Democratic desire for adherence to ‘norms’ and professional standards of behavior and assuming good faith arguments from the opposing side, but I am also frustrated with Congressional Democrats who adhere to those norms and standards and assume that good faith where Republicans will not. It gives me no joy to say it, but the frustrated side of me is right. This inclination toward goodwill and right action is counterproductive for Democrats in Congress and dismaying for Democratic voters. It garners derision, not respect, from Republican politicians.
Republicans now control the White House and both houses of Congress. In the House, Speaker Johnson may need Democrats’ help at some point. Providing it would be a good way for House Democrats to drive down their own party’s turnout in 2026. In the Senate, cabinet confirmations don’t require any Democratic votes, so why give them? Senators should ask, for instance, “Would Marco Rubio vote to confirm me?” He would not, and Democratic voters know it.
Flags at the U.S. Capitol and several states, including my own, are not at half-mast today in honor of Jimmy Carter. Speaker Johnson and governors in those states are catering to the whims of the only presidential candidate in my lifetime small enough to care about that and to make it about himself. Faced with the same circumstance, any other primary or general election candidate from the past fifty years would have either have ignored it or—more likely—mentioned it in a positive way in their inaugural address.
Inauguration Day was really just an excuse for those governors. In truth, they were eager to subtract a day from honoring Jimmy Carter. He was not their kind of leader or citizen. Franklin Graham did not mention Jimmy Carter in his prayer, either. Carter was not Franklin Graham’s kind of Christian. Those governors and Franklin Graham may beg to differ, but actions speak louder than words. When it comes to mutual respect, they have set the norm.
Today, as I always do on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I read Dr. King’s 1963 “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” Because I have been a classroom teacher and love to compare and contrast, I also read John F. Kennedy’s 1961 inauguration speech and Donald Trump’s speech from today.
Dr. King, writing from a jail in Birmingham, is polite and unperturbed.
“But since I feel that you are men of genuine good will and that your criticisms are sincerely set forth, I want to try to answer your statement in what I hope will be patient and reasonable terms.”
Dr. King was apparently lucky compared to poor, oppressed real estate heir, Donald Trump:
“Over the past eight years, I have been tested and challenged more than any president in our 250 year history, and I’ve learned a lot along the way the journey to reclaim our republic has not been an easy one that I can tell you.”
I once heard a social studies teacher say that if JFK were around today, he would be a Republican. This line from Kennedy’s inaugural address demolishes that theory:
“If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.”
But at least Donald Trump has his priorities straight:
“A short time from now, we are going to be changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America and we will restore the name of a great president, William McKinley to Mount McKinley, where it should be and where it belongs. President McKinley made our country very rich through tariffs and through talent.”
In addition to the four-step, fair-critique process at the beginning of this newsletter, Daniel Dennett had a rule that one should only go after the “good stuff” and not bother addressing the crap. Comparing and contrasting Donald Trump’s speech today with the words of John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. from the early 1960s illuminates the character and bearing of all three men and makes it clear that we won’t be seeing any of the good stuff for a while.

Unsubscribe [link removed]?