YOUR TINY, TINY, TINY PRESIDENT

30 June, 2017

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,

101 Main Street #380

Huntington Beach, CA 92648

Dear Congressman,

Re: Your president

What a boorish man your president is! Not only does he lie as a matter of course, on every possible occasion, he feels the need to stoop to childish response to the least criticism or perceived insult. Yesterday’s kerfuffle over the Joe Scarborough/Mika Brzezinski tweet storm is a case in point. How petty! How un-presidential! To use his own familiar expression, how sad!

And how embarrassing to have such a man in the Oval Office! He bloviates about “making America great again,” but he is himself, in the pointed words of J.K.Rowling, “a tiny, tiny, tiny man,” and everything he does and says risks making America “tiny, tiny, tiny” like himself.

And how small Republicans look, defending this man! I note that yesterday a few spoke out against the pusillanimity of his tweets. But why such silence about the pusillanimity of his thoughts, his policies, his petty acts of vengeance?

I know I keep asking you this same question, but when does the time come to stand up and point out that this emperor has no clothes?  How far does he have to go in his madness to persuade Republicans like yourself to speak out and tell the truth? How much more damage must be done to this country and the world?

Respectfully,

Peter Clothier, Ph.D.

PRO-RUSSIA?

27 June, 2017

 Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,

101 Main Street #380

Huntington Beach, CA 92648

Dear Congressman,

Re: Pro-Russia

Hmmm… I see you were mentioned in yesterday’s New York Times article about Paul Manafort, where you were identified as “Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Republican of California, who is known for his pro-Russian views.”

I wonder if you happened to see the recent episode of NBC’s “Dateline,” hosted by Richard Engel, a journalist I respect immensely for his courage and honesty in reporting? The special installment traced in a wealth of detail the spate of recent unfortunate and untimely deaths directly connected to Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin. I don’t know about you—who are “known” for your “pro-Russian views”—but I have no doubt at all but that this man is a brute, a devious conniver who has never departed from his KGB roots. That he is capable of ordering murder is, in my view, beyond question.

In which context, I write to ask where you stand on the current investigations into Russia’s interference in our recent presidential election? Is it possible that, as the good patriot you often claim to be, you are fully in support of every effort to expose the truth that lurks behind the election of Donald Trump? Or are you, as are many of your colleagues, it would seem, opposed? And even inclined to obstruct the work of on-going congressional committees and the special counsel, as the words and actions of Sen. Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, would suggest?

Also… have your views on Russia changed in light of its recent attack on the integrity of our democracy? If not, there is reason to view your public protestations of patriotism with a skeptical eye.

Respectfully,

Peter Clothier, Ph.D.

DODGING BULLETS

27 June, 2017

 Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,

101 Main Street #380

Huntington Beach, CA 92648

Dear Congressman,

So… I think you dodged a bullet yesterday, with Senate Leader Mitch McConnell’s decision to delay a vote on his/your dreadful health care bill. It means you can come home for the July 4^th holiday without having cast a vote that would have brought angry crowds to your doorstep. Lucky you.

But… you must surely be aware that the problem is not solved. If McConnell returns to his nefarious purpose after the holiday, there will still be those angry crowds of people who have grown to appreciate Obamacare demanding to retain it.

The obvious solution? Republicans should swallow seven years of pride and resentment and accept the offer of many Democrats to work with them on making the necessary improvements to the existing law.

As I’ve said before in these letters, it’s my firm belief that NO universal health care insurance system will work so long as it is based on the profit motive. There is no profit in taking care of the sick, the elderly, the dying. It’s simply a moral human responsibility.

Single-payer, anyone?

Have a good 4^th, Congressman.

(signed)

Peter Clothier, Ph.D.

PRIMUM, NON NOCERE

27 June, 2017

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,

101 Main Street #380

Huntington Beach, CA 92648

Dear Congressman,

Re: Primum, non nocere

It’s the physician’s oath: first, do no harm. It’s also the guiding principle of every Buddhist: do no harm. It’s a good guiding principle for all our actions, especially political ones.

It seems you may be called upon, this week, to cast your vote on the current health care bill if it is sent down to the House by the Senate. The CBO score announced yesterday gives an objective assessment of the extensive harm the bill will cause to our most vulnerable citizens.

