Herb Strentz was dean of the Drake School of Journalism from 1975 to 1988 and professor there until retirement in 2004. He was executive secretary of the Iowa Freedom of Information Council from its founding in 1976 to 2000.
Former Des Moines Register columnist Rekha Basu offered an open letter to U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley in the Sunday Des Moines Register on September 28: “Congress must stand up to Trump’s lawlessness. That means you, Chuck Grassley.” Her letter was a 1,000-word indictment of President Trump’s second term, ending with this question:
“What is your tipping point, Senator Grassley? Surely you, too, have apprehensions about how this presidency is playing out.”
She did not have to wait long for a response from Grassley, nor did readers. Alongside Basu’s column, the Register published a “Your turn” 950-word commentary, in which Grassley acknowledged our worrisome times. Excerpt:
In the last 15 years, I’ve seen the coarsening of civic life and how partisan fault lines have further divided Americans. Unlike the social unrest in the 1960s, today’s schism is inflamed by social media that breeds intolerance and distrust among neighbors. Chatting behind screens instead of rubbing elbows at community events exacerbates polarization and fuels politics as a bloodsport. In recent years, the Kavanaugh hearings, Black Lives Matter riots, Jan. 6, War on Cops and anti-ICE protests reflect America’s polarization.
But here’s the catch:
Basu mentioned President Donald Trump by name fourteen times in her letter and several more times by pronoun or the word “president.”
Grassley did not mention Trump at all—not once, not by name nor by any inference as to what Trump did or should have done in returning to the White House. The closest suggestion that Trump or MAGA ranks may have anything to do with today’s fears and turmoil is Grassley’s four-character reference to “Jan. 6,” noted above.
Instead, Grassley focused on assassinations in the past 160 years. He expressed hope, even confidence, that our nation will pull through.
The assassinations Grassley lists as tests of American democracy include those of Presidents Abraham Lincoln in 1865 and John F. Kennedy in 1963 and of Robert F. Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King in 1968.
But, he reflected, “America would pull through” those perilous times, although “The resilience of our American experiment is once again being tested.”
The test this time, Grassley wrote, results from the September 10 murder of the far right activist Charlie Kirk, a month shy of his 32nd birthday—a crime that Grassley characterized as “another turning point in U.S. history.”
In his political popularity, activism and achievements, Grassley said, Kirk “personified free speech.” That characterization of and tribute to Kirk, however, is called into question by reference to bigotry in Kirk speeches.
As The Guardian newspaper observed, Kirk “was known for throughout his career – making incendiary and often racist and sexist comments to large audiences.”
That troubling report does not justify the killing of Kirk, but it does raise questions about why Grassley ended his column with these words: “In honor of Charlie Kirk’s legacy, let’s commit ourselves to heed our ‘better angels’ and love thy neighbor.”
Another way to respond
Instead of, or in addition to, asking us to honor Kirk, Grassley could have urged the nation to heed the words of Kirk’s widow, Erika, at the September 21 memorial service. She said of the accused murderer, Tyler Robinson, “I forgive him because it was what Christ did [from the cross] and is what Charlie would do. The answer to hate is not hate. The answer we know from the Gospel is love and always love. Love for our enemies and love for those who persecute us.”
While that approach would have been better, it still would fall short of answering Basu’s question. What might be Grassley’s “tipping point” to support Congress asserting itself as a coequal branch of government, as Trump abuses of power grow darker by the day? That’s why we are supposed to have a system of checks and balances among the judicial, legislative, and executive branches. As an eight-term U.S. Senator, Grassley has conspicuously never held Trump accountable for his domestic and international action against those who do not bow before him and our long- term allies.
I have mentioned that point a few times in emails to Grassley’s office, citing the quote or paraphrase attributed to Edmund Burke, John Stuart Mill and others: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men to do nothing.”
No tipping point in view
The replies from Grassley do not address the “good men do nothing” aspect of the quote, because he is always doing something on behalf of Iowa or working on bipartisan issues.
This passage, from a response his office sent on March 28, is typical: “My focus will remain on passing meaningful legislation that benefits Iowa and the nation as a whole. I am proud to say that I have consistently been ranked by nonpartisan groups as one of the most bipartisan lawmakers.”
