A DREAM

10 June, 2017

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,

101 Main Street #380

Huntington Beach, CA 92648

Dear Congressman,

Re: A Dream

I woke up from this ridiculously delicious dream this morning—or perhaps it was a waking dream, who knows? I dreamt that just one Republican decided he was going to work with his Democratic colleagues to make the sensible and necessary changes to fix the Affordable Care Act. He had come to the realization that the American Health Care Act was not the solution that Americans needed and that improvements to the existing law could make it better for everyone.

So—in my dream—first this one Republican crossed the aisle to work with his colleagues; then came another, and a third. And a fourth and fifth. And pretty soon—mirablile dictu—a good handful of Republicans were working with Democrats on improvements to the ACA. And not only that, this small handful of Republicans began to realize that, yes, collaboration might work better for their constituents than lockstep partisanship, and that there were good ideas on the other side of the aisle that would truly benefit the people the US Congress was elected to serve!

I say “Republicans” because, alas, it is Republicans who opposed every initiative the former president put forward, who obstructed every possible avenue to progress for all but the most affluent Americans, who became the party of No; and who now seek to do absolutely nothing, it would seem, other than to undo every one of the last president’s achievements. Oh, and find more ways to benefit the wealthy.

A ridiculous dream, no, Congressman? But a delicious one, too. Who could that first Republican possibly be? Could it be you?

But then again… no.

Respectfully,

Peter Clothier, Ph.D.

THE COMEY HEARING

8 June, 2017

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,

101 Main Street #380

Huntington Beach, CA 92648

Dear Congressman,

Re: The Comey hearing

Did you watch the Comey hearing yesterday? I did—beginning to end. And I was frankly stupefied by the later reaction of certain Republicans, one of whom claimed it as a “slam-dunk” for the president.* And the president* himself feels completely vindicated?

Really? Just because we heard—as yet!—no legal grounds to actually expose him as guilty of obstruction of justice? Though Comey said nothing like “case closed,” and went off immediately after the public hearing to testify to who knows what behind closed doors.

Besides, even if there is never grounds to indict him, what a dreadful picture of the president* of the United States. We got a clear picture of a man—a president!—who, according to testimony, never once expressed interest or concern in investigating a proven hostile attack by Russia on this country; who was concerned not for the country he was elected to serve, but rather exclusively in how it might affect him personally; and who otherwise simply wanted to see the whole affair go away.

We got, too, the picture of a man who lies shamelessly when it is to his advantage, who intimidates like a mafia boss and treats underlings with contempt. A man who is either inexcusably ignorant and incurious about the basic principles of law and government, or who chooses to think of himself as being above them. A man who is undeserving of our respect, let alone our trust. A man quick to blame anyone other than himself for his own mistakes and lapses of judgment.

And yet there are Republicans—including, of course, the president* himself—who claim Comey’s testimony as a vindication? I hope, Congressman, that you are not among them. Whether legally off the hook or not—and there are still miles to go in this investigation—the president* is far from vindicated by yesterday’s hearing. On the contrary, in the court of decency, integrity, and moral conduct, he already stands convicted

Respectfully,

Peter Clothier, Ph.D.

AMERICAN PRINCIPLES

7 June, 2017

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,

101 Main Street #380

Huntington Beach, CA 92648

Dear Congressman,

Re: American principles

This is a follow-up on yesterday’s letter, in response to your speech this past weekend to the Southern California Silent Majority in which you are purported to have said, “Finally, we have a president who supports American principles.”

Can we agree on a few of those principles? That “all men are created equal,” for example (women apparently did not count back then)?  Can you show me how the president you so much admire supports that principle? It seems to me, from his words and actions, that he regards a vast number of people—immigrants, Muslims, say, and Democrats!—as far from equal. He treats them with disdain. Indeed, he treats even his own senior staff not as equals but as servants. He spurns even Republican Congress members and senators when they fail to worship at his personal altar. Which is probably why they do.

How about the rule of law? An “American principle”? I would have thought so. We boast “a government of laws, not men.” Trump acts as though the law applies to everyone but himself. He runs roughshod over ethics rules where his bottom line is concerned. It’s fine with him, it seems, when his daughter or his son-in-law confuse the roles he has given them (nepotism, anyone?) with their business interests. He treats his high office as a personal fiefdom, issuing decrees like a medieval potentate rather than a servant of the people, caring little, it appears, for their legality.

