Category: blog

Posted on

On “Too Much and Never Enough”

This is a 2025 review of “Too Much and Never Enough: How my Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man” by Mary L. Trump PhD. I’m saying that, but I want to start this review by quoting another book, which led me to this one. In “Dignity” by Donna Hicks, PhD in her chapter on Safety p.55 she says:

“What is important here is to know the dignity violations we experienced. To know them is to name them, to give them legitimacy and validation. And knowing them is the first step toward healing. The problem… is our strong loyalty to our caretakers, especially if they are parents, which makes it difficult to view them as anything but good.”

Family loyalty is so often the source of what makes us broken.

Introduction

“Too Much and Never Enough” starts in prologue to say some really prescient things for DJT’s second term in office. Observations made in 2017 were that his administration and his party are subsumed by his politics of grievance and entitlement. It goes on to say “He continues to be protected from his own disasters in the White House, where a claque of loyalists applauds his every pronouncement or covers up his possible criminal negligence by normalizing it to the point that we’ve become numb to the accumulating transgressions.“

A contemporary case in point: with hundreds of billions of dollars on the table, on September 4, 2025 oligarchs cluster around DJT to offer their platitudes and flattery.

Near the end of the book, Mary L. Trump concludes on p.203 that “The through line from Donald’s early, destructive behavior that Fred actively encouraged to the media’s unwillingness to challenge him and the Republican Party’s willingness to turn a blind eye to the daily corruption he has committed since January 20, 2017, have led to the impending collapse of this once great nation’s economy, democracy, and health.” This was published before the January 6, 2021 United States Capitol attack . It was before DJT’s second term, and before the existence of Project 2025.

She goes on to say “The deafening silence in response to such a blatant display of sociopathic disregard for human life or the consequences for one’s actions, on the other hand, fills me with despair and reminds me that Donald isn’t really the problem after all.“. And she is right for saying that.

The House Down the Hill

In the Netflix fictional horror series The Haunting of Hill House, a fractured family confronts haunting memories of their old home. Starting in Chapter 1 “The House” of Mary L. Trump’s book I can already see parallels. The profound incapacity of empathy from Fred Trump, the emotional withdrawal of Mary Trump, reinforced by a lack of self-awareness; or observance of profound character flaws creates unfulfilled needs of the children, and a “kind of grievance and behaviors – including bullying,… aggressiveness, and disrespect – that served their purpose in the moment and became problematic over time.” (p.27) The family is successful and yet completely dysfunctional. And there are layers to the story. Generations are described to lead us to the present day.

“Everyone in my family experienced a strange combination of privilege and neglect.” (p.140)

Much of the book describes the Trump family growing up “white poor” wealthy, self-absorbed, and chronically disconnected; with a father’s narcissistic interest in the boys becoming “killers” through showmanship, entitlement, misogyny, outright lies, fear, and enablement.

Relationships are transactional. Outside their circle, there is more than one reference to other people as “the rubes”. Without a prerequisite paradigm shift, members of the family were often “rubes” without knowing it.

Religion

Possibly a side note, I find it interesting how religion is and isn’t brought up in the book. There is never any discussions of faith practiced in the home. There are mentions that Mary L. Trump’s aunt Maryellen converts to Catholicism for her first marriage, and DJT’s daughter Ivanka converts to Judaism for her marriage to Jared Kushner.

  • Friedrich Trump and Elizabeth Christ (paternal great grandparents) are both from Germany, which was primarily Protestant then.
  • Fred Trump (paternal grandparent) is born in the US. His wife Mary Anne MacLeod is from Scotland, which was primarily Presbyterian (a reformed version of Protestantism) then.
  • In the early 1900s, the Jamaica Estates area of Queens, New York, was primarily home to upper-middle-class Protestants.
  • Norman Vincent Peale (mentioned below) was a Protestant

I make a guess that the family was Protestant, but not practicing? The 2016 gaff by DJT about “Two Corinthians” instead of referring to that book of the bible as “Second Corinthians” really makes the case that the household wasn’t well-versed in religion.

Where I would hope to see a sense of awe, or reverence, there is none.

The real influence of religion appears to be of the Prosperity Gospel. Norman Vincent Peale’s book “The Power of Positive Thinking” appears to have a powerful influence on Fred Trump in the 1950’s. It was enough for Fred Trump to join the Marble Collegiate Church in Manhatten, although Mary L. Trump notes that he and his family rarely attended. This is the church where DJT married his first wife Ivana.

“Believe in yourself! Have faith in your abilities!… A sense of inferiority and inadequacy interferes with the attainment of your hopes, but self-confidence leads to self-realization and successful achievement.”

Norman Vincent Peale, The Power of Positive Thinking

The problem of the quote aside, with hubris and self-confidence a monster is made.

The First Son, Sacrificed

Much of Mary L. Trump’s book focuses on the relationship of Fred Trump and two of his sons: Freddy Trump (Mary’s father) and Donald. As archaic as it sounds, as the eldest son and namesake, Freddy was the heir apparent, and subject of intense focus and scrutiny from his father.

“Fred hated it when his oldest son screwed up or failed to intuit what was required of him, but he hated it even more when, after being take to task, Freddy apologized. “Sorry, Dad,” Fred would mock him. Fred wanted his oldest son to be a “killer” in his parlance… and he was temperamentally the opposite of that.” (p.41)

As Fred continually hyper-focused and dismantled his older brother, Donald was able to observe, and learn to give Fred what he wanted.

It would be remiss to fail mentioning the accountability of the family in this. Mary, the mother, chose to withdraw and do nothing. The other siblings learned to operate outside the gaze of their father, and say nothing about their own inattention, or the vexing attacks to the eldest brother’s self esteem. But Donald leveraged it to the father’s delight. And rather than fight, the family gave in. Donald became the “killer”. Donald is described on p.75 as having “all the confidence of a bully who knows he’s always going to get what he wants and never has to fight for it.“

The attacks by Fred Trump, Sr and DJT against Freddy Trump are incessant. This really is the heartbreaking story in the book.

The other story, then, is of DJT. I am reminded of the Native American parable “Which wolf you feed“. “Not only did Fred and Donald share traits and dislikes, they had the ease of equals” (p.84)

“When things turned south in the late 1980s, Fred could no longer separate himself from his son’s brutal ineptitude; the father had no choice but to stay invested. His monster had been set free. All he could do was mitigate the damage, keep the cash flowing, and find somebody else to blame.” (p.103)

“That’s how it always works with the sycophants. First they remain silent no matter what the outrages are committed; then they make themselves complicit by not acting.” (p.108)

Fred is gone, and we are dealing with that same monster (and his claque of sycophants) today.

Simply (Minded) The Best

I will let these quotes from the book speak for themselves. There are plenty of examples of hubris and self-aggrandizement to be found in the book and everywhere else (of late).

“Over time that attitude – that he knew better – would become even more entrenched: as his knowledge base has decreased (particularly in areas of governing), his claims to know everything have increased in direct proportion to his insecurity, which is where we are now.” (p.133)

“Every time you hear Donald talking about how something is the greatest, the best, the biggest, the most tremendous (the implication being that he made them so), you have to remember that the man speaking is still, in essential ways, the same little boy who is desperately worried that he, like his older brother, is inadequate and that he, too, will be destroyed for his inadequacy. At a very deep level, his bragging and false bravado are not directed at the audience in front of him but at his audience of one: his long-dead father.” (p.202)

My Personal Vent

In the chapter titled “The Debacle”, Mary describes the cruel tactics that her family exerted on their eldest sibling’s progeny after his death. In particular, Mary’s brother’s youngest son was born with a genetic mutation called KCNQ2 that required extensive medical care for seizures. Mary’s aunts and uncles took away their family medical insurance through the Trump Management company as leverage for them (Mary and Fritz) to sign away their inheritance after Fred Trump Sr’s death.

There is much, much more to this story than what is covered in the book. I will suffice to say that anyone who questions the humanity of another person, and would use their life as in part to negotiate for anything does not understand the basic, inherent right of dignity.

Consider this p.200 quote from David Corn followed by Mary Trump’s own words in her book. Speaking of Donald:

“”Everything is transactional for this poor broken human being. Everything.” It is an epic tragedy of parental failure that my uncle does not understand that he or anybody else has intrinsic worth.”

A Summary and a Warning

The Epilogue is aptly named “The Tenth Circle”, which I believe is a reference to Jodi Picoult’s 2006 novel of the same name that draws heavily from the nine circles of hell described in Dante’s poem, the Inferno. The “tenth circle” symbolizing a kind of suffering not described by Dante.

When the book was published, I’m not sure if the gravity of a possible second term for DJT could be articulated then. It took the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, concerted Republican partisanship, a “hype cycle” and social media to bring him back; and we are suffering greatly for it. Trump has a twisted vision of his place in 21st century politics, and will likely never realize how profoundly his flaws have allowed him to be manipulated and used by others for their own purposes.

The real question for us is whether we realize the threat that his administration presents to us now – the real “We the People” – and do we react? Or do we remain silent enough that he manifests his chaos and we truly are just what he calls us all – “the rubes”.

About the Reviewer

You can learn a bit more about me here.

Posted on

On “Dignity: Its Essential Role in Resolving Conflict”

I’m currently reading Dr. Donna Hicks’ book “Dignity: Its Essential Role in Resolving Conflict” leading up to her keynote address at the Dignity Leadership Summit taking place in Salt Lake City, Utah. I’m conflicted on the topic, mainly due to the helplessness I feel in the socio-political climate of the US and the world at large. I thought I would share my thoughts as I read through the book.

