Trump and Big Bend National Park

The lower Federal courts have been a bulwark against many of Trump’s actions, only to be overruled by the Supreme Court.  The latest example is in Big Bend National Park.  A lower court federal judge ruled that Congress had not authorized the use of 30 foot tall steel walls and new roads through the Park.  She ordered an immediate stop to all construction-related activity.  

The Trump administration filed an emergency appeal, lying about the number of border crossings in the area.  The U.S. Supreme Court said the Administration could continue with the wall construction.  The Court said that the law limits judges powers to intervene when the federal government decided speedy border barrier construction is necessary.

In Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer (1952) the Supreme Court said President Truman did not have the power to seize steel mills even though he claimed troops in Korea needed steel production because of the Korean War.  That was when the U.S. Supreme Court took its job (and the Constitution) seriously.

Remember what can be built can also be torn down, but in the meantime cross-border animal migrations have also been stopped and one our best national parks desecrated.  

We have got to put term limits on the Court, or limit its jurisdiction, or add judges.  None of those items need a Constitutional amendment, just legislation.  

Political friends

In 1965 a political scientist named Mancur Olson wrote a guide to group recruitment and maintenance.  The book was entitled The Logic of Collective Action.  Olson said that there were three reasons people joined groups or continued to support group activity.  

Purposive reasons were when you believed in the goals of a group and wished to support the group’s ideology.  If you liked history, you might join a preservation society.  An environmentalist could join Nature Conservancy; a civil libertarian would join the ACLU.

Material reasons are obvious.  People form labor unions for higher wages or better pensions.  Some groups formed for non-material purposes will also give their members material incentives–calendars or discounts on certain products as a reward for joining.

Olson noted that sometimes people who joined a group stayed active for what he called solidary reasons, or what I would call friendship.  Their associations turned into something more than membership for material gains or ideological goals.  They got along with each other, liked each other, formed close friendships.  

Political party activists at one time may have registered and became active for material motives.  This is no doubt why Peter Thiel and Mark Zuckerberg suck up to Republican Party leaders like Trump.  Most activists, however, don’t expect to gain employment or favors.  Civil service certainly has cut down on that aspect.

I would guess that most party activists, certainly the ones I know, become active in Democratic Party politics because they believe in health care for all, or they support a woman’s right to control her reproductive decisions, or they are worried about global warming, or they dislike the brutality of ICE.  

An interesting aspect of this activism is that they become friends with one another.  At least that is the case for me.  I don’t have a huge number of friends, but those that I have tend to be political cohorts.  I obviously know some people who are MAGA types, and I might even be able to think of one who I consider a friend (give me some time on that), but most of my friends are on the left (or far left) end of the political spectrum.

 

Harvie and Fitzpatrick

If this were 1950 or even 2000 I would think it was too bad that Congressman Fitzpatrick from Southeast Pennsylvania lost his seat.  He was a decent man, a good vote on the environment, and a frequent critic of Trump.  But it is 2026, with a polarized country and a Republican Party firmly in control of President Trump.  If Trump dies and Vance dies, House Speaker Mike Johnson becomes President.  Republicans control all Committees in the House.  The 2024 Republican platform was written by the Heritage Foundation, a far right group of fanatics.  

If Fitzpatrick really wanted to stop Trump and to reflect his constituents, all he had to do was change parties.  He wouldn’t have been the first congressman to switch.  He could have resigned in protest.  He could have switched to Independent.

Or he could lose the race last Tuesday to Democrat Bob Harvie.  I don’t feel the same satisfaction I did with the races in Ohio or Texas or Kansas or Michigan, but I am still happy with that outcome.  

The Commie threat!

A local newspaper reporter interviewed voters in Lehighton on the day of the election.  One voter said it was important to vote because “We don’t need any communists.”  At the same polling location another voter explained,” I hope (this) morning we don’t have to get up and say we’re communists.”

I don’t even know what to say to that. 

Who swung left, who swung right?

If the votes for various groups in 2026 are compared to their voting behavior in 2024, we see some interesting swings.  In some cases the swing was dramatic  For example, men under thirty were 38% more likely to vote Democratic in 26 than in 24; women under 30 were 28% more like to vote Democratic.  The swing for young women from 24 to 26 was less than for men because more young women were already voting Democratic in the 24 election.  

Here is a quick rundown of some of the groups who moved more toward the Democrats this Tuesday compared to their vote in 2024:

Asians

Hispanics 

Black men

Black women (who in 2024 were already voting Democratic by over 90% and still voted 3% more on Tuesday)

Older voters

Voters without college degrees

White voters

White voters without college degrees

Groups that swung more toward the Republicans:

I couldn’t find any listed, but maybe Tech Bros?

Plant New Forests

Space X and Tesla are looking at a merger.  This possibility may now be investigated; the Democrats control Congress.  Starlink, which was denied to Ukraine for a time, will probably be looked at as well.

And Musk, who spent about $224 million trying to influence Texas elections, lost bigly.  Remember that Musk moved the headquarters for both SpaceX and Tesla to Texas after claiming that California had become too liberal.

Senator Edward J. Markey (D, Mass) posted on X.  “They are going to need to plant new forests for all the subpoenas we’ll be printing.”  He was talking about upcoming hearings on tech executives.  I love that he posted that on X.

Info for this post was taken in part fromRyan Mac and Jack Ewing, “After Opening His Wallet Against Texas Democrats, Musk Could Now Face Greater Scrutiny,” New York Times, (Nov. 5, 2026), p. B-3. 

Thought from the PA 7th District

Sure, sex is great, but have you ever voted a Republican out of office?