When Patriotism Becomes Political Hatred: The Decline of Civility in American Democracy

As I approach my 79th birthday, having lived through nearly eight decades of American political history, I find myself increasingly disturbed by the hostility, bitterness, and outright nastiness characterizing our political campaigns and the attitudes of many American voters.

Political campaigns have never been particularly gentle affairs. From the vicious exchanges between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson in 1800 to the bitter political struggles of more recent generations, personal attacks have always been part of American politics. But something seems different today. The attacks have become more exaggerated, more personal, and seemingly more acceptable.

We are no longer simply disagreeing about political policies. We are increasingly questioning one another's intelligence, integrity, morality, and patriotism.

I believe Donald Trump's rise to political power has contributed significantly to this deterioration. Trump did not invent political hostility, but his frequent use of insults, ridicule, inflammatory accusations, and personal attacks has helped normalize behavior once widely considered unbecoming of a president.

And the fact that Americans elected him president not once, but twice, suggests that a substantial portion of the electorate is willing to overlook, tolerate, or even applaud such conduct.

But my concern extends beyond Donald Trump and his political opponents. It is about what is happening to the American people themselves.

Political disagreements increasingly become personal confrontations. Friendships are strained, families become divided, and fellow citizens are labeled ignorant, dishonest, unpatriotic, or even enemies of America simply because they support a different political candidate.

Perhaps most disturbing is the growing tendency to confuse loyalty to a political leader or political party with loyalty to the United States.

Patriotism is not the exclusive property of Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, liberals, or supporters of any particular president.

Loving America does not require agreeing with its government. Nor does disagreeing with a president make someone disloyal to the nation.

Our democracy was founded upon the principle that citizens may disagree, debate, criticize, and challenge those who govern them. Political opposition is not a betrayal of democracy. It is an essential part of democracy.

I recognize that political polarization predates Donald Trump and that inflammatory rhetoric is not confined to one political party. Nevertheless, I believe his political success has contributed to making personal hostility a more prominent and acceptable feature of American political life.

We should be able to criticize political leaders forcefully without dehumanizing their supporters. We should be able to challenge another person's beliefs without automatically questioning that person's integrity. And we should be able to defend our political convictions without treating those who disagree as enemies.

That does not mean overlooking dishonesty, corruption, cruelty, or threats to democratic institutions. Respectful disagreement does not require silence in the face of wrongdoing. It requires distinguishing legitimate criticism of conduct from indiscriminate condemnation of people.

I have long believed in four fundamental principles: Decency, Integrity, Respect, and Truth.

Those principles should apply to everyone, regardless of political affiliation.

As the 2026 midterm elections approach, I wonder whether Americans will eventually rediscover the distinction between political opposition and personal hatred.

We do not have to agree with one another to respect one another. We do not have to support the same candidates to share a common commitment to our country.

And we certainly should not have to hate our fellow Americans to prove that we love America.

The greatest threat to American democracy may not be the political disagreements that divide us, but our growing inability to disagree without despising one another.

Ideas matter more than insults.

Invoke the 25th Amendment Now! Deranged Donald Trump Must Go.

During my lifetime, I have lived through the presidencies of Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden. I am now living through Donald J. Trump’s second, nonconsecutive term as president, the first having preceded Joe Biden’s presidency and the second beginning immediately after it. Trump was sworn in for his second term on January 20, 2025.

At various points throughout my adult life, I have agreed and disagreed with presidents I voted for, as well as with presidents I opposed at the ballot box.

For a long time, my objection to Donald Trump was political. I disagreed with his policies, his rhetoric, and his priorities, just as any citizen may disagree with a president from the other side of the political spectrum. But that is not what this is about anymore.

Looking honestly at what I see before me, not one isolated incident or one bad day, but what I perceive as a sustained pattern, I have reached a different and more serious conclusion.

This is no longer simply a matter of disliking a president or disagreeing with his politics. I believe we are dealing with a president who is no longer capable of effectively discharging the duties of the office and who, in my view, has lost focus on the domestic problems actually facing this country: the economy, healthcare, infrastructure, global stability, and the everyday concerns of the people who elected him.

Under Trump, personal grievances have replaced governance and loyalty tests have replaced policy. In my judgment, incompetence has become the norm, while instability has become both a domestic and foreign-policy strategy.

I want to be clear: this is not simply my gut reaction. Over the past several years, mental-health professionals, including psychiatrists and psychologists with clinical training, have publicly raised concerns about what they perceive as erratic judgment, grandiosity, and an inability to separate personal grievance from the responsibilities of the presidency.

