news

Between the Trumpians and the DSA, there’s no place for me

~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

The Trumpian wing of the Republican Party has been doing an excellent job of forcing me into the arms of the Democratic Party. I fear their hatred, their racism, their dishonesty, their graft, and their deification of Donald Trump. So for the last several elections, I’ve voted straight Democratic tickets.

But now I’m watching the Socialist wing of the Democratic Party doing their best to force me away from the Democrats. It’s on fewer issues, but perhaps that’s only because they are the newer player on the stage, and haven’t had the time to poison as many wells. There’s the outrageous “abolish police” position, and their drives to nationalize certain industries. And there’s more.

I’m not religious—don’t attend temple, don’t keep kosher—but I am socially or culturally Jewish. And every time the Democratic Socialists open their mouths, I feel even more marginalized, even more a target of their outright hatred. A few weeks ago, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani threatened to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu is not accused of committing any crimes in New York City (though the ICC has an asymmetric view of the events of October 7, 2023, and its aftermath). So why is Mamdani making such threats? Who is the audience he’s playing to? His comments certainly don’t represent this citizen of New York City. And now, he’s decided the Mayor’s Advisory Committee on the Judiciary should have no Jews on it.

And most recently, DSA spokesmodel Hasan Piker is certain that whoever wins the Democratic nomination for president in 2028 will oppose Israel and embrace Hamas and the Palestinians. (CNN on July 31 played a clip of his comment, taken from an interview that is scheduled to air August 2.)

The Democrats seem hell-bent on losing, and I’ve written about it before. In 2018, it was throwing out Senator Al Franken, because he’d been in a questionable photo years before he was elected to the Senate. In 2021, it was the fight with the new progressives demanding everything instantly, and threatening to derail the entire Joe Biden presidency if they didn’t get everything they wanted immediately. In 2022, the Democrats were yelling at Senators Manchin and Sinema to abolish the filibuster rule (they should be venerating them today for not giving in). Today, the Democrats have been handed the future on a platter: Trump’s reputation is at historical lows; the Trump-Iran War is keeping prices and inflation high; the Trump-Epstein Files still have not been released; his chief domestic priority seems to be plastering his name and his tacky taste on everything in Washington; and the list goes on. A Democratic sweep of government offices would require only keeping their heads down and doing their jobs. Instead, they’ve let their Socialist wing come rampaging in, doing nothing to attract new voters, but doing everything to turn off Democratic stalwarts, the centrists.

There have always been racists in this country. But when Trump came to power, the racists felt emboldened. They became comfortable proclaiming their racism publicly. And there have always been anti-semites. But with the rise of the Democratic Socialists, they, too, are no longer ashamed.

Several of my friends have or will soon move out of the country because they fear a Trumpian future. Each of those moves saddens me, because I’ve held the firm opinion that the country can be saved, and is worth fighting for. But now, listening to the Democratic Socialists, I’m wondering if my friends fleeing the country are actually the smart ones.

The Republicans have accepted the Trumpians and their vitriolic hatred for everyone who isn’t them. Now the Democrats are accepting the Socialists and their hatred of Jews. Is there any place left for me and mine?

These guys, again?

~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

I’ve been rewatching The West Wing (and dreaming of politicians we can all admire), while also remarking on the pure fantasy of it all. We hear opinion polls all the time: the party in power is supported or opposed, the person in office has favorables and unfavorables, and so forth. But the point of it all—regardless of the polls, regardless of the people—is that the American electorate, by and large, is never happy with the party in the White House.

Specifically, we have buyer’s remorse, and almost always have. For evidence, I point to the number of times we’ve elected a new president who is a member of the same party as the outgoing president. That number is small.

