The moment lived is history, that is, history in its progress through time. If so, how do we truly “live in the moment” that is irretrievably receding into our past? In truth, we humans are constantly reconstructing our present experience from our past. And that reconstruction determines our future. In other words, each of us exists in a world we partially create from our sensual perception of a world as interpreted through the lens of our past experiences. If this line of reasoning sounds like a circular argument, then you perceive the mystery of human perception at the very moment it is individually experienced. Is it any wonder then, that we can differ so widely between what we perceive as reality or what others may determine as reality?¹ As a result, the preconceived notions of others can hold sway over our lived experience. If confronted with indisputable evidence or scientifically proven facts, we often choose to accept a reality we did not previously identify. Or we might simply accept as reality whatever a trusted person tells us. And therein lies the secret of any dictator’s success over a supplicant society. The dictator might tell us to believe in a reality not proven by either scientific or factual evidence nor personal experience and judgment.  

As a result, Americans at this point in our country’s history are torn between two vastly different perceptions of reality. In the world created by political operatives, the present is too often redefined by preconceptions, that is, a predisposition to displace the reality perceived by an individual’s experience. The individual’s ability to validate and learn from his/her experience is negated by such predispositions. There are many examples of this phenomenon in very recent American history—and a warning as well. 

The first predisposition.  

On January 6, 2021, there was either a peaceful citizen protest against a rigged election or a violent insurrection intended to impede the peaceful transfer of power and the results of a free democratic election. Donald Trump, and his unquestioning followers, claimed that the incident was peaceful and/or justified. But 140 officers were seriously injured and at least one of them died because of this wild melee at our Nation’s capital. The notion of a peaceful assembly is the result of a false narrative deployed to preempt the obvious reality and predispose fellow citizens to accept a lie. Instead of a peaceful demonstration there really was a violent insurrection designed to at least forestall, if not kill, the certification of a national election.  

The second predisposition. 

Hundreds of protestors have since been convicted and sentenced to prison for their participation in this attack on the American capital. And no evidence has ever been presented to justify their claims that the election was rigged. Nevertheless, Donald Trump and his followers have superimposed a false justification for a violent attack on the nation’s capital–reprising the only previous attack by the British in the war of 1812. The British attack is recorded history. And the Trump-inspired attack was seen and recorded in real time—thereby documenting it as an historical event. When Trump sent his followers to the capital with the words “you have to fight like hell, or you will not have a country anymore,” he was not defending our democratic state, but directing its overthrow. His preconceived ambition for America, therefore, was a dictatorship under his sole control, rather than a democracy ruled by its citizens. He was predisposing his followers to demonstrate allegiance to him, rather than to America’s democracy.  

The third predisposition. 

But do his followers realize their support of his fascist ambitions would spell the end of the American democracy? When he states his intent to disband various institutions of government and the very Constitution that defines America’s democracy, should his subjects simply fall in line behind his leadership? How is it that he can claim such power? The answer is quite simple: he cannot, unless we citizens grant him that power. And bequeathing him that power would be a betrayal of the responsibility that every citizen has in a democracy, that is, the power of self-government. Our Constitution not only gives us that power, but it outlines the basis for self-government in values, principles, and laws. ²   Although our world is constantly changing, every American citizen lives within the parameters of the American Constitution and the responsibilities it demands of us. And that demand has perhaps never been more pressing than at this moment in time. For Donald Trump is predisposing Americans to believe our institutions—including a national election and the peaceful turnover of power—are the “enemy within” that represent what he terms the “American carnage.”  

The fourth predisposition. 

In Donald Trump’s bastardization of the capitalist “virtuous cycle,” the rich both control and benefit from a growing economy abetted by their influence over government. But his interpretation of Adam Smith’s logic is perverse and not at all virtuous, for Smith placed the advance of domestic industry not in the hands of the rich and powerful, but in the contributions of every individual led by “an invisible hand.”³ And Jefferson clearly believed it “self-evident . . . that all men (sic) are created equal . . . endowed . . . with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” And that pursuit is not just a right guaranteed by the American Constitution but enhanced by Adam Smith’s definition of the virtuous cycle wherein he gives voice to an individual’s pursuit of happiness. Donald Trump, however, believes that not only his wealth but also his narcissistic self-characterization demand he stay in office for the duration of his life. After all, his oft-repeated declaration that “only he can make America great again,” presumes he should never concede his Presidency to impeachment or a plebiscite. 4 

 The fifth predisposition. 

Donald Trump presents himself as a business tycoon and a glorious winner who demolishes his rivals in any competition—whether in the Presidency, in the courts, in business, in golf, or in the wrestling ring. “Make America great again” and “America first” are goals he asserts that only he could attain and realize—assumedly, for the benefit of all citizens. Of course, his wrestling prowess was staged, his golf trophies were rigged at his courses, and in like manner were his other touted successes. After bilking his brothers and sisters out of their inheritance, he squandered his father’s fortune into six bankruptcies. But, in the tabloids, he displayed the lifestyle of a billionaire “playboy.” In truth, his only business success was achieved by his first wife. On his own merits, he ran every one of his enterprises into the ground—including his wife’s achievement—while declaring six bankruptcies. When he refused to pay laborers, he avoided accountability in the courts, by exhausting the resources of his plaintiffs with endless appeals.  As a candidate for the Presidency and as President, his criminal activity did not subside but expanded (reference the footnotes in the previous blog, “The Blessings of Liberty”).  

My fellow Americans, ask yourselves how it is possible to believe Donald Trump:  

• that the January 6 riot at the capital was peaceful and not an insurrection;  

• that we must show allegiance to Donald Trump, the leader and antagonist for that insurrection;  

• that our national institutions, including mandated Federal elections, are the “enemy within”;  

• that Donald Trump is justified in not conceding the Presidency as demanded by the Constitution and a lawfully conducted Federal election (specific reference to Article II and subsequent related Amendments XII, XX, XXII, XXV);  

• and that his continuation in office is in any way beneficial to American citizens?  

In the past 235 years since George Washington became our first President, no American President has attempted to remain in office unless duly elected. Although former President Trump can legally run for a second term, the insurrection he led after losing his bid for a second term should invalidate his credentials as a candidate for reelection. For, clearly, he does not believe in term limits and would attempt to remain in office for the duration of his life. 

For America, this moment in time is as pivotal to our country’s history as Jefferson’s “Declaration of Independence,” the ratification of the American Constitution, Robert E. Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, and America’s victories in two World Wars. In these moments of American history, the fate of our 248-year-old democracy and of other democracies it has supported was established and/or protected. But now Donald Trump demands to be President, claiming “only he can” make America great again. Even if he loses an election, he will claim the election must have been rigged. His resultant tantrum over losing will witness the violence he promised—what he termed “a bloodbath” –and whatever else political chaos he can muster. He believes he can thereby hold American democracy hostage to his will. And he is predisposing Americans to accept the inevitability of his Presidency-for-life.  

