In May of 1787, a Constitutional Convention convened at the behest of the Continental Congress. Its avowed purpose was to reform the articles of Confederation. During the hot, muggy, fly-infested Spring and Summer that followed, our founding fathers convened at the same location where the Declaration of Independence was signed. But they came with mixed purposes. Not only where the individual states at odds with each other on trade, currency, and many municipal practices, but they also differed on what powers, if any, they would concede to a central government. After much wrangling and heated debates, they eventually came together on a singular purpose, as stated in the Constitution’s Preamble, to form “a more perfect union” that assured for “ourselves and our posterity” justice, domestic tranquility, a common defense, the general welfare, and the “blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” They did not propose reforms for a confederation, but instead became the midwives for the birth of a nation.

Naturally, they could not know how that nation would develop or become more perfectly united. For intent is not destiny unless realized in action. And the realization of our forefathers’ intent would inevitably fall upon their descendants—which today includes us. For we are the recipients of an American history that began in Philadelphia and was subsequently celebrated there on July 4th, 1788, after our Constitution was ratified by two-thirds of the states. What have we since wrought that our forefathers might have anticipated? And did they have any forebodings?

As he emerged from Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, Benjamin Franklin, a key leader often asked to settle debates during the Convention, was asked what form of government would be proposed. He replied, “a republic, if you can keep it.” John Adams, who was serving as our Ambassador to England during the Convention, later described this newly minted Constitution as an “experiment in democracy.” But, as a key organizer of the revolution, he favored a strong central government to confront the European colonial powers. James Madison, one of the key architects of the Constitution, had spent studious hours researching the structure and longevity of past attempts to form or idealize a democracy. For no such effort in self-government had long survived in the entire course of human history. Each of these men recognized the fragility of this newly formed democratic republic. Though neither of them could foresee the future, they shared a common hope and trust that their descendants would maintain and mold this democratic republic. In effect, they placed its evolution in our hands.

George Washington, the General that led the American Revolution, would become the first President of the United States of America, not the deputy figurehead of confederated states. Instead, he was the duly elected leader who would represent the interests and welfare of all citizens of a singularly constituted democratic republic. After two terms in office, he admonished Americans in his farewell address that this “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.” But like John Adams, his Vice President, he too had reservations about the future of this newly minted government. In his farewell address, he warned Americans of a new and more strident enemy in factions of “designing men (who) may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views . . . (and) are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which 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.” He warned that obstructionists would put the “will of the party” ahead of the “power of the people” to elect a representative government. In other words, Washington outlined for future generations what might subvert our union and potentially lead to despotism. (Reference “Presidential Farewell Addresses.”) His warning, some might say, revealed a preference for the Federalists who foresaw our national union depended upon a strong federal government.

But Thomas Jefferson, who was Ambassador to France during the Constitutional Convention, formed a slightly different—perhaps more nuanced—opinion of the newly minted Constitution. He had two concerns that he addressed in a letter to his friend James Madison. First, he feared a popular President could become a monarch if no term limit was imposed—likely a concern shared by Washington who declined to seek a third term. Secondly, he noted the absence of those avowed liberties secured by the British Parliament’s Bill of Rights. ¹ Later, he joined with Madison to promote the initial ten amendments to the Constitution that included those rights, to include the Tenth Amendment. That Amendment reserved to the states or to the people “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States.” ² Jefferson’s concerns, most would agree, revealed his aversion for excessive Presidential power and for a central government that might diminish States’ rights. To quote from his private letters to constituencies during his subsequent Presidential campaign, “our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such distance . . . will invite . . . corruption, plunder, and waste . . . The true theory of our Constitution is surely the wisest and best, that the states are independent as to everything within themselves, and united as to everything respecting foreign nations.” ³

But, despite their differences, these American patriarchs recognized not only the fragility of maintaining a democracy but also the mutual comity required to assure national unity. Our Constitution’s creators, for example, had labored through five difficult months of argument and compromise before reaching agreement. Notwithstanding their differences, they became equally committed to this new union of states and showed this commitment in the mutual respect they showed each other. Even the firebrand Hamilton, who later became highly critical of Jefferson’s politics, claiming it was “tinctured with fanaticism” and that Jefferson was “not very mindful of the truth and that he is a contemptible hypocrite,” also said that Jefferson was incapable of being corrupted. So, even where friendship amongst political opponents might be problematic at times, respect could still be attained. ⁵

Edmond Randolph, who, along with two others, refused to sign the Constitution created that hot and muggy summer in Philadelphia. He opposed a strong central government and a powerful chief executive. But later, as a member of the Virginia Ratification Convention, he persuaded five other delegates to vote with him to ratify the Constitution and officially launch the United States of America. It may be—as Wikipedia opines—that he both feared disunion and became resigned to ratification as merely a union of sovereign states. Perhaps his vote was simply pragmatic and did not imply his unequivocal acceptance of the Constitution he had initially disavowed. Whatever the case, he did later become a principal office holder in the newly formed government, serving initially as its first Attorney General and then as its second Secretary of State. His public service is an example of a patriot whose politics is secondary to his citizenship. Even when personal differences seem unreconcilable, he did not consider the dissolution of our union a remedial undertaking, but a fatal one.

What can we learn from these founding fathers that still applies to this democratic republic we call the United States of America? First, our founding principles must overlay our individual politics, otherwise we cannot be a unified country. Secondly, when our unity is weakened by dissent, love of country must supersede our differences. Therefore, when factions or political differences threaten our union, we must act within the scope of the Constitution that unites us as a nation. Our forefathers demonstrated how their political differences could be maintained, but still serve the American republic and its Constitution. Washington exhorted us to do so. Adams, Hamilton, and Jefferson demonstrated how to do so. And Randolph exemplified how even dissenters can serve a republic of free citizens. They each did so by honoring the Constitution and the will of a free electorate who ratified it by their vote. As our first President admonished, if we love our liberty, then we must preserve our union. He effectively gave us the first principle of our American democracy.

How viable is this first principle of our democracy today? If history is our judge, then we have often been guilty of some level of non-compliance. For example, if voting is indeed emblematic of our liberty, then excluding people from the vote diminishes our union and thereby our democratic republic. Nevertheless, our history has encompassed the enumeration of non-citizen slaves as three-fifths non-voting humans, the repression of women’s suffrage, the internment of citizens and curtailment of their access to voting during a time of war, and the persistent effort to suppress minority voting. But history has also shown that Americans can learn from these unprincipled apostasies from democracy. We have amended our Constitution to free the slaves and grant women suffrage. Our laws have been changed to enhance our freedoms via affirmative action and civil and voting rights, and to broaden due process for asylum seekers and for citizen law offenders in our courts. In fact, nearly every generation of Americans have been challenged to make Washington’s first principle a reality for their time. When individual liberties were curtailed, we redefined and enhanced them to broaden and thereby strengthen our union. So, what is the challenge for our time?

Perhaps our challenge is the same as it has always been. Why did America fight a civil war? Why did we grant women the right to vote? Why did we terminate the Japanese internment camps? Why did we pass the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts? Perhaps we did so for the same reasons Abraham Lincoln expounded at Gettysburg (reference “Of . . . By . . . For”). A nation conceived in liberty and equality for all will be tested and forced to renew its devotion to its democratic government and to “a new birth of freedom.” The forebodings of our founding fathers were fair warnings of what we might expect. We cannot and will not retain our liberty if we lose our allegiance to the United States of America. Remember Washington’s first principle and Lincoln’s exhortation that those buried at Gettysburg “shall not have died in vain.”

During the Civil War, where 750,000 died out of a population of about 31 million, nearly every family knew someone who fought and/or died in that horrendous cataclysm of our democracy. The grievances and resentments on either side were felt deeply. Though diminished with time, they are still felt today. The societal/cultural remnants of that war persist today in suppression of the Black vote and the whitewash of history—specifically, that portion of American history from the first Negro slaves kidnapped in 1619 and extended to the Black Americans who now comprise every segment of our society. The current Republican Party has long since absorbed the Southern Democrats, some of whom still harbor the spirit of the Confederacy in their hearts and in their policies. The Grand Ole Party now wants to limit the Black vote and delete Blacks from American history. This attempt at historical recidivism is divisive and illiberal. It also negates 236 years of America’s progress towards building a more perfect union.

In addition, the evolution of American capitalism (as outlined in “American Exceptionalism Revisited”) now challenges that “pursuit of happiness” promised in Jefferson’s Declaration. During the Presidency of Franklin Roosevelt, it became apparent that our happiness had a financial component that only the Federal government could guarantee. America was no longer a nation of farmers and landowners that Jefferson envisioned. Instead of the Homestead Act of 1862, 20th Century Americans needed the Social Safety Act of 1935. Much to the chagrin of modern-day Republicans, Roosevelt seemed to actuate Woodrow Wilson’s attack on classical liberalism. Given Jefferson’s inability to foresee the Industrial Revolution, however, it’s problematic to assume that Jefferson would disagree with Roosevelt. But the continued growth of Federal institutions since 1935 has accentuated the divide between the two national Parties. President Johnson’s extension of the social safety net, along with the more recent introduction of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) have riled Jefferson’s heirs as examples of the Federal Government’s overreach and of an institutionalized administration that infringes on states’ rights. The current Republican Party attempted to abolish the ACA and exclude over 20 million Americans from basic healthcare. But how do we promote the general welfare if only the wealthy can afford healthcare? When the poor are shown to die more frequently of curable ailments, reducing their access to healthcare does not make America more united, only less just and less equal.

Roosevelt’s Administration pulled America out of a deep Depression and the conflagration of a world war. Johnson extended this post war recovery by using Roosevelt’s highly progressive tax system to support wage earners, the social safety net, healthcare, and public education. The resulting post war “boom” greatly increased America’s national income per capita. Europe followed America’s lead, though it now supersedes America in the administrative state’s provision of healthcare, social security, and education. How did America fall behind? As Thomas Piketty explains, “growth in national income per capita in the United States was twice as low between 1990 and 2020 (after fiscal progressivity was halved under Reagan in the 1980s) as it had been in the preceding decades.” ⁶ Remember President Reagan’s retort: “government is the problem.” Perhaps it is more so if it serves what Piketty terms “hyper-capitalism” instead of the general welfare.

The recent Trump exercise in hyper-capitalism was his tax cut for the wealthy. As the only piece of major legislation in his Administration, it does not bode well for our future—that is, unless reversed. This is the real context in which Biden’s “Build Back Better” program needs to be understood: it raises taxes for those who earn more than $400,000/year to fund working America’s basic needs to include, healthcare, education, preservation of our shared environment, and enhanced opportunity for America’s working class. It is fiscally neutral and could spawn a growth in per capita national income akin to Roosevelt’s New Deal.