From 1800 to 1828, we had four straight presidents who were members of the Democrat-Republican party, but there really wasn’t much of an opposition party at that time. Indeed, the election of 1820 had only one candidate: sitting president James Monroe was re-elected with more than 78% of the popular vote and 231 of the 232 electoral votes cast (the Federalist party, with no named candidate, got 19% of the popular vote). Thomas Jefferson was elected in 1800 and 1804, James Madison in 1808 and 1812, Monroe in 1816 and 1820, and John Quincy Adams in 1824.

In the election of 1836, Democrat Andrew Jackson was retiring after two terms, and his second vice president, his chosen successor, Martin Van Buren, won the election, holding the White House for the Democrats.

The next time that happened was in 1856, when Democrat Franklin Pierce lost his bid to be nominated for a second term, but the Democrat who won the nomination, James Buchanan, won the presidency as well.

The election of 1876 was very close. As Republican Ulysses Grant was retiring after two terms, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes was in a very close race with Democrat Samuel J. Tilden. Indeed, Tilden won the popular vote, but the Electoral Commission awarded enough of the disputed electoral votes to give Hayes the electoral college, 185 to 184. In 1880, Hayes kept his pledge and did not run for a second term. Instead, Republican James A. Garfield won the election to succeed him (and was assassinated six months into his term of office).

Republican William McKinley was elected in 1896. His first vice president, Garrett Hobart, died in 1899, and in the election of 1900, McKinley was re-elected with vice president Theodore Roosevelt. McKinley was assassinated in late 1901, and Roosevelt succeeded. Roosevelt then won his own term as president in 1904. In 1908, Roosevelt stepped aside, and his chosen successor, Republican William Howard Taft was elected. In 1912, Roosevelt would split from Taft, run against him, and give the election to Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

In 1920, Republican Warren Harding was elected. He died in 1923, elevating Vice President Calvin Coolidge to the presidency. Coolidge won his own term in 1924, and chose not to run for another term in 1928, so Republican Herbert Hoover was elected to succeed him.

In 1988, after two terms of wide support, Ronald Reagan was forced to retire from the presidency under the terms of the 22nd Amendment, and his vice president, George H.W. Bush, was elected to succeed him.

To sum up, we’ve chosen a person of the same political party to succeed a departing president only in 1808, 1816, 1824, 1836, 1876, 1880, 1908, 1928, and 1988. Nine times. That’s it. (That is also ignoring Vice Presidents John Tyler and Chester Arthur [who weren’t elected to their own terms] and Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson [who were], who first succeeded to the office upon the deaths of their predecessors).

We chose to change parties in the elections of 1800, 1828, 1840, 1844, 1848, 1852, 1860, 1868 (Abraham Lincoln’s second vice president, Andrew Johnson, was not a member of his Republican party), 1884, 1888, 1892, 1896, 1912, 1920, 1932, 1952, 1960, 1968, 1976, 1980, 1992, 2000, 2008, 2016, 2020, and 2024.

I’m not predicting anything for 2028; you can draw your own conclusions.…

A step toward ending government corruption

~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

Unwritten rules are fine, so long as everyone complies with them. But then a person or group comes along—such as the Trump Crime Family—that requires us to put actual words to these unwritten rules to turn them into written law.

And after years of Congressional representatives talking about preventing themselves from trading stocks while not actually doing anything, I think it’s time we the people proposed the law we want. Therefore, as my contribution to the discussion, I offer…

A Law Delineating Emoluments Prohibitions that Were Previously Understood but Unwritten

Section I: People Subject to This Law
1. Elected and appointed members of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
2. Members of the Supreme Court.
3. The President and Vice President of the United States.
4. People appointed by the President, whether confirmed by the Senate or not.
5. People hired or appointed by, or who in the normal course of business report directly to, anyone in lines 1, 2, 3, or 4.
6. People hired or appointed by, or who in the normal course of business report directly to, anyone in line 5.
7. Immediate family members of anyone in lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6.