But, in our Constitutional democracy, “we the people” perfect our union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, and provide for a common defense, while relentlessly promoting the general welfare and the blessings of liberty for all Americans. So how do we live in this moment? Well, we either vote for the values of our Constitutional democracy or for their demise in favor of a “fascist of the first order” (as quoted by Mark Milley, the 20th chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff). 

Just remember that your vote at this moment in time will create a history that you and others must live both now and into the future. Will we secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity?  

If not, then we will elect a twice impeached ex-President who had bilked the electorate into believing he was a great businessman whose qualities mirrored the character he portrayed in a TV series. But that character was simply fictional. The real Trump wasted a billion-dollar inheritance, ran various business ventures into six bankruptcies, and had indulged in sexual abuse, fraud and tax evasion for which he was found guilty after his term in office. Currently, he faces multiple felony indictments for crimes he committed while in office (reference the “generic footnote” in “The Blessings of Liberty”). Does Trump offer a future we Americans should follow? 

We have only this moment in time to create America’s history, set the course for millions of our fellow citizens, and affect the prospects for those Americans not yet born. 5 

_____________________________________ 

1 This paragraph is inspired by Einstein’s theory of relativity that most of us were taught in school but may have struggled to understand.  

2 Reference the previous blog, “The Blessings of Liberty.” 

3 “As every individual, therefore, endeavors as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours (sic) to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. . . he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.” Adam Smith, in “The Wealth of Nations,” pp. 347-348. 

4 Trump’s refusal to concede his election loss is consistent with the mindset of any dictator. Note the parallelisms here with Putin in “Post Inauguration Thoughts on Power and Government.” 

5 Unfortunately, I have sounded prophetic once before. In December of 2015, shortly after I decided to write a blog, I wrote “The Trump Bump.” The “Donald” had just won his Party’s candidacy for the Presidency. At that time, I could not have known how accurately I was forecasting the demise of the Republican Party. Now I reach an audience nearly 30 times greater than I did in 2015. And I shudder at the prospects that this warning might go unheeded. 

Populo libertatem ut quod velint faciant  (Marcus Tullius Cicero) 

People have liberty when what they will becomes reality. Cicero, as quoted here, was specifically referring to political freedom, which he distinguished from the license (i.e., licentia) or permission to do whatever one pleases. Political freedom implies very specific responsibilities, not laissez faire permissiveness. Our founding fathers did “ordain and establish” the American Constitution wherein they specified our freedom “to form a more perfect Union” as an individual right to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Further, our forefathers defined this liberty in the Ciceronian sense, for they qualified it in the same sentence with the necessity to “establish justice… insure (sic) domestic Tranquility… provide for the common defence (sic)… promote the general Welfare… (and thereby) secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Constitutional liberty then is both specific and universal—both personal and societal. As a result, it must be the shared responsibility of every American citizen. Otherwise, democracy or “rule by the people” would not be viable and Congressional compromise impossible, resulting inevitably in deadlock or worse. Stated bluntly, there might only be chaos.  

Adherence to our Constitution and its stated objectives is the foundation of American citizenship and our legal system. Our government then must reflect and consolidate both our Constitutional values and the people’s will, otherwise any unity of purpose would likely collapse into chaos. And that collapse would spell the end of any democracy. To quote our first President once again, “your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.” ¹ The union that Washington demanded to secure our liberty was—and must still be—the dedication of each and every American to the Constitution and the democratic values it has defined. That union not only secures our liberty but demands compromise of our elected officials. To what other end should our elected officials aspire if not the preservation of our democracy and its blessings of liberty? Without compromise, there is no union. Without our union, neither democracy nor the liberty it provides would or could endure. 

Our founding fathers could not have foreseen the America of succeeding centuries, nor the evolution of our democracy. Certainly, they were aware of the ignominy of slavery but seemed impervious to the implicit misogyny reflected in women’s inability to own a home or to vote. But our democracy has evolved and expanded to grant citizenship to former slaves and to expand the rights of women to own property, to vote, to earn equal pay, and even to run for the highest office in the land. This evolution, however, always comes as a challenge to Americans’ adherence to our Constitutional values. Periodically, we are tasked to reapply—or even redefine—the blessings of liberty. And challenges of this nature often result in legal battles or even physical confrontations between citizens. The Civil War and the women’s suffrage movement, however, were not the only challenges to our democracy, though perhaps the most dramatic confrontations.  

Chaos is always knocking at the door of American democracy for our freedoms are often challenged by unforeseen circumstances, such as foreign wars, natural disasters, or civil unrest. The latter is indicative of a free democratic society where change is often spurred by argument or even by demonstrations. For politics in a free society is nurtured by the struggle of citizens to realize their Constitutional values in changing times. But that struggle can too easily be lost by those who choose to ignore or oppose those values. The irony here is that this opposition can often cloak itself in a false sense of freedom where license is actually intended. Self-interest then dominates over communal benefit. What becomes questionable then may be how we define democracy and whom we deem worthy of its “blessings of liberty.” 

Do immigrants escaping disasters and/or life-threatening poverty deserve the same freedoms guaranteed to American citizens? Should fugitives fleeing oppressive regimes be welcomed into American society? Historically, both immigrants and fugitives have been admitted into America, even welcomed by the words engraved in the Statue of Liberty. ² The key word in this welcome is “free.” Those who seek freedom in America must swear to uphold the Constitutional values that define our freedom as Americans. Citizenship in our democratic republic demands acceptance of and adherence to the Constitution, including the laws and judicial system derived from it.  

America was not born from native inhabitants, but from settlers and migrants from other countries “yearning to breathe free.”² Our founding fathers were students of Europe’s “enlightenment” who sought refuge from competing philosophies, religious wars, and sovereign oppression. While redefining “liberty,” they redefined citizenship and the responsibility of every citizen to support and adhere to the common values expressed in our Constitution. Our freedom has a price that definitively excludes the license to serve oneself at the expense of other’s right to the blessings of liberty. And the American Constitution realizes the promise of Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence wherein he recognized our equality at birth and the rights of all Americans to secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity.    

Remember when we all used to begin every school day with America’s pledge of allegiance . . . “to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands with liberty and justice for all.” This pledge reiterates the promise of our Constitution, to which every officer of our country must all swear allegiance. Wherein that allegiance do we find ourselves today? And does not that allegiance serve to assure the blessings of liberty for all of us and our posterity?  