Notwithstanding Biden’s agenda, some of what Jefferson feared has indeed already come to pass in terms of “Public servants at such distance . . . will invite . . . corruption, plunder, and waste.” Ironically, it has been the most recent heirs of Jefferson’s Republican Party who have contributed to the veracity of his prognosis. The Trump Administration, for example, welcomed influence peddlers from a hostile regime. Witness Russian meddling in our Presidential campaigns (“Russia, if you are listening . . .”). One such effort—a one million dollar foreign campaign contribution—is still in the courts. Sadly, much of the Trump Presidency was predictable. Just weeks after he assumed the Presidency, I wrote “Competency and the American Presidency,” in which I outlined both the threat Donald Trump posed to our democratic republic and the rationale behind Putin’s support (also referenced therein by “Why Putin favors Trump”). Much to my amazement, my words were uncannily predictive.

With how many grifters and lobbyists did this disgraced twice impeached former President Trump surround himself in the White House? How many criminals and indicted associates did he pardon as he left office? ⁷ How many Cabinet positions were granted to supporters with either a known bias against his/her assigned institution or with no relevant expertise? More to the point, the Trump Administration has reversed this democracy from its initial intent to form a more perfect union into a conspiracy-laden, hotbed of insurrectionists intent on suppressing minorities, reversing women’s control of their own bodies and careers, systemizing voter suppression, and rigging elections to assure all power is concentrated in the office of the Presidency—which Trump endeavored to occupy in perpetuity. How can America achieve a more perfect union if its only claim to democracy—a free and fair election—is usurped by what Jefferson would term a monarchized Presidency.

In a mere four-plus years, Donald Trump has redirected America’s trajectory towards “a more perfect union” to a craven self-serving politics and to a violent uprising against the seat of democracy. But Trump is not the prime cause of America’s fall from its Constitutional mandate. He, like any parasite, thrives on its hosts, which in this instance are Americans with a varied assortment of grievances.

Remember when politics could harbor disagreement, but without enmity. Remember when politicians told constituents the truth or, at least, what they believed to be true. Remember when love of country eclipsed policy differences, valued service to country over holding onto office, and rated citizenship over wealth or privilege. That love is called patriotism. Today, those memories appear dimmed within the body politic, thereby facilitating a divisive “take-no-prisoners” brand of politics. The corrupting effect of this perverse realpolitik is magnified by the press where its every lie/conspiracy/half-truth is rehashed in a continuous loop until it becomes normalized. How can this form of politics serve the public good and bring citizens together in support of its diversive perversity? Its appeal is based solely on addressing alleged grievances. And its justifying arguments are often repeated by the press as false equivalences, instead of the monstrous lies that could destroy a democratic republic. And perhaps worse is its assertion that equates an insurrection against the Federal government with our founding revolution against a monarch. This perverse politics falsely elicits Thomas Jefferson’s support of state’s rights and limited Federal power as its philosophical underpinnings.

But the essence of Jefferson’s concern about a nation’s affairs being “directed by a single government” can be found in his Declaration of Independence wherein he declared “the causes which impel them (the colonies) to the separation.” Most of us never read past the philosophical arguments for his Declaration. But, if you do, you will find a list of grievances. ⁷ When Jefferson enumerated the King of Great Britain’s “injuries and usurpations” against the colonies he summarized them in terms of the King’s refusal to “Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” These were “the causes which impel” a revolution. And, further, Jefferson provided us with the philosophical underpinnings of a democratic republic formed by the “consent of the governed . . . to effect their safety and happiness.”

When the current representatives of the Republican Party argue in favor of state’s rights, they list their grievances against “big government” and Federal intrusion into the affairs of States. But ask yourself first whether they are arguing for the public good. For example, is a political Party’s usurpation of power by redistricting for the public good? Is suppression of the vote to quash a feared majority consensus for the public good? Is it for the public good to prohibit a woman’s control of her own pregnancy? Is it for the public good that Donald Trump must continue to abuse the powers of the Presidency? ⁸ Was it then for the public good that he incited an insurrection against a dutifully executed national election? Whose grievances were the insurrectionists relieving, theirs or Trump’s?

America is once again at one of those pivotal points in its history. It no longer exemplifies an archetype for a democratic republic dedicated to liberty and justice for all. Instead, it has become a divisive state torn between factions endlessly competing for power and influence with little or no regard for the general welfare of its citizens. Its disarray and departure from its founding principles, including Washington’s first principle, is an invitation for foreign antagonists to fan the flames of discontent, disunity, and disloyalty amongst our body politic. And it is also another moment in world history when a dominant power recedes and is replaced by its competitor(s). Do not doubt that Putin and Xi Jinping will seize this moment.

Is it too late for America to overcome its season of discontent? Can it once again raise the beacon of democracy to a hopeful world? Well, I would not spend the time it takes to write these tomes if I did not believe so. My children and yours depend on us to regain the torch of freedom. America can once again be reborn at the ballot boxes, in our schools, and in our communities. Our history tells us “Yes, we can.” As “students of the virtues that history reveals, we become the makers of a renewal that no one can foresee.” ⁹

_______________________________
¹ Saul K. Padover, editor, “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,” (Paris, December 20, 1787, a letter to James Madison concerning the Federal Constitution,), pp. 312-313.
² Those prohibited powers are enumerated in Article 1, Section 10, of the Constitution.
³ Merrill D. Peterson, “Thomas Jefferson and the Nation,” pp. 627.
⁴ Ibid., p. 632.
⁵ Ibid., pp. 646-647.
⁶ Thomas Piketty, “Time for Socialism,” p. 17. Please note that Piketty’s “socialism” is not communism, but “a new form of socialism, participative and decentralized, federal and democratic, ecological, multiracial, and feminist.” (p. 2) I think Piketty is characterizing what developed as a nascent movement in Europe, likely inspired by America’s social safety net, but less hindered by revisionist politics.
⁷ “Grievance” is a word especially useful to a demagogue. It is derived from the Latin, gravis, meaning “heavy”, “weighty”, or “burdensome.” It implies a heavy burden one must carry, like Caesar’s foot soldiers weighted down with heavy armor, swords, and helmets. But we all have some form of grievance that burdens us. Senator Cicero, President Jefferson, and nearly every other politician has used grievances to connect with constituents. This “grievance tactic” is not based strictly on reason, but on the felt burden of whatever circumstances may trouble a listener—like a pandemic, job loss, insecure circumstances, lack of political redress, and so on. When politicians can relate to a people’s grievances—e.g. “I feel your pain,” they can win their support. Or, in Trump’s shtick, “my enemies are yours too so join my fight.” But his fight is against the people’s republic that would limit his power. (As Judge Jackson wrote in her ruling against Trump, “he is the President, not a King.”) His followers are more enticed by his fight than his personal grievance which is infantile. And that fight is basically against any authority, law, or code of decency that hinders willful behavior. Remember demagogues have no definition of liberty other than a license to do whatever they want. Their followers then exercise the same license and act just as irresponsibly. It should be no surprise that Trump’s rhetoric should lead to violence, death threats, and even an insurrection against the people’s republic.
⁸ A simple internet search reveals 143 pardons that Trump continued to author until his last day in office. They include his campaign manager, a foreign policy advisor, his National Security Adviser, his chief campaign strategist, the RNC National Finance chair, the husband of a Trump ally and Fox News host, and many other miscreants mainly involved in various financial scams, not dissimilar to Trump’s scams (ref. Trump University and the Trump Foundation) or to other alleged financial frauds for which he is either already under investigation in New York or soon will be (like his misuse of campaign funds to pay off his defense lawyers).
⁹ Timothy Snyder, “The Road to Unfreedom,” p. 281.
˟˟ For a bit more philosophical/psychological treatment of one of the themes in this blog, you might want to read (“Only I Can“) which I wrote in July 2019.

Why do so many of our politicians express their belief in American exceptionalism? How many of us Americans agree with them? How do these believers define this exceptionalism? And what definition of American exceptionalism can or should withstand our scrutiny?

Many Americans would define American exceptionalism in terms of ideals expressed in our founding documents. Jefferson’s Declaration both proclaimed the principles and then listed the grievances that motivated the revolt against the British Monarchy. Subsequently, the Preamble to our Constitution defined the goals/pursuits that would make us one country. Further, the Constitution defined the structure, role, and constraints of our government. As many have said, America is based upon an idea, born of the Enlightenment, and expressed in these documents. Other countries followed similar paths. For instance, whereas our Declaration touted life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the French, by comparison, instituted their democracy on the clarion call of liberte, egalite, fraternite. Though both Americans and the French would agree that citizenship includes living free and equal under a Constitutional system of laws and democratic institutions, they differ on the nature of the society so established. Specifically, fraternite implies a community akin to a brotherhood, whereas the “pursuit of happiness” has an individualist connotation. In blunt terms, the French fraternite admits a strong social bond where the American pursuit of happiness guarantees the opportunity for personal or individual attainment but, sadly, only for a specific class of Americans. It was assumed that opportunity applied only to the white European settlers of this New World. Unlike the French, America was already a pluralist society, however unwilling its founding fathers were to admit that fact. Obviously, Jefferson never had the Negro slaves in mind when he insisted on adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution’s first ten Amendments. Remember, he was a slave holder.

There is an irony in Jefferson’s declaration that “all men are created equal” and in his insistence that individual rights be added to the Constitution as its initial amendments. By basing “unalienable rights” on the fact of human birth, he laid the legal foundation for law on nature instead of any dictate of the state. But he was also engaged in the most natural human relation with Sally Fleming, who was legally one of his slaves, even though her birthright should have guaranteed her “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Despite this personal contradiction, his words created the basis for classical liberalism, the inspiration for the very Conservativism that became the philosophical grounding for our Republican Party, that is, before Trumpian authoritarianism replaced it. But neither he nor the participants in the 1787 Constitutional Convention foresaw a future in which men and women born into slavery would become free American citizens.

What our founding fathers did envision, instead, was a country inhabited by white landowners and homesteaders tasked with building an economy and conquering a continent. The “pursuit of happiness” materialized in a very industrious economy that initially included cotton plantations, foreign trade, railroads, and the individual consignments that eventually metamorphized into commercial and investment banking. From its inception, then, America was characterized by the personal attainments of its white European settlers. It presumed to reward their individual pursuits, abet their personal wealth, and support an evolving economic structure.

In this light, our founding ideals seem more aspirational than descriptive of our nascent nation. “In order to form a more perfect Union” implies that the ideals expressed in the Constitution’s Preamble were merely goals “we the people” must/should realize. The reality our forefathers faced was a welcoming land of opportunity for individual American pioneers. That uniquely American characteristic of conquest and discovery was indeed exceptional and revealed itself in actual accomplishments. But the “more perfect union” defined in our Constitution was a democratic state never realized, but only promised. The promise, not the reality, was and is exceptional. The former inspires, but the latter reveals Americans’ shortcomings. Let’s review the nature of this quintessential American experience.

