Since 2015, this blog site has been warning America of this day, January 6, 2021. More recently, in a recent blog (reference “The Emergence of a New Majority”) published on November 22nd, you will find the following statement:
“More than seventy million citizens just voted for insurrection against the American system—perhaps unwittingly. They succumbed to the belief that our democratic voting system was a fraud. . .”

Their belief was based upon the President’s accusations. Our conspiracy-minded, alternative reality President inspired and instigated their march to the Nation’s Capital. What transpired as a result was sadly predictable: looting and violence, and the endangerment of both members of Congress and those tasked with their security.

In 1812, British soldiers occupied our Capitol and attempted to overthrow our government. Nearly three decades later, President Jackson threatened Congress with his Tennessee Volunteers but withdrew his threat without further incident. Today, however, American citizens attempted to do what neither a foreign power could do, nor an angry President Jackson would dare to do.

If this attempt at insurrection is not addressed, then future unlawful attempts to void a democratic election will be unavoidable. In other words, America’s democracy would be in jeopardy. Those responsible should be punished to the full extent of the law. We Americans believe in free speech and the right to petition our government. But we do not approve or tolerate sedition.

The Republican Congressional “gang of sedition” must be discredited for violating their oath of office. Unless they bury their politically subversive harangues, they must be voted out of office. And President Trump should be impeached—again! But this time the Senate should find him guilty, remove him from office, and assure he can never again run for any public office. Why? Because he is a threat to our democracy and the very structure of our government institutions.

Democracy is difficult. It abides dissent and more than a little of politically inspired nonsense. But it subsists to insure “liberty and justice for all.” Each generation moves America closer to its ideals by institutionalizing them into laws and into the fabric of our society. If we live those ideals, we will resist those who pervert them and draw others into our circle of responsibility. Yes, we are all responsible for securing and advancing the democratic republic our ancestors fought to create and preserve. Remember our pledge of allegiance!

A previous blog (ref. “Majority Pejoraty”) addressed how America’s political system has not always served the interest of the majority. This disfunction has had an especially harsh impact on a subset of that majority, specifically, the less privileged among us. While our republic’s politics has too often muted the will of many—including some of the privileged, it has systemically silenced the voice of others.

The term “majority” can refer to two distinct but somewhat overlapping groups: a voting polity or the whole population. For too long, “majority” has often been used to define that voting bloc gifted by birth or circumstances as white or wealthy. But that bogus definition has long been a misnomer for it favors a selective part of the body politic over the whole. The descendants of white colonists and white immigrants still retain privileged status. But an ever-expanding plurality of them have joined Martin Luther King’s coalition of conscience and now identify with a new population majority that also includes racial, ethnic, LGBTQ, and recently naturalized citizens. While white privilege and inherited wealth may still define social class and can bias who gains access to education and chosen careers and who receives fair treatment in the courts and before law enforcement, they no longer define this new and growing population majority. Instead, they are representative of a political subset of our population—a diminishing voting polity. And, to the extent they demand political influence as a self-perceived right of birth or circumstance, they favor policies that serve their interest over concern for a free pluralist society’s failure to provide equal opportunity and equal justice for all. By contrast, the new emerging majority is growing and holds a new vision for America’s future—or rather, a reclaiming of Lincoln’s “new birth of freedom.” His vision outlined a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” That government cannot be controlled by the power exercised by the privileged or monied class, but by an electorate comprised of all citizens in a democratic republic. On November 19th, 1863, exactly 157 years ago at this writing, an ailing Abraham Lincoln climbed a podium at Gettysburg and urged America to rise from war and divisiveness and be reborn into universal freedom. On that day, he was defining a new electorate and a new vision for America.