But some may not be included in the blessings of liberty. America’s immigration policy, for example, is not fully funded to either refuse ineligible migrant admissions or administer court directed decisions regarding migrants’ requirements for admission to our country AND their requests for citizenship. In addition, the time required to gain citizenship can be years, creating a backlog and family separations for insufferably long periods of time. Does our immigration policy extend the blessings of liberty to today’s immigrants as it once did for many of our ancestors? Or do Americans choose to exclude the blessings of liberty to those not born in America? If this exclusion is what we will then most Americans do not merit the blessings of liberty, for our ancestors entered America as immigrants. Are not most Americans, in fact, descendants of immigrants? And do not the Constitution’s blessings of liberty, therefore, extend to all Americans whether born here or naturalized? 

In like manner, how can voter suppression laws and gerrymandering assure fair elections when they demonstrably invalidate citizens’ voting rights? No democracy can assure the blessings of liberty without fair and untampered elections.  

As a corollary to this liberty principle, no candidate can represent democracy who claims he/she cannot be defeated except by a rigged election. Unless evidence is provided, this mere accusation reveals nothing other than the fear of losing? For example, a child about to play a competitive game could either quit the game for fear of losing or accuse his/her opponent of cheating beforehand. This latter option is dishonest for it reveals the fear—even foreknowledge—of losing. In a democratic election, this accusation is also un-American for it preempts voter consensus (i.e., democracy or “rule by the people”) and the “Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity.” Besides being dishonest, it is downright childish, as demonstrated by Donald Trump, a current candidate for the Presidency. 

Yes, America is currently embroiled in a Presidential campaign like no other in its history.  Washington, our first President led us to victory in our war of Independence and validated the peaceful transfer of executive power in our nascent democracy. Lincoln was our sixteenth President. He preserved the principles of unity and freedom inherent to our democracy by his conduct of the Civil War and his Emancipation Proclamation. Roosevelt was our 32nd President. He led us through our worst Depression and a World War.  Donald Trump was our 45th President during the worst pandemic in nearly a hundred years. To his credit, he did endeavor to fund development of the vaccine required to stem the spread of the Covid pandemic. But President Trump never fully rose to the challenge Covid presented to the American people. He never developed an effective plan to deliver the Covid vaccine or address the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people and their rising death toll.³   Certainly, sickness and a rising death toll do not administer the blessings of liberty to the American people. 

As President, Donald Trump ran up the greatest debt of any President in American history by granting massive cuts in taxes for the richest Americans and businesses. The Trump debt will impact future government programs intended to benefit the American people and further the blessings of liberty and our individual pursuit of happiness.  

He did, however, end our costly war in Afghanistan, but only by reaching an agreement with the Taliban that made no mention of power sharing with the existing Afghanistan government. As a result, this agreement freed Americans of a long-term commitment to a Middle Eastern country, but at an unintended cost in lives and the future of a free Afghanistan.4   

Instead of truly noteworthy achievements, Trump’s Presidency offered outlandish episodes of self-aggrandizement where he claimed himself the greatest President “the likes of which have never been seen before.” In truth, Americans never had a President who appointed sycophants to undermine the departments assigned to them (note the previous blog and its references). Nor did Americans expect him to undermine NATO and brag about his relationships with and admiration for dictators like Vladimir Putin or Kim Jung-un. Nor did Americans expect his promise to lower taxes transform into a huge decrease in taxes for the highest earners and richest corporations at the expense of average Americans—and, as a result, the largest increase in the national debt of any preceding Presidential term.   

The current Presidential campaign is like no other for multiple reasons. First, we have the first woman candidate with a record of civil service several times greater than any Presidential candidate in most of our lifetimes.5 And then we have former President Trump, a man who excels at playing the man-in-charge—like his character in the Apprentice. But his showmanship has offered nothing in the form of real achievements. Nevertheless, he is a formidable campaigner, equipped with antidotes that entertain his admirers and with schoolyard insults that belittle or shame an opponent or adversary. He seems unusually defensive around women—meaning he becomes especially obnoxious. For example, he seems to address professional women as adversaries by putting them down as “not my type” or “nasty” if they challenge him with a question. He is especially reactive to black women—perhaps because they trigger both his racism and misogyny. He needs little cause to act like the characteristic schoolyard bully that he so well exemplifies.  

And, finally, there is Project 2025: a blueprint for turning our democracy into a puppet government with just one man holding all the levers of power. And this is the man who seems to believe whatever he imagines as reality. For example, does he not think tariffs are paid by governments that export goods to America? Of course he does. But we pay for the tariffs when we purchase their exports. Does he not think we are freer without public education, the EPA, the CDC, reasonable gun legislation, the Federal Reserve, or the other governmental institutions created by our legislature to serve and protect the American public? Of course he does. Does Donald Trump in any way serve the Constitution he says he would like to replace? Of course he does not! In fact, he only recently discovered Article II and showed no interest in exploring the rest of that document. This man lives solely within his own ego. Why would he concern himself with securing the blessings of liberty for us?

__________________________________________________ 

1 George Washington, “Farewell Address,” 1796. 

2 The poem written by Emma Lazarus in 1883 and inscribed on the Statue of Liberty: 

“Give me your tired, your poor, 

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, 

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. 

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, 

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” 

3 Instead, President Trump said “it (Covid) will just go away.” But it did not even begin to diminish until a few months after his term in office, and only after a massive effort was organized by his successor to vaccinate millions of Americans and enhance treatment availability for those already infected. According to CDC estimates the number of Covid-related deaths would be about 1,120,000 (often compared to the Spanish flu epidemic death toll of 675,000 in 1918). Although the infection rate dropped significantly with the advent of the Biden administration and its efforts to deliver the vaccine nation-wide, 470,000 had already died before Biden took office. It would take another two years before the epidemic would be considered only as seasonal a threat as the standard flu. 

4 Trump had committed a withdrawal of all American forces by specified dates. In effect, he had set the stage for the speedy fall of the American supported Afghan government and a hurried withdrawal of all American forces and equipment. In the ensuing chaos, Taliban forces overran Afghan cities, including the capital, and threatened the evacuation of both Americans and Afghans not affiliated with the Taliban. Neither in America’s hasty withdrawal from Vietnam nor in its staged withdrawal from Iraq, has the American military been faced with a greater challenge and within a shorter timeline. Although the Biden Administration managed to extend the timeline for withdrawal, it fell short of evacuating all endangered Afghans before a single explosion killed thirteen American soldiers and hundreds of fleeing Afghans. Neither the Trump nor the Biden Administrations succeeded in planning the end of the Afghan war in concert with an orderly and safe withdrawal from Afghanistan. 

5 Before Kamala Harris became a candidate for the Presidency, she served as a prosecutor, public defender, attorney general, state senator, and Vice President. Her opponent has no public service record before becoming the 45th President of the United States. Instead, he came into office with a history of bankruptcies (6), and indictments for tax evasion and fraud, and accusations of sexual abuse. He had also been convicted in two fraud cases. He was fined 20 million dollars for the Trump University fraud case and ordered to close the Trump foundation which the court found he used as his personal checking account.  