Section II: Prohibited and Required Actions of People in Section I.
1. All people covered by this law are prohibited from buying or selling stocks, bonds, or any other form of ownership of any company, whether publicly traded or privately held.
2. All people covered by this law are required to place all assets in a blind trust.
2.a. Assets with a combined value of less than 50% of the mean personal annual income of the United States may be exempted from this requirement.
2.b. A primary residence may be exempted from this requirement.
2.c. Covered people shall have 30 days from notice of election, appointment, or hiring to a position listed in Section I in order to complete this requirement.
3. All people covered by this law are prohibited from communicating what would be considered “insider information” about any government or business activities to any person or people for financial benefit.

Section III: Penalties for Failure to Comply with This Law
1. Stocks, bonds, or other forms of ownership purchased are subject to forfeiture—in their entirety—to the United States Treasury General Account.
2. Proceeds from sales of stocks, bonds, or other forms of ownership are subject to forfeiture—in their entirety—to the United States Treasury General Account.
3. Assets with a combined value greater than 50% of the mean personal annual income of the United States held outside of a blind trust are subject to forfeiture—in their entirety—to the United States Treasury General Account.
4. Instances of communicating insider information (see Section II, 3) shall be fined at a rate equal to the potential gain enjoyed by the recipients of such communication.

Section IV: Duration of These Requirements
1. People listed in Section I shall be subject to this law during the entire time they hold one of the offices listed in Section I, and for 180 days after leaving such office.
2. Those people in office when this law is adopted shall have 30 days to comply with all the provisions herein.

Don’t like Congress? Your opinion doesn’t matter.

~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

RealClear Polling doesn’t show a Congressional approval rating above 40% in the last 15 years. In the short term, Ballotopedia agrees. Gallup has Congress’s job approval rating in the teens.

In other words, everywhere we look, nobody likes what Congress is doing or how they’re doing their jobs. Every news story using those numbers predicts a massive change in Congress at the midterm election, shifting control to the Democratic party, and watchers hope they’re right.

But what none of those polls and none of those pundits are doing is looking at four hundred and thirty-five individual campaigns for four hundred and thirty-five individual seats in the House of Representatives.

And that’s why I think a lot of people looking forward to that massive change are going to be very disappointed next January 3, when the 120th Congress is seated. It’s very difficult to do legitimate polling on such a granular level, but the way our government is put together, combining the results of such tiny polling samples is the only way to get a legitimate estimation of what is going to happen. Because while the sentiments of 55%, or 60%, or 70% of the voting public in the US may be with the Democrats, that doesn’t matter. What matters is which candidate gets the greater number of votes in the California 41st, and the Texas 32nd, and the Florida 9th, and the New York 15th, and on and on and on. Each district, by itself, in an election of several hundred thousand people, upon which the opinions of 99.8% of the population matters not one whit.

Congressional approval ratings are always low. People never like what Congress—as a whole—is doing, or its direction. If that were the only thing that mattered, we’d see a tidal wave of electoral defeats among Representatives every two years. But we don’t. We don’t see that tidal wave, and we won’t as long as we have a body made up of representatives by geography who have chosen the boundary lines of their own districts in order to guarantee their re-election. And we, the voters, always vote to re-elect our own Congressional representatives.

As Ballotopedia told us, in the election of 2024, fifteen Representatives running for re-election were defeated in primary or general elections. Further, they say, since 2014 (six elections), a total of 125 House incumbents were defeated: an average of 21 per election (remember, out of 435 seats).

That’s the reason we keep getting the same non-functional Congress we all hate not doing what we want: because we only vote for our own representative. It doesn’t matter what I think of the Speaker—who lives in Louisiana. And it doesn’t matter what I think of the minority leader—who lives in the next district over from mine in Brooklyn. Neither does my opinion of any of the 432 other members of the House matter. I only have a say in who will represent New York’s 9th district. And the two major political parties have done such an excellent job of choosing their voters through political gerrymandering that almost none of the 435 districts have any chance of changing the party of the person who represents them.

A year ago—in April of 2025—Fair Vote said that 81% of the House seats were already decided… for the 2026 election! And this is not surprising or new. It’s been going on for decades.