The path could not be clearer. If the bill comes to the House with the expectation of a rubber-stamp approval, vote No. That way, you will at least know that you will do no harm.

Respectfully,

Peter Clothier, Ph.D

PRAYER

26 June, 2017

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,

101 Main Street #380

Huntington Beach, CA 92648

Dear Congressman,

Re: Prayer

Were your ears burning around 10:30 yesterday, Sunday?  We were talking about you in the group of meditators with whom I sit each Sunday morning, and our thoughts were frankly not entirely “Buddhist.” Although… why not? We Buddhists like to avoid nastiness of all kinds and practice what we call “Right Speech,” but that doesn’t mean withholding judgment simply because it is adverse or uncomfortable.

Actually, we were talking about the difference between meditation and prayer, and it occurred to us to wonder if you prayed? Which led us into a broader discussion of prayer itself, and its role in the kind of conservative Christianity that promotes American “prosperity” and despises the kind of socialism that Christ, presumably, would be preaching if he were alive in the world today. That is, if you believe in the merciful Jesus who taught the values of humility and service to one’s fellow human beings, especially the poor, the sick and the suffering.

As I understand it, the difference between prayer and meditation is that you meditate to listen, you pray to talk to God, to "ask for” something, or someone. What do the evangelical Christians pray for? Did they pray for a Trump victory? (Did God “hear their prayers”?!) Do they now pray for the passage of a health care act that deprives many millions of insurance? Do they pray for massive tax cuts for the already wealthy? It’s a genuine puzzlement.

All of which is to ask you, Congressman: do you pray? And what do you pray for, when you pray?

When we Buddhists meditate, we are taught to send out “metta”—wishes of good will and compassion . Believe it or not, I send these out to you—and Trump!—each and every day.

And today is no exception. So the best of good wishes to you,

Peter Clothier, Ph.D.

HEALTH CARE FOR WOMEN

24 June, 2017

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,

101 Main Street #380

Huntington Beach, CA 92648

Dear Congressman,

Re: Health Care for Women

Perhaps you can explain it? Perhaps you can defend it? I can’t. The fact that not a single woman was included in the gaggle of 13 smugly male Republican Senators who secretly crafted the so-called Better Care Reconciliation Act is truly despicable.

Better care for whom? Not for the elderly and the poor, I’m pretty sure. But certainly not for women, with the spiteful and, yes, unapologetically sexist elimination of Planned Parenthood, the termination (the appropriate word, here,) of abortion, the shift from required maternity care to a matter of choice for the states, the radical attack on Medicaid, which would likely leave mothers more than ever tied to child care…

You tell me, Congressman: what woman would ever vote for such a bill? What woman would ever support it, if she knew and understood its content? And, when the time comes, will you?

With the unseemly Republican stampede to pass this unconscionable travesty of a health care bill, will women have the time—in this next few days—to organize sufficiently to get out into the streets en masse and scream in justified public outrage? I hope so.

I do not often issue demands. But as your constituent, I make this demand: DO NOT RUBBER STAMP this offense to all Americans.

Respectfully,

Peter Clothier, Ph.D.

HEALTH CARE, AGAIN

23 June, 2017

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,

101 Main Street #380

Huntington Beach, CA 92648

Dear Congressman,

Re: Health care

I have not much to say today, except…

… to express my bewilderment and sadness that this “great country” is still, to this day, unable to come up with adequate provision for the genuine health needs of its citizens. How is it that we are alone in this amongst the advanced countries of the world, albeit the wealthiest of all of them?

Actually, it is not so hard to explain. So long as health care is allowed to remain a for-profit enterprise, there will be no solution other than one that accrues to the benefit of insurers, drug companies and providers; and the indisputable fact is that those most in need are the least able to pay. No blood, as they say, from a stone.

Remove profit from the equation, and you have your solution to the problem.

Respectfully,

Peter Clothier, Ph.D.