And a new electorate has recently gained traction in this 2020 election cycle—though just barely. In the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, the difference between the old and new majorities appears to be between three or six million voters, respectfully. But the growing disparity between the old and new political agendas is much greater. The old majority tended to vote “center-right” and often for a Republican Party that favored the more privileged. To that purpose, its Republican candidates pretended to adhere to a traditional Reaganite conservatism agenda, advocating for free trade, state’s rights or federalism, corporate wealth (frequently explained as “trickle down” economy), and balanced budgets. But, in recent times, the Republican Party prioritized one agenda above all else: hold onto office and dominate the Federal apparatus of power. Of course, both political parties have competed for power, but over the last three decades, the Republican Party has gradually abandoned its previous justifications for this competition. While pretending to war against a mythical socialist totalitarian state, it has undermined legislative compromise and now supports a totalitarian executive. At his whim, Republicans have ignored their previous agenda while endorsing isolationist trade policies, interfering with the states’ rights to conduct free and fair elections, and reducing taxes levied on the wealthier amongst us at the expense of an exploding Federal deficit. Any member of the new majority might question the Republicans’ commitment to the general welfare. More specifically, were they supporting or voting –
➣ for a national public health plan to control a pandemic or
➣ for an extension of affordable healthcare and the preexisting condition insurance ban or
➣ for equal opportunity to gain wealth/income via tax reform, training, and education programs or
➣ for mitigation of climate change or
➣ for renovation of America’s infrastructure or
➣ against foreign interference in our elections or
➣ against the criminal use of government institutions for private gain or
➣ against immigrant internment camps or
➣ against flagrant child abuse of migrant children separated from their parents or
➣ against racial/ethnic/gender discrimination, such as systemic racism in our justice system or
➣ against abandonment of America’s global leadership in maintaining peace and justice throughout the world?

The simple answer is “no.” This more recent version of the Republican Party has abandoned long held American values. In fact, it supported little or no policies that could benefit most Americans, including many of its own Party members. Instead, it supported a so-called “populist” demagogue who promised to make an apocryphally great America by fiat in the very manner of a would-be tyrant. And that support has denigrated many of our democratic institutions. Its final coup de eta was the failure of Republican Senators to remove Trump from office after reviewing substantive evidence supporting his impeachment. Thereby, they tilted the arc of our democracy towards the reemergence of mid-twentieth century fascism—that is, when more than 400,000 American soldiers sacrificed their lives to defeat fascism. This version of the Republican Party presents a radical threat to the very soul of America.

By contrast, when this new majority demands access to healthcare and effective public health policies during a pandemic, it is clearly exercising its inalienable right to life and to that Constitutional provision for its general welfare. If the new majority risks arrest for protesting systemic racism in civic commerce, the criminal justice system, or policing, then it is clearly exercising its rights of redress and due process as outlined in the Constitution’s initial amendments. If the new majority decides to vote out of office a President found guilty of abuse of power and conspiring with a foreign power to undermine a free election, then it is merely enforcing Article II provisions that Republican Senators failed to exercise. If the new majority decides to vote out of office those Senators who disgraced their oath of office by exonerating a President proven guilty of bribery, extortion, and flagrant abuse of power, then it is merely exercising its Constitutional right and demonstrating its allegiance to a democratic republic. None of these actions characterize a socialist totalitarian initiative—as President Trump paradoxically exclaims—but demonstrate the will of a free electorate in a duly formed democratic republic.

The new majority also seeks full representation and opposes any attempts to suppress the vote or stop the vote count. Clearly, the right to vote defines a democracy. The XV, XIX, XXIV, and XXVI Amendments further extend or modify this right. Though States administer their voting systems, they must honor the right to vote as a basic precept of our democracy and abide by these Constitutional amendments. After all, Federalism is defined in our Constitution as an integral component of our American democracy, not its enemy.

