How to live in a nation that hates you?

I'm not unusual in being moved by this 250th US anniversary to think about the present through the lens of Centennials Past.  Princeton University scholar Eddie Glaude Jr. has offered his reflections in America, U.S.A.: How Race Shadows the Nation's Anniversaries.  A scholar of James Baldwin, he is not into pretty pictures of the past; this is not that kind of nation. 

And so Glaude begins:

I do not love America, and never have, especially now.

From there, he's more than ready to tell us why that is:

... Desperately afraid of being exposed, particularly to themselves, most white Americans have been led by that fear, and continue to be led, into a kind of delirium that erupts, repeatedly, in unimaginable violence and draconian policies. They lash out. They destroy or render entire populations invisible, lock them away in prisons, push them to the edges of our communities, or deport them in order to keep the country, or their idea of the country, from being torn asunder.

... Trump’s reelection in 2024 signaled that a large swath of white America was unwilling to struggle any longer over race matters. Instead, he reasserted the fantasy of a white Republic. ... 

The burden of white America is a lot to carry. But here Glaude is -- and here we all are.

Glaude takes up various bits of our history and white America's shame in the light of the five great commemorative anniversaries. Particular horrors bubble to the top of this stew for deeper examination. 

For example, launching off the fact that Frederick Douglass's home place was western New York state in the years before the Civil War, Glaude dissects the Tops Market hate massacre in Buffalo in 1921. This one got to me, because Buffalo also was my home place, and I do not want to forget...

... Well over a century after Douglass delivered his speech in Corinthian Hall and Garnet announced in Buffalo that pharaohs were on both sides of the Red Sea, Payton Gendron, an eighteen-year-old white male from Conklin, New York, drove over two hundred miles to east Buffalo, exited his car with a semiautomatic rifle with the word Nigger scrawled on its barrel, and opened fire at the Tops Friendly Market. He was dressed in tactical gear and live-streamed his killing spree on Twitch. [Ten shoppers died.]

Gendron purposefully chose this area because of its high concentration of Black residents. Buffalo is the sixth most segregated city in the country and the third poorest city in the nation. Thirty-five percent of African Americans and 40 percent of Black children in Buffalo live below the poverty line. In 2021, African American unemployment in the city stood at 11 percent. Masten Park on the East Side, where the Tops grocery store is located, is like most Black neighborhoods in poor cities teeming with Black people trying to make ends meet. Severe residential segregation has drawn a hard line between Black and white residents in the city. One reporter likened Main Street to the Berlin Wall, a divide, like railroad tracks in small Southern towns, that separates Black and white neighborhoods. 

Before the horror on May 14, Black people lived in a city that fundamentally devalued and disregarded them, no matter which political party governed. They lived and died by a thousand daily cuts in “the city of good neighbors. ...

Glaude goes on to recount the testimony of the survivors and the relatives of the murdered. These are people who do not have the option of ignoring the reality that too much of their own country discounts their humanity. 

How to live in a nation that hates you? Glaude takes this as his problem and his text:

... We are forced to live with the idea that, because of the color of our skin and because of the color of yours, somehow that says something about our value, our worth. ... 

... There is this palpable sense throughout the country that everything is collapsing around us—that hatred has overrun basic values and that greed has trumped decency. Hope for a racially just society seems like a fool’s desire, because so many white folks—those who can’t imagine themselves as anything but white—have lost their damn minds. 

But love breaks through. Not some sentimentalized love of country that can easily slip into a kind of idolatry that makes one monstrous, but the love of people close to the ground, who give this place meaning and purpose. The love that motivated slaves to imagine a future as a free people when nothing about their experience suggested that such a future could be possible; the love that announces hatred must never have the last word. ...