“E pluribus unum”? A joke. He is the most divisive of presidents. His campaign thrived on the antagonisms he exploited between people, races, classes.

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”? He slams America’s door on them. No matter how “extreme” the “vetting,” he rejects those seeking refuge in this country from war, from famine, from internal strife.

Freedom of religion? He seeks to slam America’s door, particularly, on Muslims, whose presence in this country he threatened to ban and whose religion he has freely insulted on too many occasions. Professing piety, he publicly favors one religion at the cost of others.

Good old American self-reliance? Integrity? The man accepts no responsibility for his words or actions. He blames everyone but himself for every outcome that fails or disappoints him.

Equal justice for all? Tell that to the many thousands of Americans languishing in jail for trivial offenses while white collar, corporate criminals go unpunished for the theft of billions. Tell that to people of color, unfairly targeted for no better reason than the color of their skin. But this is not Trump alone, I fear. The Republican credo is justice for those who can afford it or those who, in the judgmental eyes of the more fortunate, are deserving of it.

The right to equal educational opportunity? Is this not an “American principle”? Yet the president* appoints as his Secretary of Education a woman who professes no belief in public education, who wants to hand out public funds to private schools that are often unaccountable and that preach a particular religious doctrine. The best education is not, it seems, a universal right, but is for those who can afford it—or for the lucky few who win the education lottery.

How about simple respect, if not care, for one’s fellow human beings? Trump shows neither respect nor care for anyone but himself and his family. Even those who win his provisional approval for their flattery of him or their obsequious service to him must take care to do or say nothing that might offend His Excellency for fear of being swiftly excluded from his circle.

And finally, how about that American beacon to the world that has been our boast? In four short months, Trump has left the reputation of this country in tatters. Far from the leadership that American presidents have exercised in the past, Trump impetuously insults our friends and further riles our enemies. The respect, where necessary the fear that have defined our relationships with other nations have been eroded. Even the little North Korean dictator thumbs his nose at us. We kow-tow, now, to Russian and China. Where is the American principle, to lead with pride, to offer the example of democracy to the world?

And where, indeed, is democracy itself, perhaps our most basic of American principles? Under Trump, the grip of money on politics has only tightened. Tell me, Congressman, where is “government of the people, by the people, for the people”?

To publicly pronounce that we have a president who supports American principles is delusional. I am appalled to be represented by one who so ingenuously closes eyes and ears to reality, and makes such demonstrably false pronouncements for political advantage.

Not too respectfully, today,

Peter Clothier, Ph.D.

YOUR SPEECH

6 June, 2017

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,

101 Main Street #380

Huntington Beach, CA 92648

Dear Congressman,

Re: Your speech

I note from an article in the Orange County newspaper, the Daily Pilot, that you gave a speech for the Southern California Silent Majority a couple of days ago. The article made much of the absence of protest—but I suggest this was because the event was not widely publicized in your district. I, at least, was not aware of it.

Sadly, too, those who take other views than yours would likely not have been made to feel welcome at this event. Some 200 constituents attended, it was noted in the article, and your speech was well received. I’d like to point out, however, that you must have received a very false impression of the popularity of your positions from this select group of listeners. There are many of us out here who do not support them, and would like very much to have the opportunity to have our voices heard.

The quotation from your speech was quite brief: “We are proud Americans,” you are reported to have said, “and we are grateful to have a president watching out for our country. Finally, we have a president who supports American principles.”

Really? A president watching out for our country? It seems to me—and a majority of Americans—that, to judge from his actions, pronouncements and plans, this president* is watching out first for himself and his family, and then for his fellow billionaires. The country you say he is watching for has been sadly diminished in the eyes of the world. As for his support for “American principles,” I’ll have to address that in another letter. We need to examine exactly which “principles” he supports.

A final note, for the moment: the newspaper reports than “the crowd cheered” when you said you were glad that the president* turned down the “rotten”—your word—Paris Accord. Your crowd is a very small one. The rest of the world was appalled at this arrogant and unnecessary gesture.