Ironically, President Trump has blamed the States—especially Democratic States—for the proliferation of the pandemic. Who believes that President Trump’s abdication of any responsibility for fighting the pandemic is an exercise of federalism? His aide de camp, Jared Kushner, claimed that the FEMA stockpile of personnel protective equipment (PPE) belonged to the Federal Government and not to the states. Really? Then what is the purpose of PPE or who benefits from its use and why do Americans pay Federal taxes for FEMA’s purchase of it? In truth, this Administration has abandoned its responsibilities to the states and to its citizens. It operates as if the President is the sole power to which all citizens, states, and institutions owe absolute obeisance and loyalty. Even after losing a national election, it continues to operate like a directorate within the former socialist/communist state of the Soviet Union, exercising its power in its own interest rather than that of American citizens. And, of course, that interest can only be the President’s personal interest. Perhaps, this lame duck American directorate explains why the only major world leader who has not congratulated the President Elect is Vladimir Putin. The Russian President must be alarmed that his acolyte’s actions to dismantle democratic institutions and disrupt a free election have been repudiated. Let us hope this reversal of Putin’s 2016 victory has made it a pyrrhic one.

Having stated the case for this emerging and growing majority, what should be said of the old guard, now the new minority? Some of its wealthy component may fear losing influence over government policy. And it seems likely that the wealthy will be asked to pay more taxes—although the only tax increases currently proposed are simply a rollback to the previous Administration, i.e., the status pro ante. Is a tax increase for a small minority of the wealthiest among us a fair price to pay for policies that serve the general welfare of the majority?

Our real concern is not for the rich, their wealth secures their future. But we should be concerned for the cult-like followers of President Trump. They are now part of this new minority in an expanding population. Their grievances are mostly real and based upon the degradation of democratic policies/norms and the deceit of elected representatives of both parties. Why did they cheer their chosen leader as he fought the “deep state,” the press, and his democratic rivals? They adopted his grievances as their own. Most likely, they felt disconnected to their government, for their elected officials acted more as delegates than representatives. Did they not hold office more in the manner of a Roman Consul, serving only the interest of an imperial party? Politicians who pretend to serve the public interest while acting in their own or Party interest are hypocrites. Certainly, they are guilty of abandoning the electorate’s trust and their oath of allegiance to the Constitution. Office holders of both Parties have often failed in this regard.

Since 1992, one Party has reacted more aggressively to hold onto power as it witnessed a comparative decline in its plurality of registered voters. As a result, it has crossed both legal and ethical lines to suppress votes, to use Congressional investigations as political weapons, to gerrymander districts, to quell census taking, to bend laws in service of wealthy campaign donors, to purge voter records, to stymy a free election or stop vote counts with spurious legal actions, and, unbelievably, to allow a rogue President to abandon Federalism and every other canon of the Republican Party in exchange for his support. And, of course, his support has no value without the unquestioned support of his followers. They see themselves in him, their grievances represented in his, and their reprisal against a government that has failed them in his battle with an alleged “deep state.” Thereby, the Republican Party has entered into a quid pro quo relation with its President, as he has with his followers. As a result, the Grand Old Party no longer exists as such. It has evolved into the Party of Trumpism. And that fact should raise concern for Trump’s followers. For it was never their interest or welfare that he served, but only his own. And, sadly, the same must be said of the Party he now owns.

There is hope that the past will not be prologue to the future. After a lengthy campaign, the victorious President Elect wants to bring the country’s factions together. Presumably, he would address the needs of all Americans, including Trump’s followers. Perhaps, the Republican Party will be inspired to join in this effort. But how does that Party change from uncompromising legislative naysayer to the loyal opposition. Well, it must reorient itself to its former premises as the Party of Lincoln and to a Reaganite dedication to the Constitution. That reorientation could be the key to viable compromise around the basic Constitutional prerequisite “to promote the general welfare” over the vitriol and divisiveness of the Trump Administration. But that reorientation seems unlikely in the foreshadowing of 70+ million Trumpian votes. To quote Shakespeare’s Ophelia after losing her mind, “we know what we are, but know not what we may be.”