Generic Footnote: 

Currently, he is competing against Ms. Harris to return to the Presidency, even though he has recently been convicted of 34 felonies involving business fraud and held liable for sexual abuse. And he is also under multiple Federal indictments: 

1. for conspiracy to defraud the United States and Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding;
2. for willful retention of National Defense Information (32 counts), for conspiracy to obstruct justice, for withholding a document, for corruptly concealing a document or record, for concealing a document in a Federal Investigation, for a scheme to conceal, for false statements and representations, for altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing an object, for corruptly altering, destroying, mutilating, or concealing a document record or other object;
3. and for 13 felony counts under Georgia State racketeering laws.

Reference: The Trump Indictments: The Historic Charging Documents with Commentary, Introduced, Annotated, and with Supporting Materials by Melissa Murray and Andrew Weissmann. 

In Words, Lies, and Crimes

The law is defined by words understood by means of their contemporary usage, context, and historical evolution. In “The Supreme Court: A Bulwark of Liberty, or Not” (July 4, 2022), I stated that “Justice Alito not only finds Roe v. Wade an egregious error, but the long held legal doctrine of stare decisis no longer relevant.” Precedent, therefore, he can selectively ignore in his judicial opinion. In overturning the Supreme Court precedent of Roe and disregarding Casey, the Justice reclaimed the 19th century condemnation of abortion rather than the 20th and 21st century medical practice that can save lives and future pregnancies. In current usage, “abortion” is defined as a medical practice that empowers women to abort an unwanted—and still unviable fetus—or end an imperiled pregnancy. Most abortions, in fact, are the result of medical decisions involving the unviability of the fetus and the well-being or even survival of the mother. Justice Alito seems unaware of this current context. The definition of the word “abortion,” as a result, can be viewed through different lenses, as either a family planning method and life-saving measure made possible by contemporary science or, in Alito’s view, an infanticidal abomination condemned by long-standing religious beliefs. Our words fail to characterize the magnitude of “abortion’s” historical evolution from a mortal sin into a family planning tool and lifesaving medical practice. Alito ignores this evolution and views abortion of a fetus as the murder of a “potential human being,” rather than “the expulsion of a nonviable fetus,” as currently defined in the dictionary. He made the kind of error that only a textualist could, that is, one rooted in original meaning. A fetus is no more a potential human being than a man’s sperm or a woman’s egg. The building plans and materials required to construct a building are not the finished product we know at 3rd and Main Street. Likewise, Doctors now know when a fetus becomes viable, meaning capable of living outside of the womb as a functioning human being. Alito is just a time-warped revisionist whose words reek with deceit. Harsh? Perhaps so, but he is intelligent enough to know the difference between how abortion was defined in the nineteenth century versus the twenty-first.  

Some so-called “conservatives” on the Supreme Court prefer textualism to define the legal meaning of the words that define our laws and their Constitutional derivatives. I agree with them to the extent that root meanings and initial usage allow us to understand the basis from which the meaning of contemporary words evolve, and laws are derived. But word derivative evolution also reflects society’s evolution—which explains why 20th and 21st century jurisprudence had superseded laws chastising women and their doctors over the abortions of problematic pregnancies. The progress of our science can now define “viability,” that is, when a fetus has become a human and able to live as such outside of the womb. Roe v. Wade affirmed this progress whereby women’s fertility and pregnancies were preserved and made safer. Premature childbirths were facilitated, and many women’s lives were saved. But, since the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson, women’s prenatal care must now exclude the abortion of an unviable fetus. And the incidences of pregnant women’s deaths have since increased. The word “abortion” no longer refers to a safe 20th and 21st century medical practice to save a woman’s life or prevent an unsecured—even precarious—future of an unwanted and still unviable fetus being taken to term. In Justice Alito’s opinion, the fetus is “a potential human being,” wherein he effectively misconstrues “potential” as “real.” Therefore, he concludes that abortion is not feticide but infanticide. And this misuse of language equates “abortion” with murder. But its real purpose is to preserve the life of a pregnant woman or secure her plans for family and motherhood. Is an unviable fetus more important than the life of the mother or her ability to care for a newborn? In the words of Benjamin Cardozo, “(t)he difference from age to age is not so much in the recognition of the need that law shall conform itself to an end. It is rather in the nature of the end to which there has been need to conform.”¹ So, is abortion prolife or murder? Therein lurks a word deceit that becomes a lie—that can falsely morph into a crime, a phenomenon that now pervades America’s public discourse and politics, including our Supreme Court. 

There are further examples of this phenomenon. For example, an election, properly conducted, reviewed, and validated is termed “rigged,” which is a preposterous lie. “Stop the steal,” “only I can,” “lock her up,” and “make America great again,” are phrases that hide purposeful deceits, that is, persuasive lies. Some politicians, like Trump’s sycophants, employ this ruse to gain campaign funds and win governing power. If successful, their lies can and will serve their own interests rather than the general welfare. But liars cannot be trusted, for their deceit hides self-serving motives. Given the powers of office, any politician can be induced to serve his/her interests rather than those of his/her constituents. Unfortunately, any liar can be more easily induced to cover up his/her malfeasance . . . even to the extent of committing a crime. Confronted with the woman he abused, for example, Donald Trump claimed “I never met that woman” —a lie that would be a felony if spoken under oath. Unfortunately for Trump, a picture of them together had readily evidenced his lie. In like manner, pro-life advocacy claims to save lives while maternal deaths rise across the county. There is no evidence, however, that an unviable fetus can survive a live birth. To believe otherwise is a lie. And Roe never forced women to have an abortion, whereas Dobbs denies women the choice—based upon a religious belief. But not all religions agree with this belief—which is their right as guaranteed in our Constitution. How does Alito’s opinion survive a First Amendment argument that he violates its guarantee of “freedom of religion”? Are the words and lies enumerated here not equivalent to crimes that debase our politics and diminish the freedoms we Americans expect and demand of our democracy?  

At the Federal level, America has several politicians currently indicted for crimes. Two from the Democratic Party are now awaiting trial, as is Donald Trump, the former Republican President who still awaits more trials after recent convictions. He has been accused of 36 felony counts in two Federal indictments involving the handling of top-secret documents and inciting an insurrection to overturn a legal election. He also faces similar election interference charges in the State of Georgia. While awaiting trial for these alleged crimes, he has since been convicted on 34 felony counts because he “repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election.”²  In addition, he has been held liable for sexual abuse, as referenced above, and for extensive fraud in the conduct of his New York business. These latter convictions carry financial penalties of over half a trillion dollars. In a few days, this former President will once again be nominated to be the Republican candidate for President. How is it possible that Americans would consider voting for a convicted felon who has been held liable for sexual abuse and outlandish business and tax fraud? Even before his rise to the Presidency, he was found liable for fraud in his management of Trump University and the Trump Foundation—which was run as Trump’s “personal checking account,” according to the Court’s judgement. These liable judgements were just the tip of more than 3,000 legal cases the Trump organization had previously entertained. But Trump was elected based upon his unique “charisma” despite his habit of skirting the law. 