Respectfully,

Peter Clothier, Ph.D.

TRUMP, AGAIN

5 June, 2017

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,

101 Main Street #380

Huntington Beach, CA 92648

Dear Congressman,

Re: Trump, Again

Is it not obvious by now? This man has a character so weak that his every action is a response to perceived insult or flattery?

Foreign leaders and staffers alike have learned that to reach his ear you have only to flatter him inordinately. Since Putin called him “brilliant” (in his own interpretation) he has been putty in this dictator’s hands. The wily Chinese president soon managed to convert him, at Mar-a-Lago, from the rabidly Sinophobe candidate into a snuffling Pekinese lapdog. He surrounds himself with sycophants who know that for their own survival they must take care to boost his fragile ego. Even the supposedly redoubtable McMaster has been reduced, absurdly, to publicly extolling his master’s incomparable vision for the world.

As for those who dare to criticize or deflate him, woe betide them. Consider the prime case, Obama, whose jokes at that infamous White House Press dinner incurred the implacable vengeance of Donald Trump, who is now obsessed with undoing every last one of his predecessor’s achievements. The latest is his determination to further isolate this country from the rest of the world by reverting to a draconian, spiteful, decades-old policy on tiny Cuba. Or consider his revenge on those European leaders who succeeded, without great effort, in making him feel small—the Macron handshake, the Merkel meeting with Obama, and so on: he aligns the once-great United States with Nicaragua and Syria in abandoning, for spurious reasons, the historic Paris Accord on climate change.

Your continued support for a man who daily demonstrates such a dangerously weak character and impetuous temperament in the White House demands that we, your constituents, must question both your judgment and your concern for the well-being of the country that you serve. How much more damage must he be allowed to do, how much more chaos must he instigate with his flailing, emotion-driven response to issues of importance to the nation and world before you see fit to speak out?

Respectfully,

Peter Clothier, Ph.D.

MAGA

3 June, 2017

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,

101 Main Street #380

Huntington Beach, CA 92648

Dear Congressman,

Re: MAGA

Well, your president sure is doing a great job of making American great again! We are now competing with Nicaragua and Syria for the bottom rung. He claimed in his Paris Accord speech that other nations were laughing at us—and I believe they are, but not for the reasons he puts forward. He has succeeded in making America look not merely foolish, but dangerously foolish, in the eyes of the world.

I want to know this, Congressman: how can you and your colleagues continue to prop up this man who makes a mockery of the presidency of our country? How much more lunacy do we have to tolerate before you realize the extent of the damage he can do? At what point do you decide to acknowledge the reality of this disastrous presidency, re-discover your integrity, and stand up to be counted?

With outrage,

Peter Clothier, Ph.D.

THE IMPOSTER

 1 June, 2017

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,

101 Main Street #380

Huntington Beach, CA 92648

Dear Congressman,

Re: The Imposter

The word came to me last night, as though in a dream—though quite possibly, yes, in a dream, because I woke up with it, clear as day, in the middle of the night: “the imposter.” A perfect word for Trump, the would-be tsar: Donald the Imposter.

The dictionary definition is “one who assumes false identity or title for the purpose of deception.” Yes! That’s Trump to a T! (Excuse the bad joke…) A con man to the core, he has seized the false identity of “President of the United States”—a title for which he is, as many have pointed out, uniquely unqualified.

And for what purpose? To deceive us all. While he acts the part of “President,” he’s up to his usual tricks behind the scenes, burnishing his own and his family brand and using his office and its influence to further enrich the Trump dynasty. What a lark!

He’s a bit of a ham, though, you’ll have to admit, with his frowns and scowls and the jut of his jaw, in the attempt to look serious and presidential. He has great words, too, he tells us; so many great words. If they sound like hot air coming from his mouth, it may be because they are just that: hot air. We should all of us take them less seriously. The pundits simplymake themselves look foolish, trying to parse those words into something approaching intentional and meaningful.

Sorry, Congressman. I realize that my own words come across as less than respectful to the Office of the President. But I truly believe we have an imposter in the Oval Office. Will you be the one to point out that this emperor has no clothes?

Not so respectfully, today,

Peter Clothier, Ph.D.