... Your country? Your history? No. It is ours. Our sweat and tears have shaped this land. You feel us in the music; our sound rolls off your tongue. Our presence fills your classic literature. Our wails and moans, our joys and laughter, make this place swing. Your country? No. The bars of music that begin each chapter of this book suggest otherwise. And no matter your efforts to make us invisible or to deny the history of the country that unravels your myths and legends, we know America would not be America without us. 

The reality is what it is. The country has given us Donald Trump, and we have to deal with this madness again. The pounding in the skull returns as we struggle to beat back the “intolerable bitterness of spirit,” because these people have done this shit again in the 250th year of America, U.S.A., a semiquincentennial blues.

Glaude would never deny he's a kind of preacher. 

Centennials past ...

My family has been bumping about the United States for a long time, since well before this was a nation, since Europeans started expropriating New England from its inhabitants. I am fortunate to have come into considerable family archives; I find it interesting to catalogue ancestral markers of these observances

At the time of the first (1875-6) centennial, a great-great grandfather, E. G. Spaulding, was a prosperous civic grandee, a banker and former mayor of Buffalo. He erected his personal monument to the country which had been so good to him. He was full of energy and pride.

 

The ostensible purpose of this massive pseudo-classical stone horror was to mark 50 years since the passing of his ancestor, Levi Spaulding, who fought in the American revolutionary army from Bunker Hill through Yorktown. But one panel was also an affirmation of the struggle of this own lifetime; old E.G. was in Congress during Lincoln's fraught Civil War term. He knew where he stood on the battles of his day.

   

Click to enlarge images. 

 • • •

Come the 150th anniversary of the country in 1926, the city of Buffalo was in its commercial heyday. Most of the great civic monuments were in construction or planning in that decade, including Shea's Performing Arts Center, the Peace Bridge to Canada and the art deco City Hall. In addition to industry, Buffalo profited greatly being the gateway to booze smuggled in from Canada, defying Prohibition. I remember asking my mother about that year's sesquicentennial. She was unusually vague in her memories. She was 18 that year, graduating from high school, about to go off with her family on a summer cruise around the Mediterranean, then off to college. She remembered she took her flask with her. Under Prohibition, you had to be sure you didn't drink something that turned out to be paint thinner.

• • •

By the time of the Bicentennial of 1976, I can bring my own memories. I was 29 that year. While the tall ships sailed into New York harbor and the fire works lofted over Philadelphia, I was painting my parents' living room, the furniture swathed in tarps and the painter covered in roller spray. I don't think we wore masks when painting in those days. My chief memory is sweltering, with occasional breaks for the TV.

 

My generation, people who came of age in late 1960s, were often America skeptics. We had grown up inspired by the Civil Rights revolution, then watched the cities burn when hope for racial and economic justice was unfilled, while the boys were sent to Vietnam to die for what we knew was nothing good. Then a president turned out to be just a common crook and drunk -- and by 1976 we were left with Gerald Ford who seemed an interim stand-in for a national leader. 

 

By 1976 I was on board with Dorothy Day's one word reaction to the Bicentennial as printed in the National Catholic Reporter:

 

Dorothy summed up my feelings of the time. This still seems one appropriate response to the national festivites.

• • • 

So what's to make of America 250? 

 

I have to admit, I'm sort of enjoying the show. Donald Trump's ignorant, tacky effort to hijack the national celebration seems largely to inspire ridicule. This ia not a respectful country and never has been. This is also not really a backward looking country; we can wallow in MAGA's swamp of gloomy nostalgia for a season, but our history is that hope revives. Against all odds, we can still make that happen. Let's keep up the work.

On the eve of the July 4 holiday

When I was a child, the preeminent patriotic song was not "The Star Spangled Banner" ... Too formal and too hard to sing. For some, the song might have been "God Bless America" belted out on vinyl by Kate Smith. But mostly, the patriotic anthem was "My country 'tis of thee ..." Perhaps this had something to do with our proximity Canada where, incongruously to American ears, the same tune served as a national anthem pledging allegiance to British monarchy. Obviously an adaptable tune.