My preface is that these are simply notes of mine as I read the book. I make observations, ask questions, and reference what is in my known world to connect to what the author writes.

Dr. Hicks presents what she calls the Dignity Model, with ten elements of dignity; and she expands further by writing about the ten temptations to violate dignity. In the preface she includes the opening words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world…”

United Nations, 1948

After reading the book, my question is how we can embrace dignity in ourselves but know that we will suffer indignity, and watch our communities suffer indignities that we cannot control. My question is how loss of rights, of curtailed freedoms, lost opportunity, and of loss of lives does not result in a loss of faith? There is a certain amount of jadedness, of bitterness I have that I can’t seem to let go of, in part because I have lost faith in the general goodness of people that I once trusted was there.

I am starting to believe that corruption is a rust that goes through our societal values. I am concerned that ignorance, hate and greed is more prevalent than humility, understanding and empathy.

I am concerned that partisanship, tribalism, and righteousness get in the way of humanity, a broader sense of belonging, and a sincere desire to help one another.

Our fight is real, and it has become existential. We are experiencing literal genocide, displacement and suffering take place in front of us, and watch as our leaders give praise to the perpetrators. Our own leaders show only hubris, and seek unfettered power by planning and taking action to harm anyone who does not contribute to their corruption. Where does our dignity fit in all of this?

There is an assumption that we have a common emotional vulnerability, and I’m not sure that I believe that premise.

A Foundation for Dignity is a Common Reality

My first assertion is that dignity cannot exist without a common reality of what values we hold, and how worth is measured. The book’s focus is on dignity, but words like worth, and honor, and respect show up and rival it. On p.3 respect (earned) is differentiated from dignity (a birthright of value and worth). Both require care and attention.

In order to have dignity:

  • Safety and trust are essential
  • Science as a method of understanding the world around us is essential
  • Logic prevails over illogic, and critical thinking is necessary
  • Truths may include different viewpoints but must be separated from deceit
  • Bias exists. We must be able to recognize it in ourselves as quickly as in others
  • “Awareness requires self-understanding and acceptance. It requires work” (p.15)
  • Last, I would add that humans are social animals, meaning we are of this earth and are part of it. We do not hold a “special status”.

“It’s not just our indignity; it is the indignity of those who we love and care for. It is the loss of well-being of a community of people.”

– From my book notes

A Hierarchy of Needs

Dignity is not easily found when food and shelter are gone, or when we are without safety, or when community is taken from us. We can choose to be dignified in our thoughts and actions, but dignity can be stripped away from us. It is not our self-worth that I’m speaking of here; dignity is more closely related to esteem than it is to worth.

Taking away the foundation does not attack our individualism, rather it attacks our humanity. Inherent self-worth can be had without dignity, which is a societal value.

Burton’s ontological needs (p.27) of identity, recognition, security and belonging are part of the foundation in Maslow’s hierarchy. Fulfillment of these needs is essential to create a foundation for which dignity can be built upon.

Categorical Imperatives

On p.4 Immanuel Kant is referenced as introducing the idea of the “categorical imperative”; i.e. to “act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.”

Kant surmised that it is “unethical to exploit people or treat them merely as instruments to further one’s own personal goals and interests.” I would go further to say that it is morally wrong to treat others as chattel, or worse, to have no consideration for humanity whatsoever.

On p.10, Hicks summarizes Lindner and Ury in saying “We are becoming aware of our outdated acceptance of humiliating ways of ordering society, and a new human rights culture is taking shape; the value of each and every human being is being recognized.” My response to this is that we are aware, but re-ordering. I agree with Hicks, but I am skeptical.

My concern is that we have actors in today’s society who act with malice, who are willing to deceive and sow distrust for the purpose of acquiring and maintaining power over others. They are driven by greed, fear and hate; and view ruthlessness as strength.

There is an ethical dilemma when the actions of a malevolent person trump the dignity, security and existence of others. How can we value redemption of one individual whose actions may cause harm to many? How do you negotiate with someone who carries no shame?

Sidenote: Speaking outside of this review, I challenge Kant’s notion that suicide is morally wrong. Calling suicide a moral issue speaks more about society’s willingness to ignore personal suffering, and its failure to support and accept individuals who struggle for connection within our society.

It is Connection That Drives Us

Connection is understanding, empathy, acceptance and support. Connection is listening. Connection is contextual. Connection is allyship, a word that I do not see in Hicks’ book.

  • Connection > Respect
  • Connection > Esteem
  • Connection > Dignity

See Lost Connections, and Stolen Focus both by Johann Hari for an interesting take on western society’s root causes of depression and anxiety. I align to his thoughts that connection is what drives us.

Fun distraction: Watch Abbott Elementary S2E3 “Story Samurai“. Jacob learns to come to terms that he is not “cool”. He learns that the students call him Mr. C because he is corny, and that his peers also think of him this way. His persona is reshaped but he realizes that he is loved and accepted. This is an example of connection mattering more than dignity.

The Five Dysfunctions Model

I want to reference a book by Patrick Lencioni on The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, which is an excellent reader on building functional teams, that focuses more on the establishment of trust, healthy conflict and accountability of its members. This model could easily be applied to teams working towards conflict resolution, just as Hicks’ model is intended. Both models have precepts of basic needs being met as a foundation.

The Five Dysfunctions Model

The Ten Elements of Dignity

Dr. Donna Hicks introduces her model with the following elements – there is no “stack” or “pyramid” built in her model (note that I comment on numbers 2, 6, 7, 9 and 10):

  1. Identity: an introduction of “I” and “Me”; should add “We” that comes later (see Robert Kegan p.152)
  2. ≠ Inclusion: acceptance and belonging (my problem here is the paradox of inclusion when looking at the person, their ideology, and their (in)actions together. I cannot separate them)
  3. Safety: free to speak without retribution
  4. Acknowledgement: see and acknowledge the indignities of others
  5. Recognition: show others that they are seen, heard and understood
  6. ≠ Fairness: treat others justly, with equality and evenhandedness (without trust, I cannot extend good faith to those who will abuse the privilege – i.e. an agreed ceasefire is violated consistently by one party)
  7. ≠ Benefit of the Doubt: treat people as trustworthy (I struggle that all people have good motives or act with integrity – i.e. a delay plays to the advantage of a party that will undermine a negotiation, or keep food and aid from victims of war)
  8. Understanding: believe that what others think matters I LOVED THIS QUOTE: “Seeking understanding is one of the easiest ways of honoring dignity. Allowing people to feel understood is just one short sentence away: “Tell me more”.” (p.85)
  9. ≠ Independence: encourage others to act on their own behalf (this should always be a first principle, but there are times when allyship is needed)
  10. ≠ Accountability: take responsibility for your actions (all parties must be accountable, and this extends far beyond violations of dignity)

I think you can see this is where I really begin to struggle with Dignity as an underlying core value for which unresolved conflict can be addressed. There must be a basic level of trust, of constraint, of essential humanity, of broad accountability to move forward.

In the section on Benefit of the Doubt, there is a poignant story of Nelson Mandela who says “I loved even my enemies while I hated the system that turned us against one another.” (p.75) He also says “Man’s goodness is a flame that can be hidden but never extinguished.” (p.76)

Not everyone is a leader, and far fewer become a moral authority. Even fewer survive what Nelson Mandela did, and I will use Alexei Navalny as an example. I question the value of giving the benefit of doubt to even one individual whose actions cause harm to many. Is there not an ethical dilemma presented here? Is it not different to bear our own suffering, but do nothing for the suffering of others?

In the section on Accountability, I pondered what if there is no diplomat to negotiate, or if we are faced with institutions built on greed, prejudice and fear? There must be honest arbiters with agency to represent change.

Discipline is mentioned on p.119 under False Dignity, but is not brought up in context of the first 10 elements. I think this, Humility and Reflection, should be elements of consideration.

Fun Distraction: If you were to program Dignity into an AI model, what would it look like? What would happen if you were to run a Monte Carlo exercise on the model?

The Ten Temptations to Violate Dignity

These are not all presented as antitheticals of the Ten Elements, rather it exists as its own list of detriments to Dignity.

  1. Taking the Bait: the lesson here being to show restraint, and noting that action must be measured against a consequence of inaction. This quote in particular was striking: “…know that we have the capacity, in the service of self-preservation, to do great harm to one another, we will be stuck in the never-ending cycle of indignity.” (p.101)
  2. Saving Face: “The dread of having our inadequacy, incompetence, or lack of moral integrity made known is enough to turn us into liars…” (p.103) reminded me of this recent unattributed comment about a political figure: “When he says he knows nothing he knows everything. When he says he knows everything he knows nothing.”
  3. Shirking Responsibility: (as an antithetical to #10 Accountability) An important lesson from this is that when we care, we learn, and this builds strong relationships.
  4. Seeking False Dignity: a short summary might be to not seek false praise or flattery, or accept that our status as a human is tied to an external measure of success. A concern I have for this is that Hicks’ references the individual perspective and not society generally, or where we find ourselves historically within it.
  5. Seeking False Security: be willing to address the risk of the unknown. “Any relationship in which your dignity is being routinely violated is not a safe relationship, no matter how much you deceive yourself into thinking it is.” (p.124) needs to be applied at a larger level. It pertains not just to relationships, but representation, and employment, and society at large.
  6. Avoiding Conflict: a key reason I brought up Lencioni’s Five Dysfunctions is because it specifically calls out healthy conflict as a necessary step for teams to go through. Conflict should not only include standing up for yourself, as Hicks states, but should also include allyship. There is a risk in conflict. Understand the fight before you step into it. There is a great comment about ‘optimal conflict’ by Kegan on p.154 to challenge how we make meaning.
  7. Being the Victim: possibly versus playing the victim? Know the difference. Our self-awareness and objectivity are key to understanding. Our willingness to hear others feedback and process it comes next.
  8. Resisting Feedback: continue to be curious. Continue to receive, accept and process change.
  9. Blaming and Shaming Others as Deflection: “Safeguarding our dignity when faced with a threatening situation requires us to develop both self-restraint and self-assertion.” (p.168)
  10. Engaging in False Intimacy and Gossip: “There is nothing like good dirt to liven up a discussion.” (p.171) Speak truth about yourself; invite others to do the same.