Americans did build a nation that has proven exceptional in many areas. From its outset, this newly crafted nation was a beehive of activity. Brook Farm, for example, bred a new American intelligentsia. While Horace Greeley and other editors founded American journalism, New England became the birthplace of art, literature, journalism, and the flowering of American culture. It also taught and trained the teachers that crisscrossed the continent, opening small town schoolhouses and educating young Americans. The first half of the 19th century was, literally, an American renaissance. Meanwhile, Greeley’s editorial advice for his readers was “Go West.” And American settlers did so and in mass. Together with the American Cavalry, they conquered the Indian Nations and built new communities, subsequently adding new territories and States to the Union. They also brought with them the spirit of a newly formed democracy, which so impressed the foreign historian, Alexis de Tocqueville. He recognized a “new Anglo-American civilization . . . (as) the product of two perfectly distinct elements which elsewhere have often been at war with one another . . . forming a marvelous combination . . . the spirit of religion (sic) and the spirit of freedom (sic).” ¹

Alongside these hard-won attainments, America was building a new economy. In the Southern States, Americans built a lucrative cotton trade on the backs of slave labor. In the Northeastern States, one erstwhile banker, Alexander Brown, started a railway to connect his cotton suppliers with his Atlantic export operation. He well represented Tocqueville’s combination of Christian values with business foresight, integrity, and inventiveness. Eventually, his somewhat modest undertaking spawned a railroad industry that crisscrossed the country, connecting the western territories to the New England economy. Meanwhile, New England bankers made their fortunes on proffering consignments for exporting cotton overseas. Tocqueville’s “Anglo-American civilization” was prospering with all the religious fervor and unbounded freedom that so eluded the history of the Old World. From another perspective, it could be concluded that slavery worked better than feudalism (which conclusion I cannot and do not attribute to Tocqueville).

But an economy built on exports and depended upon consignment promises and risky Atlantic crossings gave birth to speculative investments. America’s financial pursuits resulted in an economy that grew in spurts, with speculative driven expansions followed by periodic downturns. The American economy crashed nearly every twenty years throughout the nineteenth century—perhaps the worst crash was spurred by President Andrew Jackson in 1837. On the last day of his second term, he executed his final assault on the central bank by signing his Specie Circular Act that required all government lands be paid-for only in gold and silver coins.

Later, during the Civil War, President Lincoln realized there was not enough specie to pay for the war. So, he passed the Legal Tender Act in 1862 which created “greenbacks” backed by the government instead of gold or other species. He literally saved the American economy amid a war over the issue of Negro equality under the American Constitution. He was the first President to address both the issue of equality and the economic stability of the American enterprise. Both issues address the nature of our national character and the pursuit of happiness.

After the Civil War, unfettered by war and accelerated by unregulated investment and the efficiencies of assembly-line production, the American economy beget its industrial revolution. The so-called “robber barons” rose to prominence both in wealth and power. But their control over American industry was rebuffed by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act under President Grover Cleveland and the relentless assault of President Theodore Roosevelt. They inadvertently created the issue of unequal distribution of wealth as a threat to the integrity of an American first principle. Specifically, they famously and brazenly were more able to pursue their happiness than other Americans. Their inordinate wealth and control over American industry spawned the actions of a succession of Presidents—from Cleveland to many of his successors—to protect America’s economic expansion via intermittent legal interventions.

Nevertheless, taken as a whole, the century after America’s founding experienced an incredible expansion of territory, culture, and the nation’s economy. The American pursuit of happiness evolved a country that could not have been foreseen by its founders. The New World breached a continent, defined a unique culture, and unleashed an economy that burned through multiple recessions towards sporadic expansions, but with an ever-growing wealth disparity and an inability—or unwillingness—to resolve inequality in a pluralist population.

Of course, alongside economic development, a new social order and culture evolved after the Revolution and somehow withstood the gruesome experience of the Civil War. While most Americans are probably not aware of Brook Farm and the American renaissance, they do know about European settlers, western expansion, the sub-culture of slavery that extended for nearly a quarter of a millennium before the 13th Amendment was ratified, and the inventiveness and industriousness of our ancestors who built a juggernaut of an economy. These were our forefathers’ major pursuits from the 17th through the 19th centuries. America’s founding ideals of liberty and equality were never extended to the conquered Indian nations, however, nor fully realized by the freed slaves. But the resources of a continent and the inventive industriousness of American settlers, bankers, plantations, and businesses unleashed an economic juggernaut that overcame myriad recessions. Although America did not fully realize its democratic ideals of a pluralist society of equals, it built an industrial revolution that promised unfettered wealth for many. The promise of wealth at hand overshadowed any concern over an unrealized ideal that promised universal equality under the law. “We the people” was segregated by race, income, and opportunity in a harshly stratified social structure. The divide between the rich and poor mirrored the stratification of classes between white and non-white. It was a capitalist picture in which the individual pursuit of happiness was framed.

The 20th century opened with a dynamic Theodore Roosevelt at the helm and with many captains of industry at the forefront of a new American era of wealth and power. So befuddled was the historian Henry Adams by the growth and complexity of the American economy that he claimed, “the new American—the child of incalculable coal-power, chemical power, electrical power, and radiating energy, as well as of new forces yet undetermined—must be a sort of God compared with any former creation of nature.” ² With this hyperbole, he may have been the first to attribute exceptionalism to a new generation of Americans. But take note, his accreditation of an almost divine exceptionalism is delineated by an economic progress spurred by American inventiveness, scientific prowess, and the harnessing of the forces of nature. At the heart of American exceptionalism, then, is capitalism as the engine that spurs human ingenuity, science, and a mastery of nature and that ignites an ever-expanding economy.

The new century began by interweaving American finance and politics with its entry onto the world stage. To quote Zachary Karabell, “as dollar diplomacy evolved and expanded from Taft to Wilson, as it became simply ‘American diplomacy’ . . . a handful of firms became the de facto deputies of the U.S. government, and the government became the de facto agents of these financial interests.” ³ But as America’s wealth grew, so did the depth of its economic pitfalls and the creativity of its recoveries. The Panic of 1907 aroused American bankers to mobilize and call for a central authority to become the banker of last resort and the backstop in a financial panic. President Wilson, who initially favored a government-controlled central bank, compromised with the banking community to create a hybrid. In 1913, the Federal Reserve Act established that hybrid, more controlled by private banks but governed by Presidential appointees. After World War I, America emerged as Europe’s main creditor, replacing the Bank of England in that role. Not only was America’s GDP the largest in the world, but it had also become Europe’s banker, providing liquidity to its war-torn nations. But American hegemony still had major hurdles. The Excess Profits Tax Act of 1917 curtailed excessive wartime profiteering, eliminating shared profit ventures established by American bankers. Cross-Atlantic partnerships dissolved. And the British pound remained preeminent in international commerce. Not only was America not ready to assume the world leadership role pursued by President Wilson’s League of Nations’ initiative, but it also pulled back from the temptation to capitalize on its economic power.

Then came the Great Depression and the withering of bank liquidity. As the banking system collapsed, so did individual savings. While the economy self-destructed, unemployment and soup lines grew. Shortly after taking office, Franklin Roosevelt turned to Congress for legislation that would address the banking crisis. The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 changed the nature of banking and investing by divorcing investment banking from commercial banking. Speculation would still have its risks for the investor, but it could no longer bring down a nation’s economy—or so it was believed at the time. And that belief may have affected President Clinton’s relaxation of some parts of Glass-Steagall. Partly as a result, his successor witnessed the near collapse of the financial sector in the 2008 Great Recession over the debacle of sub-prime mortgage derivatives. Once again, a new Administration had to rescue the nation from its speculative tendencies. While President Obama, like Roosevelt before him, attempted to bail out Americans from financial disaster with a Federal stimulus, Congress moved to pass the Dodd-Frank Act. It prohibited banks from making speculative investments by regulating high-risk financial products, required bank stress test to assure adequate liquidity, and provided tougher oversight of the financial, insurance, and credit industries. (Former President Trump weakened some of this oversight by suppressing the work of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that held banks accountable for unfair loan practices.)

Why itemize this brief revue of America’s financial journey? After World War II and the Bretton Woods establishment of a new world order, America became a financial behemoth and the leader amongst nations. Nevertheless, it continued to have its economic pitfalls: recessions, oil crises, runaway inflation, and a reincarnation of “robber barons” in the form of millionaires and billionaires who have accumulated 69% of the nation’s wealth. ⁴ Now, at the outset of the 21st century, Jefferson’s idealistic “pursuit of happiness’ finds Americans bitterly divided along economic, political, racial, and social lines. The political divide alone threatens the very foundation of our democracy. Is this what are forefathers envisioned? In a previous blog (ref. “Of . . . By . . . and For”), I described America’s drift away from democracy. In this blog, I will attempt to explain why we are failing its promise.

While there is little doubt that material well-being is a baseline for the pursuit of happiness, it cannot be its wherewithal. Wealth creation is important for individual and family security. But, by itself, it does not guarantee happiness. Home ownership, for example, is a primary source of wealth for most Americans and reflects our heritage from the Homesteader’s Act to Jefferson’s vision of a nation of landowners. And yet we have a housing shortage, which is aggravated by a lack of affordable housing in well-populated job markets. America is the richest nation in the world with an accumulated wealth of about 129.46 trillion dollars. Whereas the top 10% of our population has garnered 90.32 trillion, the bottom 50% owns only 2.82 trillion. ⁴ These bottom dwellers represent approximately 165 million Americans living in poverty or near poverty conditions. This “near poverty” class mostly represents those living paycheck to paycheck. If wealth creation is part of our pursuit of happiness, then it can also be a detriment to that pursuit. How then can wealth define American exceptionalism? It more aptly describes America’s failure to provide for those “unalienable rights.”

It is said that the business of America is business. Capitalism reigns here. But does it insure personal happiness? Even a cursory history of the American economy reveals the dangers of unbridled capitalism. While it can create wealth, it can divide a nation between the “haves” and “have-nots.” Time and again, our Presidents and Congress have had to sponsor and pass regulations to reign in speculation and anti-competitive practices. We are a “can-do” people who invent and reach for high goals, but do we weigh the costs of personal success against the well-being of our fellow Americans? Some among us have followed the dictum of “OPM,” that is, conning and grifting their way to a fortune on the backs of other peoples’ money. In the vernacular of former President Trump, those “other people” are losers. So how then is winning at all costs a virtue? Why does a writer like Anne Rand measure a nation’s success by the wealth and associated power gained by the so-called “captains of industry?”

It would be tempting to say that America is pioneering Adam Smith’s vision of a self-regulating market. If so, then America is failing. Smith gave us a baseline for understanding how free markets should work. But free markets can easily be distorted by monopolistic tendencies, by lack of liquidity, by irresponsible speculation, or by grifting with other peoples’ money. There is a chapter in Zachary Karabell’s outstanding book entitled “when is enough enough?” Therein he concludes, “in what healthy system does never becoming too big to fail get judged negatively?” ⁵ He was arguing against the relentless pursuit of profit and the imperative to grow a business without consideration of other imperatives.