What then can change an electorate that no longer believes its government serves its interests? Instead, it believes in a deep state that undermines those interests. It no longer trusts Washington elites who pretend to represent its interest while hypocritically serving their own. Whether that interest is money or influence, the result is the same: a fractional government divorced from its primary purpose, which is public service. This outcome for America is unsupportable for it deviates from the democratic ideals upon which this Republic was founded. Unless our publicly elected representatives of both Parties come together and serve the interests of the electorate rather than their careers or financial prospects, that electorate will not be represented or their interests, served. In other words, the disfunction introduced by Party leadership must cease, else our democracy will. (Is this indictment an attempt to cast shade on the Senate Majority Leader? Well, not exactly. Mitch McConnell is just one symptom, not the sole cause.)

A functioning government that professionally addresses the interests and needs of its democratic electorate is a healing remedy for what ails America. Founded on principles of honesty and service, such a government wins the trust of those it serves. It can then unify a people around a common cause. But it cannot succeed in concert with the divisiveness President Trump has so surgically opened within the body politic. At the very heart of the American experience is an ideal that perhaps no nation has ever attempted to adopt: “all men are created equal . . . are endowed . . . with certain unalienable rights.” America then aspires to be a country “with liberty and justice for all.” Though it no longer has slaves, it still struggles with systemic racism. Although for the past hundred years women have had the right to vote, they still earn less than men in the same occupation. Europeans and millions from nearly every country in the world have migrated to this country “yearning to breathe free.” And yet America has adopted a xenophobic and racist migration policy, closed its borders to people seeking asylum, separated children from their families, and imprisoned them in internment camps. Can we repudiate these missteps and regain our journey to a more perfect union?

Both Americans and migrants to America want to believe in America as the land of opportunity. And most Americans harbor no ill will to the rich. Instead, they revere the story of those who attained wealth and/or position through their own efforts. More than half our tech companies were founded by immigrants. And immigrants hold about 60% of the “essential” jobs—the nurses, caretakers, farm workers, truckers, programmers, grocery clerks, and so on. But many still feel the promise of America is a ring beyond their grasp. They find themselves riding a merry-go-round that returns endlessly to the same starting place without the promised reward. They might live on a reservation with little infrastructure or in a community with ill-equipped schools and little or no employment opportunities. Under President Trump the phrase “land of opportunity” is an illusory scam like a degree from Trump University. He uses it, like other faux patriotic bromides, to gain political power for himself, not for the benefit of others. “Opportunity” then becomes a pseudonym for the foulest scam. Can we restore opportunity in this land of promise? This new majority is demanding it.

Perhaps we Americans need to reacquaint ourselves with the concept of “all men are created equal” and its derived axiom, “liberty and justice for all.” The “all” in these axioms necessarily excludes the concept of privilege. So how does one define “privilege”? (For the many thousands who follow this blog, you will not be surprised if I revert to etymology.) It is derived from privus, “private,” and lex, “law.” And it is “granted as a particular benefit, favor or advantage” (ref. Webster’s dictionary). The Constitution, especially the first ten Amendments, define our rights as Americans. But no reading of these rights includes white privilege or a special dispensation for the wealthy. In fact, our founding documents condemn the very concept of privilege unless it is redefined as liberty and justice for all. In that context, the only privilege an American has is the freedom to pursue and have a fair chance to attain any education, job, career, or lifestyle he or she desires. But there is no “private law” that guarantees the outcome of his/her pursuit. America, then, is about opportunity, not privilege.

When the Preamble dedicates the American people to “ensure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general welfare,” that dedication preemptively excludes rampant divisiveness and the suppression of the less privileged. Therefore, America cannot be America when it fails to conciliate factions or to support equal opportunity. The inability to compromise between diverse political persuasions, to resolve disputes without vitriol and riots is a failure of the American ideal. You may argue that “to fail is human.” True, but to strive for the ideal is American!