For the topic of False Intimacy and Gossip, I want to juxtapose that with commiserating and discussing rumors generally. A trusted circle is often used to share information, or needs to be used as a sounding board, or where to go for advice. It’s “spill the tea” but also “let’s clean that up”. Very often, the person discussed wields a power imbalance, or shows unreliable behavior.

Tiering the Elements of Dignity

I wanted to relate the elements to some order of tiered dependence, and I also wanted to see if there was an association between the elements and the temptations. This is what I came up with.

My intent here is to think about how some things (like safety) are essential in order to do anything meaningful. Then there are elements we are directly responsible and solely accountable for, and there are elements that we extend to ourselves and to others.

On Reverence and Awe

Starting on p.67-69, I especially like what was said in this section on Recognition. The capacity to be in awe and in reverence of a force or forces greater than ourselves is a reminder of the incredible power of humility. (I made a silly note that this was the time to watch more Kaiju films.) These quotes in particular captured me:

“The something greater could be God for those who are religious, or ideals like truth and justice, which captivated the Enlightenment philosophers, or the magnificence of the universe, which is enough to bring Richard Dawkins, an atheist, to his knees.”

“One of the hallmarks of good leadership, then, is the capacity to feel awe and wonder at something greater than oneself, and this feeling acts as a check on arrogance.”

Humility, then, is essential for our ability to see ourselves and the role we play in a grander picture of the world and universe that we are a part of. Humility is “necessary to avoid the temptation to abuse one’s power by harming, exploiting, and disempowering others.” (p.69)

On Social Values of Shame, Ridicule and Satire

There is social value to shame, ridicule, satire and for comedy; but what part does dignity play here? Hicks states on p.22-23 “Our interpretation of what happens in the world is dependent on our experience of it [shame]”. Yet we find disciples of hubris among us.

  • There is a notable fear of humiliation, except when there isn’t. Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Mike Lee, and Vice President JD Vance in their about-face relationships with President Donald Trump are prime examples of this.
  • Lying, deception and cover-up are not only employed in self-defense. Senator George Santos literally made a career and was elected to the Senate amidst his willful lies, fraud and corruption.

On Reconciliation

One of the observations I want to make is that reconciliation is not always possible. It may never occur. It would be better to add one more chapter on unreconciled indignities, or “living with indignity”, because that is the circumstance for many.

“Because Mandela’s sense of his own value and worth was so deeply ingrained, he never lost sight of the inherent value and worth of others, no matter how badly he was treated. His sense of dignity is the source of his humility. It is humanity itself that he respects – not just his own but that of every human being. Keeping that truth to the fore is an astonishing human achievement.” (p.76)

“The responsibility is ours to stay anchored in the truth that, as human beings, we are the embodiment of dignity.” (p.139)

What answer is there for unresolved conflict? What of justice not found? What of our own perceptions of safety when the violator just “gets away” or isn’t part of the recognition, or healing? The violation remains. It is inevitable, but the weight of things, whether one or many, has a tendency to shape us.

I am troubled about finding resolution when offending parties do not have integrity. They willfully disregard, lie and are in contempt of words. There is no honor in their actions; they admire ruthlessness; they seek power without humility. The response to this cannot be to simply persevere through it all.

Much of the book describes suffering. Dignity does not take away suffering, and it does not make it tolerable. Dignity can be a lifeline though; in that it cannot be taken away unless you choose to let it go.

“It’s not necessarily about meeting in the middle; but is there a third space?“

Evan Fowler, DEI Facilitator, Project Common Bond

Dignity and a Dialog to Avoid Conflict

Although the topic of the book is on using Dignity to resolve conflict, it’s worthwhile to point out that Dignity can and should be used to avoid or dissolve conflict. Dignity is, after all, a tool of diplomacy.

So the other part of the story should be of preventing conflict. How do we use dignity to restore dialog? How do we ensure that dignity is more present in the words and actions of ourselves, our politicians, business leaders, in community, in our news and in our places of gathering?

Suggested Next Read

I already started this, but want to review and comment next on “Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man“, by Mary L. Trump, PhD. This will likely be a very significant contrast to “Dignity”. Much of my reading on Dignity has led to thoughts on how DJT acts in opposition to dignity but is still projected and supported by an inner circle, and by his followers, who are devout to his political figure.

About the Reviewer

You can learn a bit more about me here.

Posted on

Family Secrets

I’m 57 years old. It’s worth starting with that because that’s how long, at least approximately, it took me to know something that happened when I was only eight months old. It took this long for me to unwrap a family secret had been buried except for a comment that my older sister made years ago, that was disregarded but remained waiting to be picked up again so that it could be broken wide open.

This story is about death and disability. It’s about how we perceive ourselves through bad things, and how that perception ripples through relationships and time. Its about religion and judgement, and grace.

Part 1: Family

One of my youngest memories is of my oldest sister, who had a habit of sitting on the couch in our living room and constantly rocking back and forth. I didn’t know this was a type of self-stimulation, or “stimming” behavior. She was withdrawn, and often had trouble with social interactions, but she was also beautiful and my big sister. She had a “flat” way of speaking and was typically very direct. She didn’t understand humor at times, and this would often result in some sort of fight or argument. I didn’t know what autism or ADHD was. She was just my sister.

As we grew up, my older brother and sister were constantly fighting. It was a never-ending squabble between the two of them because of an action my sister took, or because my brother expected to be the authority over the rest of us. I tried to be a peacekeeper and regularly failed, or ended up in my own altercation with my brother. We fought like siblings and we stuck together like siblings.

My younger brother was born, and my two youngest sisters were born almost exactly two years apart to the day. They looked so much alike that they were often confused as twins. They were adorable together, and shared the status of youngest in the family. They had the benefit of attention and older siblings. In the grown-up version of ourselves they became the most well-adjusted and social members of our family.

When the girls began to draw, it was noted then that they were writing in mirror-form, like my older brother had done when he was younger. We learned then that this was called dyslexia, and that there were methods to treat it that my older brother did not have the opportunity to be part of. This may have explained his love of the outdoors more, and why he became an avid reader later than I, or my younger brother did.

I’m under the impression that we grew up in the 70’s in very rural spaces that did not have access to the services and medical supports that could have benefited us. My father had always said he wanted to go where there were no sidewalks, and this very much defined our circumstance and place in life growing up.

I would not describe myself as a social butterfly. I had few friends growing up, that I self-explained as being a result of moving several times in my youth. I had (and still have) tendencies to ruminate on thoughts or generally lose myself in thought. I had favorite clothes and dressed in specific ways – and still do. I remember being taken out of class in middle school to have a Counselor test me using questions on social situations and how I felt about them. I can say with confidence that my family had a lot of neuro-divergence that was unrecognized for what it was. As an adult I struggle with the idea that I could have been diagnosed at a younger age but am too masked and am just “normal”.

In high school, my oldest sister started a pattern of behavior that was at first rebellion, then recognized as symptoms of mental illness. Her world had already begun collapsing in 1981, when my mother was diagnosed with a particularly aggressive form of Multiple Sclerosis (MS).

Before MS took my mother’s independence away, she was a very much the homemaker and loving mom. Her MS stripped away that independence though. First, she had trouble walking. Her eyes couldn’t focus on anything and her hands shook to the point that she couldn’t feed herself. She needed help getting out of bed, getting bathed, getting downstairs to the couch. If she went on her own she would sit on the floor and scoot to move inside the home. And at first there was no-one there for her except the kids.

There had been some trouble with her diagnosis at the start, and for a year or so she was trying to make lifestyle changes (like avoiding caffeine, or not eating certain foods) to remedy her imbalance and vision problems. As her condition progressed it was more evident that something wasn’t right. Her doctors in Alaska recommended that she go to better hospitals in Seattle, where she was diagnosed. She flew back east to participate in experimental treatments with ACTH, which helped restore some ability to walk. But MS takes ahold in a series of attacks and remissions, and her form was particularly aggressive. She returned and was wasting away from the disease.

My father spent most of his time at work or in the outdoors before my mother became seriously ill. It was only after her diagnosis that he took a desk job in Anchorage, an hour away from where we lived. He would get up at 4AM, travel to work, and be home between 4-5PM every day during the week, but would still disappear for the weekends with my brothers. I was left to watch my mother and two younger sisters and my older sister, who was “in charge” but couldn’t be relied upon. We didn’t know why she acted the way she did. She was angry and believed things that were obviously not true, but she was adamant and resistant and rebellious. She didn’t have a diagnosis at that point; instead she struggled with her reality and her family. We didn’t have a name for it, and it was only years later that we found a name: schizophrenia.