Donald Trump once claimed he used “the best words” and had a “great brain.” Recently, before a crowd of his supporters, he explained how he would solve the conundrum of dying by electrocution or by a shark bite. His solution, he argued, would impress “MIT,” that is, he would satisfy the shark with his leg. Then he added, “I want your vote. I don’t care about you. I just want your vote.” These non-sequiturs are just words pouring from his stream of consciousness. They are not relevant to the moment and lack any reference either to his campaign or reality. The words he more carefully uses—such as “revenge,” “fake news,” “deep state,” “Trump haters,” and so on—amplify his warped worldview and provide false justification for all the grievances he suffers, allegedly, for the sake of others. He uses words that paint him as a martyr, which some of his followers now liken to be “Christ-like.” But Trump’s “best words” are not intended to reflect reality. Rather, their purpose is to either entertain or rile up passion for his cause. Often, they do both while condemning, ridiculing, or demeaning his alleged “haters.” They are all lies, except for the fact that he does want your vote and more. Specifically, he says he wants a “bloodbath” if he loses the next election. Moreover, he wants his sycophants to rig the next election, as they tried to do so in his last campaign. He has already committed his “followers” to this end by appointing them to key positions within the Republican Party. He now has a small army to rig his election and effect the intent of all his lies. Should he win, he promises to take no prisoners. His words, then, run the gamut from a stream of consciousness rabble to lies, hateful provocations, and then to more crimes.   

This American deceit is a culmination of misused words, lies, and crimes committed against the electorate in service of political power. In a democracy, “people rule,” but not necessarily in their best interest if ill-informed, told lies, and are victimized by crooks. When Donald Trump became President in 2017, he appointed his White House contingent with the sole purpose of deconstructing American Institutions. In “Competency and the American Presidency” (2/9/2017), I listed his cabinet appointments and summarized their contempt for the institutions they were appointed to manage (to save time, you might start reading from the third paragraph). While Trump was promising to make America great, he was planning its demise. What partially saved America was the utter incompetency of these appointments. Some of them even ran afoul of the law. He also had “advisors” who shared his views and served his interest. Twelve of his Presidential staff were later convicted of crimes while in office. On his last days in office, he pardoned many of these sycophants. But now they are ready to return to the task of subverting American institutions to serve a wannabe dictator. After Trump’s failed coup in 2020, he is now better prepared to reinstate his fellow criminals and take a second attempt at deconstructing America’s Constitutional system of government.  

For Trump and his stooges, “democracy” is just a facade that will hide their rule over a government that serves their craven interests instead of the general welfare of the American people. As President he will sell his great lie that America can progress under his deconstruction of its institutions of government. But, instead, he will introduce into American politics an unprecedented era of criminality and self-enrichment. How is it possible that so many Americans seem ready to bury our democracy under the foot of this craven dictator? 

I may not be a psychologist, but I have encountered two recent studies that may explain how many of us are willing to follow this madman, like the wild buffaloes crafty Indians would herd over a cliff. The first study refers to the “halo effect,”³  namely, “if we like a certain quality in a person, we’re more likely to perceive their unrelated traits positively as well.” Thereby Trump’s clownish behavior, as referenced above, is found entertaining. (In fact, I witnessed people nodding their heads in approval of his unfinished tale about sharks and electrocution.) And his grievances against the “deep state” may well mirror those of his audience. For instance, the border crisis has bedeviled decades of Administrations; and economic instability has routinely destabilized markets and individual family budgets since the founding of America (reference American Exceptionalism Revisited, 9/27/2021). The second study, “affinity bias,”³  depicts how we are attracted to people with similar background or characteristics. Most of us are not college graduates and even fewer of us were educated in the liberal arts. Although Trump is a college graduate, his speech patterns and topics are often undisciplined and/or mundane. His historical references– “the likes of which have never been seen before” –are often vague and unsupported. Although we have had Presidents who were scholars, like Woodrow Wilson or Barack Obama, we all identify with Presidents whose personal traits and character we can admire like FDR and Reagan.  

My fellow Americans, we cannot afford to be deceived by a liar who wants our confirmation that he should not only be our President, but above the law, as well. His record in office is replete with misleading aphorisms, lies, statutory crimes, and political appointees to the Supreme Court. As a fellow senior, I recognize the limitations of both candidates for the Presidency. But only one of these men speaks the language of a patriot and has the wisdom and experience to lead this country. Recently, a consortium of Presidential historians rated the contributions of all our Presidents since America’s founding. Donald Trump was rated dead last, behind Harding, and those who died prematurely in office. Until the Federal Reserve reduces interest rates, inflation will continue to haunt the many achievements of our current President. Nevertheless, the same Presidential historians rate Joe Biden the 14th best President in American history. Our country needs his experience and wisdom at the helm during these challenging times. 

Postscript: His previous running mate was rated the 10th best. 

_________________________________________________________________________________ 

1 Stephen Breyer, “Reading the Constitution, Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism,” p. 109. 

2 The Supreme Court of the State of New York County of New York, “The People of the State of New York against Donald Trump, Defendant,” as quoted in “The Trump Indictments,” p. 320. 

3 “Learning Favoritism: The way we’re built to learn may divide us,” Scientific American,” June 20, 2024. p.15. 

“In courts of law men literally care nothing about truth, but only about conviction.”

(Plato in the voice of Socrates¹) 

In “The Supreme Court: A Bulwark of Liberty,” (7/4/2022) I argued that Justice Alito used the ill-informed history of the 19th century jurisprudence and specious arguments to support his conviction that Roe V. Wade was an “egregious error” which the Supreme Court must overturn—even though its precedent had been re-established many times over its 50-year lifespan. As referenced in the same blog, “what legal penalties will be necessary to punish egg/sperm donors, doctors, and lab technicians for the hideous crime of imprisoning humans in test tubes or worse, freezing them until surrogate wombs become available.” My hyperbole here was meant to highlight the inevitable—though absurd—outcome of Alito’s ill-fated summation. His error has not only increased women’s deaths during pregnancy but now thwarts the pregnancies made possible by IVF technology—as my hyperbole intimated. He unwittingly illustrated the truth of Plato’s accusation that implies legal discourse can be so distorted that truth and thereby the innocent can suffer the errant consequences of its conviction.  

