Tag Archives: Reagan

AI Talks To Trump

I wish this had been my idea, but it was my brilliant sister who–on a whim–asked Chatgpt what Thomas Jefferson might say to Donald Trump.

This was the response:

If Thomas Jefferson were to speak to Donald Trump, the conversation would likely reflect Jefferson’s Enlightenment-era values—particularly around democracy, individual rights, limited government, and civic virtue. Here’s a speculative interpretation of what Jefferson might say, based on his writings and beliefs:

“Mr. Trump, I have always believed that government exists to serve the people, not to enrich those in power. Our republic depends on an informed citizenry, a free press, and leaders who value the public good over personal gain.

While strong leadership can be necessary, it must be tempered by respect for the Constitution, the rule of law, and the separation of powers. These are not mere formalities—they are safeguards against tyranny.

Beware the temptation to sow division for political gain. A nation cannot be both ignorant and free. True greatness lies not in spectacle, but in the quiet, steady work of preserving liberty and justice for all.”

The AI then asked her if she would prefer a more confrontational, supportive or humorous version, or one tailored to a specific topic like free speech or executive power. (That question suggested endless possibilities. The fact that she didn’t pursue them shouldn’t keep the rest of us from playing with our own AIs…)

After she received the response to her question about Thomas Jefferson, she decided to ask what Jesus might say to Trump. Once again, AI responded by mining the relevant documentation–in this case, the Gospels.

That’s a powerful and complex question, and the answer depends on how one interprets Jesus’ teachings and values. Based on the messages in the Gospels—love, humility, justice, mercy, repentance, and truth—here’s a thoughtful, nonpartisan imagining of what Jesus might say to Donald Trump (or any political leader):

1. On Power and Leadership:
“Whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all.” (Mark 9:35)
Jesus might challenge Trump to reflect on whether his leadership serves the vulnerable and promotes justice and peace.

2. On Truth and Integrity:
“Let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ Anything more comes from evil.” (Matthew 5:37)
Jesus often called out hypocrisy and might urge Trump to speak truthfully and act with consistency.

3. On Wealth and Responsibility:
“To whom much is given, much will be required.” (Luke 12:48)
Jesus might challenge Trump on how he uses his wealth and influence for the common good.

4. On Enemies and Rhetoric:
“Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5:44)
Jesus might caution against divisive language and encourage reconciliation and empathy.

5. On Repentance and Grace:
Jesus welcomed sinners and called them to repentance. He might say to Trump—as he would to anyone—“Come, follow me.” (Matthew 4:19), offering grace but also calling for transformation.

Would you like a version written more like a direct conversation or modern interpretation?

When my sister shared this exercise, I asked my own Chatgpt what Ronald Reagan would say to Trump.

While we can only speculate, a thoughtful, historically grounded analysis of what Ronald Reagan might say to Donald Trump would likely reflect stark contrasts in style, tone, and certain core values—especially regarding democratic norms, civility, and America’s global role. Here’s a reasoned approximation of what Reagan might express, based on his public speeches, writings, and actions.

1. On Civility and American Ideals:

“Mr. Trump, words matter. The presidency is not only a position of power, but a moral pulpit. We must be a shining city on a hill—not a fortress of grievance and division. Insulting adversaries, attacking the press, and stoking anger may win applause, but it dims the light of that city.”

Context: Reagan often emphasized optimism, unity, and a dignified tone—even when disagreeing. He viewed America as a beacon of hope and saw the president as a steward of national character.

2. On Immigration and American Identity:

“You speak of immigrants as threats, but I saw them as assets to the American experiment. We are a nation of immigrants. We weaken our greatness when we shut the golden door to those yearning to be free.”

Context: Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which granted legal status to nearly 3 million undocumented immigrants. He spoke of immigrants with admiration, not suspicion.

3. On NATO and Global Alliances:

“You undermine alliances I spent a presidency building. America leads not by bullying partners or admiring strongmen, but by championing freedom and standing firm with our allies.”

Context: Reagan was staunchly pro-NATO and took a hard line against authoritarian regimes, particularly the Soviet Union. Trump’s praise of autocrats and criticism of NATO would likely alarm him.

4. On Conservatism and Responsibility:

“Conservatism is not chaos. It is a belief in limited government, personal responsibility, and respect for institutions. When we tear down the guardrails of democracy, we no longer conserve—we destroy.”

Context: Reagan valued conservative principles but respected democratic processes. He would likely object to Trump’s rejection of election results and attacks on the judiciary.

5. On Political Legacy:

“We do not inherit America’s greatness from one election to the next—we preserve it by upholding the values that bind us: liberty, respect, and the rule of law. History will judge not only what we build, but what we choose not to break.”

Context: Reagan was deeply concerned with legacy, often invoking America’s historical promise. He might warn Trump that personal power is fleeting—but democratic norms endure if preserved.

AI just confirmed it: Trump and the MAGA cult dishonor America, Christianity, and the once-Grand Old Party.

Comments

Follow The Money…

A recent diatribe posted to the progressive site Daily Kos made me think. It began with a recitation of the many indisputably negative elements of our current social and political environment.