RAISING FUNDS

21 June, 2017

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,

101 Main Street #380

Huntington Beach, CA 92648

Dear Congressman,

Re: Your fundraiser letter

I came across a copy of the letter you sent out in connection with your planned fundraiser on June 25^th—though obviously, it was not intended for me. Your first paragraph reads as follows:

As you are aware, the libleft political machine and their media partners never gave up after the November election. In an unprecedented and unrelenting bombardment of President Trump and his stalwart Republican supporters, the Clinton establishment has sought, in their words, to resist and disrupt those who the voters chose to govern and set policy for the United States.

Excuse me, Congressman, but what ingenuous nonsense! You start out with the merely insulting “libleft” dog whistle and proceed to invoke a “political machine” as though it were Democrats, not Republicans, who are locked into a mechanical system that brooks no dissent. I sometimes wish there more co-ordination, less dissent in what we loosely call the “Democratic Party.” If there’s a political machine at work, Congressman, it’s on your side of the aisle. Case in point: the health care bill that’s being churned out with lockstep precision.

“Their media partners.” This old canard about the “liberal media” is barely worthy of mention. If you honestly consider the sheer quantity of media coverage your Trump received in the 2016 election in comparison with every other candidate you could hardly describe the media as giving Republicans short shrift. As for the quality of coverage, well, you must concede that it did accurately reflect the candidate.

“An unprecedented and unrelenting bombardment of President Trump… “ Well, no again. Hardly unprecedented. What hypocrisy, when you consider the Republican treatment of Obama and his policies, from his very first day in office. Also, if you’re honest, I think you must agree that most of Trump’s problems arise from himself—his impetuousness, his insistent self-promotion, his insulting behavior toward even our oldest and best allies, his embrace of the world’s worst dictators, his refusal to acknowledge that the Russians openly attacked us last year, or to respond to their attack. Those who criticize him have ample and reasonable grounds to do so. If anything is unprecedented, it is the incompetence and arrogance of Trump’s administration.

“The Clinton establishment…” You must be joking? I guess you use the word “Clinton” in the same way you use “libleft”—as a disparaging dog whistle that calls to those who traffic in simple hatred, whether of the Clintons or “the left.” Perhaps it helps with fundraising, to invoke the hated Clinton name. But it’s absurd to raise it as some kind of driving force in current Democratic action. You insult us by suggesting that we depend on the Clintons for our outrage, or for our sense of urgency to “resist and disrupt” an agenda that so ill serves the American people.

“Those who the voters chose…” I remind you that the voters did not actually choose Trump. They chose Clinton, by 3 million votes. It was the antiquated, and now fatally undemocratic system of the Electoral College that chose Trump.

“To govern and set policy…” Again, that phrase rings hollow. “Governing” is not happening with the Trump administration, unless in certain instances by fiat. Whatever is happening, it is certainly not the “government of the people, by the people, for the people” to which we, as a nation, aspire. Case in point, again, the health care act that is currently being plotted by a mere handful of (exclusively) male senators behind closed doors. This is a mockery of government, not government as we on the “libleft” understand it.

And “policy”? What policy? There is no consistency, no clarity of vision, no discernable goal set by the current administration. Policy implies planning. For Trump, everything is seat-of the-pants. The Republican Party hides its “agenda” behind the chaos he creates, hoping to ram it down the throats of Americans who generally, if you read the polls, oppose it. They do not want to lower taxes for their richest compatriots. Ask them. They do want the basic services that government should provide. They want an equitable society, a decent education, a functioning infrastructure and, yes, universal health care. Ask them.

All of which addresses only the first paragraph of your fundraising letter, Congressman. It’s understandable, I suppose, that you address only your supporters in such a letter. In practice, I understand it to be your job to be responsive to the opinions and needs of all of your constituents, even those who disagree with you, and not merely those who give you money.

Respectfully,

Peter Clothier, Ph.D.

CUBA

20 June, 2017

 Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,

101 Main Street #380

Huntington Beach, CA 92648

Dear Congressman,

Re: Cuba

Despite his constantly touted campaign slogan, your Trump seems determined to make America small again. His latest grand gesture, to undo Obama’s initiative in Cuba, leaves the door wide open for Russia and China (again!) to step in and fill the gap left by our president’s obsequious grandstanding to a tiny community of Cuban exiles in Miami.