I recognize that the professional community is divided on these questions. I also understand and respect the ethical concerns many clinicians have about diagnosing a person they have never personally examined. Nevertheless, when informed professional voices repeatedly express concerns that correspond with what many ordinary citizens say they are seeing and experiencing, I believe those concerns deserve serious consideration. And the consequences, as I see them, are not merely abstract.

Markets can react sharply to unexpected presidential announcements. Allies that have relied on Washington for decades may reconsider how much they can depend on the United States. Adversaries may view unpredictability from an American president as an opportunity rather than a deterrent.

An ideological struggle driven by personal grievance rather than coherent strategy can do more than dominate a news cycle. It can undermine alliances, institutions, and international stability that have been built over generations and sustained through enormous sacrifice.

I do not see tangible benefits that, in my judgment, adequately offset the risks posed by Trump. That is why I now believe the 25th Amendment should be invoked.

I do not say that as a partisan weapon or as an attempt to relitigate an election. I say it because I believe the amendment was created as a constitutional mechanism for addressing presidential inability. Section 4 provides a specific process through which the vice president and a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments can declare that a president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office, with Congress ultimately deciding the matter if the president contests that declaration.

From my perspective, I no longer see this as a close call. I believe those entrusted with examining presidential capacity should look honestly at the pattern before them and determine whether it demonstrates an inability to discharge the duties of the presidency.

I do not put forth any of this out of hatred for Donald Trump. I put this forth out of respect for the country in which I have spent nearly eight decades of my life, and out of concern for what I perceive this pattern could mean for my children and grandchildren in the years to come.

Stability is not a partisan value. Neither is responsible leadership in the exercise of presidential power. After nearly eight decades of watching American presidents come and go, I have never felt more compelled to say that a President of the United States is mentally unstable, totally inept, and unfit to remain in office.

Donald Trump is mentally deranged and is far too dangerous to remain as the President of the United States of America. The 25th Amendment must be invoked, now. Donald Trump must be removed from office!

Was the 2020 Presidential Election Rigged?

My query to ChatGPT:

Earlier today, September 10, 2026, a man I know  told me that the 2020 Presidential Election was rigged to keep Incumbent President Donald Trump from being reelected. This man alleged that the election was rigged to favor Biden. I asked him to give me some proof of that, and he just kept repeating himself. How can one say an election was rigged but has no proof is beyond me. What kind of response can I give the person who says the 2020 election was rigged in order for Joe Biden to win and to keep Donald Trump from being re-elected as President?

The response from ChatGPT:

Your basic point is sound: a claim that an election was “rigged” is not evidence that it was rigged. If someone makes that claim, the reasonable next question is, “What specific evidence demonstrates that, and how does it show that the alleged misconduct changed the result?”

There is a particularly useful way to respond without turning the conversation into an argument.

You could say this:

I’m willing to consider the possibility that something improper happened in the 2020 election. But saying “the election was rigged” over and over again isn’t evidence.

If you believe the election was rigged to make Biden win, please give me something specific that I can independently verify: What happened, where did it happen, what evidence proves it happened, and how many votes were affected?

I’m not asking you to prove that every vote was legitimate. I’m asking you to provide evidence for the much bigger claim that the election was deliberately manipulated to change the outcome.

There were recounts, audits, investigations and court cases after the election. Georgia, for example, conducted recounts, and investigations by state officials found no evidence of widespread fraud. The Trump campaign and its allies also brought numerous legal challenges, but the courts did not establish fraud on a scale sufficient to overturn the election.

So if you have new or specific evidence that those investigations missed, I'm willing to look at it. But “I know it was rigged” isn't evidence. It is a conclusion. The evidence is what should allow us to reach the conclusion.

That approach has an important advantage: you aren't asking him to prove a negative. You're asking him to substantiate his positive assertion.

There is also a very useful distinction you can make:

“Were there irregularities in the 2020 election?”

That is a reasonable question. Elections involving millions of ballots can certainly have mistakes, isolated illegal votes, administrative errors, and disputes.

“Was the election deliberately rigged so Biden would win?”

That is a substantially different allegation. It requires evidence of a coordinated scheme and evidence that it affected enough votes to change the outcome.

The available record is important here. The Justice Department's compilation of the post-election litigation includes cases in which the Trump campaign itself did not allege fraud or acknowledged that the number of votes at issue could not affect the outcome. And Georgia conducted recounts that did not change the result and investigated allegations of widespread fraud without finding evidence supporting them. 

So if your acquaintance simply repeats, “But it was rigged!”, you can calmly come back to one question:

“What is your best piece of evidence that proves it was rigged, rather than simply your belief that it was?”

