AUGUST 1, 2026 – Yesterday’s much needed cloud cover and most important . . . gentle, all-day rain . . . yielded to a return of bright, sun-filled weather this morning. I took my breakfast out to our back porch and reveled in the felicitous combination of honey-laced oatmeal (further enhanced with pecans, chopped walnuts, mango, wild blueberries, and three liberal dashes of cinnamon). My delight was further encouraged by the “just right” ambient temperature and the excellent book, Our Declaration by Danielle Allen, which, like a memorable road trip, prompts lots of reflection en route.
In short, I was perfectly content “minding my own business.”
Then, out of the blue, while mixing enhancements (Half-and-Half and Ovaltine) into my daily cup of Java, I heard a ping emanating from my iPhone, signaling the arrival of an email. It was from my college classmate and good friend, David Dickson. A retired professor of international relations at George Washington University, naturally David is well informed when it comes to politics and related disciplines. His email urged us—another college classmate and good friend, John Cross, and me—to listen to Ezra Klein’s recent interview of New York Times reporter, Maggie Haberman. With fully enhanced coffee in hand, I returned to the porch and read the entire transcript of the interview.
Holy. Cow. (In my responsive email, I used a substitute for “cow” descriptive of the output from a bovine’s alimentary canal.) In general odor, the interview contained no surprises, but as I told David and John, “Two details jumped out like masked muggers in the dark of night: 1. The effort afoot to sell advance notices of Trump’s Truth Social posts [at $100,000 a pop] (!!!!!!!!!); and 2. In the middle of a meeting, calling Macron to inquire about L’Arc de Triomphe, as it might pertain to Trump’s ideas for the ‘Arch of Trump’ [planned for D.C.].”
These two anecdotes, emblematic of the corruption and nonsense that prevails in the Oval Office, left me howling out loud. How much more of this can the Republic stand? Or more pointedly, how much more of this can the Republican Party condone, tolerate, actively support and enable?
With peace and contentment badly disturbed, I managed to spill my coffee as the prospect of election shenanigans crossed my mind. I recalled a commentator’s slant yesterday regarding Trump’s obsession with the Save America [voter suppression] Bill. The pundit suggested that Trump really doesn’t care if it’s passed; in fact, he might hope that it doesn’t, so in case the vote doesn’t go his way in November, he can say, “I told you so! If Congress had passed the bill, we wouldn’t have had so much voter fraud.” And off we go to election denialism Round Two. It’s a plausible reaction on the part of Trump.
With elevated blood pressure, I made it worse by checking my feed. Who should appear, but Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House and Bill Clinton’s nemesis. By what mysterious twist of algorithms, I wondered, would Mr. Gingrich’s over-sized mug fill my screen? My initial reaction was that it had to be the product of “AI” manipulated by a foreign bot to sow discontent among American voters.
But curious, I listened to what he—or his likeness—had to say: I replayed it three times to ensure I had it down verbatim:
Republicans, if they do it right, have a chance this fall to win one of the greatest victories in American history, and to begin to rival Thomas Jefferson in defining their opponents as so clearly anti-American that they have no space in the American political system.
Say w-w-w-h-a-a-a-t-t?! It had to be the work of a Russian—or Iranian—bot. But then I checked out www.gingrich360.net/p/the-Jeffersonian-political-future. After poking around some, I decided that yes, the former Speaker actually did say what I’d heard. If that isn’t the mentality of someone brazenly opposed to American democracy—at least since we’ve transitioned from an agrarian society and the Age of the Yeoman Farmer—I’m hard-pressed to understand what could be more antithetical to our basic operating principles (with all due respect for Mr. Jefferson) since they were revamped after the Civil War.
In the first place, the U.S. today is unrecognizable compared to the country back in 1801[1] where Mr. Gingrich and his fellow fans of “Jeffersonian democracy” seem to be stuck. In the year Jefferson took office as president, the population was 5.3 million (vs. 340 million today (1.55% of today’s population))), the GDP was $13 billion (inflation adjusted)(vs. $32.48 trillion today (0.04% of today’s GDP)), and 83% of working adults were engaged in agriculture (vs. 40% by 1900 and 1.9% today). “Small government” made up of yeomen farmers (or, in reality, landed gentry and prosperous merchants) might’ve been a desirable prescription in Jefferson’s day, but since then, the world has changed—to put it mildly.
Second, if the current regime is evaluated according to base level competence, irrefutable facts, and standards of integrity taken for granted in all other American institutions, public and private, I would say to Mr. Gingrich, “Are you out of your mind?!” People who oppose a regime led by someone chronically mercurial, impulsive, and obsessed with monuments to himself; who communicates governance decisions primarily with his thumbs on the keyboard of his smartphone; who doesn’t read briefing papers, books or periodicals; who exhibits zero aptitude for strategy, policy, order and organization; who lacks empathy, vision, curiosity, respect for law and behavioral norms; who views the presidency as a casino where for every bet he makes, the fix is in . . . people who oppose such a sorry excuse for governance “are to have no space in the American political system”?!
That an adult American, college graduate, former officeholder, longtime “academic” and self-impressed intellectual would say what he did leaves this writer, at least, in utter disbelief. As a result I would hasten to confess that I’m not a full subscriber to what biographer Evelyn Beatrice Hall attributed to the subject of her 1901 biography of François-Marie Aouret—whose pen name was “Voltaire”: “I vehemently disagree with what you say, but I would fight to the death for your right to say it.” I’m with Voltaire (Hall) on the first half of the statement, of course, but to fight to the death for Republicans’ right to undermine the long-established organizing principles of our society? That’s a contradiction to which I cannot reconcile my values and will not squander my life.
But where, I wish to know, does this leave me, us and America today and in the years to come?
Subscribe to this blog and received notifications of new posts by email.
© 2026 by Eric Nilsson
[1] The year in which Thomas Jefferson was elected president—on the 36th ballot (!) in the House of Representatives, since the presidential election the previous November had resulted in a tie (in electoral votes at 73 each) between Jefferson and Aaron Burr.