My wife and I were in Cuba with a group of contemporary art enthusiasts in 2014. We were greeted everywhere with warmth and curiosity about America, as well as with regret that their country’s giant neighbor to the north had chosen to isolate them for so many fruitless years. We have chosen to punish an entire nation of neighbors for ideological political reasons that have little to do with their daily lives. Our choice has kept them in poverty and deprivation for no better reason than our hatred for their leader. (We have also, incidentally, deprived ourselves of their excellent cigars! Do you enjoy the occasional indulgence, Congressman, as I do?)

Certainly their regime is a repressive one. No question about that. But our policy of punitive isolation, inspired largely by that small, vociferous community of Castro-haters in Miami, has done absolutely nothing to influence that regime. By at least opening the door a crack and making it known that we were willing to renew our friendship, Obama clearly hoped for regime change from the bottom up. Tyranny, as we are beginning to find out in our own country, depends on a population deprived of reliable information and choice. With the growth of a better informed, connected, and more prosperous populace, no repressive regime could survive for long against the people’s urge for freedom.

Trump’s action is itself repressive of the Cuban people, who need encouragement and the glimmer of opportunity, not pompous lecturing. His gesture—hardly even an action— serves only to make our country look small and petulant.

Respectfully,

Peter Clothier, Ph.D.

ON MY MIND

17 June, 2017

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,

101 Main Street #380

Huntington Beach, CA 92648

Dear Congressman,

Re: On my mind

Were you a player in that baseball game? I understand that you were something of an athlete in your day, with surfing and so on. I ask because the game seemed to have offered the rare opportunity for some bipartisan good feelings, especially with the Democrats passing on their trophy to Republicans for safe-keeping until the recovery of Rep. Steve Scalise. Good for them!

I also wondered if your name was on the list of Republican congress members found “with” the shooter—though I’m not sure what that word “with” means: on his person? In his belongings? No matter, it would be unsettling to be included in a list of presumably potential targets.

Now I ask: will the good feelings engendered by this atrocity persist? Will you find ways, as a result, to actually work with your Democratic colleagues? And, of course, vice versa? Though it does seem to me, from my side of the fence, that most of the current stalemate can be attributed to now years-long Republican resistance to everything Obama—which seems to dominate your agenda even after Obama’s replacement.

Case in point: the on-going obsession with “Repeal and Replace.” Why is it so hard for you guys to recognize the good in the ACA and work on improving it? Is the hatred so intense?

Respectfully,

Peter Clothier, Ph.D.

BULLETS

As a follow-up on yesterday's post, I offer this link:

Caution: it's a horrifying read. It details the effects of the kind of bullet that struck Congressman Steve Scalise. And the guns that fire these bullets are rife on the streets of America. Shame on us!

GUNS...

15 June, 2017

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,

101 Main Street #380

Huntington Beach, CA 92648

Dear Congressman,

Re: Yesterday

I am saddened by yesterday’s hideous attack on your colleagues, Congressman, and doubly so that it came from a man who purportedly embraced many of the same views as myself—though apparently not those relating to the use of violence. I am—have I mentioned this?—a believer in the Buddhist principle that exhorts us to “do no harm.” In any event, we can agree that the sickening madness of gun violence knows no political parties and respects none of our fellow human beings, no matter their political views.

Yesterday’s barbarous action speaks for itself, and needs no commentary from me. I will spare you for today the self-righteous lecture about the appallingly easy access in America to weapons that serve no purpose other than to inflict multiple deaths in a matter of mere seconds. Though… there, I’ve done it.

May your colleagues recover speedily and completely from their undeserved wounds. And may those dozens of others whose family members died by gunfire in America on the same day find solace; and may those many others who suffered wounds in the same way be similarly restored to health.

Respectfully,

Peter Clothier, Ph.D.

PATHETIC

14 June, 2017

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,

101 Main Street #380

Huntington Beach, CA 92648

Dear Congressman,

Re: Sad!

I wonder if you saw the video of Monday’s cabinet meeting, where the president* invited each of his cabinet members in turn to offer effusive flattery, praising the president* himself and the incredible success of his agenda? And where, to cap it off, the president* felt it appropriate to declare himself the most productive man in the office since FDR?

I wonder if you were as saddened by this pathetic sight as I was? Hyperbole has its place in political discourse, but hyperbole heaped upon hyperbole succeeds only in making its recipient look ridiculous. It's also a first cousin of hypocrisy.