Our former President also commented on the relation of legal discourse to truth: in an all-cap screed, he began, “A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MUST HAVE FULL IMMUNITY, WITHOUT WHICH IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM/HER TO PROPERLY FUNCTION. ANY MISTAKE, EVEN IF WELL INTENDED, WOULD BE MET WITH ALMOST CERTAIN INDICTMENT BY THE OPPOSING PARTY AT TERM END. EVEN EVENTS THAT ‘CROSS THE LINE’ MUST FALL UNDER TOTAL IMMUNITY, OR IT WILL BE YEARS OF TRAUMA TRYING TO DETERMINE GOOD FROM BAD. THERE MUST BE CERTAINTY” (sic, as quoted from Trump’s Truth Social account).² Although his grammar school use of language can be ignored, the sense of his all-caps demand for “full immunity” is ridiculous. Events “that ‘cross the line’” should be identified as either good or bad, as determined by a moral code, rather than by Trump’s political benefit. For, in America, even political acts are and must be governed by the moral imperative expressed in the words and intent of its Constitution. The bedrock underpinning of America’s entire judicial system is derived from principals pre-established in our Constitution. We Americans hold these principals as self-evident and should act accordingly. Personal “intent” alone cannot and should never justify an immoral act, though it can mitigate accountability or lessen its pre-established penalties. Therefore, no President has a license to create a personal moral code that intentionally defies our Constitutionally based system of laws for he/she must and “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” (reference Article II, Section 3, Constitution of the United States). In other words, no President should be above the law but instead be its oath-bound enforcer.  

Donald Trump’s difficulty in discerning “good from bad” is the result of his inability to distinguish his petty self-interests from the common good (reference “The Swamp versus the Promise” (9/30/2019)). He recognizes no value in promoting the general welfare, as specified in the Constitution’s Preamble, rather than serving himself foremost. Morality, for him, is a transactional exercise in which he primarily must benefit. Consequently, his demand for “total Presidential immunity” is a self-serving political statement that distorts America’s legal system. For his self-declared “immunity” is cryptic legalese that would condone his attempt to overthrow an election and defy any judicial accountability for his incitement of the January 6 insurrection. He unwittingly illustrates the truth of Plato’s accusation that legal discourse can be so distorted that truth and the innocent can suffer its errant consequences. And that distortion is a harbinger of fascism and the rule of a dictator (reference “Post Inauguration Thoughts on Power and Government” (1/26/2021)). 

But America’s founders established a democratic republic. And its Constitution forms the basis for our justice system, insures our liberties, and the general welfare of all its citizens as a human birthright. All our elected representatives must take an oath to that very same Constitution. For most of my school-aged youth, “I pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Under the auspices of my citizenship, I also served during wartime in our military. What I learned from my citizenship is the same as every other American citizen, specifically, we each have a responsibility to uphold the values expressed in our Constitution and, most especially, in the exercise of our informed and thoughtful vote to support those very values that so identify us as Americans (reference “How to Make America Great Again” (10/15/2016)). 

 At this moment in American history, we are experiencing an unfamiliar and dangerous syndrome that is infecting our national conscience. It has spawned a constellation of corrosive agents that are eating away at our democratic republic. Its core motivation is our former President’s attempt to defy his oath to our Constitution by inciting an insurrection to invalidate a fair election and obstruct the peaceful transfer of power. He effectively defied the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, Section 3, in his attempt to stage a coup and effect the demise of our democracy.  

Donald Trump supports his attempt to overturn our Constitutional democracy in many nefarious ways. He incites his followers in political rallies, corrupts his Republican Party with his incessant lies that spread self-aggrandizing disinformation (reference “Will Republicans Kill Republicanism?” (1/13/2020)), ridicules his dissenters—often in concert with rightwing media, and threatens violence against all who oppose his will. These are the actions of a wanton dictator. While serving in office he had attempted to politicize the independent institutions of our government, marginalize vulnerable communities, and deport migrants at our border without due process. Then, while being voted out of office, he directed a national effort to undermine and overrule a free election. To that end, he authorized the creation of false electors, demanded certification of an illicit vote count, and actively incited a violent insurrection against the American Capital— exhorting his followers that “you have to fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country anymore.”  His treasonous plan was to maintain his Presidency unlawfully by stopping the vote count and the peaceful transfer of power, thereby invalidating the voting rights of American citizens. With the help of congressional sycophants, he had stacked the courts with judges whom he hoped would support his policies, to include the outlawing of abortion, the dissemination of combat weapons, the closure of borders to lawful migrants as well as illegals, and the legalization of his personal claim to absolute immunity before the law.

Now, facing a multitude of Federal and State indictments, his lawyers are not just defending Donald Trump in a court of law. Instead, they are making the case to overturn the American legal system and the suffrage rights of the American voter. Trump wants to turn our democratic system against itself and the American people. He condemns the institutions of government, most especially the Department of Justice, which he attempted to control while in office. He has so infected our legal discourse that both truth and the innocent can now suffer its errant consequences, which include both the demise of our democracy and the rights of American citizens. It is not truth that he serves, but its paradoxical conviction in our courts via his judicial appointees. 

The word “conviction,” according to Webster’s Dictionary has a dual meaning: “the state of being convinced of error or compelled to admit the truth.” The Latin root word convincere, meaning “to conquer, refute, convict, prove” presumes a process, but without any assurance of uncovering truth. Applied to jurisprudence, “conviction” implies a very specific intent. The quote attributed to Socrates above intimates there should be a higher legal bar than merely winning a case in a court of law. And that legal bar is discovery of the truth. But Donald Trump has never been about truth. He lies incessantly and about everything, including his Presidential authority, his wealth, his incessant grifting, his acumen, his prowess on the golf course, his knowledge of history, geography, or even the common semantic use of words in our English language. Currently, his sole ambition is to be President for life, whereby he will conquer America, refute all political opponents, convict his enemies, and prove the rightness of his will. His army of lawyers has just one goal, namely, to assure Donald Trump wins in the courts of law so that he can continue his pursuit of a permanent Presidency. Thereby, he hopes to complete his conquest of America and refute its adherence to truth and justice. For “the Donald,” winning is his only truth and at any costs.  

My fellow Americans, what are the lessons we have or should have learned from the last Presidential election? First, if Trump fails to win this next election, America will likely suffer another insurrection of some sort. According to Trump, there “will be a bloodbath.” Secondly, if Trump wins, he will surely attempt to be President for life—for his life’s ambition has never deviated from self-aggrandizement. The Presidency may not even be enough for a “man who would be king.” How might he use the economic and military power of the Presidency in dealing with other nations? More than American democracy would be at stake—so might be a peaceful world order.  

History would then judge us, the American citizen/voter, guilty of the demise of the American democratic republic and its role in maintaining peace and the territorial integrity of all nation states. And that is a verdict neither we nor our posterity should suffer. For it could be irreversible—like a death sentence.  

_______________________________________ 

¹ Plato,” Dialogues on Love and Friendship,” Easton Press, p.199 

² My word processor noted multiple issues with this quote, highlighting both grammar, spelling, and issues of clarity. Welcome to the world of “Trump speak.” 