America cannot be the “land of opportunity” if it excludes specific minorities from equal justice, the right to vote, an education, a chosen career, or any socially acceptable lifestyle. To understand the concept “opportunity,” one must recognize the power of potential. Every human being has potential at birth. And that power is activated by individual effort and by social circumstances. Society has the power to unleash that human potential, or at least to remove obstacles from its path. When this social power is misused to the detriment of the less privileged, America becomes a nation of the “haves” and “have nots.” It becomes hostage to the privileged class. Systemic racism, economic or civil injustice, and prejudice of all stripes derive from this anti-democratic perversion of power. Since a democratic government is derived from the sovereign power of its people, this potential perversion can and will result in an illiberal democracy. The new majority seeks to avoid that catastrophe.

This blog has readers from around the world, including Russia. Many of them have witnessed the rise of totalitarianism and recognize how a society can unwittingly regress into its clutches. Many Trump supporters seem unaware of his threat to our democracy. Nevertheless, it behooves all who believe in America’s promise to reach out to those bewitched by Trump and to address their grievances. Most especially, we must demand that the people we choose to represent us begin to address the rights and grievances of all Americans. If, instead, they blindly follow political leadership or the dictates of lobbyists, they will hide their true intent and construe their words accordingly. Then they become hypocrites and cowards—more specifically, abject failures in adhering to their oaths of office and to the Constitution. These are the failures that breed not only discontent in the electorate but the very spirit of insurrection.

More than seventy million citizens just voted for insurrection against the American system—perhaps unwittingly. They succumbed to the belief that our democratic voting system was a fraud, that a strongman would erase the hypocrisy of elected officials (the euphemistically designated as “politically correct”) and would punish the institutions of government that failed to address their righteous grievances. To the extent their grievances enshrine the beliefs of white supremacy and of a privileged or controlling class, they represent a cancer on our democracy that harkens back to slavery and the robber barons. Those grievances would demand every opportunity bequeathed by government and society to the systematic exclusion of blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, Native Americans, asylum seekers, the queer, the tired, poor, and “huddled masses yearning to be free.” More even than Trumpism and a recalcitrant Republican Party, these grievances or beliefs are a cancer in our body politic. They ignore truth and reality in exchange for being emotionally and morally supported by a political tribe. Leaders like Donald Trump thrive on bending the disaffection and victimhood of erstwhile supporters into a force that allows them to wield the power of office. Only when they attain absolute power is it obvious that the power they seek is not for the sake of their aggrieved followers. They seek absolute power, unaccountable to others, and solely for their own aggrandizement. They create a self-serving fiction and suppress all who contend with the truth. They lie incessantly to create an incoherent web so formidable as to overwhelm any attempt at deconstruction.

Democracy, as Churchill intimated, may not be much better than any other form of governance, unless we make it so. It does not exist by itself, but by the effort and dedication of its citizens. We are accountable for our democracy. And we must hold accountable the representatives we elect to preserve its institutions. The power of the vote is one expression of citizen accountability, as witnessed in the recent election. Equally important is Roosevelt’s declaration that we should not be governed by fear. We must never allow an elected leader to stir panic and fear of others as the means by which such a leader might assume absolute power as the ultimate fixer of all our problems (“only I can”). No society can address internal or external conflicts without mobilizing its members to respond together and without fear. Americans have come together in the past to fight foreign adversaries, to liberate those unjustly treated, and to protest civil injustice, like systemic racism. America succeeds when its citizens act together to preserve the ideals and principles upon which it was founded.

We Americans can never again assume our democratic institutions will stand alone without our support. They can be corrupted or made impotent by a demagogue and his political allies. As the historian of tyranny, Timothy Snyder wrote “virtues are inseparable from the institutions they inspire and nourish.”˟ So much of our government then depends upon norms and practices exercised by people of good will. Its institutions and tripartite structure cannot function to serve our interests or general welfare if allowed to benefit a few privileged or just one wanton dictator grasping for absolute power. What can be said of the White House also applies to all our government institutions: it is the people’s house and the people’s government. As such, Americans must unite as a people whether Democrat or Republican, privileged by fate or not, but equally committed to the land of opportunity and to its egalitarian promise.