And to quote from a Bleeding Heartland post of mine, published in near the end of Trump’s first term in September 2020: “He has sort of a routine response to questions about why he has not been more critical of Trump — [even] when Trump has all but destroyed a centerpiece of Grassley’s legacy, the work of inspector generals and whistleblowers to keep government accountable. Grassley’s typical two-fold answer is (1) he has always held presidents accountable, but (2) his job is to represent Iowans and not to get into squabbles with the president that the news media focus on.”
To my mind—and many others agree—Trump’s misuse and abuse of presidential powers go well beyond political squabbles.
Consider Grassley’s record over his past two or three terms in office. Given his September 28 commentary, it looks like we have a two-fold answer to Basu’s question about when Iowa’s senior senator may finally be willing to criticize Trump in the public arena.
Either a dismissive one, “Don’t hold your breath,” or a more strident version: “When hell freezes over.”
Top image, left: President Donald Trump speaks to reporters on the South Lawn of the White House on February 28, 2025. Photo by Joshua Sukoff, available via Shutterstock. Top image, right: official photo of Senator Chuck Grassley.
5 Comments
"Civility and respect"??
After rereading Senator Grassley’s op-ed and then rereading some Charlie Kirk quotations, I think Grassley must have different concepts of those words than I do.
PrairieFan Sun 12 Oct 7:58 PM
I mean this is the guy who when
running for re-election (in a race he would obviously win) spread a conspiracy theory about jackbooted machine gun wielding IRS agents storming Iowans putting federal workers at risk, who helped put together the worst, most reactionary, Supreme Court in our history, voted against MLK day, pushes the “Arctic Frost”conspiracy theory about Jan 6, and on an on. Who do people think he is when they ask him these questions, someone with a good moral compass, someone who can be shamed, someone who embraces Liberal values, and on and on? He’s a prime example of why it’s truly anti-democratic for states with low populations like Iowa to have 2 senators and we should own this harm we keep inflicting the nation and stop looking for scapegoats outside of our state to blame (of course there are outside money groups pushing agendas here but they need willing and able locals to get things done). The real question is what is the tipping point of the electorate. or at least when do we come to accept that MAGA values are Iowa values?
dirkiniowacity Mon 13 Oct 11:00 AM
1974 and 1980
I lived in Iowa Falls in 1973 in the then-3rd Congressional District.when Grassley, the 40-year old conservative from New Hartford, who had been 16 years in Iowa House, first ran for Congress. His opponent was Steve Rapp a young attorney from Cedar Falls who also in the Iowa House. If you don’t know Rapp, Goggle him to see what a hand full more votes could have sent Grassley home to the farm. That election proved to be a nation changer … not in a good way.
In 1980 Congressman Grassley ran for the U.S. Senate against the sitting Democratic Senator John Culver, Chet’s father. Culver was a giant in the senate, a friend of the Kennedys. Iowans picked the small-minded Grassley over the bold liberal Culver. The vote was a difference for the nation that lasted 45 years and eventually a rotten SCOTUS and a thousand other votes. Goggle Culver to read his story. He authored a book about Henry Wallace, another Iowan of note.
Gerald Ott Tue 14 Oct 8:41 PM
Speaking of Turning Points....
I remember the Grassley-Culver race. The only words out of hungry Chuck’s pie-hole during those days was “tax and spend liberal.” Four words that, in normal times, would’ve been laughed off as the insincere, unserious (by Iowa’s own standards) and cynical comments they were. That, in my opinion, was the real beginning of the end of a possibly wiser Iowa….and here we are.
…and not a word from CG about how Iowa farmers are losing their markets and possibly their livelihoods while rural Iowa’s choice for POTUS sends actual bailout (tax) dollars to some guy with a chain saw in Venezuela. Breathtaking.
dbmarin Thu 16 Oct 12:33 PM
I also remember the Grassley-Culver race.
I had arrived here a few years earlier and was basically in love with Iowa. I talked up living here to family and friends in other states. It was in 1980 that the Iowa/me relationship started to become more, um, realistic. It was bound to happen one way or another, but Grassley’s victory was quite a jolt.
PrairieFan Thu 16 Oct 10:06 PM