The problem with capitalism is not capitalism per se, but greed and the disregard for social needs and justice. Why do Americans pay more for pharmaceuticals than citizens of every other advanced economy? Why does Congress refuse to allocate funds to the IRS so that it could evaluate the lengthy tax returns of large companies and billionaires? How can a wealthy President who earns 450,000 dollars per annum pay only 750 dollars for each year he served in office? A disabled person on SSDI who takes on a part time job to pay her rent, pays more taxes than the President of the United States. There are solutions already offered for these injustices. But the current Republican Party has blocked proposed remedies. Why? The “Grand Ole Party” needs the financial backing of rich donors to finance campaigns. Is this the fault of capitalism? Or is it the result of America never realizing the promise inherent in our revolution against authoritarian rule, specifically, that we are all “created equal” and entitled to the same rights and opportunities.

Perhaps we Americans need to redefine the “pursuit of happiness” in terms outlined in the Preamble of our Constitution where our union as a people must be governed by law and committed to defend each other against all enemies within or without and as a nation must be defined in terms of justice, domestic tranquility, the general welfare, and the assurance of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. That union implies a community aligned with common values and steadfast in defending those values and each other. Not even Tocqueville could foresee the community America could become since his “Anglo-American civilization” never associated religious and political values with a pluralist society of mixed races, genders, and ethnic groups from every continent in the world. And yet pluralism is the only realistic denominator of present-day America, a possibility our founding fathers chose to overlook, but a reality we must now face.

Often the idea of America as a melting pot for diverse people serves as a simile for a new world order of diverse states. The United Nations is an iconic symbol for that new order, along with the post-war creations at Bretton Woods that included the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Unfortunately, the American ideal of globally interconnected democratic states cannot be achieved via financial hegemony. It remains true that the long-sought post World War II strategic balance amongst competing nations has been tilted in favor of the American dollar. International banking and corporations do rise and fall on a tide of greenbacks. As the 2008 Great Recession demonstrated, the world economy also rises and falls with the integrity of America’s financial institutions. Is free enterprise itself then a threat to democracy, or just its American embodiment? Free markets and fair international banking rules should guarantee a financial order that is both free and equitable. But the ideal here assumes wealth creation benefits all, from the banker and corporate magnates to every employee, customer, and auxiliary participant in the global marketplace. Clearly, that benefit has never been realized, most clearly not even in America. Trillions of dollars of oil, metals, and rare substances have been extracted from impoverished countries. The sole beneficiaries are rich capitalists and the few rich nations that support their enterprises. Perhaps it is time for a new world order, one that has learned from Bretton Woods’ shortfalls.

But America could truly be a world leader if it constrained capitalism to serve its whole population fairly, without disproportionately aggrandizing the rich. Fairness means fair wages, equal treatment before the law, taxes scaled proportionally to earnings, and support for communal benefits such as public education, medical health services, and regulations that generally serve the health and safety of all members of the community. Capitalism can serve the wealth creation of a community, but not when it monopolizes its profits exclusively for the exorbitantly rich. The value of wealth can only be measured by whatever benefit it brings inclusively to every individual, all communities, and the whole of society. Assessing that benefit in terms of its human value excludes excessive hording, cheating, grifting, and swindling.

Without doubt, America has many exceptional achievements as the oldest democracy in history, as a very rich nation with a world leading GDP, and as a leader amongst the community of nations. And we, the American people, are responsible for these achievements, just as Europeans are, for their incredible recovery after a world war. But many of us just accept the words “American exceptionalism” without question, thereby avoiding any responsibility to either define them or apply them to our lives. And our politicians peddle “American exceptionalism” because they want to be re-elected. They believe an unspecified American ideal can serve as a campaign bromide. Unfortunately, an idealism unlived and a vast wealth inequitably realized do not make America exceptional. Therein is a truth Americans must confront.

Although that truth is harder to accept, it is empowering when acted upon. First, we Americans must admit the fact that our democracy was flawed at its outset by a failure to address or even admit the pluralist nature of the population that inhabited this continent. Our forefathers not only committed the genocide of the indigenous peoples, but their subsequent generations deliberately failed to recognize the treaties negotiated with the Indian Nations. Further, our founding fathers drafted the Constitution without any recognition of the Negro slaves that had served the settlers for 167 years as beasts of burden. “All men are created equal” and “we the people” become just meaningless mirages—unless we convert those aspirations into reality. Until we see through this fog of self-deception, we will never overcome the stain of slavery, understand the intent of those ideals/aspirations that founded our nation, or align with those who march under the banner of “Black lives matter.” Secondly, we Americans must admit that the nation’s GDP and stock indices do not account for the nearly 50% of our population living near or below the poverty line. And that admission blows away the myth of economic exceptionalism. In its place, we find political charlatans who run up an 8 trillion-dollar debt to reward the wealthiest among us at the expense of every taxpayer in America (reference: the Trump tax cut for the wealthy and corporations). The same politicians now refuse to roll back their largesse for the wealthy to fund paid family leave or childcare or preschool for working class families. But they will gladly pay a trillion or more to bail out a recession-driven economy that speculators or financial wizards will inevitably create in their wake as they bet with other peoples’ money to enhance their own wealth.

Have you noticed that most analyses of the American economy and the composition of our population are broken down into numbers, most often percentages? If I can steal a quote from Martin Buber, these analyses fall victim to a “ghostly solicitude for faceless digits.” Certainly, I’m part of the digital age and have realized its benefits. But a democracy depends on its representatives and on communities of people. And people do not exist as numbers or percentages, but they do form communities and live in relationships with each other. Those relationships form us from childhood through the rest of our lives. Why would we choose to isolate ourselves from relating to humans with different color skins, ethnic backgrounds, or gender identities? The more encounters we have with people “not like us,” the more opportunities to relate to the basic mystery of our own humanity. Also, those encounters naturally dissolve the fear of others “not like us.” Such encounters develop a shared reality and the flowering of human compassion. In this manner, human communities can form, and a democracy can arise where people care for the needs of each other. Only a narcissist exists alone in his/her own make-believe world, devoid of compassion for others. Such a person exists only for his/herself and represents the extreme of selfishness.

We Americans must begin to remove the barriers that divide us—whether they are information sources, physical separation, the digital divide, or angry demagogues. We Americans can be better citizens in the kind of democracy that assures equality and opportunity for all. We just need to care for each other, which means to work and vote for the America our founders imagined. Only we can make that American dream a reality.

Let me conclude with two questions:
(1) Can democracy survive where capitalism is primarily and unrestrainedly benefiting the wealthy?
(2) Can democracy survive in a pluralist society where racial/ethnic groups are marginalized?

I pray for the day that all my readers will have unhindered opportunity to pursue their interest/occupation and be treated equal before the law, at the ballot box, and in the exercise of all the freedoms and rights guaranteed by the Constitution to which we all pledge allegiance.

______________________________________________
¹ Alexis Torcqueville, “Democracy in America,” Volume 1, Easton Press, PP. 39-40.
² Henry Adams, “The Education of Henry Adams,” Easton Press, p. 462. (Henry Adams was the friend of Presidents and the great grandson and grandson of two Presidents, respectively.)
³ Zachary Karabell, “Inside Money: Brown Brothers Harriman and the American Way of Power,” Penguin Press, p.308
⁴ The actual figures provided by the Federal Reserve after the first quarter of 2021 indicate that the top 1% own 31% of the nation’s wealth. The overall wealth breakdown for the United States is 69% of the nation’s wealth is owned by the top 10%, leaving the remaining 31% for the vast majority working-age Americans.
⁵ Karabell, in loc cit., p. 409.

Amid the greatest existential threat to our nation, Abraham Lincoln explained why a nation conceived and dedicated to liberty and equality must engage in a “great civil war” to preserve its legacy for itself and “any nation so conceived and dedicated.” He exhorted Americans “to be dedicated to the great task remaining before us . . . that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom . . . that these dead (at Gettysburg) shall not have died in vain.” ¹ Speaking as the President who saved our Union, he resolved that our American government “shall not perish from this earth.” But why does his resolve still appear so imperative today?

First, he reminded us that we have a government “of the people.” In the middle of a divisive Civil War, that reminder was certainly pertinent, though never more tenuous. The 13th Amendment, ratified in December 1865, and the 14th Amendment, passed in July 1868, together freed the Negro slaves, and granted them full citizenship and equal protection under the law. But they were not addressed as African Americans until after the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts of the 1960’s, nearly a hundred years later. Moreover, from the Nineteenth century forward, America continued to expand its citizenship, opening its arms to migrants from war-torn and impoverished nations. America became a nation of people from every continent in the world—a melting pot where many were brewed into one. America was that “shining city on a hill” that President Reagan regaled: a beacon of hope for all who wanted liberty and equality before the law, regardless of race, religion, birthplace, or country of origin.

Eighty-seven years earlier, Thomas Jefferson had represented all Americans when he wrote that “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all . . . are created equal . . . endowed with certain unalienable rights . . . (of) life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” These were the bedrock truths that justified American citizenship for slaves and migrants to this new world. Our current President has repeatedly reminded us that our Constitution holds us all responsible to these truths which are the very basis of our democracy. Neither race, religion, birthplace, or family origin, should restrict individual American citizens from the exercise of these rights. America must then be inclusive of all its people. As our President often says, “there is nothing America cannot do if we do it together.” He reminds us that America is one nation but only as long as we all agree to act as one people.

But how do we reconcile this core American value with white supremacy advocates, with suppression of black and brown voters, with curtailment of lawful immigrants, with denial of due process for asylum seekers, and with the actions of elected representatives who support eliminating some Americans from the census? If we assign the full rights of American citizenship only to those privileged by race, power, political affiliation, a/o money, we are denying one of the core principals of our democracy. As a result, Americans would become further differentiated between the haves and have-nots, between the privileged and the ostracized. Some Americans would be excluded not just from the census but even from participation in our democracy. How then can the concepts of “liberty and justice for all” and government “of the people” survive? Stated simply, our government would no longer be fully representative. It would cease to be the America envisioned by the founders or reestablished by Lincoln for it would not be “of the people.”

Secondly, Lincoln reminded us that, in America, governance is maintained by the people. The very definition of “democracy” is “rule by the people.” In our system of representative democracy, there are two irrevocable practices: every citizen has a right to vote; and those elected serve the will of the majority and vow to adhere to the principles and lawful governance outlined in our Constitution. This last point is critical. The founders feared that radical insurgents might attempt to overthrow the peoples’ democracy and therefore demanded all office holders swear allegiance to the Constitution. In a previous blog (ref. “Presidential Farewell Addresses”), I quoted Washington’s admonition of a “fatal tendency”: “to organize factions . . . to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of the party . . . to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.” The Constitutional remedy that addresses this fatal tendency is not just the oath of office but the provision of impeachment that holds office holders accountable to its provisions.