Part 2: Religion

Before her MS, religion was a part of my mother’s life that was a celebration and joy to see. Through all of our early travels as a family, wherever we landed she would find a local church to be part of. She was raised a Methodist in New England. When we lived in Minnesota we were part of Lutheran services there. When we moved to Petersburg we started at a Lutheran church, but were drawn to a new Assemblies of God that was starting because their song service was joyous, and my mother loved to sing. When we moved off the island in the Southeast to the mainland of Alaska, she found another Assembly of God. And then she became ill.

Church should be, above anything else, a community that draws together. Church should be a celebration and discipline of faith that is executed in practice. We are taught to seek humility, to make service, and uphold our ways. But church can be other things. It can be petty, and judgmental, and cliquish. It can be backward and superstitious. And it can be damning.

There is a practice in Pentecostal Charismatic churches of faith healing. If you’re not familiar with this, the idea is that your tribulations are all some sort of test that can be spiritually healed through acceptance of Christ. This typically means fervent prayer, and some laying on of hands. It’s the idea that belief in God’s power can heal you, based on your faith. But you have to be faithful, and you have to mean it. If God doesn’t heal you, it’s because you aren’t believing or confessing properly. This is an incredibly shitty concept to apply to someone diagnosed with a chronic, progressive disease.

My mother was a kind person, before all else. I will never remember her any other way than someone who walked into a room and made it brighter with her presence. She was educated and well-mannered. Before she was sick the worst thing she could say was “Lord love a duck” when she was angry. People were drawn to her.

After she became seriously ill, that changed. She lost her friends. At church we were told by the visiting faith healers that she was not accepting Christ into her heart if she could not be healed, and I could see that breaking her. We were not able to attend church regularly, and when we did it was painful to pass the tithing plate without contributing to it. We were poor, my mother was disabled, my father refused to attend any church, and it was obvious to them that we suffered only due to lack of faith.

Part 3: Secrets

My oldest sister had said a very long time ago that my mother had killed someone. I could not imagine what she meant or why she would say that, and I refused to repeat what she said. My sister was known to say things, after all. This wasn’t the first time an outlandish accusation had been laid by her.

At the same time, there was something about how my mother was so troubled by these ridiculous faith healers at church, and her desire to be healed. I wanted to attribute it to her faith, then I wanted to attribute it to her desire to be healed and truly live again. As her disease progressed there was a distance between my mother and father that was apparent. I think he felt hopeless and stuck, but loved her. I think she wanted him to be close when he couldn’t bring himself to be there for her.

Part 4: Ripples

At home I took care of my mother. I would get up in the mornings and help my mother get ready before carrying her downstairs to the living room, then get everybody out the door to get on the bus for school. If a note had to be written for one of the kids at school, I was the one who wrote it. When other kids played sports after school, I was heading home to take care of my mother. My oldest sister had graduated in 1980, before my mother became ill. She was supposed to stay home to help my mother during the day.

The day my oldest sister left home is like a scar in my memory. I was walking home, and was greeted by my two younger sisters who were running down the road to me. They were both crying and said that my oldest sister was killing our mother. I panicked and ran home in front of them. I entered through the back sliding doors of the house, and saw my sister positioned above my mother with her hand raised like she was going to hit her. My mother was lying on the floor, hands above her head and crying. There was blood on her head. I screamed.

My older sister had a panicked look. She turned and ran up into her room. My younger sisters and I picked up my mother and tried to console her as my older sister came back down. She had grabbed some personal belongings and was leaving as we yelled at her. None of us knew what had led up to the altercation. We focused on our mother but my older sister was gone. It would be days later that we found out she had called family back east and been provided a ticket to leave the state. It would be years later that I understood she was in psychosis that day, and would have no memory of what had taken place. It has taken a much longer time for me to forgive her for that.

It was after that when I became a primary caretaker for my mother. I was in my last year at school, and my grades were dropping because I had given up. The level of dysfunction at home was absurd. I was beginning to feel hopeless and angry.

My father had a regular habit of hitting me when he was angry. He would slap me, or hit me with a belt, or punch me when I made him upset. There was one night that my father was repeatedly hitting me in the kitchen and something inside just snapped, like I don’t have to just take this any longer. I wasn’t going to fight back, so I grabbed his hands and wouldn’t let go. I was angry, but just said “Stop hitting me!”. When he realized he couldn’t pull his hands away, I could see a change in his eyes. It was the last time that he hit me. I moved out shortly after. My younger sisters were old enough to take care of my mother, and I had to leave.

In 1988 my mother’s MS had progressed far enough that she wasn’t able to live at home anymore, and she moved to a full-time care facility. That was the same year that I left the state. I left to escape. I left to get out from under the care of my mother, and from my family, from religion, from a community I felt did not accept me. When she passed away in 2004 I wept unconsolably. There was regret, and guilt, and shame in what I had done by leaving.

Part 5: Reflections

It’s 2025 now. My parents have both passed away along with their siblings and family before them. My generation is now the oldest of the family, and there is time to look back. I was reminded this weekend of what my oldest sister had told me so many years ago, and I was reflecting on that and other thoughts. There was clear separation and distancing of my extended family. There was some unexplained vitriol between my aunt and my father that remained unresolved. There was the suffering that my mother went through with her fastidious devotion to religion, and how she dealt with her diagnosis with a sort of resigned acceptance. There was my father’s choice to distance himself from her. So much didn’t make sense.

I received an advert for a free weekend to look up newspaper articles using an online service. On Friday night I decided to go searching, and was finding old articles about the family. I started by looking for information about my wife’s family in the East Bay. She has a very lively family with all sorts of fun stories, and I was bolstering some family genealogy with what I found. One article in particular prompted the memory of my sister’s secret confession, so at 2AM I decided to start going down the rabbit hole.

It took some time, but I found what I was looking for. The story was from 1968, when I was just eight months old. My older sister would have been just over six years old, which is likely old enough to remember a traumatic event. Besides the story my sister had told me, this had never been mentioned by my family. It crushed me to have found it.

There are several newspapers that carried the story, all repeated with the same errors in facts, which still reliably made the account of what took place. My parents were visiting my mother’s family. We were living in Florence, Wisconsin at the time and had driven out to Massachusetts – my father and mother, along with then 3 kids. Part of the story is unconfirmed and not reliable – but it goes that my father bought a Ford Mustang for my mother. She and my grandmother took the car out to drive, so they ambled out the long road from my grandparent’s home, and turned onto the rural West Road. They had just started to drive down that road as they approached a neighbor’s residence. There were cars parked along the road, and from between some cars a 3 year old boy suddenly ran out and was struck by the car that my mother was driving. The boy was instantly killed. He was the grandson of the family who lived there. His parents had dropped him off at their home while they visited from a neighboring town. It was devastating.

My grandfather, and the child’s grandfather, were neighbors. They were both politically active and served together as Selectmen in their city. My mother was undoubtedly an acquaintance of their daughter, whose child had been killed. It was unfathomable to think this could happen, and yet it had. It irrevocably changed my mother, my parents, their system of support, and our lives afterwards. I hadn’t known it, but could see the ripples of tragedy that shaped our family.

My mother was the only child of four who had grandchildren. My mother’s older sister had died from Polio when she was just nine, so there were only three siblings in her family that grew to be adults. My grandparents were kind, but distant from us. My uncle was like my grandparents but died early from cancer in 1997. My mother’s sister was the longest lived and unrelenting in her animosity for my family. I think this partially explains the distance, and apparent abandonment felt on both sides.

Part 6: Summary

I think what bothers me most is how my mother persevered, and how this accident shaped her. She embraced religion and found comfort in it. If she had remained a Methodist or a Lutheran, the church may have consoled her for an unfortunate death of a child, and helped her come to some solace for her physical ailments. It was song service that brought her to the Assembly of God, but that church also chose to damn her with judgements of her faith and disregard her desire for forgiveness.

I wonder if we, the children, were considered some form of god’s retribution to my parents. I don’t know that they understood neuro-diversity at that time. There were programs coming in place in the early 70s to recognize and diagnose disability in schools that the older children weren’t able to take advantage of. I had a distinct sense growing up that we were a burden, especially from my father.

I can’t imagine how my mother lived with the trauma of a young child’s death, or how she perceived herself after that. I can’t imagine how my father decided to bottle everything up and distance himself from us. But it makes sense looking back, that this was what was happening.

I’m overwhelmed and reeling a bit to try to understand what impact this has had for four families. To the Bailey and Morandi families, my sincerest sadness and desire for peace to you. To the Chapin and Green families, understand what happened and know that there is healing in forgiveness and the passing of time.

It feels too late, but we can only start when we know.

References

  • The Morning Union, June 24 1968, Page 6 (Springfield, MA)
  • The Berkshire Eagle, June 24 1968, Page 14 (Pittsfield, MA)
  • The North Adams Transcript, June 24 1968, Page 3 (North Adams, MA)
  • The Transcript-Telegram, June 24 1968, Page 20 (Holyoke, MA)
Posted on

People Here are Nice, and It’s a Problem

I was getting my hair cut today and listening to some conversation in the salon. A young man was talking to his barber and mentioned he was from Texas. “So are you a Texan?” she asked. He answered with a short story – he was born in California, was raised in Mexico, and later moved to Texas. The culture was a shock, and it took him a while to adjust living there. But was he a Texan? His answer was yes.