Violence toward women and minorities has exploded. Armed militias tried to assassinate the Vice President and Speaker of the House in an attempted coup directed by the Republican President of the United States. They tried to kidnap and murder the Democratic governor of Michigan. They’re blowing up power substations from Oregon to the Carolinas. They’ve embedded themselves in DHS, police departments, and our military. They’re coordinating with fascists overseas.

“They” are the MAGA extremists, Neo-Nazis and Christian Nationalists who perpetrate most acts if domestic terrorism, and those who facilitate and/or excuse them.

The writer blamed all of this on “Reaganism” and the GOP, an accusation that vastly over-simplified the complexities of social outcomes. (That said, I agree that the rise of populism and the takeover of the Republican Party by radically Rightwing extremists Is hugely implicated.)

What caught my attention was the post’s reminder of a 1971 memorandum written to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce by former Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell prior to his elevation to the Court. Historians and political scientists have noted the influence of that memorandum on businesses seeking to influence government policies in ways that would benefit their bottom lines.

Powell asserted that “leftists” — whom he defined as “middle class socialists and communist sympathizers” — had taken over the “government, universities, the Supreme Court, and our media.”

Current examples of the impotency of business, and of the near-contempt with which businessmen’s views are held, are the stampedes by politicians to support almost any legislation related to ‘consumerism’ or to the ‘environment….

Business must learn the lesson, long ago learned by labor and other self-interest groups. This is the lesson that political power is necessary; that such power must be assiduously cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination — without embarrassment and without the reluctance which has been so characteristic of American business.

On the Court, Powell was part of the majority opinion in Buckley v Valeo–the decision equating money with speech and striking down legislation intended to limit the influence of money in political campaigns. The author of the post correctly noted that Buckley struck down “nearly a century of campaign finance legislation going all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt’s Tillman Act.”

It’s hard to argue with the post’s assertion that the Court “tripled down” on the equation of money and speech in Citizens United or with his assertion that between 1933 and 1981, pretty much everything that went right for middle-class Americans was the result of progressive policies: the right to unionize, unemployment insurance and workplace safety rules, Social Security and Medicare…

A top personal income tax rate between 74% and 91% throughout that period kept wages strong for working people and prevented the corrosive wealth inequality we see today. We didn’t get our first billionaire until after the Reagan revolution.

It’s easier to argue with the characterization of that period  as one of ” uninterrupted political and economic progress”–a description that conveniently  ignores much of the inequality and turmoil of those years–but the description of America after Buckley and Reagan is accurate:

Republican-leaning businesses bought up radio stations from coast-to-coast and put “conservative” talk radio into every town and city in America. Wealthy people began running for political office or supporting those politicians who’d do their bidding.

Conservative donors demanded rightwing economics and political science professors in universities across America. Rightwing think tanks and publishers were funded to support them. Billionaires founded a movement to pack our courts, including the Supreme Court.

The rise of neoliberalism has decimated the middle class and further enriched the wealthy. While I would quibble with details of the writer’s lengthy diatribe, I do echo his conclusion: we need to turn back to

the lessons of the New Deal and Great Society, embraced by presidents and politicians of both parties for a half-century, and rebuild our middle class and our democracy, along with our trust in each other.

The question, as always, is “how do we accomplish that?”

Thanks to the availability of huge amounts of money, a distinct minority of Americans  currently control many state governments, and is vastly over-represented in Congress. The money that has poured into the political system in the wake of Buckley has funded  sophisticated gerrymandering, misleading lobbying, and  overwhelming political influence via campaign contributions. It has supported the messaging that has drawn a variety of culture warriors, racists and their ilk to the GOP.

Perhaps it’s a failure of imagination, but unless the current iteration of the GOP suffers a crushing  electoral defeat–and soon–I don’t know how we begin to fix this.

Comments

Summarizing the Debate

I was going to review last night’s debate, which was so important that Boehner, et al, stamped their feet and demanded that the President move his speech to tonight, lest anyone miss it. And indeed, it was an excellent opportunity to display what the Grand Old Party has become. But “Cheers and Jeers” did a much better job of reporting on this event than I could have, so go read their summary. Right now!

Comments

Balancing the Books

When most of us talk about “balancing the books,” we have a mental image of a bookkeeping ledger (for those of you too young to recall keeping financial records on paper, those ledgers were books filled with graph-like paper, on which one recorded assets and liabilities). The point was to balance revenues with expenditures.

Somehow, our discussions of the federal budget has operated on a different premise. Even David Stockman, Reagan’s first budget director, has noticed the change, and I think it is fair to say he isn’t especially impressed with the House Republican budget plan, which deals with only the “debit” side of the ledger.

“It doesn’t address in any serious or courageous way the issue of the near and medium-term deficit,” Stockman told Brian Beutler. “I think the biggest problem is revenues. It is simply unrealistic to say that raising revenue isn’t part of the solution. It’s a measure of how far off the deep end Republicans have gone with this religious catechism about taxes.”

I’m old enough to remember when David Stockman was considered impossibly conservative. But I am also old enough to remember that the real Ronald Reagan–whether you agreed with all his positions or not–looked very little like the icon that contemporary Republicans worship.