Chuck Chalberg is the retired history professor who taught at Normandale Community College in the Twin Cities. He has written for us several time, usually when the Star Tribune finds his latest thoughts unfit to print. Chuck goes devilishly where angels fear to tread in the Star Tribune op-ed colum “Once a Trump voter, now a TDS sufferer,” published over the weekend. This must be the best op-ed column the Star Tribune has published since it last published one of Chuck’s columns. Chuck writes:
As someone who reluctantly voted for Donald Trump in 2016, I am now forced to concede that I, too, suffer from that debilitating political malady that comes under the shorthand heading of TDS. Since we all assume that we know what that means, there’s no need to spell it out. Maybe later, if I can calm down, but not just yet.
Admittedly, this has been a long, slow process, a process that in retrospect may have begun to incubate all so innocently in the early days of my political awareness. In fact, it may even have started to stir somewhere within me during that long ago and very brief presidency of John Kennedy. Remember him? I do.
Oh, there have been occasional manifestations of it since then, but this chronic condition was mostly dormant for a long, long time. Only in recent years has it somehow mutated and managed to take its hold in full force. Could I pinpoint a specific date? Not really. To be sure, there were rumblings of it in the 1970s and again in the 1990s, rumblings that have grown more intense in this century. But, heck, those were only rumblings and nothing to worry about. Or so I thought.
Could I be more specific? How about November 2016, when the country decided to elect to its highest office an individual whose name I don’t want to mention any more than is absolutely necessary. After all, the hold that TDS has on me deserves no boost from me.
In any case, his presence in the presidency seems to have revived my case of it. More than that, it seems to have fully blossomed and taken complete control of what little is left of my sadly depleted rationality. Is there a cure? We’ll see.
Maybe the road to recovery could begin with a stroll down memory lane. In fact, such a stroll takes me all the way back to that Kennedy presidency. Remember the opening words of his inaugural address on that cold winter day: “We observe today not a victory of party but a celebration of freedom.”
After recalling our founding, Kennedy reminded his fellow countrymen that the “same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe — the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.” Our rights come from God? How strange to hear a Democrat speak such words.
Then a bit later came a few more words, words that still echo: “Let every nation know … that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty.” And yes, we had foes, even enemies. And our new president knew that.
Kennedy then cautioned Americans not to “dare to tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.” Hmm …
Near the end of the address Kennedy did acknowledge that there were differences among Americans, before calling on “both sides” of our then-minimal divide to “unite” and then “heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah to undo the heavy burdens … [and] let the oppressed go free.” Isaiah? Who was he, an ex-Timberwolf?
All of the above — and more — preceded these unforgettable words: “And so, my fellow Americans: Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.”
Oh, if we only had a president who could utter such words — and do so with grace and command, class and believability. But we don’t. Instead we have a president who openly lets loose with words that he shouldn’t, words that other leaders likely work hard to make sure they only utter behind closed doors.
Of course, we then also had a president whose party was the party of the American working class. More than that, his was also the party of unionized America, even though he thought it would be a mistake to permit government employees to organize. That would be the party that shunned socialists rather than welcome them into their version of a big tent.
For that matter, this was a presidential candidate who pledged to cut taxes to “get the country moving again,” as well as a president who signed legislation to accomplish just that. By the way, this was also a candidate who was out to replace an aging and tired incumbent.
At the same time, this was a president who was willing to use the power of the federal government, including troops, to force state governors to comply with legitimate and important national goals. All of those governors were his fellow Democrats, who nonetheless stood in the way, including in schoolhouse doors, to block civil rights policies he was elected to achieve.
The Democratic Party of this president was also the party that was much more committed to assuring life for the unborn than was its opposite number. To be sure, this president, while Catholic, was mostly silent on this matter. Perhaps he was even squeamish about it. But amazingly enough, his party was then much more the pro-life party than was the party of Lincoln. In fact, this president appointed one of the “no” votes on Roe v. Wade (Byron White) to the Supreme Court.
Oh yes, one more thing. This president was willing to do something, if not enough, to defeat our enemies in this hemisphere. Remember the Bay of Pigs. Maybe that ought to have been a hint of Democratic actions — or nonactions — to come. Later, however, he was willing to go face-to-face with our rival nuclear power. Remember the Cuban missile crisis.
One could go on, but I trust that the point has been made. Yes, I have a bad case of TDS, a case that could only be termed “Today’s Democrats Syndrome.”
What makes my case particularly severe is not just the transformation of my original party, but my realization that the current president has much more in common with John Kennedy than anyone in a leadership position of today’s Democratic Party. One replaced an aged, tired incumbent; the other challenged a sclerotic federal bureaucracy that has become an arm of the oldest political party anywhere in the world.
To be sure, this president is much older than President Kennedy, but both had playboy reputations — and histories — to survive. And this president, while also the son of a wealthy father, did not choose to run for elective office early on in his life. Yes, it’s also true that this president ducked the misguided war of his generation, while his predecessor served admirably in the necessary war of our “greatest generation.”
It also must be acknowledged that some of the similarities, while interesting, are superficial. Both are brash Easterners. Both have much younger wives. Both have reputations as being, shall we say, womanizers (although in the Kennedy case a friendly press sought to cover for him).
But a few of the other similarities are anything but superficial. Both have been willing to defend and uphold the West in its wars, cold and otherwise, with its enemies. For JFK, it was a battle with communism; for the current president it is a somewhat similar and perhaps even more dangerous battle against the cynical alliance of the left and Islam. And, yes, there is a difference between atheistic, this-is-the-only-world Soviets with nuclear weapons and Islamist heaven-bound apocalyptics with the possibility of the same.
To be sure, no historical parallel is perfect or even close to perfect. But there is clear evidence for this parallel. In any event, what should be undeniable is at least this much: namely that the current president has much more in common with John Kennedy than he does with any major figure in Kennedy’s old party, save perhaps for Sen. John Fetterman.
And, oh yes, while I’m at it, let’s hope that this parallel breaks down when Trump finishes what Kennedy did not, namely the liberation of Cuba from its totalitarian rulers. At such a point Trump would not only be copying Kennedy, but surpassing him. Then we can only hope and, God forbid, pray that the parallel doesn’t one day extend to what transpired on Nov. 22, 1963, at the hands of a radicalized young man of the left.