With this in mind, I was delighted to stumble upon this wonderful iteration contributed by W.E.B.Dubois:

... Of course you have faced the dilemma: it is announced, they all smirk and rise. If they are ultra, they remove their hats and look ecstatic; then they look at you. What shall you do? Noblesse oblige; you cannot be boorish, or ungracious; and too, after all it is your country and you do love its ideals if not all of its realities. Now, then, I have thought of a way out: Arise, gracefully remove your hat, and tilt your head. Then sing as follows, powerfully and with deep unction. They’ll hardly note the little changes and their feelings and your conscience will thus be saved:

My country tis of thee,
Late land of slavery,
         Of thee I sing.
Land where my father’s pride
Slept where my mother died,
From every mountain side
         Let freedom ring!

My native country thee
Land of the slave set free,
         Thy fame I love.
I love thy rocks and rills
And o’er thy hate which chills,
My heart with purpose thrills,
         To rise above. ... 

There are two additional verses.  

Takes one to know too many

Panic about newcomers to the United States seems to be a hardy perennial in the American experience. 

Because my parents were unusually old when they reproduced, closer to 40 than 25 when they had a child, I carry a memory of coming up with people who had come of age during the immigration restriction panic of the 1920s. Even in the 1950s, they saw nothing amiss in reflexive "soft" prejudice against people who came from what they saw as "shithole" countries; in their world, that would be people of Italian or, even worse, Polish ancestry. The great patriotic coalition of World War II had sanded some ugly edges off this for them and this disdain didn't extend either to European Jews or American-born Blacks. But during the restricted phase of legal immigration that extended to 1965, they were just normies with normie attitudes. 

My generation were more open to new experiences and newcomers; we call that the Sixties. We were beyond shocking and very controversial to previous generations.

And then, like many Americans, my parents became more and more open to the different sort of Americans who came among us when we opened legal immigration doors a crack. 

The dwindling white base of the current Republican Party desperately wants the past and their entitled bigotry back. The Supreme Court's too small majority affirming birthright citizenship does not mean the end of the fight; it merely signals a new phase in the never finished struggle over who is a real American.

Air Force vet and former Republican Congresscritter Adam Kinzinger speaks to this moment; he knows the worst of his former constituents.  

Why Trump Won't Stop Until He Ends Birthright Citizenship 

Who is an American isn’t a difficult question. Despite what four politicians in black robes tried to tell us ..., the 14th Amendment is incredibly clear, written in language anybody can read and comprehend: “Any persons born or naturalized in the United States.” It’s simple: If you’re born here, you’re an American, and entitled to all our country’s blessings. And it used to be pretty widely agreed upon that this was an asset that this set our country above other nations as a beacon of freedom.

When I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, I knew this was part of the deal. And I served in uniform alongside people that would have proudly given their life for their country, even if their parents were born somewhere else.

... Let’s be very clear about this: Trump and his allies are not going to stop trying to end Birthright Citizenship, and whoever succeeds him will pick up that mantle. Deciding “who is an American” is central to the MAGA project; it is among the very first steps in their playbook. 

If you think this is an overstatement, just look at one response yesterday from a prominent MAGA stooge—the CEO of the right-wing magazine The Federalist: 

click to enlarge

I'm reproducing this deranged screed here because most of us don't see the stuff our right wingers stew in. "Deny entry to all pregnant foreigners." "Deny entry to all female foreigners." "Require sterilization of all foreign visitors prior to entry." These people are scared stupid!

Kinzinger goes on: 

What makes America exceptional is the idea that citizenship isn’t about bloodlines or tribal membership—it’s about our shared commitment to a set of principles. It is a big, sprawling, living and breathing Democracy. This is what sets us apart from nations that define citizenship by ethnicity or religion. A Shining City on a Hill isn’t meant to be admired in the distance, it is an actual place with people, industry, traditions and faith.