I reflected on this exchange because I have lived in Utah for 25 years, longer than anywhere else that I have lived previously. My family hopped around when I was younger, but my formative years were all in Alaska, and it was only after I became an adult that I moved to California, and eventually made my way to Utah. I met my wife when we worked together at Costco, were married in Alaska and have three kids who were all born out of state but grew up and consider Utah their home. Our oldest was only turning four when we moved, and our youngest was barely 3 months old. For them, this is really all they have known.

“So am I Utahn? ” That was the question in my head. What the young man next to me said next was important. “People here are nice.”

That’s true. There is a civility here, generally speaking, that takes precedent over most everything else. It’s an ingrained cultural phenom that people in Utah are typically pleasant when you talk to them. We smile, ask how you’re doing before catching up on pleasantries and nodding good day as we leave. And that’s a problem.

Because we don’t air disagreements or talk about conflict. Everything is swept under the rug of polite exchange, and that’s the norm here. Utahns avoid conflict because we #disagreebetter, and as a result when we’re told what to think, and what to do… we invariably end up putting on our brave face and just bearing it.

But that’s not who I am, and it’s not what I strive to be. If eggs are problems, I’m more about cracking the eggs than collecting them, and blunt honesty has a certain allure that I can respect and enjoy. It’s dirty, it can be uncomfortable, but cracking those eggs sure makes the omelet faster.

I have always considered that I’m a liberal person living in conservative communities. This is what it was like growing up in Alaska, and it’s what it has been like living in Utah. It was familiar to me, and I’ll even mention that the Salt Lake valley has some Matanuska valley vibes that make me feel comfortable here. Both places are predominantly Republican. There is a strong outdoors culture here, and I was raised in a hunting/trapping family. In Wasilla the church was the Assembly of God, which I fell out of when I realized that religion didn’t answer the questions or address the pains I experienced growing up. In Utah the church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which is different but the same. I’m an outsider to the church, but I understand and respect the community and the culture around. I also respect the ex-Mormons who make the consequential decision to leave their church because, like them, I have lived through the loss of faith, community and friendships.

What’s not here, and what I have found lacking is conflict. I miss raucous behavior, and some occasional incivility. Utahns seem drained of their willingness to passionately endorse, or oppose, or ridicule something. We avoid uncouth words and replace controversy with euphemisms. We tolerate so much that we let the intolerant find a home here.

When HB267 ran, the committee rooms were packed with people opposed to the bill. There were overflow rooms and hallways filled with people who came specifically to show opposition to the bill. When speakers were allowed to present, opposition was overwhelmingly present but the committee chair wanted to “both sides” the testimony to give more opportunity to a very small group of supporters to speak, and the opposition let them. When people clapped for an opposition speaker, the chairperson reprimanded the room for its “impolite” behavior. No-one shouted. No-one raised there voices. It was all so unsettling to see that many people watch a few who would strip their rights away in front of them, because it is in our culture to be polite.

After it passed in the legislature, Governor Cox let the bill sit on his desk for seven days, before eventually signing the bill into law. It was clear that if he vetoed the bill it would have had difficulty gaining a 2/3 majority vote in both the house and senate to override. There was even an alternative, less egregious bill that was planned to be introduced if he refused to let the bill move forward. It was a viable option for a Governor to consider vetoing the bill, especially after a contentious election that he would have lost if he had primaried, especially after he declared shortly into his term that he would not seek re-election. Governor Cox was not beholden to the legislature or to the Republican political machine. But he signed the bill.

What happened is that the people of Utah failed to raise a voice. We failed to be vocal about the disagreement right in front of us, even when the impact of the legislation made Utah one of the strongest anti-union states in America. We allowed our Utah public employees to be sacrificed with nothing to gain. We didn’t put up a fight because we’re nice people, after all.

My concern should be the same concern you have. Shameless people take advantage of civility. Pundits will lie and no-one will speak up to call them out for lying. Politicians push copy/paste bills that attack personal rights or dismantle worker rights or take away voter rights. Special interests move forward because feckless profiteers see the opportunity. They build a prison in front of you and tell you to go in, and we go in. We are victims of our own good manners.

There are people out there, right now, who are emboldened to do some really terrible stuff. There are right-wing militias, hate groups, ultra-right-wing legislators and their creepy lobbyists, christian nationalists, transphobes… a whole bunch of bad people with their bad ideas. But they are civil. Their lies are polite. They say and do horrible things without raising their voices. We should be raising our voices. We should be fighting back.

When I ran for office in 2024, I was told that I “obviously have nothing in common with the people you are running to represent” because I used protest, and because I advocated not just to elect me, but to vote out and unseat my opponent. There were several instances talking on social media that I used language that had some heat, and I was called a potty-mouth (seriously, I have to laugh at that moniker when it’s another adult male calling me that). I am a 25 year resident of South Jordan, and this is where I raised my family. This is my home.

“So am I Utahn? ” That’s still the question in my head.

What’s my answer?

“Fuck yeah, it’s my home. And I’ll defend it.”

Posted on

No Retreat, No Surrender

Throughout the election, I haven’t been a big fan of polls, mainly because numbers aren’t always what people think they are or want them to be. Perhaps the only poll that I relished was a GOP sponsored poll from Right Insight that went out via mobile, which was so messed up no-one who received it could respond properly. I was delighted that the Utah Republican Party had spent so much money that was botched from poor programming, a failure to test, and an incredibly bad rollout.

On the other hand, election results are the real data we campaign to see. Election night results will post on Tuesday. I may lose, but I revel in the progress we made in this district. The fight isn’t over, not by a long shot.

What We Face

House District 44 is decidedly a very red district. With 52% of registered voters listed as Republicans, it’s daunting to think that a rival candidate could run successfully here and have a significant impact on the “safe seat” for the GOP that was carved out in 2020.

An uphill battle: A win would require most registered Democrats and Unaffiliated to vote for me along with a margin of Republican voters. A democratic campaign would have to focus on issues that would compel constituents to vote against their party line.

Sizing Up The Opponent

When Teuscher first ran for office in 2020 it was a Presidential election year and there was the COVID-19 pandemic. He ran in Utah House District 42 before the redistricting took place, and when Utah was experiencing the COVID-19 pandemic. In the second election in 2022, it was a mid-term election cycle with lower voter turnout in a newly defined Utah House District 44. The last election had also produced an odd strategy for voters outside the Republican party to register as Republicans in order to affect the closed primary of the Utah GOP. The idea had been to successfully promote more moderate candidates during the GOP primary to give better options for all voters in the general election. This also had the unwanted effect of bolstering the number of voters registered in the Republican party. Suffice to say, these two past elections would not provide substantial data for me to work with as a comparative example to build from. There was good data showing that Unaffiliated voters tended to lean Democratic though, and the influx of new voters in Daybreak community was appearing to make our District more purple than it had been.

There were (and still are) significant issues with the bills introduced by Teuscher since he has been in office. You can see his voting history in the Alliance for a Better Utah annual progress report, which grades politicians against comparable positions for Good Government, Equal Rights, Sustainable Future and Strong Communities. Teuscher received an “F” in 2024, 2023 and 2021; and a “D” in 2022. Teuscher votes against public education, is a primary sponsor of anti-union legislation targeting Utah public employees, and sponsors bills that weaken Utah voter rights. He is a source of bills from copy/paste legislation promoted by conservative right think tanks (when a particular legislative issue is trending across states, there is a good chance that Teuscher’s name is attached to the Utah version of the bill). Anyone who isn’t completely indoctrinated in Fox News rhetoric recognizes that he does not represent local issues or engage voters.

I decided to register as a candidate when the Salt Lake County Democratic Party had found no-one who was willing to run in our House District. It was January 4 (the night before candidate registration closed) that I made the decision, and I said then that if I registered I would not run as a “name-only” candidate; I would invest myself to run in earnest and fight for the seat. I was a first-time candidate, running as a Democrat in a primarily Republican district against an incumbent. I knew enough to know that I didn’t know what I was about to get into.

I knew that there were key issues for me to run on. Teuscher’s anti-union rhetoric, and his clear stance on de-funding public education were clear problems. I personally was upset at his regular comments about getting rid of students with learning disabilities because I happen to be a Special Olympics dad and proud parent of a kid with an Intellectual or Developmental Delay (IDD) who had successfully navigated through Jordan District public schools. I’m incensed by his willingness to lie in the face of constituents about the intent and impact of his bills, and his anecdotal stories that obscure data and real public sentiment.

I Was Told I Wouldn’t Win

In politics, it’s often a numbers game before the impact of issues, political climate or social sentiment are considered. In the early months of my candidacy I was told by a party officer who will remain un-named that I wouldn’t win, and should consider a smaller race in the future. Important races were selected not based on issues where we had to win, but on what districts were considered “flippable”. Essentially, they weren’t focusing on our message to voters, but put emphasis on these statistical outcomes. The difference here is in what you consider the return on interest (ROI) of the campaign. Did you win a seat? Did you help an upstream/downstream candidate? Did you affect a topic in a positive way? Did you recruit voters? Did you grow alignment to the party? In election races, the focus this year was on winnable seats, and mine was not one of them. It was a numbers game, defense of principals be damned. From the perspective of the county and state Democratic party, mine was purely a supporting role as they focused on other races.