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”¹ 

                                                                                         (Abraham Lincoln, 1858) 

Recently, President Putin’s Ukraine war strategy was questioned by one of his long-time supporters who also led a mercenary army on a threatening march to Moscow. Though he eventually laid down his arms and appeared to reconcile with Putin, both he and his followers never modified their critique of Putin’s war strategy. But that critique died with him when his private plane exploded shortly after take-off. He appeared to have met the common fate of prior critics of Putin or his policies. As a corollary to his fate, the mercenary army he recruited was then disbanded or allowed to join Putin’s military. Putin understood he could neither win his unprovoked war in Ukraine nor govern Russia unless he eliminated any dissonant voice before it could muster a rebellion against his Presidency. He knew a divided house cannot stand. 

One hundred and sixty-two years ago, an American presidential candidate faced the reality that his country was despairingly divided between slave states and non-slave states. His political opponent supported slavery. He did not. If he should win, he would be then destined to become President of a divided electorate. Nevertheless, shortly after assuming office, he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation, then sequestered it in his desk drawer. He feared that neither his campaign against the extension of slavery nor any proclamation against its inhumanity could bridge the divide between the American states. Instead, the Confederacy would have to be defeated and the Southern States reunified into the United States of America. He knew a divided house cannot stand. 

 Today, any elected American President faces many divisive challenges. But, in a democracy, no President has Putin’s power of suppression of adverse opinions or assassination of political opponents or dissidents. He, or she, must be ruled by the electorate and the governing principles established by the American Constitution and the rule of law derived from its principles. And those principles must be held as inviolable as a moral code, for they define the extent and limitations of the three branches of the democratic state, namely, the legislative, judicial, and executive. And democratic “rule by the people” can only be assured by free and fair elections and, consequently, by the universal acceptance of the majority as reflected in those elections. Therefore, all of us Americans must understand and accept these principles as Civics 101, else forgo our responsibilities as citizens in a democratic state—or worse. The alternative course would allow any divisive element to pervert, or even overturn, the very democracy that defines the United States of America. For, indeed, a divided house cannot stand. 

There are many ways in which Americans can become divided: wealth or income inequality resulting from runaway capitalism often abetted by powerful lobbyists; racial, tribal, or religious/doctrinal persecution/ostracism; or the usurpation of governing power by opportunistic men (yes, always men) who choose to serve their own interests rather than those they govern or the very principles of the democracy they swore an oath to serve. We Americans do not have or even want to have the Putin option. Nevertheless, we must now face the same reality that candidate Abraham Lincoln did in 1858. At the outset, he knew what needed to be done to preserve our American republic, thereby abiding by Benjamin Franklin’s alleged exhortation, “if you can keep it.” And George Washington had also warned us that “cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”² And those “very engines” were referenced by a more recent President who, like Lincoln, admonished Americans that “we must guard against a weakening of the values that make us who we are.”³ The values President Obama referenced by these words were made explicit in our American Constitution’s Preamble and determinative in the “check and balance” structure of the government it constituted. 

Nevertheless, America now finds itself divided not only amongst political factions, but also within the functioning of its Constitutionally defined branches of its government. How did Americans become so divided in their politics and in support of the founding principles of our democratic republic? 

“your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.”

 The simple answer to this question is our loss of perspective on the source of our union and the nature of our individual responsibility to preserve it. Again, the words of our first President come to mind: “your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.”4 These were the words of the man who not only trained but also commandeered the volunteer army that won our freedom from the British throne. In addition, he also chaired the Convention in Philadelphia that gave America its founding Constitution. Both contributions to the founding of America’s democratic republic were performed without pay—for they were inspired by George Washington’s love for a united America and the preservation of the freedom it guarantees for its citizens. Washington and the founding fathers of our Constitution demonstrated for all of us what it means to be an American. If the country they birthed had later lost the war of 1812, any of these men who survived would have been charged with treason and hung from the gallows. They exemplified the meaning of the word “patriotism.” But how do we rate our performance on the patriotic scale today? 

“a decline in courage may be the most striking feature that an outside observer notices in the West today.”

At this very moment in America’s history, our two major political parties are at war with each other, where one Party resembles what Washington coined a “faction” that would “put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party”4 rather than any alternative position in pursuit of the general welfare. Factions tend to fight for advantage rather than collaborate for any compromise that may benefit most, if not all, of their constituents. How can our personal freedoms be protected when we Americans can no longer agree on how we should unite to protect and extend them? Solzhenitsyn may have been right in his criticism of American liberals when he said, “a decline in courage may be the most striking feature that an outside observer notices in the West today.”5 

Let us review America’s current state of our union and its effect on our freedoms:  

• Republican State legislatures have gerrymandered voting districts to the point of disenfranchising millions of voters. As a result, Donald Trump won the Presidency while losing the popular vote by over 3 million votes. He lost his incumbency by over 7 million votes yet could have won with just 46,000 more votes in so-called swing states. Is it not a core principle of a democracy that the majority rules? Any violation of that principle is a disenfranchisement of citizens in a democracy—which inevitably results in a loss of personal freedom and of any viable union of the voting republic. Instead, gerrymandering has disproportionally concentrated governing power in a minority to the detriment of the general welfare. 
• As a result, any resemblance to our traditional Republican Party has been vanquished and no longer exists. Gerrymandering has netted a new majority within the Party that disavows traditional Republican values of adherence to the core values of the Constitution, to fiscal responsibility, to national defense—especially in confronting threats from illiberal regimes and in supporting constructive relationships with other nations, and to the strengthening of law enforcement in our cities and at our borders. Instead, this rogue Republican Party has no published public policy platform. Instead, it vows only its total tribal allegiance to Donald Trump, bowing to his every whim without regard for the wellbeing of all Americans. Nor does it promise support to nations with whom America aligns itself by formal treaty agreements. Trump’s command of his rebranded MAGA (“make America great again”) Republican Party has so distorted America’s foreign policies that alliances with NATO, the Quad, and peaceful/democratic states around the world have been replaced with his self-admitted identification with “strong” men, which translates to dictators like Kim Jung Un, Putin, and even dictatorial administrations from Hungary, to the Philippines, Cuba and South America. Donald Trump would make America his island state, detached from the world and dedicated to his every whim and personal needs. He would rule a divided nation like he managed his businesses. The White House would replace his gold entrusted perch atop Trump Tower. Instead of the many bankruptcies he wielded as a self-proclaimed business icon, he would mismanage the most powerful military and influential economy in the world. Then he could freely consort with the other dictators he so admires and command a world they could rape in tandem—a world where territorial boundaries are flouted and chaos reigns—a world subject to soulless men.  
• Donald Trump’s “stop the steal” retort and his claims of a “rigged election” were built on lies disavowed by his own campaign managers, by the Department of Justice, by members of his Executive Branch, and by the decisions of 61 court judgements. Nevertheless, his lies inflamed a riot on January 6, 2021, that threatened the integrity of the vote count, attempted to disenfranchise the voting republic, and effected an insurrection against the peaceful transfer of power. He violated more than just our voting rights, but both the self-determination of citizens in a free democracy and the very integrity of the United States as a democratic republic. 