Then actually examine whatever he gives you. That's a much more productive standard than arguing about Donald Trump or Joe Biden.

And importantly, you don't have to defend Biden in order to demand evidence for a claim about the election. The same evidentiary standard should apply whether the alleged beneficiary is Biden, Trump, or anyone else.

The 2026 Texas U.S. Senate Race

The 2026 Texas U.S. Senate race features a stark clash of economic philosophies focused heavily on the cost of living. James Talarico’s platform models Lyndon B. Johnson’s populist "Great Society," targeting corporate influence and structural inequality. In contrast, Ken Paxton’s platform aligns closely with Donald Trump's MAGA policies, focusing heavily on targeted federal tax deductions.

The two candidates' platforms clash directly across several major economic areas:

🏠 Housing & Everyday Costs

* Ken Paxton: Focuses on tax-incentivized assistance. He proposes a $50,000 federal tax deduction for first-time and second-time homebuyers, as well as a $50,000 deduction on down payments for people moving to a new primary residence. He also supports making permanent the signature tax provisions passed under the Trump administration.

* James Talarico: Blames billionaires for the affordability crisis. He proposes a sweeping cost-of-living tax cut for the middle class, funded by repealing tax breaks for the top 1%. Additionally, Talarico advocates for federal funding to establish universal childcare.

🏥 Healthcare & Medicine

* Ken Paxton: Proposes expanding the tax code to alleviate medical burdens. His platform includes a $25,000 tax deduction per taxpayer (plus an extra $25,000 per dependent) for all out-of-pocket medical expenses, including health insurance premiums. He also pitches a $5,000 "healthy-living" tax deduction to incentivize fitness and wellness.

* James Talarico: Focuses on anti-monopoly regulation and debt relief. Partnering with entrepreneur Mark Cuban, Talarico has introduced a plan to break up corporate healthcare and insurance monopolies to force down prescription drug prices. He also advocates for the broad forgiveness of existing medical debt.

⚡ Energy & Emerging Industries

* Ken Paxton: Champions the traditional Texas oil and gas industry. He strongly opposes federal climate mandates, green subsidies, and modern global tariffs that add friction to industrial manufacturing and agriculture.

* James Talarico: Advocates for an "all of the above" energy strategy. While stating support for the Texas oil and gas sector, he emphasizes reducing greenhouse gas emissions through technological investments like carbon capture. He also proposes heavily regulating data centers—requiring them to fund their own energy usage and recycle water—and creating a federal dividend by taxing artificial intelligence (AI).

💼 Labor & Wages

* Ken Paxton: Argues that lowering taxes and slashing federal spending will organically stimulate job growth, raise wages, and curb inflation.

* James Talarico: Proposes active government intervention to aid workers. He calls for raising the federal minimum wage, expanding mandatory overtime pay, and strengthening laws to rebuild labor unions. 

Fear of your parents’ old age?

There comes a moment in every family when time bends the natural order.

It is when the son becomes his father’s father.

The father who once walked with strength now moves slowly, as if wrapped in fog.

The mother who once held your tiny hand tightly now fears being left alone.

The same father who once lifted you on his shoulders now pauses twice before standing.

The same voice that commanded with authority now only sighs, searching for doors and windows that seem far away.

One day, the hands that built your world will tremble to button a shirt, forget the pills that keep them alive. And we, as children, will realize: it is our turn to be their strength.

The life that once gave us everything… now depends on us to leave this world in peace. 

Aging is not just wrinkles or weak knees. It is learning to hold on to walls, to climb invisible stairs. It is becoming a stranger in your own home, while your children watch—afraid, uncertain, but full of love.

And when the time comes, nothing matters more than a gentle touch, a whispered promise:

"I’m here… I’m here, Dad. You are not alone."

Because in the end, what every parent longs to hear is that their child stayed by their side. 

And Then, There Was One

The Jewish people have traditionally supported and championed the rights of all peoples.
Not so, the other way around.
Indeed, anti-Semitism has been a historical fact and Jew Hatred today is stronger than ever!

Hillary Clinton on Donald Trump.

Just as true today in 2026 as it was ten years ago.

It’s Time for Some Real D.I.R.T.

Unfortunately, extremism has taken hold within our political parties in the United States of America, and American political culture seems to have forgotten George Washington’s warning about the dangers of political factions. (ref: Washington's Farewell Address 1796)

Somewhere along the way, political disagreement became political warfare. The name-calling needs to stop. The personal attacks, insults, and belittling of people simply because they hold a different political perspective need to stop.

We are Americans first.