___________________________________________________________
˟Timothy Snyder, “The Road to Unfreedom,” p. 13.

Dictators take away your choice.
Or reveal your weaknesses. ¹

For Thomas Jefferson, the pursuit of happiness embraced many forms of opportunity, including the natural linkage between a general education and free enterprise. Along with George Washington, he favored Federal funding for education. He felt the future of republican government depended upon a “general education to enable every man to judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom.”² Within his context of unlimited territorial expansion and the ensuing Homestead Act, any American was free to stake a claim and start a farm or ranch, or to open a business or school in a growing community. Teachers from small towns like Concord or Salem could and did travel great distances to start schools in the newly opened territories. And small business entrepreneurs could open their doors to burgeoning communities spreading from the expansive plains to the Pacific Ocean. If we fast forward to contemporary America, we find an even broader opportunity landscape in which to exercise individual freedom and pursue personal happiness. The only question is whether our education system and enterprising culture present opportunities truly accessible and beneficial to all Americans. And that question presumes a politics aligned with the ideals shared by Jefferson and the signers of our Constitution.

But staking a claim on coveted opportunities is quite different now than in the 18th and 19th centuries. America began the 20th century on the wave of an industrial revolution which metamorphized into a tsunami of technological innovation. While America’s burgeoning economy was creating more career choices, it also demanded more investment in relevant education. And young opportunists required more than their native ability or physical stamina. They needed their Government to fulfill the Jeffersonian promise. Americans needed the equivalent of a 19th century Homestead Act, that is, a general education system made available to every young American. Education and a free enterprise system are intertwined in the provision of equal opportunity. It is not an accident that Jefferson conjoined “life” and “liberty” with the “pursuit of happiness” as quintessential elements of “inalienable rights.” These rights are weaved into the very fabric of a democratic state for they are essential to every individual—essential, because woven into each person by right of birth. Though no government can or should attempt to guarantee happiness, it must secure the opportunity for every citizen to pursue his/her personal path to happiness.

America’s compulsory education system, taken as just one example, is part of that government commitment. Alexis de Tocqueville shared an interesting observation about education in the nascent phase of our nation: “In the United States, education as a whole is directed toward political life; in Europe its main object is preparation for private live, as the citizens’ participation in public affairs is too rare an event to be provided for in advance.”³ Obviously, much has changed nearly two hundred years later. Contemporary America must now prepare its citizens to meet both their political responsibilities and their private ambitions. Recent political protests are expressions of our political responsibilities, as is the exercise of our right to vote. But the diversity of opportunity in a sophisticated modern economy also requires an education system that prepares citizens for both their political and private lives, to include vocational and/or academic training designed to accommodate individual career choices.

And those choices are made real by a well-managed economy, which is another part of our government’s commitment to provide opportunities for every citizen. In fact, our general and individual prosperity depends on an economic system that ensures fairness and opportunity without which there is no growth or productivity. Remember why Jefferson wrote our Declaration of Independence: amongst many grievances he specifically outlined the oppression of the colonialist economy by punitive taxes and tariffs. “No taxation without representation” and “free trade” were amongst the loudest rallying cries of the American revolution. And those rallying cries are no less relevant today. They might inspire one to question whether our tax system benefits education and the prospects for a new workforce of young professionals rather than the accumulated wealth of an extraordinarily small minority. Further, one might question how can tariff wars benefit America in a global economy that depends upon services and resources distributed across many continents. America’s economy did not mushroom in isolation but bloomed on a world stage that it both led and dominated. These questions concerning tax and trade policies relate directly to our youth’s education and job opportunities. How can we not see this nexus between education, the economy, and politics?