I was slotted into the strategy of “contest every race” that sought candidates (often name-only) to run against opponents in every district, so that voters could feel like a choice was present – even if it was admittedly a false choice. I will die on the hill that candidates who register to run should be qualified, align to the democratic platform, actively campaign, and be supported. Elections are not a raffle, they are fought and won. If I was going to put my name in an election hat, then I would run a campaign. I was not going to sit by.

Endorsements and Fence Sitters

An important aspect of campaigns is the seeking of endorsements, which can be helpful in a number of ways. Endorsements can be visible. They can be financial or for in-kind support. They can be hands-on with the supply of volunteers to help during events and canvasing. Endorsements can even provide access to mentoring or education on topics. In most cases, an endorsement of any kind helps greatly. The lack of an endorsement can equally be to the detriment of the campaign. What bothers me about these groups is that they expect candidates who sought endorsement to infer future support for their cause when they choose to do nothing. As in any relationship, it becomes more guarded and tentative when you realize they don’t have your back.

I was disappointed by organizations that chose not to endorse me in order to hedge bets so that they could preserve future working relationships, but I understood the need for diplomatic decisions. Politics is politics. There were some organizations that made decisions with no transparency or feedback, and some that seemingly worked against their own best interests when endorsing candidates. In one example, an organization had sent out exactly one letter to its members in the election year, advocating against a piece of legislation that had been sponsored by the person they then later endorsed. And there were organizations that sought to extend requirements for endorsement by writing affirmations that extended beyond their platform or caucus, like a labor union that wanted unfettered 2nd amendment guarantees before they would endorse (I was not endorsed by that particular union).

What is important was that I was able to secure key endorsements from Labor, from Education, from Issue and Identity Caucuses, and for Freedom of Religion. These mattered greatly to me because the message from these backings was that the people in these groups were being disenfranchised, and wanted better representation. Teuscher was hosting or voting for bills that take away personal rights, that de-fund public education, that dismantle workers rights. Coming together to fight him for the legislative seat was appropriate and timely.

Monumental Screw Ups for Teuscher and the Utah GOP

There were several big events that took place over the summer where I gained advantage. The Utah legislature’s over-reach was finally getting checked by the Utah Supreme Court in four ongoing cases. The Utah GOP was making their clear over-reach visible, and were getting tied down in expensive legal battles that Utahns were footing the bill for.

1) Utah Supreme Court decision on LWV Utah vs Utah State Legislature
In July of this year, the Utah Supreme Court passed by unanimous decision to allow the League of Women Voters Utah to proceed with their claim that SB200 violated Utahns’ state constitutional right to alter and reform their government. The court remanded the case back to the trial court where it will be decided. This was a major victory for Utahns, and the Republican legislature immediately lamented the decision, including Jordan Teuscher.

2) Injunction on Utah Trigger Law Upheld
In August this year, the Utah Supreme Court rejected Utah’s request to overturn the preliminary injunction blocking SB174, the state’s abortion trigger ban, from taking effect. Again the Republican legislature blasted the “liberal Utah Courts” for having the audacity to check them (remember checks and balances)? Jordan Teuscher even wrote a note about it.

3) Citizen Ballot Initiatives
Yet another Utah Supreme Court decision, this time to allow the case against the Utah Legislature’s willful disregard of the people’s voice for new district maps. The gerrymandering case is allowed to proceed at a lower court.

4) NetChoice Wins, Do You See The Pattern?
In September, the courts blocked Teuscher’s Minor Protection in Social Media Act with a preliminary injunction for violating first amendment rights. The plaintiffs gained significant ground in the case when the judge confirmed that the Utah law breached constitutional rights.

The “Emergency” that Wasn’t: How Amendment D Shaped Up
It was during the Democratic National Convention in August that the Republicans decided to call an emergency legislative session to address the applied checks to their unbalance. The “emergency” was a ploy to bring Republican legislators together to craft a new ballot initiative that, if approved, would change the Utah Constitution and strip voter rights away from Utah constituents. Their problem was that to make this change, they needed voters to approve a constitutional amendment. Jordan Teuscher was the house sponsor of SJR401, which became Amendment D to strip Utah voters of legislative rights (This was blocked by Utah Courts on Sep 12, 2024 for deceptive language, and for not following due process). Teuscher was also the House floor sponsor of SB4002 ‘Ballot Proposition Amendments’ to jam through Amendment D, which was voided on ballots.

Ballots were printed before the Supreme Court decision that voided Amendment D took place, and the deceptive language of the ballot question became a public issue. The question implied foreign interference was a problem (it wasn’t, and never has been). The question failed to clearly state that the bill removed voter rights, and granted the legislature authority to override successful ballot initiatives passed by Utah voters. It was an outright sham.

Of course, Teuscher went online to defend the Amendment he was sponsoring. I broke the video down to call out the disinformation presented by Jordan and the Utah GOP.

Seeing Red? Vote Green

Jordan Teuscher is our representative, but he’s failing to serve constituents here. He is backing seriously flawed bills that end up in court. He’s an acolyte of the right wing and is a primary sponsor of the kind of cut and paste bill language from “foreign interests” that he accuses other parties as doing (every accusation is a confession). He doesn’t represent our values, he doesn’t serve our community, or the interests of Utah voters. My job has turned into asking you to vote for what’s best for you, what’s best for our district, and what’s best for Utah by helping me unseat Jordan Teuscher this election. I want to drop the rhetoric and focus on what’s best for Utahns. If you want to see my proposed 2025 legislation, take a look at https://utah44.com/proposed-2025-legislation/.

What’s Next? Stay Engaged

We are winning battles, but the fight isn’t over.

None of this is easy, but it matters greatly to be involved and to be part of positive change. If we don’t fight to defend our rights, and if we don’t actively engage, then we give ground.

No Retreat, No Surrender.

Posted on

Believe We Can Win This

It would be unusual. Utah House District 44 is a red district carved out in 2020 specifically to make it a safe Republican district. Jordan Teuscher has won two elections, first in the old District 42, then in the new District 44. He is the incumbent, a native Utahn, a lawyer, a member of the church, and a Republican. All of these traits bode well for a politician seeking votes from the voter base in South Jordan and West Jordan. It would take monumental effort, or possible re-districting, to move constituents towards another candidate.

But 2024 is not a usual year. Partisan politics have become historically raucous. Natalie Cline, then a member of the Utah State Board of Education, was censured for social media attacks against a high school athlete who she insinuated was transgender (the player is not, and that shouldn’t have mattered regardless; the fact that Cline would go after a high school student and draw dangerous attention towards her was unacceptable). The legislature holds the ability to impeach a public official, and although there were vocal calls that Cline should be impeached, the GOP majority could not muster the backbone required to impeach one of their own. The Utah GOP moved decidedly right at convention while the Republican base grew weary of the rhetoric – more moderate candidates like Spencer Cox and Celeste Malloy collected signatures to guarantee that their names would survive convention to appear on Republican primary ballots. The Republican convention produced a number of hard-right candidates like Phil Lyman and Trent Staggs who would eventually lose against their more moderate opponents.

General Session kicked off with bills attacking individual rights. At the beginning of general session this year, Utah House Speaker Mike Schultz started the legislative agenda to drive through GOP-sponsored bills whose language originated from outside of Utah: an anti-trans bathroom bill; shutting down DEI in public schools; and book bans. Utah followed a string of conservative states like Oklahoma, Missouri, Florida and Texas that pushed the same copy/paste legislation.

Jordan Teuscher also re-introduced his signature anti-union legislation that actively worked to dismantle worker rights for public employees, but this was killed due to overwhelming opposition from the public. Teuscher was also the sponsor of HB185 ‘Primary Ballot Requirements’ to remove candidates who qualify through signature gathering process, which also failed. This would have affected all parties, but particularly the Republican party. The Republican delegates are much further right than your regular Republican in Utah, and in a closed primary they were attempting to change the rules to make it more difficult for moderate Republican candidates to participate in Utah’s election process.

It was not a good start. Someone commented that the six weeks of general session was six weeks of responding to bad ideas.

Thankfully, there are checks and balances. It was after a number of Utah Supreme Court decisions (first to uphold an injunction against the legislature’s anti-abortion trigger law, and shortly after determining that the gerrymandering case against the legislature had legs and could continue to be actioned in a lower court) that the Republican-led House decided to call an emergency session. What was the emergency? The will of the people, apparently. During the session, Jordan Teuscher was the House sponsor for SJR401, which would change the Utah constitution to remove the people’s legislative power of citizen initiatives. Teuscher was also the House floor sponsor of SB4002 House Sponsor of ‘Ballot Proposition Amendments’ to enable jamming through Amendment D, and Amendment A in 2024, which were both voided by the Utah Supreme Court. The worst part? In what should be called an ethics violation, Senate President Stuart Adams and House Speaker Schultz wrote particularly misleading ballot language that described Amendment D as the opposite of what it was; a power grab by the Utah legislature.

What was the emergency? The will of the people, apparently. Rep Jordan Teuscher leads when it comes to taking away the rights of voters and obstructing candidates from public office.

Utah voters are frustrated by the extreme partisanship of the Republican legislature. Their inability to self-manage outrageous behavior in their party, followed by egregious attempts to dismantle personal rights of Utahns, then disrespect voters with outright lies and a request for us to vote against our personal interests, is pushing constituents to look closely at their representatives and claimed party values. The Republican party even admitted to its own over-reach as it attempted to gaslight voters.