So when everyone around me expresses optimism for change following the election of 2026, I’m the Eeyore. I’m the one who is not looking forward to the results, because I don’t expect very much, if anything, to change. Unite America claimed that only 69 of the seats were competitive elections in 2024. We’ve seen absolutely no reason to think it will be any different this time around.
https://www.uniteamerica.org/articles/research-brief-why-are-most-congressional-elections-uncompetitive-2

And this is one of those times that I don’t have a solution to propose. We’re stuck. We’ve let the parties gerrymander the country too damn far, and we can’t find a way out of it. So as much as I hate that Congress has abdicated its responsibilities; as much as I hate that Congress—even if its members wanted to—can’t do anything it should; as much as I hate the political gridlock caused by extreme politicians who only campaign in the primaries because they don’t have to compete in a general election… I fear we’re stuck with it all until we can find a way to tear down walls of power that the Democans and Republicrats have built for themselves.

Put simply: we’re screwed.

The Trump Iran War: Who Benefits?

~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

Last year, President Donald Trump was railing against wind power, urging the UK to shut down their wind power farms in favor “cheap and reliable” oil. His Big Beautiful Bill (which seems much more like a Frankenbill) cancelled tax breaks for solar and wind power in the US.

Three weeks ago, he launched a hot war against Iran.

In response—a response any first-year political science student could have predicted—Iran threatened the safety of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, sending the cost of oil skyrocketing and imperiling the global flow of oil. And now Trump is calling for other countries to pledge military support to secure the Strait, in effect, demanding they clean up after his mistake.

The United States, which is nearly self-sufficient in terms of oil, is not threatened by that bottleneck. Prices, however, skyrocketed. And last week, Trump reminded the world “when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money.”

Who benefits?

The “we” in that Trump quote is not the average American; it’s the oil companies in the US. And quite possibly Trump himself and his close advisors. The US oil companies, for whom the cost of producing and distributing oil and gasoline have not changed, now get to sell their product for more money.

Global instability also leads to lower values for national currencies, increasing interest in those media which are not tied to any nation, such as cryptocurrencies. In October 2025, Bitcoin peaked at a value around $126,000 per coin. It then plummeted to about $62,000 in February. Since Trump launched this war, it is back up to $74,000, a 20% increase. Ethereum—one of the cryptocurrencies in the president’s personal portfolio—has followed a similar trajectory.

Saudi Arabia is almost the undisputed power in the Gulf region. Indeed, the only country that can threaten them is Iran, which is lead by people who are unpredictable and dangerous. Reports March 16 say that the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed Bin Salman, is speaking regularly with Trump, urging him to continue attacking Iran harshly.

Meanwhile, since the onset of this war, you haven’t thought about the Trump-Epstein Files, have you?

How Donald Trump intends to stay in office beyond January 20, 2029

~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

Is this all far-fetched, doom-and-gloom, dystopian theorizing? Probably. I hope certainly. Nevertheless, it is a topic of conversation which keeps cropping up, so…

I know how Donald Trump is going to attempt to stay in office beyond the end of his term. It’s Section 3 of the 20th Amendment. Section 3 talks about who shall become President or act as President (two different things) if there is no President elect or if the President elect is not qualified to serve as President. The final clause of that Section reads “the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.” In other words, if the election is somehow prevented from occurring—and despite Article II, Section 1, and Amendment 20, Section 1—I think Donald Trump’s sycophants are relying on this phrase to enable the Congress to “select” him to “act” as President “until a President or Vice President shall have qualified” (by being elected).

This revelation came while I was researching the essay I thought I was going to write, noting that, regardless of what Trump and the Trumpians try to do to the election of 2028, a lack of an incoming President does not enable the current President to remain in office.

I was going to quote Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which says the President “shall hold his office during the Term of four Years”—thus limiting the time the President serves to four years, whether a successor has been elected or not.

