REFLECTION · November 2, 2026 · The Shop

Many years ago, during my previous marriage, we were visiting family in Mississippi. My two older children were with us.

My wife's former brother-in-law had been drinking and was having problems. He arrived at the house and began banging on the door. One of my children was asleep in the room immediately beside it.

I spoke to him through a window and told him he needed to leave.

He ignored me and continued banging.

I suddenly threw the door wide open. Stepping forward into him, I struck him in the chest with the palms of both hands, knocking him backward off the porch and onto the gravel.

I told him to leave.

He got up, wiped his hands, looked toward his truck, and said, "I have something in there I could use."

I understood the implication.

I pressed forward toward the truck, took his keys, and told him he was walking home.

He left.

I wasn't going to allow that behavior around my children.

I've recalled that incident many times over the years. It was a moment of learning for me about how far someone will push when nobody effectively stops them.

Today, on the eve of the midterm election, I found myself thinking about it again.

I've been examining Trump's actions and the limitations of the institutions responsible for restraining abuses of power. Again and again, the discussion returns to what Congress can do, what courts can order, and what the Constitution requires.

I understand those things. But they describe how government is supposed to function, not necessarily how people behave when they have powerful reasons to ignore its restraints.

I've been calling Trump's administration an outlier. Yet we keep examining its behavior as though it falls somewhere within the normal range of political conduct.

Trump has already demonstrated a willingness to challenge an election he lost. He has substantial financial interests, a criminal conviction, and a history of legal proceedings. There are powerful incentives to retain control, and his administration continues to test institutional boundaries.

One confrontation follows another. A court issues an order. Another challenge begins. Yesterday's controversy disappears beneath today's.

I don't think those holding power necessarily need some dramatic final victory. Continuing to hold that power may be enough. Every delay, every unresolved confrontation allows them to continue.

Now, on the eve of an election, I wonder how much further this administration will press if the results threaten its control.

I hope I'm wrong.

So remember when they knock at the door.