What are we to make of a president* who indulges in this nonsense? Who grins unabashedly for the cameras and makes it clear that he considers this his due? Can you imagine Obama tolerating such a display? Even George W. Bush? Anyone, indeed, other than Donald J. Trump?

This is the self-touted CEO president*? The tough businessman? In the business world, he would have been laughed out of the boardroom long ago. He makes not only himself look ridiculous. He makes fools, too, of those who praise him as well as those who tolerate his ascendancy.

Respectfully, alas,

Peter Clothier, Ph.D.

READ MY LIPS

13 June, 2017

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,

101 Main Street #380

Huntington Beach, CA 92648

Dear Congressman,

Re: Read my lips…

Ever since the first President Bush uttered those words—and actually since long before—Republicans have made the mantra “no new taxes” their overriding priority. Heeding the command of the upstart Grover Norquist, they have even been required to sign pledges to oppose tax increases, no matter how dire the circumstance, and have worked instead to cut taxes for the already wealthy.

Now, finally, I read that Kansas State Senators have voted to increase taxes, even overriding a veto by Sam Brownback, who only this year lost his lead as the nation’s most unpopular governor, the poster child for supply side economics. For years he preached the gospel of tax cuts and resulting economic growth, and for years his state continued to disprove this long-discredited economic theory. As Michael Tomasky wrote in his New York Times op-ed piece:

As the rest of the country was growing at rates of just above 2 percent, Kansas grew at considerably slower rates, finally hitting just 0.2 percent in 2016. Revenues crashed. Spending was slashed, even on education: In March, the State Supreme Court ruled that state-level school spending was unconstitutionally low. The court is ideologically mixed, but its ruling was unanimous. The experiment has been a disaster.

Is it not time, finally, to recognize that this linchpin of Republican economic principles has been tried, tested, and proved an unmitigated failure? Will you, Congressman, continue to promote this disproven theory that tax cuts for the wealthy are the panacea for the US economy? Are we all to follow the disastrous lead of Kansas before we recognize this simple truth: that the function of government is to provide essential services, which cannot be provided without paying for them—or continuing to go more deeply into the debt for which you are eager to blame Democrats, but which is equally your responsibility?

Tax cuts, you argue, must be offset by cuts in spending. But spending—on everything but the military—is already cut to the bone, and people are suffering as a result. You cannot in good conscience, for the benefit only of the wealthy, impose more austerity upon them.

(signed)

Peter Clothier, Ph.D.

NOT A GOOD THING

12 June, 2017

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,

101 Main Street #380

Huntington Beach, CA 92648

Dear Congressman,

Re: Not a “good thing”

Your words: “We have recently seen an attack on Iran, and the Iranian government, the mullahs, believe that Sunni forces have attacked them. This may signal a ratcheting up of certain commitments by the United States of America. As far as I’m concerned, I just want to make this point and see what you think, isn’t it a good thing for us to have the United States finally backing up Sunnis who will attack Hezbollah and the Shiite threat to us? Isn’t that a good thing? And if so, maybe this is a Trump — maybe it’s a Trump strategy of actually supporting one group against another, considering that you have two terrorist organizations.”

No. If you want to know what I think. This is not a “good thing.” It is not a good thing to approve terrorism, no matter from which side it comes. It is not a good thing to side with Sunnis against Shi’ites in the Middle East turmoil, as Trump has done, heedlessly pouring gasoline on a fire that is already out of control. Nor is it a good thing to kow-tow to those same Saudi potentates who protect and foster the very brand of Islamic extremism responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center—the attack that took the lives of nearly 3,000 mostly American civilians.

If this is a “Trump strategy,” it flies in the face of the kind of diplomacy that America has practiced in the attempt to maintain a fragile balance in a region of the world that badly needs it. It is no strategy at all. Trump’s obsequious embrace of Saudi Arabia is the result not of careful evaluation of historical facts and the current situation in the Middle East, but of the Saudi monarchy’s shameless flattery of his insatiable ego.

This constituent is appalled by your dangerous and ill-considered pronouncement.

(signed)

Peter Clothier, Ph.D.