I was going to go on to the 12th Amendment, which says “…no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” Thus preventing the President from becoming Vice President, only to succeed to the Presidency with the removal of the new President.

Then comes the first Section of the 20th Amendment: “The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.” Repeating and emphasizing the Article II quote above: the President’s term ends, regardless of whether or not there is a successor waiting.

And, of course, the first Section of the 22nd Amendment: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”

But then I stumbled upon Section 3 of the 20th Amendment, as I said above. That’s the “well, there may be a way around the Constitution” that the most ardent Trumpians have been hinting at. It’s fairly simple, if we assume they can somehow prevent the next Presidential election. And one doesn’t have to be too creative to figure out ways to do that: declare a state of emergency, ban gatherings “for public safety” during the first week in November, so that an election cannot be held (that’s why they keep pushing to get rid of mail-in ballots and early voting; so that there will be no ballots to count). Or, perhaps easier, would be to look at the fifth paragraph of Article II, Section 1: “The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.” Such an emergency declaration could simply prevent the Electors from gathering to cast their votes in December. No electoral votes, therefore nothing to count on January 6, and no President elect. Blocking that, rather than the general election, would mean that there would still be a new Congress elected who would then be charged with selecting that person who shall act as President.

Therefore, Congress needs to adopt a new law, by a veto-proof margin, saying “No person who is ineligible to be elected President may act as President.”

Trump’s White House Destruction is NOT Comparable to Truman’s White House Rebuild

~ ianrandalstrock ~ 1 Comment

To those comparing Donald Trump’s wanton destruction of the East Wing of the White House to the complete rebuild of the entire building during Harry Truman’s administration, you’re using a false equivalency.

In January 1948, the Commissioner of Public Buildings warned of the “imminent collapse” of the second floor of the mansion. In February, the presidents of the American Institute of Architects and of the American Society of Civil Engineers made a structural survey of the safety of the White House, and concluded that the second floor structure was a fire hazard and was in danger of collapse. In September, the White House Architect announced that the White House’s “structural nerves” had been damaged, and the second floor would need to be rebuilt. He estimated the cost of repairs might be $1 million (Congress had previously approved more than $800,000 for repairs). On November 3, 1948 (the day after election day), the Federal Works Agency told the president he needed to vacate the White House so critical repairs could be effected. On November 7, the news was made public, and the Trumans left town for two weeks. They returned to Blair House, which would serve as the president’s home for most of his second term.

During 1949, the architectural and engineering designs were finalized. The plans were to completely replace the interior of the building, expand the third floor, add more basement levels, and more. Congress created the Commission on the Renovation of the Executive Mansion in March, granting the commission the authority to act on behalf of the federal government in the execution of the project, and late in the year, authorized funding of $5.4 million for the project to reconstruct the White House while keeping the exterior walls in place.

In September 1949, the Commission invited bids from general contractors, and by October, had received 15 bids ranging from $100,000 to $950,000 (that’s in addition to the costs of labor and materials). They went with low bidder John McShain, Inc, who reportedly lost about $200,000 on the project.

Work started in December 1949, and after four months, the removal of historic material slated for salvage was complete. By the middle of 1950, the walls enclosed an empty space, and then a brand-new interior was built, from foundations up.

The Truman family returned to the White House on March 27, 1952.

Currently, the White House is managed by the National Park Service (NPS) but operated by the Executive Office of the President (EOP). Proposed changes to the building are supposed to begin through the Office of the Curator and the White House Facilities Management Division. The NPS, operating under the Presidential Residence Act and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), must review all alterations for compliance with the NHPA. This requires assessing potential impacts on historic and cultural resources in consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and the DC State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).

The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) evaluates all major federal projects in the National Capital Region, including work on the White House grounds, for design, planning, and environmental impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Public comment and design reviews are part of that process.

The US Commission of Fine Arts reviews and advises on the design and appearance of any exterior modifications to the White House or its grounds.