And that gets us to the core of MAGA. The movement to end birthright citizenship isn’t trying to make America stronger. It’s trying to make America smaller, more fearful, more divided. It’s trying to turn the Constitution into a weapon against the very people it was designed to protect. Ultimately, Trump wants a smaller citizenry, a smaller democracy and a smaller America—in every sense of the word.

This is an existential fight for [Stephen Miller], for Trump and for the sociopaths they’ve got running the government right now. It is the skeleton key to the fascist takeover so many of them pray for each night. So the fight continues because they will never stop. 

America, as they know it, cannot exist with birthright citizenship in place because they believe it diminishes them. And, to me, that’s what makes the MAGA movement so weak and pathetic. They want to make being born here a curse, when the rest of us know it is an immense privilege. ...

What happened at the Supreme Court is not just another move in an ongoing MAGA v. Dems chess match. This is our existential fight.

Really, it's not so bad -- I think.

Jonathan V. Last of The Bulwark published one of his acerbic essays recently accompanied by this graphic:

Photo illustration by Sarah Rogers/The Bulwark

As nearly daily, Last is thought provoking. Yet I question where he goes in this piece.

I think we can take it that the image captures Last's disgust with the small town Americans whose views are described in the ethnographic study from the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University which serves as his text. Based in deep interviews in small town Wyoming, Michigan and South Carolina, the study documents that many adults in these communities don't much like democracy -- in fact, they hate majority rule because they know their white nationalist moral understanding of the true and good is simply not shared by the national popular majority. Most of us live in cities, suburbs and along the coasts; we encounter a mix of people and thoughts; we are not from this sad white tribe.

.. Our participants believe the American republic was always conditional on a particular moral order that has now been lost, and a people who held enough in common to uphold this order together. ... Our participants' fear of "too much democracy" is, at its root, a fear that popular will or procedural legitimacy have become misaligned with and elevated above the moral order that should orient both. They believe popular will and procedural legitimacy are important, but can become illegitimate when they stray too far from or threaten the moral foundation. ...

... The conservatives we met share a moral framework that precedes and judges all other aspects of life, including democracy itself. It is organized around four pillars: Faith, Family, Freedom, and Place. The relative importance of these pillars varies across participants, with Faith often being particularly dominant. In our participants' view, these pillars constitute the core of a good and moral life. Democratic institutions, processes, and norms are evaluated against this moral foundation rather than abstract theories of how democracy should work. 

This is not how most contemporary Americans think and believe; nor, approaching the 250th anniversary of the nation, are we willing to be confined in a moral framework from a self-consciously conservative rural minority. Most of us are not open to conversion to a cramped, ungenerous, orthodoxy of fear and decline. The people studied here respond to the majority's refusal to adopt their views by being down on our democracy; they know they are a dwindling minority faction.

The most telling anecdote in the study for me was this:  

...Participants argue the left has captured the institutions that shape what Americans believe before they ever cast a vote: institutions such as K-12 schools, universities, media, and public health, have all become vectors for pushing progressive values. Clint (70s, MI) and his wife call it the "raging river," a cultural current so powerful it has pulled their own children from faith and conservative values into an amoral progressive agenda, fracturing their family in the process. ...

This ethnographic study describes a set of America's losers. 

And the subjects of this study are all too aware and resentful of their loser identity. They wish they were not a minority, but they know they are.

Obviously, this hurts and makes such people fodder for charlatans promising impossibilities -- for Donald Trump. 

JVL worries that this recalcitrant minority, though it's huckster champion, is sinking the Constitutional ship. 

... I’m not sure how Democrats win over a voter who’s motivated not by unemployment, or the the Iranian nuclear program, or the price of eggs—but is rather lashing out because they’re angry that their children rejected their political views.