What may be more divisive than perverting the legitimacy of the Electoral College, corrupting the values of the Republican Party, and instigating an insurrection to disenfranchise voters is the intended outcome. Those Trumpian insurrectionists were attempting to install an unelected man “who would be king” in violation of the Constitution. And that perverse coronation would be the end of the democratic Republic we call America. It also would spell the end of the 235-year-old beacon of hope that America’s Constitution established as the United States of America. 

If Trump were to regain the Presidency by way of an insurrection, is there any doubt that he would never relinquish the office voluntarily? He instead would pardon, as promised, those convicted of various crimes while participating in the January 6 insurrection. For he calls them hostages, not prisoners convicted of crimes, just as he calls himself “the greatest President in history,” while ignoring his convictions for massive fraud and sexual assault. He would install sycophants to govern in line with his interests rather than the well-being of the electorate. There is nothing, other than his projected grievances, that connects him with his MAGA followers. They will never sit at his table, discuss common human experiences, or share the same life goals. Any man who displays the symptoms of a sociopathic narcissist is incapable of normal human relationships. He will only serve his own interests and protect his self-glorified—but fragile—ego at any costs. 

At this writing, this man has yet to stand trial before a jury of his peers to face 91 federal indictments. Ironically, he has already admitted his guilt, claiming a Presidential immunity that is non-existent, especially for an ex-President. As Liz Cheney has so eloquently stated in her book, this man should never be allowed to set foot in the White House. “Every one of us—Republican, Democrat, Independent—must work and vote together to ensure that Donald Trump and those who have appeased, enabled, and collaborated with him are defeated.”6 

In conclusion, America is now facing an existential crisis. It’s very democracy is at stake. As our current President has recently stated, this crisis is not about political parties and candidates, but about us–that is, who we are and whether we can be the responsible citizens of a democratic republic. Only we can decide our fate! This 2024 election is either a vote for our Constitutional democracy or its demise. And the latter is that point of no return.  

_____________________________________________________ 

1 Carl Sandburg, “Abraham Lincoln,” p. 138 

2 George Washington, “Farewell Address, 1796.” 

3 Barack Obama, “Farewell Address, 2017.” 

4 Ibid., Washington, “Farewell Address, 1796.” 

5 Solzhenitsyn, as quoted by Eliot Cohen in The Atlantic, February Edition  

6 This quote precedes the last statement in her book, namely, “this is the cause of our time.” Liz Cheney, “Oath and Honor,” p.368. 

“Ennui” is derived from the French enuier, “to annoy.” When a French person is bored, weary, or dissatisfied with his/her situation, he/she will appear annoyed. And that annoyance will be visible, even demonstrable. For example, when the French President decided to promote an increase in the French retirement age, the French people were annoyed and protested very demonstrably. Paris streets were crowded with protestors, and City workers refused to pick up the trash. The President’s proposal was to raise the retirement age from 54 to 56. By American standards, either age would be an incredibly early retirement. By contrast, the American Republican Party has indicated its plan to “save” Social Security by raising the American retirement age above its current 65 age limit. But that proposal has barely noted any reaction from my fellow Americans. American ennui, then, can be best defined as “disinterest,” “malaise,” or simply “ho hums.” We Americans are so focused on our “now” that old age seems less relevant. So, why not shore up the Social Security program by adding a few more years to future retirements rather than by raising payroll deductions now for everyone? Apparently, we Americans will resist any impact on our present lives, even if beneficial to our personal future or that of subsequent generations.  

Sometime after the post World War II era, pundits noted the rise of the so-called “now” generation. That term now seems predictive of the ubiquitous presence of Cell phones, fast food, instantaneous or “breaking” news, and readily available entertainment. All our immediate needs can be addressed in the “now.” So why worry about retirement plans, climate change, the long-term impact for not funding early childhood education, current capitalist excesses (reference “American Exceptionalism Revisited”), dark money campaign funding, gun policies effecting childhood deaths, or abortion policies resulting in maternal deaths? ¹ Any resultant policy failures or inadequacies can only serve the grievance politicking that already thwarts any concerted/realistic effort to create a better future. Instead, we swoon to an unspecified vision of greatness (e.g., MAGA). And we entrust our future to a self-interested opportunist who will always place his own interest before that of the Republic he swore an oath to serve. ² 

But you might ask, should we not all live in the present—in the now? The obvious answer is “yes,” but only if “now” is understood for what it is, namely, the intersection of past and future. We live each moment prepared, affected, determined by our past experiences, knowledge, and external events. Our past may be formative, even enlightening, but we cannot live in the past. Instead, we can only live in that very moment in which we create our future. Our past informs us, but only we can inform and create our future. And we do so every single moment we live. 

The odd thing about a democracy is that it requires its citizens to be accountable for their future. Alone in the voting booth, each citizen must choose who best to advance both his/her interests and the general welfare of all citizens. Today, in America, we must decide whether we accept responsibility for our democracy or not. In the coming year, we will decide whether we will have a peaceful, safe, and decisive election or a replay of the January 6, 2021, debacle.  

For the third Presidential election cycle, Donald J. Trump will once again contend for the Presidency. He has and will stoke violence. He has and will claim corruption, spread disinformation, and quash dissent. He will politicize our independent institutions and marginalize vulnerable communities. In other words, he will reenact the playbook of all who seek absolute power. He will take advantage of Republican persistent attempts to gerrymander and suppress selective voting communities. Even though he lost his first attempt to win the Presidency by over three million votes, and his second attempt by more than seven million votes, he won the electoral college votes against Clinton’s voting majority and came even closer to winning his reelection against Biden than has been recognized. He could have won reelection with just 46,000 more votes in several swing states. In other words, he would be President today with nearly 7 million less votes than Biden.  

If we Americans genuinely believe in our democracy, we must defeat the Trump insurgency. And then we must eliminate voter suppression and gerrymandering. Then we can either reform the electoral college or terminate it. In either case, our course must be guided by faith in our democracy, without which we will lose it (reference, “Is Democracy’s Fate an Act of Faith?”).

_______________________________________ 

1 Since the turn of the century, the US maternal death rate has steadily increased according to the CDC and World Health Organization. However, since the Roe V. Wade decision that death rate is spiking according to the CDC. (We are still waiting for statistical results.)  

2 Reference 3rd paragraph in “Ruled by Veracity or Perfidy.”