How would George Washington assess our contemporary governance in the light of the Republican Party’s reluctance to impeach a rogue President, to seek non-partisan counsel regarding an insurrection, and to find “common counsels. . . modified by mutual interests” or at minimum align with Democrats on those universal principles specified in the Preamble of our Constitution? The characterization of the current Republican Party as the “Party of no” is far too understated for a faction that refuses to find common ground between Parties and instead pursues political power for its own sake. That Party is simply obstructionist and reactionary. Some may even call it traitorous to a democracy. In a previous blog (ref. “Majority Pejoraty”), I outlined how the founders’ fear of a tyrannical majority has been deviously subverted into a tyranny of the minority. Our laws and institutions were created to prevent this eventuality. Unfortunately, both depend upon the goodwill of our elected officials. When a political party not only refuses to recognize the will of the majority but attempts to suppress any voter opposition to its hold on political power, it violates the primary purpose of a democracy. America then ceases to be America. And that political party no longer represents the American people. We witness that failure of representation in the Republican Party’s non-support for recent Administration initiatives.

Who supports these Administration’s Initiatives?
_____________________________Republicans_________Public___
Climate Threat Mitigation………..No……………………..Yes
COVID Relief Bill………………………No……………………..Yes
Proposed Infrastructure Bill…….No……………………..Yes
January 6 Commission…………….No………………………Yes
Voting Rights Bills……………………No……………………….Yes
Police Reform Bill……………………No……………………….Yes

The proposal for a non-partisan Commission to investigate the January 6 insurrection on our Capitol received only a few Republican votes, while the vast majority voted against the initiative. The COVID relief bill was passed, but without a single Republican vote. Of course, Republicans would never support climate legislation or the voting rights bills. For climate change denial and voter suppression are avowed policies of the Republican Party. The Administration’s infrastructure proposal has some limited support from Republicans, but only after eliminating people as part of the nation’s infrastructure—meaning only roads, bridges, the electric grid, perhaps broadband availability, and possibly water delivery systems are considered. And, finally, police reform is held back over the definition of “qualified immunity.” Apparently, Republicans do not want our uniformed police force to be held accountable for theft, sexual harassment, obstruction of justice, or excessive force—the current obstacles to Republican agreement. In other words, they want police immunity for crimes any other American citizen would face indictment and, if found guilty, incarceration. Opposition to these popular initiatives illustrates the people’s loss of governance to a political faction, the fatal tendency of which our first President warned us. The sole beneficiary in this usurpation of the people’s self-governance is the ability of one political Party to dictate in favor of minority factions. Opposition to two of these proposed initiatives—namely, denial of the January 6 insurrection against a lawful election and support for voter suppression—also abet the minority’s strangle hold on power in place of government “by the people.”

And, finally, Lincoln reminded us of the overriding benefit of a true democracy, that is, a government “for the people.” Given the Administration initiatives listed here, who are the beneficiaries of their enactment into law? Most Americans favored them. Our elected Republicans do not. They oppose the last three initiatives on the inverse grounds of their oft repeated “cancel culture”: insurrectionist were peaceful protestors; voter suppression eliminates fraudulent ballots; and police immunity from criminal activity enhances their ability to assure public safety. These are inverse examples of alleged “culture” that a majority of Americans would gladly cancel. Besides the illogic of these positions, they have no justification in the intellectual and moral origins of our American culture. Support for an insurrection against the seat of democracy, for suppression of the right to vote, and for immunity of police state violence and criminal behavior against its citizens in no way reflect the cultural values of a democracy. Contrary to these abhorrent positions, several of the initiatives listed above not only “promote the general welfare,” as demanded in our Constitution, but also preserve American lives. But, Republicans argue, these initiatives are too expensive and will add to the deficit. But, as proposed by the President, they are fully paid by tax increases for the wealthier among us. The Republican argument sounds hollow in the light of the budget breaking tax break they passed in 2017, which favored their donor community, that is, the richest 10%, at the expense of our national budget deficit. Wealthy Americans, however, have no need for a tax windfall. Recently, it was reported that three of the wealthiest men in America—multi-billionaires all—paid no taxes in 2020. Unfortunately, America already matches Russia’s oligarchy in its income disparity. ² And, clearly, that disparity does not benefit a majority of Americans nor promote a government “for the people.”

How did America arrive at this impasse in its history? We seem at odds with ourselves, even at the costs of our own best interests. Should we place the blame at the feet of the Republican Party? But the struggle between political factions in America has a long history. Usually, that struggle mirrored debates over issues of national concern, like Hamilton’s bank, Jacksonian popularism, slavery, “robber barons,” American participation in World Wars, Depression era social programs, civil rights, nuclear proliferation, foreign military interventions, and terrorism. Now we seem unable to recognize or apply our well-established democratic norms to the problems at hand. But problems ignored will persist. They become like a low-level virus that slowly envelopes its host. If we fail to apply the appropriate vaccine, this virus will kill our American democracy. And that vaccine is simply the normal activities of a democracy within the parameters of its Constitution. Under our previous President, nearly all the democratic institutions of our government were either distorted or diverted from public service to self-serving political interests. During his Presidency, the Republican Party reached a nadir point where a thirty-year drift away from bi-partisan compromise became an uncompromising, self-serving belligerence. The Party of Lincoln and Reagan is no longer recognizable as such. Its only purpose now is to hold onto power at any costs, rather than to serve a nation whose majority wants its current issues addressed. Stated bluntly, Americans want their elected officials to apply our democratic ideals to the problems of our time. Like our American forebears, we want our Democracy to evolve. Why does the Republican Party block our path?

Though voted out of office, Donald Trump still seems the catalyst for his Party’s reactionism. His supporters continue to control the Republican Party. Apparently, riled and dupped by a demagogue, they will follow him to their grave. They are Trump’s foot soldiers in his quest for power. Though an electoral minority, they continue to fight for his return to power, even to the extent of mounting an insurrection against our Congress. Remember, Adolph Hitler eventually overruled Germany’s elected parliament, the Reichstag, while never attaining more than 37% of the vote. But his opponents came to fear his Nazis brownshirts, allowing him to establish the Third Reich. The month after he connived to become Chancellor, Goebel, one of his chief lieutenants, had the Reichstag burned to the ground. In like fashion, Trump’s January 6 insurrection attempted to disable Congress and assure the “continuation” of his Presidency. Even now, he continues to foment insurrection with planned rallies urging his followers to fight for his reinstatement to the Presidency. Like any prospective autocrat, he objectifies his enemies and declares himself as the hero who can save us all from these common foes or, more accurately, his scapegoats. Whereas Hitler blamed the communists, his main political enemies at the time, Trump blamed far left activists, his self-proclaimed political enemies. Likewise, both made defenseless civilians the object of universal scorn, whether Jews, Slavs, or Catholics under Hitler’s jurisdiction, or Muslims, minorities, or migrants during Trump’s Administration. He declared that “only I can” clear what he termed the political “swamp” of our existing government and make his MAGA dream a reality. While Hitler considered himself one of Hegel’s “world-historical individuals,” Trump declared himself “the greatest President in history” and a “stable genius.” Like Hitler, once he attained power, he was viscerally unable ever to concede it.³

Two years ago, I wrote about Trump’s attack on our democracy and its institutions (reference “Only I Can”). Frankly, I did not believe his Party would follow him down that rabbit hole. But it did. And now we Americans can understand why the Republican Party no longer represents us. Its sole purpose is to suppress the popular will and cling to power by any means. Moreover, it bears no resemblance to its alleged standard bearer, and is unrecognizable as the so-called “Party of Lincoln.” Unless distraught Republicans, like those who formed the Lincoln Project, can pull Congressional Republicans back from the brink, the Party may succeed in dragging America into that dark pit of autocracy—wherein Donald Trump still lurks.

As I write this blog, President Biden just concluded a series of meetings with our allied democratic states and finally with Vladimir Putin, the Russian President. Putin has been a central character in the rise of Trumpism and its attack on our democratic institutions. Not only has he meddled in our elections but has had a major influence on our former President (ref. “Post Inauguration Thoughts on Power and Government”). He is a leading advocate for replacing democracies with autocracies. He believes in strong central governments and views “rule by the people” as unruly and unmanageable. He also considers any democracy a threat to Mother Russia. Biden understands Putin’s position, and assures him our two countries can still attain strategic stability, if not diplomatic comity. But whether Putin ceases meddling in our elections and allowing/promoting cyber-attacks on our institutions and businesses or not, the Trumpian virus he has helped spread may still fulfill its mission. It has invaded our politics and even the broadcast media. Trumpism has befouled our system of government, threatening its very existence as a democracy.

Like President Lincoln, President Biden assumes his office at a time when his nation faces an existential crisis. While Biden attempts to preserve Reagan’s “shining city on a hill,” Trump and Republican leaders want to drag him into a political fighting pit. Trump will hold rallies and spur insurrectionist fervor. The Senate Minority Leader will attempt to water down or block all Biden initiatives. Both antagonists hope to sway the midterm primaries and elections with supporters they can control. For gaining power is their only objective. Can President Biden do what President Lincoln did at that pivot point in the Civil War? Like President Lincoln, he has apprised Americans of what danger lies before our democracy. And he is orchestrating a new birth of freedom by restoring our democratic institutions and attempting to induce some acquiescence from Republicans. But he cannot succeed unless American patriots force their will on Republicans in the streets, in the halls of Congress, and at the voting booths. Hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers died to preserve America’s legacy. Now we will need millions of Americans to stand up for democracy over a threatened autocracy and demand that this unique experiment in democracy “shall not perish from the earth.”

__________________________________________________
¹ Abraham Lincoln, “The Gettysburg Address.”
² According to the World Inequality Database, the share of America’s income going to the richest 10% is 45.4% compared to Russia’s 46.1%, as quoted in Fortune, April/May 2021 edition.
³ These references to Hitler’s rise to power are taken from William Shirer’s “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” Book One, Chapter 4, “The Mind of Hitler and The Roots of the Third Reich.”

Still my question of the day: is it possible to reform our economy and our government without serious campaign reform that honors voting rights and replaces unlimited fund raising with equitably disbursed public funding? Or is there another way to return sovereignty to the American people? (Yes! Same footnote dating back to 2015.)

About two months after his inauguration, President Biden conducted his first press conference. On every subject upon which he was questioned a central theme of his Presidency emerged. Given the questions by reporters, it would be easy to lose that theme in the “beltway” metronome of political wrangling, sensationalism, and/or feigned outrage. But his answers sprung from the same wellspring of personal conviction. They reveal his commitments to bipartisanship, to America’s alliances with democratic state partners, to free and fair elections, to America’s vigilant/cautious relations with autocratic governments, to his central theme of unity, to his many references to “the soul of America,” and even to the transparent manner with which he answered the journalists’ questions. His central theme was and is about the exercise of democracy. But why, at this time, would we expect any other theme from an American President?