We are firmly out of the realm of policy here. Or reality, even. So long as there is a trans activist in San Francisco posting on BlueSky, these people will be aggrieved. Even if their preferred political party holds the presidency, controls Congress, and has an openly corrupt majority in the Supreme Court. Domination of the political system is not enough; they want the people who disgust them to disappear.

And—this is the key—the moral revulsion the participants in the study exhibit overrides their commitments to democratic processes and the liberal order. If “democracy” produces anything they dislike, then they are ready to be done with democracy. 

... This is not a new motivating force in American politics. And I don’t know what the cure for it might be. ...

I respond to that -- nothing in our history suggests that there is any easy cure, but we know what its elements might be: broad prosperity and opportunity available to a majority ... coupled with time. Throughout our history, the children have gone off in their own directions, whether physically to the western frontier or toward the "evil" cities. Trump's base of losers is having a very American experience in this our 250th year. But they remain an unhappy minority of losers ... 

• • •

Is the Agora study or Last's diatribe against the rubes really any different than the much-mocked "mainstream" media's dispatch of correspondents to chat with rural Americans in coffee shops? I have a hard time seeing a difference.

• • •

In the NY Times, David Wallace Wells [gift article] provides a different, and I think more accurate, assessment of this cultural MAGA moment under the Trump regime. In the majority, we're not willing to allow imagination and hope to be suppressed by MAGA's nostalgia for an imagined past.

... It’s been a while since anyone talked in such triumphalist terms about MAGA’s cultural victory — maybe since the time that the people of Minneapolis essentially repelled the Immigration and Customs Enforcement units that had descended on their city. The cruel kids’ table is not nearly as crowded anymore, and those lingering at it look to the rest of the country more like monstrous radicals or opportunistic grifters than anything that might be called a political vanguard for the entire country. 

The podcasters who once played the role of MAGA intellectuals have revealed themselves as political weather vanes, separating themselves from the president on one issue after another, and even if Mr. Trump’s evangelical base remains mostly loyal, Republicans keep getting clobbered in special elections. Tech accelerationism is still minting unimaginable fortunes but has also generated populist rage against artificial intelligence and data centers that probably counts as the biggest grass-roots backlash since at least Occupy and the Tea Party. The assassination of Charlie Kirk — which seemed at first to produce a MAGA martyr, initiating a generation of young conservatives almost as a frat house would a new class of pledges — has given way instead to crises and infighting in conservative media. Surveys show that Gen Z remains our most progressive generation.

... Eighteen months later, we can say that if that first vibe shift was real, it’s been followed by another, in the opposite direction, with the bottom falling out of Mr. Trump’s second term and his administration looking again like the same old destructive kakistocracy. But another way of looking at the disarray of the second MAGA era is to consider the possibility that it was always at least partly an illusion, jointly conjured up by self-aggrandizing Republicans and self-lacerating liberals. We haven’t even hit the midterms yet, and the prospect of an enduring MAGA majority doesn’t look like the natural path of the American future. It looks like a projection from the recent past, already fading. ...

This July 4th, the majority continues to reveal that MAGA is a dwindling fraction, not an enduring "real" America. Most of us reject MAGA's terrified vision. 

I am a little shocked by the optimism that thinking about these several articles has let loose in me. Let's get on with making what democracy can of this country!

A warning by way of Britain: no deathly compromises

It feels as if it were going to be a more than usually unsettled few days, this coming week between the enormous LGBTQ+ freedom marches here in San Francisco and President Toddler's dumb and dopey July 4 appropriation of our national founding in DC over next weekend. 

As I come out of my rhinovirus brain fog, here's a warning from last week that I don't want to miss. 

Erin in the Morning: News and discussion on trans legislation and life provides just what the tagline of the substack says it will. This is news we need to attend to. And with MAGA bigots ascendant, this is news no one should ignore. So I pay attention when Erin issues a warning.