After approvals from NPS, NCPC, and CFA, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the White House Chief Usher / Facilities Management Office finalize funding, scheduling, and logistics. All of that is required before any major construction or demolition of the White House.

Apparently Trump—in his roles of dictator and general contractor (how much is he skimming from the cost of this project?)—ignored all of that.

We Are the Frog

~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

I’m starting to feel like the frog in the slowly heating pot of water.

National Guard troops patrolling Los Angeles. A judge just ruled it’s a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, but that ruling doesn’t change much.

The military take-over of the federal district. “Crime is out of control,” according to the White House, though the city’s administration says those figures are a lie. No matter who’s right, we’re becoming inured to seeing troops in the streets.

Talk of next sending the troops into Chicago or some other major city. We’ll survive that, won’t we? After all, New Yorkers have gotten used to heavily armed people in fatigues at major events and gatherings. Those troops may not have chosen to be here, but we still have to thank them for their service.

Pair that increasing military presence at home with the spate of national emergencies the president is in love with declaring: the national emergency over immigration that the administration is using to justify increasing number of deportations. And the national emergency over international trade that was the justification for illegally imposed tariffs. And now there’s talk of the president declaring a national emergency over housing, because people in their 20s and 30s can’t afford to buy houses, because not enough new houses are being built.

Add in the president’s continual whining about that elections aren’t “secure,” that we can’t trust the mail-in paper ballots, or the electronic voting machines, or any other facet of the system, and that the federal government is going to have to take over the machinery of elections, just to ensure that they’re fair.

Do you see where this is going? This is all in the first seven months of this presidential administration. We are being inculcated to the steady stream of major emergencies demanding extraordinary governmental intervention. We are being taught to distrust the institutions of free and open government that have served us so well for two centuries. And we are growing desensitized to the elements of control such as the Army patrolling our cities.

It isn’t very much of a leap of reasoning to imagine we’ll be told we have to respond to some emergency in the summer of 2028, while the government is trying to make our electoral system “safe,” which will require a delay in election day, perhaps “just a few months.”

I think we’re in trouble. I feel the temperature of this water rising, but will we be smart enough to turn off the gas before it starts boiling?

Don’t do as I did

~ ianrandalstrock ~ Leave a comment

President Trump on Monday tweeted about his dismissal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. His “reasoning” is that he claims Cook made false statements on mortgage documents, which was evidence of “gross negligence” and “potentially criminal.”

The evidence he is basing this decision on? Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi accusing Cook of taking out mortgages for homes in Michigan and Georgia in 2021, and telling banks in both cases that she planned to use the homes as her primary residences. Pulte alleges that was a fraudulent attempt to gain more favorable lending terms. Cook has not been convicted of anything, not even been indicted. But Caesar’s wife must be above reproach.

Sound familiar?

In the case commonly known as New York v Trump (2023–2024), the judge ruled that “In order to borrow more and at lower rates, defendants submitted blatantly false financial data to the accountants, resulting in fraudulent financial statements.”

The pot calling the kettle back? It takes one to know one? The crime he’s accusing Cook of committing is the smaller version of the crime of which he was convicted. He says it’s a disqualifying crime (mind you, the accusation; there has been no trial) to serve on the Fed’s Board of Governors, but that the much larger version (which was adjudicated) is not disqualifying for him to serve as president.

I’m embarrassed that he’s the president, and I’m scared of what he’ll do next.

Trump says he’s fired Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook

People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump, Allen Weisselberg, Jeffrey McConney, The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, The Trump Organization, Inc., Trump Organization LLC, DJT Holdings LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member, Trump Endeavor 12 LLC, 401 North Wabash Venture LLC, Trump Old Post Office LLC, 40 Wall Street LLC, Seven Springs LLC

Embrace the Gerrymander!