At the core of “democracy” is the principal of rule by the people, that is, of a universal franchise where every citizen gets a vote. Democracy cannot exist when citizens’ voting is suppressed. But the Governor of Georgia claims his government is assuring fair elections by his actions that limit the opportunity to vote. And many Republican-controlled states are attempting to follow his lead, like Arizona that is conducting an unofficial and unwarranted recount of last year’s ballots. The pretext for these acts of voter suppression or bias inspired recounts is the assumption that the recent Presidential election was rigged against the Republican incumbent. The election of a Democratic President was thereby deemed a fraud. And fraud demands stringent measures to control how, when, and where votes are counted in the future. But these measures are mis-directions. Over 60 court challenges, multiple recounts, and universally certified State election results testify to the fairest and most verified election in modern history. The real problem some Republican state legislatures are addressing is one of demographics. A few decades ago, white people accounted for more than 90% of the electorate. Today, they only amount to 59% of the electorate. Since a slim majority of white women now vote democratic, even a vast majority of white men cannot overrule the electorate, unless non-white voters are not counted or are denied access to the vote. Voter suppression not only silences American voices but their current and future expectations for America, as I previously referenced in “Majority Pejoraty.”

Although pluralism can and will expose disagreements, it can still avoid chaos and defy authoritarianism. Diversity may engender tribalism but can also inspire tolerance. The challenge for Americans is to find that point of coherence where a pluralistic and diverse society can unite and form a community. The pivot point in this delicate balance is the individual. Can each of us express his/her opinions while welcoming the opinions of those who disagree with us? Can the ideals expressed in our founding documents form a basis for a common set of beliefs? Those beliefs are the hinge that can open the door to compromise and are the only path to universal freedom. Our founding fathers (and the women who supported them) believed in the principles upon which they built this democratic republic – even though they disagreed upon many things. Do we still believe in those principles? If not, then the American experiment in democracy cannot and will not form a more perfect union. Instead, it will sink into the morass of endless wrangling amongst factions, as our first President warned us. And, worse, it will fall prey to the autocracy of oligarchs or tyrants who promise to save Americans from themselves.

Rovelli, a quantum physicist, saw a parallel between the social and political structures born of the Enlightenment and the profusion of scientific thought that so empowered the American experiment. The point of convergence between democracy and science, in his words, is “the idea that public criticism of ideas is useful for determining the best one, the idea that it is possible to debate and come to conclusions together.” ¹

But does Rovelli’s parallel between political and social processes sidestep one critical obstacle to uniform agreement in the political debate? Whereas science reaches agreement on the verifiable results proven by experiment and observable fact, political debate can rage forever between contending belief systems based upon unsupported, distorted, corelated (versus causal), theoretically dubious, or imagined facts. Whereas science evolves our understanding of the world, politics can grossly distort reality. If you agree, then how can Americans transform the principle of “rule by the people” into a reality that benefits all? Or how do we make our democracy alive and vibrant?

President Biden often states, “there’s nothing we cannot do if we do it together, (for) this is the United States of America.” Is he ignoring the naysayers? The Senate Minority Leader says “no Republican will vote” for a specific piece of legislation supported by the President. And his is not the only adverse voice in Congress. Many believe that the filibuster is preferrable to debate and that bipartisanship is fundamentally unattainable. This type of political dissension has become endemic throughout America. For example, mask wearing during a pandemic is termed “unamerican” and a violation of personal freedom. Further, insurrection against the seat of America’s democracy and voter suppression of the democratic right to vote have become arguable as justified acts of personal freedom in America’s democracy. Such acts are not just averse to the very concept of democracy but truly Orwellian in nature.

In Rovelli’s world science progresses by use of the scientific method where theory is freely proposed, tested, then retested by the scientific community until consensus is reached on the theory’s explanation of observable phenomena. The scientific method is the guiding principle. And the scientific community is the arbiter of acceptance. But this occurrence of principled acceptance is only possible if the scientific community believes in the scientific method. Would quantum physics exist without the concurrence of Maxwell, Heisenberg, Einstein, and Neals Bohr? Would gene editing exist if CRISPR was not verified in labs around the world after being patented by Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier. These scientific breakthroughs were nearly hundred years apart. And yet they both are based on the scientific method as an unchanging principle.

So, what is the unchanging principle of American democracy? Is it States rights? Personal freedom? Liberty and justice for all? Well, like science, there are many principles and their application to a changing world requires an evolution in their understanding and application. The one significant difference is that concurrence is less arbitrary in science than in politics. Newton’s laws were universally accepted until quantum physics revealed a deeper, underlying explanation of the same reality. But both Newton and Einstein adhered to the scientific method—as did Doudna and Charpentier. What basic principle or principles support the evolution of our democracy?

It should not be surprising that the principles that define the American Democracy are defined in the Preamble of our Constitution: “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union . . .
(1) establish Justice,
(2) insure domestic Tranquility,
(3) provide for the common defence (sic),
(4) promote the general Welfare,
(5) and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity . . .

In Rovelli’s world, the disagreements between scientists are the necessary means of accelerating the search for truth or the laws of nature. The guiding principle is the scientific method. In American politics, disagreements amongst politicians and citizens are equally necessary to uncover how best to realize these democratic ideals in a changing world. The Constitution is our guide. If we cannot agree on its principles and the structure of the government it outlines, then we will no longer have a democracy. We Americans are free to have many different ideas about law, government, religion and so on. What brings us together as one nation is the Constitution—our social pact—that demands our individual perspectives and opinions have free expression but only within the confines of its principled dictates.

Somehow, within the turmoil of rabid politicking, it seems easy to lose the perspective of those common principles that should bind us together as Americans. Within our families, it is much less likely that we would not pursue the best interest of each family member. In fact, parents often sacrifice their personal pursuits, interests, and opinions in service to the general welfare of their children. Just as love binds a family together, the social pact outlined in our Constitution should bind Americans together.

Walter Isaacson presents an interesting analysis of the competing moral perspectives that emphasize the role of the individual or the community. “One emphasizes individual rights, personal liberty, and a deference to personal choice . . . (the others) view justice and morality through the lens of what is best for the society and perhaps even (in case of bioengineering and climate policy) the species.” ² Isaacson, in the context of his book, argues for “the right balance.” Within the broader context of this blog, I would also argue that both perspectives can coexist—but only if we Americans accept the underlying principles of our democracy. In other words, our politicians can compromise, and citizens can respect different beliefs if they give primary allegiance to our core social pact, that is, the Constitution. And that allegiance is exactly what our President is asking of us when he repeatedly states, “there is nothing we cannot do if we do it together.” When he speaks of the “the soul of America,” he is referring to the patriotism of its citizens.

Some years ago, I wrote a novel entitled “In Search of Fate.” The storyline depicts an individual’s journey through the vagaries of chance and competing initiatives. What my protagonist discovers is that a fate he could never have imagined became a consequence of his own choices. I believe America at this moment in its history is at a pivot point. The choices we citizens make now will determine its fate. As our President predicted, future generations may well acknowledge that this was the time “we won the future.” We just need to keep our faith in ourselves and in our founding principles. The fate of our democracy demands no less from each of us.

________________________________________________________
¹ Carlo Rovelli, “Anaximander,” p. 96.
² Walter Isaacson, “The Code Breaker: Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing, and the Future of the Human Race,” pp. 356-357.

“Till truth were freed, and equity restored”

Democracy depends upon an electorate that is both informed and free to exercise their judgment in fair elections. But the exercise of the human ability to choose rationally and freely does not guarantee the best, or even intended, result. Both as individuals and as a society, we either learn from our mistakes or doom ourselves to repeat them. We have aphorisms and myths that remind us “to err is human.” The Bible’s origin story explains this human propensity.

The Garden of Eden, we are told, is a mythological representation of a nascent paradise into which humans were introduced. Obviously, Adam and Eve had no need to hunt or raise crops for food. But after their “fall” from grace, they were expelled from Paradise and from the tree of life. They not only were damned to toil for their sustenance but to face death itself. The knowledge of good and evil apparently comes with a heavy price.

When Eve plucked that apple from the forbidden tree and took that first bite, she chose a future she could not predict and discovered the full gravity of free will. Adam, of course, trusted Eve and took the second bite that also set his fate in motion. Every human being faces their predicament, if not a mythological fall from grace, some other form of failure. There are unforeseen consequences to the exercise of free will. But without it, humanity would have lost its most self-defining characteristic. Eve, named after the Hebrew verb “to live,” was not only “the mother of all the living” ¹ but the archetype for the exercise of free will—the forerunner of integrity or shame. She is both our progenitor and precursor. As such, she embodies both the capabilities and limitations of her posterity, encompassing our life experiences, to include both our achievements and failures.

Amongst the many interpretations of this origin story, I have selected the very human problem we all face, that is, the risk inherent in the exercise of free will without the omnipotent ability to foresee all possible consequences. Eden, then, is a cautionary tale that must compel us to gauge the consequences of our choices, as individuals and as citizens of the world and of America. As Americans, we combine these citizenships in both our private and public lives. Specifically, we are free to live our democratic values and choose who may serve our best interests and represent our values to the world. Have those chosen representatives always served our best interests and our democratic values? Have we?

Americans have had to cope with profoundly severe consequences for many of its most pregnant choices. For example, during the Constitutional Convention on one hot summer in Philadelphia, our founding fathers argued about how the lower house should be represented. John Rutledge of South Carolina opined that representation should be determined by the “quotas of contribution,” that is, the amount contributed to the national treasury. Elbridge Gerry immediately brought up the issue of slaves, declaring “blacks are property and are used to the southward as horses and cattle to the northward.” ² Gerry, later elected as Vice President in the Madison Administration, was implying that the North would then have the right to count horses and cattle as part of its representation quota—an absurd equivalency. The issue was eventually resolved by James Wilson who would be nominated by Washington to the Supreme Court in 1789. He advocated the “three-fifths” rule adopted by the Confederation Congress of 1783. According to the Convention’s records, he stated that representation should be the “whole number of white and other free citizens and three-fifths of all other persons except Indians not paying taxes . . .”² The final text of the Constitution, Article I, Section 2, refers to “free persons” instead of “white and other free citizens,” includes indentured servants as free citizens, but keeps the exclusion of “three-fifths of all other persons.” Hidden behind the metaphorical loin cloth here is the word “white” and “slaves.” Is it too bold to assume that our founding fathers were ashamed of these omissions? Well, they should have been embarrassed. For their decision made the aspiring democracy they chose to create much less exceptional at its outset and more tenuous in its future. They took that first bite out of the apple.

Any American civics class will typically cover the history that led to the Civil War. Though the founding fathers had tried to navigate around the issue, slavery was too ingrained in the South’s economy and lifestyle to be ignored. It was a frequent cause of debate in Congress, especially as the country expanded into the new territories. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 limited the expansion of slave states beyond Missouri. But, in 1854, Congress reversed itself, invalidating the Missouri Act and replacing it with the Nebraska Kansas Act which allowed slavery by a popular vote in the new territories. So divisive was this 1854 Act that it eventually broke up the Whig Party into a southern Democratic Party and a northern Republican Party. The famous Douglas-Lincoln debates of 1858 contributed to this break-up. Though Stephan Douglas beat Abraham Lincoln in the Illinois Senate race that year, Lincoln won the Presidency over Douglas in 1860. One month after Lincoln assumed the Presidency in 1861, Jefferson Davis, the newly declared President of the Confederacy, declared war on America and ordered a siege of Fort Sumpter. His declaration was an act of insurrection against the Constitution and a democratically elected President. The failure of Congressional compromise, divisive politics, and this incited insurrection were all linked in America’s fall from grace, from its hard-won union, and from its historic promise of exceptionalism. The Civil War that ensued was the result of this second bite out of the apple.