We may disagree—and there is nothing wrong with disagreement. In fact, healthy disagreement is an essential part of a democracy. But disagreement does not require hatred. It does not require personal attacks. And it certainly does not require treating those who think differently as our enemies.

All Americans need to start pulling together. Divisiveness, hostility, and constant political warfare will not accomplish anything positive for our nation.

It is time for what I call real D.I.R.T.

D.I.R.T. = Democrats, Independents, (and) Republicans (working) Together.

Imagine what might be accomplished if we, the American people, could set aside our distrust.

If we set aside the hostility.

If we set aside the verbal tirades.

If we stopped throwing stones at one another.

If we stopped constantly pointing fingers and assigning blame.

If we put aside the pettiness and started looking for common ground.

We might discover that we have far more in common than we have been led to believe.

Our country does not need more political enemies. It needs citizens who are willing to listen, compromise when necessary, disagree respectfully, and work together toward solutions.

Democrats. Independents. Republicans.

Different political philosophies, perhaps—but one nation and one people.

Maybe it's time for some real D.I.R.T.

Democrats, Independents, and Republicans—working Together.

Because America cannot move forward if we are constantly fighting one another.

The Way We Treat One Another

There is something I have been thinking about for a long time: Why do we sometimes treat other people so badly?

We encounter people every day, yet we know almost nothing about what is happening inside their lives.

The person who seems impatient in the checkout line may be dealing with a sick spouse. The person who doesn't smile back at us may be carrying an enormous burden that we know nothing about. The coworker who seems distracted may be worried about a child. The neighbor who doesn't return our greeting may simply be having one of the worst days of their life.

And sometimes, of course, people really do behave badly. They can be rude, selfish, judgmental, dishonest, dismissive or cruel.

But here's the thing I've learned over the years:

We don't have to respond to someone's bad behavior with bad behavior of our own. We can choose something different. We can choose patience. We can choose understanding. We can choose compassion. We can choose to give someone the benefit of the doubt. We can choose kindness.

Years ago, I came across the words in the image accompanying this post. I shared them on Facebook on August 13, 2019, and I still believe they are every bit as meaningful today:

"If we could look into each others hearts, and understand the unique challenges each of us faces, I think we would treat each other much more gently, with more love, patience, tolerance, and care."

I wish we really could look into one another's hearts. If we could, I suspect we would discover that many of the people we encounter are fighting battles we never knew existed. We would see the loneliness behind the smile; the fear behind the anger; the sadness behind the silence, the exhaustion behind the impatience, the insecurity behind the arrogance, the pain behind the words that sometimes hurt us. And perhaps, knowing those things, we would be a little gentler with one another.

I am not suggesting that we should allow people to abuse us or take advantage of us. There are times when we must establish boundaries. There are times when we must walk away. There are times when we must stand up for ourselves. But even then, we don't have to become cruel in the process.

Life is difficult enough without making it more difficult for one another. A kind word costs very little. A little patience costs very little. A smile costs nothing.

Forgiveness can be difficult, but it can also free us from carrying anger around inside ourselves. And sometimes the most important thing we can give another human being is simply the feeling that someone sees them, someone hears them, and someone cares.

As I look at the world around us, I sometimes wonder what would happen if we all made a conscious effort to treat people a little more gently, not just the people we love, not just the people who agree with us, not just the people who are kind to us. Everyone. Because every person we meet is carrying a story. And we usually don't know what that story contains.

So perhaps the next time someone is rude to us, instead of immediately asking, "What's wrong with that person?", we might ask ourselves: "I wonder what that person is going through."

That one small change in perspective might make all the difference. We cannot change the entire world.  But we can change the little corner of it that we occupy. And maybe that's where we should begin.

Treat others gently ... with love, patience, tolerance and care. Because we are all human beings trying to find our way through this complicated thing called life. And, in the end, we need one another far more than we sometimes realize.

Parental Abandonment, A Societal Issue of The 21st Century.

As an adult, I maintained regular, frequent contact by telephone and by personal visits in their homes with both my mother and my father (each lived lives apart from one another) on a consistent basis right up until they died. I did not allow anything to keep me from maintaining contact with them. [I note that my father had absolutely no involvement in my childhood and adolescence other than paying child support; and that it was me who initiated contact with him when I was 23 years old.] Regardless of my leading a very busy life, I made the time for my mother and for my father.

I remember my mother speaking with her mother on the telephone twice each and every day. Most often, the calls took place at 10:00 in the morning and at 7:00 in the evening. Many times, it was just "Hello Ma, I just want to make sure you're okay." Or, something like that.

I cannot understand how any adult son or daughter, who had not been abused, cannot make the time to keep in touch in some form with his or her living mother and father on at least a weekly basis.