The Utah GOPs under-statement of the year.

We need real representation. The Republican legislature is betting that they will survive the 2024 election cycle so that they can continue to introduce more bills sponsored from out of state, that work against the better interests of Utahns and don’t reflect who we are.

There were no Republican candidates who challenged Teuscher this year. Third parties decided not to back a non-partisan candidate in this race, likely because they didn’t see an investment in what was considered a safe red seat. I joined the race as a protest vote, but have found support after the series of events (above) that were hand-delivered to me by the Republican party. In fact, they are nervous enough to start throwing money at the end of the race to stabilize their (now questionable) candidate.

We are closing in on the last week of the election cycle. Less than half of the voters in the House District have cast their votes so far (filter on HD44), and I will be lucky to see narrower margins than were in the past against my incumbent opponent. I’m here to say that we could win, if enough voters are tired of the litany of bad bills, expensive litigation, constitutional violations and breaches of individual rights that the Utah Republican party has produced this year. Teuscher is a primary sponsor of some of the worst bills. We can continue to fight his bad ideas in the legislature, or we can unseat him and bring in a new representative who will defend voter rights, and begin to work for the people of Utah.

We can win this. One of the constitutional powers you have is to elect representatives. That power can also be used to unseat a legislator who doesn’t represent your issues and values. Please use that power. I’m asking you to use your voice and vote by Tuesday, November 5… and I would truly appreciate your vote.

Be well (represented)!

Posted on

Notes of Thanks

When I started running for office on January 5 this year, I was starting a long learning curve to onboard as a candidate in the Utah political scene. Every day was something new for me, and at times it was overwhelming to consider what was left to accomplish before it was over. As we get to the end of this campaign I want to give thanks to the people who were my tribe for this work. I would not be here without them.

First and foremost, my family Angela, Risa, Natalie and Aaron deserve recognition for putting up with me throughout this whole thing. Campaigns are stressful, and they have seen every side of me since I filed to run. Thank you for your support, and your patience, and for putting up (to here!) when I could only take so much sh!## during the campaign (that’s a Eurovision Song Contest reference). Angela was always the one to tell me to hold on and think about it before I pressed the ‘send’ button. Natalie was and is my manager of social media. Risa and Aaron were the willing volunteers at every corner of the campaign.

Dr. Lori Taylor – without Lori’s mentorship and guidance I would not be here. Without a co-commiserator and planner of things, I would not have any of my wits left. Lori’s commitment to the party, her persistence in fighting for principals, and the immense respect I have for her are what led me to joining to become a house district vice-chair, then a candidate for the Utah House District. I have leaned on, texted, called and spent time with Lori more than anyone else throughout this campaign. She is always clear, she is willing to say the things I don’t want to hear but need to hear, she is honest, and she truly cares about what we’re doing; and that makes her invaluable to me. Thank you, thank you, thank you Lori.

Rep Ashlee Matthews – who calmed my panic and doubt, who talked me through the first days and shared her story, then encouraged me to find my voice so that I could build a message that would resonate with voters. I am deeply grateful for her time (all during the 2024 general legislative session) to speak with me as I was starting my candidacy.

Catherine Voutaz – whose always-positive and always-pragmatic outlook offered fresh perspective when I needed to hear it, and whose organizing capacity for the southwest region candidates was astounding. She shared her experience and brought candidates together so that we could leverage our campaigns more effectively for city and county events. She helped me understand that positive, consistent outreach was critical is setting paths for conversations to build.

Wendy Davis – who first shared her experience in her book The Fight You Don’t See, then provided one-on-one discussion about outreach and data analysis so that she, Lori and I could design a strategy for outreach in HD44. Her education, political background, experience, empathetic guidance and assurances were invaluable to me. I’m indebted to her kindness and willingness to talk.

Darlene McDonald – who embodies the spirit of democracy. Darlene connects my community together like no other because she has gone before me and made the road that I follow. She and I have a bunch of connections, the least of which I look like Michael McDonald, and she’s married to a Michael McDonald. Seriously though – I’m indebted to Darlene for being someone that I can talk to at any time, and she’ll be there.

Amber Hendrix – from the Salt Lake County Democratic office, who I found trust and alignment with. Amber navigated me through questions and concerns about party operations, and was a voice of reason throughout the campaign. Amber did a lot of the lifting in the campaign with her outreach and engagement on behalf of the Democratic party that was essential to getting things done.

Jennifer Miller Smith – who is an absolute gem because her cause is true, her commitment is high, and because she is straightforward and plainly speaks her case. I admire her integrity and the number of roles she fills in places across the democratic party. She truly embraces democratic values. She supports her causes with a passion I have yet to see from anyone else.

Jade Velazquez – from the Salt Lake County Democratic office, who has a plan and the persistence to see it through to a successful end. He also works with grace and humor, and is an example that we all can follow.

Sen Luz Escamilla – whose gift was to spend time with me at a Union meet and greet to clarify my message and better understand how to communicate with voters. She didn’t know me, she corrected me when I thought she was Angela Romero, and she was graceful enough to still give her time and some highly needed instruction to a new candidate. I am sincerely grateful, and I won’t mistake her again when I meet her.

Jacob Lawson – who has the ridiculous capacity to always, always engage where he needs to be. Jacob was my outreach and my eyes in voting districts. He constantly asked what could be done, and was essential for lit drops and canvassing in South Jordan and West Jordan. In my campaign, Jacob is the face of the new generation of politics coming to Utah, and I can’t be more proud to have him as part of the team.

Olivia Anderson and Elliott Kauffman – from the Utah State Democratic office, who created training and delivered candidate fundamentals to me and a host of new candidates at all levels. I really started to get a better picture of everything that needed to be done as we walked through weekly trainings and Elliott’s fun storytelling.

Scott Bell, who literally brought the bell. Best volunteer and hang-out partner for sign pickups. He has a great background story, and there’s even a story about the bell. He’s engaged and supports area candidates, and he shares ideas. We need more people like Scott who jump in and help out any time. He is also a great Sunday coffee house partner.

Kate Staples, who I have mad respect for. She began in a 3-way race for HD39 and had to deal with some brutal political BS at the start regarding staying in the race as a Democrat or working with a campaign strategy to back an unaffiliated candidate. She made a difficult decision to withdraw, but one she was able to be comfortable with. She was ethical, she earnestly campaigned, and her decision was based on what was best for her and for flipping the district. I know that was difficult, and she did it with grace. She also has the best shoes of anyone in this list.

Joel Frost, Sheila Srivastava, and Kent Setterberg – part of the Fantastic Four for county elections, these three were regular engagements for me in campaign events, and I needed a little of their good energy. Joel is the consummate dude, Sheila has the engagement, and Kent is the warmth and heart of good politics. I appreciate all of the work you have put in, yet still had extra to share on the campaign road.

Mimi Setterberg – who deserves recognition on her own for starting and running a campaign from scratch. She is the person behind Kent’s campaign, and truly is up and coming with the work that she has put into things. I’m excited to see what she does in the future.

Eli McCann and Skylar Westerdahl – for opening up your family to meet with me, and giving me an opportunity to talk with Republicans in my District. Your level of trust, and willingness to introduce me to neighbors is something that I’m grateful for. You work in the principal of kindness first, always.

Brad Asay, who was the first person who told me that he thought I could win. I didn’t say it then but I was truly grateful that you got behind me and supported my campaign. Those words mattered greatly then, and your hands-on support afterwards was motivating to me. Thank you.

These are individual thanks, and there are rightfully more who aren’t here. I will probably publish this and realize who I left out (and I apologize for that).

My message here is to recognize that this campaign, and my work is a collaboration. Almost everyone I mention here are new to me since January, but they have leaned in and offered advice, or their experience, or their support and their hours to help me get here. I can’t do this alone. It’s 10 days out from the general election today, and I’m counting on your votes to finish this. Regardless of where the election goes, know that I am grateful to those who stepped up.

Your voice matters, and your voice is your vote. Please vote this election cycle.

Posted on

Teuscher is No Friend to Teachers

Recently, I was surprised by a tone-deaf endorsement of Teuscher from Jim Moss @epsomjrm, Chair of the Utah Board of Education @utboardofed. Jordan is no friend to teachers or to public schools. Why Jim endorsed a legislator who attacks public employee interests, defunds public schools, and hasn’t bothered to be present at any of the public schools in his district during his entire tenure in the House is the poorest and most partisan thing he could do as a board member of USBE.

“Jordan’s dedication to supporting students and teachers, and encouraging parent engagement has made a significant impact.” – Jim Moss, who clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about

Teuscher is no friend to teachers

Jordan has repeatedly attacked public employee associations, including teachers associations like the Utah Education Association (UEA). During general session this year, Teuscher wrote HB285 to make it more difficult for public employees to organize and collectively bargain for safe working conditions, decent wages and benefits, and legal protections. In 2023, he wrote HB241, an anti-union bill designed to starve public unions of money and kill their ability to operate at all in the organizations they serve. Both bills failed to pass due to overwhelming opposition.

It’s worth noting that I have endorsements from the Utah Education Association (UEA), Jordan Education Association, Utah Parents for Teachers, and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT).