After President Lincoln’s assassination, his successor, Andrew Johnson, a former Southern governor, attempted to undo Lincoln’s plan for reconstruction of the South. Twice Congress overruled President Johnson’s vetoes. His successor, Ulysses S. Grant, did implement Lincoln’s reconstruction plans. He ordered Union soldiers to suppress the Klu Klux Clan and protect the newly freed slaves. But the Republican Party did not have the votes to elect Grant’s proposed successor, Rutherford B. Hayes. They needed support from the South, so they bargained away Lincoln’s reconstruction plans. As a result, the Klu Klux Clan not only restored its suppression of the former slaves, but began a period of pogroms, lynching, and systemic subjugation of Blacks. This period is known as the Jim Crow era. It began in 1877 and persisted until the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of the mid-1960’s. And Jim Crow marks the third bite of the apple.

From the first slave ship that anchored in American waters in 1619 until the 13th Amendment of 1865, African slaves were treated as work and farm animals—that is, for nearly a quarter of a millennium, generation after generation. Another hundred years passed before American Blacks were awarded the civil and voting rights that the American Constitution promised for all Americans. And it was only last summer that we saw Martin Luther King’s call for the coalition of conscience finally encompass a wide swath of white people. “Black Lives Matter” protests rose spontaneously across the country, and most of the protesters were white. The violence and suppression advocated by white supremacists finally awakened the public conscience, as did systemic racism. Perhaps, America has at last reached a tipping point where racism—its original sin—can emerge from the shadows. Finally, we can begin to realize the ideals of the Enlightenment that so inspired our founding fathers.

The word “enlightenment” implies a prior darkness. Why did it take so long for Americans to come into the light? In Isabel Wilkerson’s book, “Caste: The Lies That Divide Us,” she quotes a holocaust survivor’s disbelief in finding another caste system in America that mirrored the one he had just barely escaped. He described the treatment of Blacks as the “worst disease.” “Everyone who freshly learns of this state of affairs,” he concluded, “feels not only the injustice, but the scorn of the principle of the Fathers who founded the United States that ‘all men are created equal.’” ³ That holocaust survivor was Albert Einstein. Maybe, the light of conscience showed brighter for him as one who had just emerged from darkness. Let us hope last summer’s protests are also signs of such an emergence. What we Americans choose to do in this newfound light will determine our future, that is, whether we regain the promise of liberty and justice for all.

Recently, senators of the modern Republican Party took another bite out of that apple. They acquitted an impeached President who, like Jefferson Davis, incited an insurrection and attempted to undo a democratic election. The Senate Majority Leader, while admitting that the accused was “morally and practically” guilty and deserving to be held accountable, voted to acquit him on the very technicality the Senate had just voted invalid—that is, that the Senate did not have jurisdiction to remove a President proven guilty of inciting an insurrection and invalidating a democratic election. But America had fought a Civil War to preserve its Union, its Constitution, and the democratic election of Abraham Lincoln. Further, it indicted and imprisoned Jefferson Davis as a traitor who longed to do what Donald Trump did, which is to incite white supremacist to storm the capital and “stop the steal” or overturn a Presidential election. The only difference between Davis and Trump is that Davis lived and represented a way of life that justified white privilege over oppressed Black slaves whereas Trump identified with and catered to white supremacists only to gain followers for his own purposes—that is, his “continuation” in office. He may have agreed with them, but his objective was not to restore the glory of the Confederacy. He just wanted to use them in his quest to retain his hold on executive power. Davis’ supporters considered him a patriot and a hero of the Confederacy. But Trump is merely a traitor to his office, to the Constitution, and to the American people—including his followers. He used America’s original sin to serve his lust for power. As the Senate Majority Leader implied, Donald Trump should be held accountable, just as any alleged criminal tried in America’s judicial system.

How have we Americans delt with the unforeseen consequences of the January 6 insurrection and the aftermath of the Trump Presidency? As the Republican Party cowers under the threats of Trump’s “base” supporters and white supremacists, Congressional gridlock continues to kill bipartisanship. Lies and conspiracy theories abound in the face of truth and honesty. Brinkmanship is applauded, while reasonable debate is ridiculed. Donald Trump has awakened the same darkness the Constitutional fathers tried to circumvent, the Confederacy fought to preserve, the Jim Crow era justified by mob rule, the 60’s violent protests fought, and the more recent peaceful protests attempted to bring to light.

Regardless of the Senate’s failure to convict Trump for inciting his white supremacist followers, we Americans are still left with a decision—one that will determine the future of America. When will we decide to act in the best interest of all Americans? And that decision has weighed on America from its very inception. It has never ceased to challenge us, our ideals, and the very purpose of our democracy, as stated in the Constitution: “in order to form a more perfect union.” When those words were first penned to paper during the Constitutional Convention in 1787, there was some doubt that the proposed government would survive. Benjamin Franklin, when asked what form of government was agreed upon, answered “a republic, if you can keep it.” Later, John Adams termed our budding republic “an experiment.” Hamilton, Madison, and Jay wrote extensively in the Federalist Papers, explaining why and how this newly formed democracy was the best hope for self-government and better than anything that had proceeded it. But in this moment and at this time in American history, can we keep it?

Our founding fathers were not unaware of human nature. Wary of our weaknesses and limitations in judgment, they created a system of checks and balances, allowed for impeachment and removal from office, and assured us the ability to choose our path forward via free democratic elections. But they bequeathed to us an original sin from which only we can redeem ourselves. Democracy remains a work in progress. Only by guaranteeing the rights of all Americans can America regain its promise and redeem what was lost at its creation.

The idea of loss and redemption consumed the poet John Milton. Most know him as the author of his epic “Paradise Lost” in which he characterized our fall from grace. Later, he wrote a shorter epic poem entitled “Paradise Regained.” The following excerpt can and should inspire us to overcome our original sin, to put aside the lust for power and threats of violence, to persuade the better angels of our nature, and to hold the misled to account. To secure our country’s future, we must teach each generation of Americans to advance the cause of liberty and justice for all. Otherwise, the promise of American exceptionalism will never be realized.

An excerpt from “Paradise Regained” by John Milton:

Then to subdue and quell, o’er all the earth,
Brute violence and proud tyrannic power,
Till truth were freed, and equity restored:
Yet held it more humane, more heavenly, first
By winning words to conquer willing hearts,
And make persuasion do the work of fear;
At least to try, and teach the erring soul,
Not wilfully misdoing, but unware
Misled; the stubborn only to subdue . . . (sic)
__________________________________________________________________
¹ Chapter 2, “The Old Testament,” The Catholic Book Publishing Company, c. 1957.
² as quoted by Catherine Drinker Bowen, “Miracle at Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention 1787,” p. 95.
³ as quoted by Isabel Wilkerson, “Caste: The Lies that Divide Us,” p. 378.

Footnote: For those who want to dig deeper into American systemic racism, I highly recommend Wilkerson’s book. My humble blog barely touches the surface of her historical analysis of caste systems, to include Indian, German, and American racism. She is an excellent writer, scholar, and human being. But my recommendation is dwarfed by her many awards and commendations to include a Pulitzer Prize, the National Humanities Medal, the National Book Critics Circle Award for Nonfiction, The New York Times’s list of the Best Nonfiction of All Time. Yes! She is that good.

Footnote #2: I should note the irony of the “three-fifths” rule. The Southern Democrats may have cut their financial contribution to the Federal Government by reducing their representation in Congress. But less representation weakened their ability to block the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments that gave Negroes freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote, respectively. The irony: the 3/5th rule not only intimated white supremacy, but the beginning of its demise. (Of course, America is still working towards that demise.)

Any plan implies a “method for achieving an end,” according to Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary. Of course, a plan to plant azaleas in a garden is quite simplistic compared to a plan to vaccinate enough Americans to reach “herd” immunity—that is, between 230 and 265 million Americans—before the Fall of 2021. The method required to accomplish that plan demands a very comprehensive design, in fact, a complicated system replete with contingency plans and feedback loops that can either address anticipated shortcomings or allow appropriate intervention for the unanticipated. This system begins with supply of the necessary vaccine, but proceeds to shipping, distributing to vaccination centers, staffing—and likely training—healthcare vaccinators, scheduling required follow-up vaccinations, and ongoing monitoring, coordination, and control of the entire process. Development of this system would necessarily have begun as soon as the earliest availability date for a viable vaccine was announced. And that date was early September 2020, when the FDA projected one or more vaccines would be available by mid-December. As of January 2021, no such system existed. Dumping vaccine supplies on hospitals throughout the country is not a plan. It does not account for delivery to remote populations, match vaccine supplies to vaccination scheduling, or assure appropriately trained immunizers where needed. Nor does it coordinate vaccine shipments with initial and follow-up immunizations. Without a system to coordinate and track these immunizations, there is no control or assurance of success—just the promise of ongoing chaos.

Development of this system should have begun with the assembly of a team representative of every state and with a compilation of demographics. That team would have been made responsible for locating facilities in reasonably sized population centers. Staffing and training requirements, as well as coordinated immunization and vaccine shipments, could have been forecasted and therefore planed well in advance of December. Moreover, the team’s advanced planning also would have allowed for the development of a tracking mechanism to assure that every bottle of vaccine was delivered were needed without undersupply or oversupply and that follow-up vaccinations were administered on schedule. That tracking mechanism would necessarily be a computer system with similar screens for recording vaccinations and patient data (like name, contact info., and scheduling data), but with networking of its recorded data to central hubs. Of course, those hubs would then have accurate data to assure overall coordination of vaccine delivery with Federal supply centers and of immunization progress within the communities they serve. If planning would have begun in September, the Trump Administration would have been prepared with a systematic approach to deliver vaccines where needed, on time for scheduled immunizations, and with trained staff ready to immunize in communities of appropriately sized density. Overall coordination and tracking would have allowed for immediate recognition of problems—such as over or under supply—and quick recovery.

America has begun to ship vaccines but without a plan for success. Within just a couple of weeks, we have already received reports of seniors waiting in long lines at central vaccination hubs. Only 25-35% of the vaccines shipped have been administered. Manufacturers are producing more vaccines than are being used. And we find vaccine shipments placed in temporary storage, at the risk of expiration of their effectiveness. Meanwhile, there appears to be no assured scheduling of the follow-up dosage. Unfortunately, incompetence always has a price. In this case, that price is chaos, waste, and, potentially, many avoidable deaths.