Reflecting on UK politics, where the governing left-leaning Labour Party has succumbed to a rightist-inspired panic attack on trans folk, Erin demands that here in the US, Democrats must find more spine. Deposed Prime Minister Keir Starmer's weaselly accommodation of his country's trans-hating bigots didn't win him any real allies or save his fumbling leadership.

... I often write about Democrats here in the United States, and I often criticize them for taking stances that capitulate to far-right framings on transgender people. In recent months, I lambasted eight House Democrats for voting to hand Trump more power to pull funding from schools that support transgender students. I slammed Gavin Newsom and Xavier Becerra for their retreat on transgender sports and, in Newsom's case, for floating the idea that trans people should wait until 25 to transition—a position with its roots in UK-based anti-trans activism. I've even criticized progressive icon and Mayor Mamdani for limiting his new clinic to patients 19 and older, using Trump's executive order age cutoff in what amounts to a retreat from his promises to use every tool at his disposal to fight for trans youth. 

Many have wondered why I have just as many sharp words for Democrats who retreat as I do for the Republicans driving the attacks. Starmer's resignation today should help explain why.

One of my biggest fears is not the Republican Party. They are the devil we know—terrible, and they will take every step to target trans people in the worst ways imaginable. 

But in the United States, we have one thing the UK no longer does: our major left-of-center party has not abandoned us. At least here, the harm can still be reversed. Executive orders can be revoked. Rules can be rewritten. Democratic-held states can serve as islands of refuge and support for transgender people, and a future Democratic administration can undo what this one has done. 

That is only true so long as the Democratic Party remains willing to fight for us. What happens if the only alternative party in the United States follows Labour's path and embraces transphobia too? Where does that leave transgender people?

The greatest danger to transgender people in America is not another two years of Republican rule. It is the potential for a cancer to grow inside the Democratic Party—one that whispers to its leaders that the vulnerable and "unpopular" can be thrown to the wolves in exchange for survival. 

But what the pundits pushing this strategy never tell those leaders is that there will never be enough to feed those wolves.  

There is no amount of concession on trans rights that will satisfy the other side. The ads will still come. And they will not stop at trans people… immigrants… disabled people… LGB people. 

One by one, each group will become the next "strategic sacrifice," until you are left with a party that has abandoned every community that once believed in it—all in pursuit of a political center that doesn’t even exist. You sell your soul, and all you have left are empty platitudes and a collapsing future. 

My emphasis. We aren't there yet. We have a choice about whether we will allow our panic about Trumpism to undercut our affirmation of human rights for everyone. And we can demand brave choices from our Democratic politicians. We are all in this together. 

• • •

It was nice to read a political journalist writing for a broad audience draw similar lessons in an account of Trump's gladiatorial follies on the White House lawn. Noah Berlatsky publishes at Public Notice. He has no truck with the racist malignant masculinity of the big hunk who celebrated his victory by shouting "Michelle Obama is a man." He sees scam.

... Even if the disgusting smear is not new, it highlights the ways in which the status, dignity, and rights of marginalized people are intertwined. The attack on trans people is not just an attack on trans people; it is also, and deliberately, an attack on Black women, on women of color, and ultimately on all women, on all Black people, and on the political party which the majority of all those groups call their own.

Some Democrats have wavered in their support for trans people during the Trump presidency. But this kind of smear directed at a Democratic party leader at a White House event should make it abundantly clear that throwing trans people under a wheeled conveyance will inevitably mean allowing said conveyance to run down and decimate large parts of the coalition. We need to fight back for everyone if we are going to fight back for anyone, because it is the right thing to do, and because fascists, in their hate, do not distinguish between us. ...

Again, the people may have to lead the pols on this -- but if we insist, we can! 

Still on a brain break ...

I stumbled foggily out to a store yesterday still full of rhinoviruses and found myself among crowds of lovely young women making their way to Dolores Park for the Dyke March. The scene reminded me of this classic lesbian poster by my friend Michele Lloyd.

And that's only a tiny slice of us. Happy Pride to all.