Teuscher wants to defund (not defend) public education

This is what Jordan Teuscher said when talking about the 2023 HB215 Utah Fits All Scholarship voucher program:

“as these students come out of public schools, a lot of time, and I’ve heard this from teachers, a lot of times they’ll have to spend, you know, 80% of their time on 20% of the students because it’s just not the right fit. You know, maybe they have a disability or, you know, a learning challenge or something, they don’t learn the same way. And so if we can get those students into schools that focus on that need, and then the teachers can spend all their time dealing with the other 80% of the teachers [sic] it’s a total win-win for everyone. And that’s what I intend, that’s what I hope to see as it moves forward.“ – Jordan Teuscher

Teuscher writes poor legislation that gets tied up in courts

  • Teuscher wrote HB464 to allow parents to sue social media companies, and SB194 (i.e. the Utah Minor Protection in Social Media Act) that successfully passed but was immediately challenged in courts and subsequently blocked for violating first amendment rights. In the court’s response they stated “The court recognizes the State’s earnest desire to protect young people from the novel challenges associated with social media use,” … “But owing to the First Amendment’s paramount place in our democratic system, even well-intentioned legislation that regulates speech based on content must satisfy a tremendously high level of constitutional scrutiny.”

Although it’s good to protect our children from online harms, we need competent authors for legislation who aren’t simply showboating for votes, then leaving us with costly court fees.

Teuscher wants guns and religion to replace diversity and free expression in schools

  • Teuscher supports book bans. HB029
  • Teuscher supports muzzling teachers first amendment rights (HB303 and HB477)
  • Teuscher voted against diversity training (HB111) and against DEI initiatives (HB261)
  • Teuscher voted for guns in schools (HB119)
  • Teuscher voted for the anti-trans bathroom bill (HB257)
  • Teuscher voted for indoctrination in public schools (HB269 and HB514)

The bottom line: Teuscher doesn’t care about public employees, including teachers. He doesn’t care about our system of public education and is willing to undermine its funding and supports. How a USBE Board member could endorse him as a candidate is antithetical to the interests of public education, and disrespectful of the community of educators who represent and defend public education in Utah.

Posted on

As a Republican Party Member, Here’s Why You Should Vote for Me Instead of Jordan Teuscher

Hello – 

I’m writing to you because you are an important member of the Republican Party in Utah House District 44.  I know that you are a committed member of your party, but I’m asking you to consider voting for me – a Democrat – in this election.  There is good reason.  

For the past two elections, the incumbent Jordan Teuscher has represented South Jordan and West Jordan communities in House District 44, but he’s failing to serve constituents here. He doesn’t represent our values, he doesn’t serve our community, or the interests of Utah voters. I’m asking you to vote for what’s best for you, what’s best for our district, and what’s best for Utah by helping me unseat Jordan Teuscher this election.  I’m reaching out because I want to drop the rhetoric and focus on what’s best for Utahns.  

Teuscher leads, and actively works against Utah voters better interests, including yours: 

  • Teuscher was the House floor sponsor of SJR401, which became Amendment D to strip Utah voters of legislative rights (This was blocked by Utah Courts on Sep 12, 2024 for deceptive language, and for not following due process) – he now says that he will run it again
  • Teuscher was also the House floor sponsor of SB4002 House Sponsor of Ballot Proposition Amendments to jam through Amendment D, and Amendment A in 2024, which are both voided on our ballots. 
  • Teuscher voted for HJR14 to make it more difficult for Citizen Initiatives to pass (Failed/Not Passed)
  • Teuscher sponsored HB185 Primary Ballot Requirements to remove candidates who qualify through signature gathering process (Failed/Not Passed). This affects the Republican party, and as much as you may be vested in your closed primary, he’s attempting to change the rules to make it more difficult for Republican candidates to participate in Utah’s election process. 

Teuscher is writing bills poorly that are caught up in expensive legal battles that Utah eventually loses:

  • Teuscher sponsored the Minor Protection in Social Media Act (Blocked by Utah Courts for violating 1st amendment rights) – this was a good idea but executed poorly because it ignored first amendment rights in the bill language.
  • Teuscher defends Amendment D (which I tear apart here) with misinformation and lies. The cost for taxpayers to write the bill, publish on ballots, defend lawsuits and ultimately lose BADLY is not just embarrassing, it’s expensive. 
  • Teuscher also decries the Utah Supreme Court decisions to allow the Gerrymandering case to proceed in the lower court, as well as the injunction upheld by the Utah Supreme court on Utah’s trigger law.  Checks and balances are expensive when Jordan is involved. 

Teuscher actively works against the better interest of our public (state, county, municipal, school and first response) employees 

  • Teuscher was the sponsor of HB285 Labor Union Amendments to weaken public employee rights (Failed/Not Passed).  
  • He repeatedly submits bills that dismantle worker rights, and he consistently targets our public employees every time. 

Teuscher doesn’t care about religious freedoms

  • Teuscher was the House floor sponsor for SB150 Exercise of Religion Amendments to protect discriminatory acts based on religious belief (Passed)
  • Teuscher voted for HB269 to add Ten Commandments to public school curricula (Passed, expect civil liberties groups to file suit)

Teuscher doesn’t support our Public Schools

At the very minimum, find out what I want to do as your state representative, if I’m elected. https://utah44.com/proposed-2025-legislation/

If you made it this far, thank you.  We need a better voice in the Utah legislature. I’m asking you to consider making a vote for me based on your conscience and for better engagement. 

Be Well, 

Greg Green
Candidate, Utah House District 44 running against Jordan Teuscher

Posted on

What About Amendment C?

The best explanation is that Brad Wilson sponsored the bill before he left for his Senate race so that he could curry favor with rural Republicans, who embrace the idea of a Constitutional Sheriff. Of course, Brad lost any more opportunity when his campaign didn’t survive in the Republican Primary to John Curtis.

The bill originated as 2023 HRJ010, and was one of the last bills that Brad Wilson sponsored before he left office last year. In the October 4 podcast of City Cast Salt Lake, Robert Gehrke of the Salt Lake Tribune opines that it was downplayed.

Wilson says it doesn’t really change anything, but there is this undercurrent, this philosophy in conservative circles of a constitutional sheriff, which says that the sheriff is the supreme law of the county. This kind of plays into that. You can’t have a constitutional sheriff unless your sheriff is in the constitution. – Robert Gehrke (paraphrased)

The Constitutional Sheriff movement is about sheriffs having the power to interpret and enforce the constitution. Amendment C has nothing to do with sheriffs enforcing the constitution or giving sheriffs extra power. But it does embed the election of the Sheriff in Utah’s constitution, rather than simply have a law in Utah code. And Gehrke’s line of thought supports this idea of a Constitutional Sheriff in Utah.

Another suggested explanation for Amendment C was that Republicans were angry with Salt Lake County Sheriff Rivera, and threatened to change the law to make Sheriffs appointed instead of elected so they could remove her. However this doesn’t make much sense. The appointment would be by the local authority, and Salt Lake County is predominantly Democratic. By election law, impeachment is still possible. Republicans in the legislature know this, and with Brad Wilson and Stuart Adams as sponsors, there is zero chance that they were seeking to preserve Sheriff Rivera’s electability.

2023 was a tumultuous year for the Salt Lake County Sheriff and UPD. It’s worth noting that 2023 HB374, sponsored by Rep Jordan Teuscher, removed the Salt Lake County sheriff as CEO of the Unified Police Department and ultimately dissolves the agency in 2025, leaving Holladay, Midvale, Millcreek, Kearns, Copperton, White City and Magna to find new law enforcement services.

Rivera opposed the Teuscher bill to separate UPD from the Sheriff’s office in 2023, then decided she was okay with it. I’m wondering if this is another case where the GOP did something and she was like, what the hell but okay.

For the record, the Salt Lake County Democratic Party does recommend a “For” vote. I requested more information, and this statement was provided:

“As the Salt Lake County Democratic Party, our primary role is to support Democratic candidates who serve our community, and we are proud to stand behind Sheriff Rosie Rivera. Voting “Yes” on Amendment C is crucial because it ensures that the position of sheriff remains an elected one—decided by the people, not appointed by officials. By doing so, we protect the democratic process and safeguard the accountability that comes from direct elections. This is not only important for Sheriff Rivera, but also opens the door for more diverse candidates, including women and people of color, to compete fairly for the role. A “Yes” vote on Amendment C would enshrine in the state constitution that every county will elect a sheriff to serve four-year terms. This maintains the voice of the community in choosing its leaders and supports a fairer, more inclusive system of representation.”

Both side provide similar arguments on how elections or appointments make the community better. Elections allow anyone who meets qualifications for the office to run and hold the position, and are considered “safe” from political disputes while in office. This also means that an elected sheriff can run off the rails (think Joe Arpaio in Arizona) and not suffer consequences. Appointments make a sheriff more accountable to leadership and the community but can become tangled in political controversy. Appointments are more likely to be a cis-gendered white male, so if diversity is your thing you may want to elect your sheriff.

We don’t have a clear picture of the “why” behind this amendment, but it’s safe to say that the need to transform how a sheriff takes their role in Utah counties isn’t at risk today, and has little chance of being altered as a law in the future. Changing Utah’s code so that the election of a Sheriff is written into the Utah Constitution seems to only serve the narrow purpose of making right-wing conservatives think they are one step closer to having their version of a Constitutional Sheriff within Utah’s borders.

There isn’t a clear picture on whether to vote “For” or Against” Amendment C, but I am voting against it without a compelling reason to change the existing law.

References