~ ianrandalstrock ~ 2 Comments

The Republican redistricting scheme currently causing so much consternation in and toward Texas gives me hope. Not, perhaps, in the way you might think. But in it, I see the seeds of potentially, maybe, if if if, a solution to the gerrymandering that has plagued this country for two centuries.

Allow me to explain.

I’ve been railing against gerrymandering for years. Gerrymandering is the drawing of boundaries on political districts in order to group blocks of voters together, either to increase the power of one group, or to decrease the power of another. Sometimes it is used to increase the chances that a member of a minority group can win an election. But far more often these days, it is used to cement a political party’s hold on a district, to make it “safe.” (For the problems safe districts cause, see my previous writings.)

In normal times, Congressional district boundaries are redrawn every ten years, after the decennial census data is received, so that the districts accurately represent where the people live and what those people want. These are not normal times.

Governor Abbott of Texas, kowtowing to President Trump’s request, is urging the Texas legislature to redraw the state’s Congressional map right now, half-way through a decennial period, in order to concentrate the Democratic minority voters into fewer districts, and thus give the Republicans, potentially, three to five more seats in the House of Representatives. Democratic members of the Texas legislature have left the state, in order to prevent the legislature from reaching a quorum, which would—at least, in theory— prevent action on the proposal. But they’ve tried such a quorum-break in the past; it has not been successful. I doubt it will be this time, either.

So we have to accept the reality that Texas is about to further marginalize their Democratic population and flip five of their seats in the House to the Republican party.

Governor Newsom of California has been making noises about attempting the same scheme in his state, which would flip several seats from the Republicans to the Democrats. There’ve been whispers elsewhere—such as Governor Hochul in New York—that other states might do something similar if Abbot and Trump get their way in Texas. The problem I foresee is an ongoing character flaw of the Democrats: the party insists that it must be holier than thou, purer than thou, that it will play be the rules even when their opponents have shown absolutely no compunction about violating those rules. While doing so may give them a moral victory, it will inevitably lead to an actual loss. To my mind, in these cases, the Democrats are those crying “life isn’t fair.” No, it isn’t. Everyone should follow the rules. Everyone should be a good, moral, decent human being. Everyone should be more interested in the good of us all than in our individual results.

But not everyone is.

We don’t need Governor Newsom and Governor Hochul warning “don’t do it or we might do something, too.” We need him and his fellow Democratic governors to act! Today! We need them to implement precisely the schemes Abbot and the Texans are planning. We need to gerrymander the country to a fare-thee-well, to legislate out of existence those last 40 competitive seats in the House.

Because then, and only then, will we all see just how egregious the gerrymandering has become. Only then will it be brought to the Supreme Court. And to my mind, regardless of the Court’s political slant, there is no way it can allow such outrageous diminution of the minorities to survive. In such a case, I think, the Supreme Court will only be able to rule that the gerrymandering violates the people’s rights to be fairly represented, and that political maps must be drawn in a fair, impartial manner.

(Yes, I know, I’m an idealist. It may not work out that way. But I don’t see any other way to fix the mess we’re in.)

And if, IF my dream comes true, may I humbly suggest new legislation regarding how districts are drawn? A fairly simple test, actually:

No Congressional district, when drawn on a Mercator projection map, shall be drawn in such a way that a straight line drawn on that map shall be able to cross into the district more than once. That is, except in cases where the state border itself violates this dictum.

I don’t expect any of this to happen. I expect the Democrats will continue to purge their own ranks, as they threw out Al Franken. I expect they’ll yell and whine and do nothing, while Texas rejiggers their Congressional map, and that the election of 2026 will result in a Trumpian increase in the House, and we’ll continue bitching and moaning about their self-serving actions for years to come.

But wouldn’t it be nice if I was wrong, and we could actually make things better?


Democrats flee Texas to block Republican redistricting map backed by Trump


Texas Democrats arrive in Illinois to block vote back home on redrawn House maps sought by Trump


Limited options for Democrats to retaliate if Texas Republicans redraw congressional map