When President Trump announced his “warp speed” approach to vaccine development, he effectively gave this scientific endeavor a political brand name and, at the same time, took credit for its scientific achievement. His announcement reminded me of one Senator’s recent statement describing the difference between politics and the law. The former, he stated, is often unfair. The latter is how a democratic republic assures justice and fairness. Applying his distinction to governing, it is imperative that an elected President not play politics in administering his/her responsibilities. Whereas those in Congress must compromise their politics to assure their constituents are served fairly and justly, a President “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed” (Section 3, Article II, the Constitution). A President may be the leader of his political Party. But his actions must subordinate his political well-being to the public he serves. The Constitution and his oath of office require as much and have the force of law. But President Trump has been running a political campaign from his very first day in office. Of course, his Administration deserves credit for paying in advance for vaccine production while still in its trial phase. But politicizing the speed of vaccine production in this manner made many question—unfairly—whether the vaccines developed were thoroughly tested and not rushed to market. When he disclaimed “Covid, Covid, Covid” as a fake news obsession, he was playing politics with Americans’ health and safety—what the Constitution framed as “the general welfare.” Perhaps, his discrediting of the pandemic’s threat, his blaming the States for its unrestrained spread, and his dumping vaccines on the States without a plan to assure timely and effective vaccinations are all emblematic of a basic ineptitude. Nevertheless, his response to Covid-19 remains a dereliction of duty. We have been treated unfairly, and he has violated his oath to the Constitution. “Warp speed” implies some manner of efficiency where none was ever evident. There was never a plan.

National disasters, like raging fires or violent hurricanes, occur on their own timeline. They pass over us, then leave us to plan our recovery. But pandemics pass through us. It can only be mitigated by personal safeguard measures. And vaccines can further mitigate its deadliness, reducing its effect to something akin to a common cold. But those mitigation efforts coexist with the virus’ rampant contagion through our population. Have we Americans fought back effectively? Has our government supported mitigation efforts consistently and insistently? Our President, instead, chose a destructive path, downplaying the virus’ threats and required mitigation efforts. In his personal conduct and at his rallies, he managed to model and encourage reckless behavior, leading us into a national disaster. No general fights a war without a plan to end it. But this lame duck Presidency has done so for nearly a year while hospitals were overrun and morgues, overwhelmed with corpses.

The second paragraph above is just a commonsense outline of what could have started a planning effort months ago. While it only required a few minutes to compose, it could have been the start of multiple projects to build a vaccination delivery system. At a minimum any plan would have required (1) identification of delivery hubs in variable sized communities, (2) the assignment of local coordinators in these hubs, (3) the training of suitable personal—like medical students, national guard, senior caretakers, and others to deliver the vaccines, (4) creation of tracking and scheduling software, (5) identification of the networking mechanism required to implement and track the overall vaccination program, (6) and an ongoing collaborative planning effort with the States to resolve problems as they arise.

Given these planning deficits, the new Administration will be left with the task to vaccinate millions “on the fly” with no pre-existing plan but with the need to recover from the ensuing chaos. Vaccine shipments have not been delivered as promised. Vaccination schedules have not been met or coordinated with shipments. As a result, many have waited in lines for vaccines that have not been delivered. And, on the reverse side of this equation, a large quantity of vaccines has been stored in remote locations awaiting vaccinations. Those delivered and unused vaccines are at risk of expiration. Meanwhile, the pandemic that initially went undeterred is now raging forward at a pace wherein hundreds of thousands are being infected every day and the death count is rising well past any previous catastrophe. This one-year Covid death count will shortly surpass America’s death count for all of World War II. Every day we lose as many Americans to Covid as we lost in the 911 tragedy. If President Trump was not impeached for criminally inciting insurrection, he should have been removed from office for gross incompetence. In either case, he is guilty of dereliction of duty.

Recently, President-Elect Biden admitted this reality. But he also proposed a remedy. His plan is comprehensive, requires hundreds of newly hired personnel, collaboration with the States, expert and decisive leadership, transparency, and a large financial investment. The management requirement will be akin to fighting an invasion with day-by-day adjustments to the unexpected. His plan will have to recover from the deficits left by the previous Administration and evolve its implementation in concert with a system and network that can only be built in stages—not before availability of vaccines, but as vaccines become available. No systems developer would choose to solve a problem before it is sufficiently analyzed. But, often, he/she must begin to act before the path ahead is definitively known. When so confronted, the emphasis must be on the expertise of the players, their collaboration, and their leadership.

Our nation has faced many challenges. President-Elect Biden has not only noted as much but reminded us that we have proven our ability to overcome them. One hundred years ago we fought a pandemic without the science and resources we have today. Regardless of our planning deficit, we now can begin to take the informed and diligent steps necessary to defeat this pandemic. And, unlike other threats, such as insurrection, global unrest, the dismantling of our institutions, systemic racisms, elected reprobates—like a rogue President, and a dysfunctional Congress, every American can participate and effectively mitigate the horrors of this pandemic. We just need to act in each other’s interests and care as much as our new President for our collective well-being. Or we can heed the words of our new Vice President, spoken just moments ago before the Lincoln memorial: “Tonight, we grieve and begin healing together. Though we may be physically separated, we the American people are united in spirit.”

Let us call this one small step for patriotism and a leap forward for our health and well-being.

This blog marks the third day before the inauguration of the 46th President of the United States. Its topic concerns a human deficiency that is both universal and historically omnipresent in our species. From the ancient Egyptians to the democratically inspired Athenians, our race has often demonized others as less human and therefore deserving of less privileges. For example, both the Egyptians and Athenians had slaves. In other words, it appears to be a natural human tendency to demean classes of individuals and even to enslave or systematically ostracize them from social acceptance.

During war times, it is common for soldiers to refer to the enemy in dehumanizing terms. If you are asked to kill people, it is easier to consider them less human. Hence, you hear soldiers demeaning the enemy as Krauts, Japs, gooks, or ragheads. In recent wars, this disregard for the humanity of others has made Hannibal’s sacking of Rome or the 100 year’s war seem relatively minor in comparison to the carnage of the 20th Century. Consider the holocaust, the carpet bombing of Berlin, the atomic bombs on non-military targets in Japan, the more than a million civilians lost to bombing raids in Haiphong, Hanoi, Laos, and Cambodia. But soldiers who fought in these recent wars often suffer not only from the nightmares of modern weaponry but also from remorse for the human carnage left in war’s wake. That remorse can arise from any real contact with the enemy—that is, from the experience of a common humanity. Even during war, it is possible to “love thy enemy.”

(The following is a slightly fictionalized account of a true story.)
Ron laid in his bunk, waiting for the nightly shelling—boots and flak jacket on, mosquito net flung open, rifle and loaded cartridges within reach. His thoughts, however, were elsewhere. He was thinking of Chui’s frown when he teased her with his playful take on her name. She wasn’t at all remote like the other mama-sans. Somehow, not even a language barrier could prevent them from having fun or sharing their feelings. Her brother, a Vietcong, would have beaten her for merely talking with a GI. And if he found out that she had feelings for an enemy soldier, he probably would have tried to kill them both. She knew how difficult it was for him to accept her job. But it was what she had to do for her family. She was their sole support. And she didn’t think it beneath her to polish the enemy’s shoes, wash his clothes, and clean his barracks. She did what was necessary . . . though Ron knew their relationship did not make it easier for her. In fact, it put them both at risk. While the thought of her warmed his heart, their future together also made him anxious and tense. They lived in different worlds. And neither the Army would allow, nor her family approve the bond between them. Forces beyond his control would drive them apart. He would eventually return to college and his life in the States. But her life would be different: her prospects limited. She would be one of the millions relegated to the poverty and suffering of a war-torn country. The thought of their disparate futures made him feel depressed. Often, the urge to be with her, to share the moment, would become overpowering. For fate had already predetermined their future apart.

He would not even take his rifle. He didn’t want to fight this war against her people. The CQ was a friend who would try to dissuade him. He would promise to return the Detachment’s jeep before the usual midnight artillery barrage. If he encountered a white mice roadblock, he would claim to be looking for an AWOL GI and agree to whatever limitations they required of him. He had to see her, even though he knew she would disapprove of his visit. He was prepared for her reprimand and insistence that he return to his detachment. Probably she would retort with feigned anger, “GI dinky dou.” But then she would welcome his embrace. And they would rescue each other from a world that saw their union as unnatural and even punishable. (End of story)

The soldier I named “Ron” was a real person. His story illustrates a breakthrough many of his fellow soldiers never experienced. They failed to see Vietnamese as equals. They were called “gooks,” somehow less human, certainly by birth and, possibly, by divine intervention. They worked the rice fields and the lowly crafts upon which the former French colony depended. But they were believed inferior and better suited to the dirt-poor existence and menial labor into which they were born. Their women might serve men’s needs, but never as an equal consort for the European or American Caucasian. They were as soiled as the dirt floors in many of their homes. Therefore, it was somehow easier to drop chemical weapons and two-thousand-pound bombs on their land, killing indiscriminately, in the name of defending America from the spread of communism into Indochina. (As a Vietnam vet, I must admit that this blatant oxymoron still provokes my personal rage.)

To some degree, all wars involve some level of self-deceit where only two things must be real: a well-publicized, perhaps fabricated, justification for going to war and the dehumanization of an enemy that must be annihilated. Hitler certainly understood how to justify his reign of terror, as did the American settlers who engaged in Indian genocide and in the atrocities of African slavery for a quarter of a millennium. Both Hitler and our American forebears, however, carried racial prejudice beyond the dehumanizing nature of war. Both showed it as a part of our humanity and thereby admissible in our social structures.

Historians and anthropologists have written extensively about the stratification of classes in human societies. But the story of Ron and Chui illustrates something more insidious than social class or differences in education, language, or even race. Social status or differences can be used to stigmatize people as less worthy and, therefore, less human. Prejudicial judgments of this type are common in human culture. And they also justify measures that prevent those deemed less worthy from equal access to the benefits and status they might otherwise merit or earn. Chui, for example, would never qualify for immigration to America unless Ron married her. Even then, there would be many obstacles to overcome before she would be accepted as a fellow American. She was, nonetheless, an intelligent and capable person who quickly learned enough English to communicate with Ron. She could speak and read both Chinese and Vietnamese, including the alphabetized French version. But, as Ron’s wife, she would find it difficult to be accepted in a society that would denote only her differences, including her accent and her skin color. The failure to recognize the humanity of others seems to be innate in our nature. But it remains murderous in human relations and debilitating to the development of personal character.

Today is the national holiday in which we honor Martin Luther King. His influence in passing the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts was a victory for all Americans. Those legislative achievements not only ended the Jim Crow era, but enabled America to begin the realization of “Justice . . . and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” (from the Preamble of The Constitution). But those achievements did not end racial biases or systemic racism in America. This past summer of “Black Lives Matter” protests has once again lighted the path before us. We are reminded of our ability to overcome the weakness of our nature, to lock arms with our brother and sister Americans, and make real the promise of America. As Reverend King reminded us, “we do not lack the resources, just the will.”

Our new President and Vice President are offering us a new vision of what America can be.