Regular posts will resume tomorrow, I hope. 

Blog hiatus

I'm having what's either ferocious allergies or an atypical head cold. Blogging will resume when I can breathe.

Go ahead, make up a story

I usually don't pause to take pictures while getting in my laps around Blue Heron Lake in Golden Gate Park. But this was too good to leave uncaptured ...

You have to wonder, what was the husband in question doing? ... Or not doing? ...

California elections: I was both wrong and right

California's June primary election taught me some lessons about the numerous vehement opinions I bring to our election system.

For many years, I argued that widespread adoption of "abseentee" or "vote by mail" would detract from voter engagement rather than increase it. I was wrong.

I used to argue that campaigning to enhance Election Day -- marches, parties, the common accompaniments of 19th century elections -- would be the best way to increase turnout. This sort of thing does work in some contexts: homeless advocates have been known to march groups of street-living foks to City Hall to vote with some effect. But there is overwhelming evidence that automatically sending every eligible voter a ballot that can be mailed, dropped in a drop box, or delivered to a polling place is more effective.

Joe Garofoli of the San Francisco Chronicle describes the extraordinary success of mail ballots in our state:

... California had the second-highest voter turnout (40%) of any state that has held a primary so far this year.  The state with the highest turnout: Oregon (41%), which, like California, mails a ballot to every voter. 

Trump doesn't like this, but if you want more civic participation, make convenience voting easy! 

• • • 

However, seeing the "top two" primary voting system in action in picking the candidates who will be on ballot in November was the absurd farce I've always thought it. In loathing the "top two," I was right. 

Los Angeles Times columnist George Skelton skewers the strange consequences of this systemic gimmick. 

... [Former state Sen. Abel] Maldonado says he crafted the current system 16 years ago believing it would produce “pragmatic and commonsense” officeholders. But that has failed, he acknowledges.

... Voters, regardless of party affiliation, can vote for any candidate. And the top two vote-getters, regardless of their party, advance to the general election. ... The idea was that candidates would be forced to appeal to centrist voters — not just party ideologues — and more moderates would be elected.

... Actually, the electorate has become so polarized in recent years — particularly during the Trump era — that very few centrist voters seem to be left.

... Democrat Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, favors dumping the top-two.

For one thing, she says, there was too much focus this spring on whether any Democratic gubernatorial candidate would qualify for the November ballot. Fear spread that so many Democrats were running that they’d splinter the party vote and two Republicans would finish first and second.

She wanted to hear less talk about the horse race and more debate over substantive issues.

“People were obsessing about a Democratic shutout,” Gonzalez said. “And people were waiting until the last minute to fill out their ballot because they wanted to vote for the candidate who was ahead to make sure someone made the top two. We didn’t have a policy discussion.” ...

Maybe we can get rid of this abomination? We implanted it by ballot initiative and we would have to vote it away in order to revert to a system in which each party gets a nominee. My instinct is that this would not be an easy campaign to win: voters tend to be protective of any arrangement which they think gives them more choices and presumably that's what defenders of the "top-two" would argue.

• • •

Meanwhile, it would be totally hypocritical of me not to point out that my candidate for US Congress from San Francisco is only still in the running because of the "top-two" system. If we'd had party primaries, Scott Wiener would be a Democratic shoo-in for November. In the current system, Connie Chan, still gives us a chance to elect a progressive, union supportive, Chinese immigrant from this city.  That seems like a good idea ...

Father's Day 2026

Roger looks pleased with himself, doesn't he? Although he remained fairly fit until he no longer could keep going, he didn't much go in for physical labor. On some photos like this, my mother wrote derisively, "Posed!" Later in life, she did the shoveling. 

This was in Buffalo, sometime in the winter of 1938, almost a decade before I arrived on the scene. He was in his mid-30s here.

If loving a child and doing no harm is enough -- and I sure think it is -- he was a good father.