While the growing list of college graduates seems to promise a bright future for a new generation, actual prospects for these graduates are hampered by huge tuition debts. And entry level jobs tend to pay less in an economy that favors pre-established wealth or proven expertise. The current Administration exemplifies this predilection where nepotism and wealth appear as the primary qualifications for lucrative senior positions in the White House, while career public service jobs earn much less. As a corollary, wage increases have generally remained stagnant compared with the growth in wealth at the top of the economic ladder. And coupled with the high costs of college tuitions, sparse investments in our public k-12 education system further impede our youths’ future. Their prospects are threatened on both ends of the education ladder. Consequently, the jobs of the future are often rewarded to H-1B Visa holders with special expertise. The promise of our public education system is falling short of the demands of the job market as well as the expectations of our youth. And if college debt continues to hinder the prospects for graduates, then it becomes more likely that only those who can afford college tuition will realize the career benefits of a college education. How then can we assure that every child can pursue his/her chosen career? The answer certainly involves both economic and political components. But, unfortunately, those components are complicated and involve a panoply of obstacles to the future opportunities of our posterity.

Before Covid-19, the unusual occurrence of low inflation and low unemployment coupled with record high stock indices demonstrated what the President termed the “greatest American economy in history.” But he was very selective in highlighting just one aspect of his 2018 tax reduction act. It did positively affect corporate stock prices and reduced taxes for the wealthy and passive investors. But what he ignored in his “greatest . . . economy” braggadocio was how those reduced tax rates disproportionately favored the wealthy over the average worker. In addition, while wage growth for workers at the bottom third of the economic ladder remained stagnant, tariff wars were bankrupting a significant number of independent farmers. Moreover, the costs of imported goods, housing, healthcare, college education, and food were challenging both low- and medium-income households and increasing their personal debt. That debt and the trillion-dollar government deficits consequent to the 2018 tax reduction further clouded America’s economic future. As a result, America was ill-prepared for the coronavirus pandemic which only augmented those deficits and reduced America’s economy to a level not experienced since the Great Depression. Before this pandemic, the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing during a period of persistently low inflation and high employment economy—which is itself an economic anomaly—now provides little flexibility for countering an economic downward spiral. These conditions are not indicators of a great economy, but of an affordability crisis and of a pending debt catastrophe. Is this how a well-managed economy secures the future of American wage earners and of the next generation’s opportunities?

During periods of severe economic downturns, Americans have looked to their government and specifically to their President for recovery and words of comfort. Franklin Roosevelt responded with the New Deal and his fireside chats. Barack Obama replicated his predecessor with a financial and infrastructure stimulus package. He also briefed Americans on their government’s progress and built their confidence in a restored economy. Given these historic models, how should we rate President Trump’s handling of our current crisis and its severe impact on the lives, health, and prospects of Americans? Perhaps more pointedly, what should we expect from any President during a national crisis? Well, the answer to these questions is found in our Constitution.

Article 2 addresses the role of the Executive. But the context is presented in the preamble where it is clearly stated that “in Order to form more perfect union” we must “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The participants in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 deliberately set out to construct a government that would do so by balancing the competing influences of its executive, legislative, and judicial branches. But they recognized that the threat of foreign intervention, influences, or even invasion, would require an executive with expansive powers to deal with all types of foreign threats, as well as any domestic threats, in order to secure the blessings of liberty for all. At the same time, they also worried whether the powers of a commander-in-chief might entice a future President to abuse those powers. Such abuse was defined as “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” or the use of the powers of office for self-enrichment via “any other Emolument” (Article 1, Section 4 and 1, respectively). Therefore, their Constitution provided for a Presidency that could be checked by either Congress or the courts. It stipulated that a President must take an oath to “defend the Constitution of the United States” (Article II, Section 1). Further, it demanded that any President “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed” (Article II, Section 3).While they wanted to free the Presidency from frivolous entanglements, they also recognized the need to protect the republic from a dangerously rogue President. Such a President might disregard the general welfare and his responsibility to secure the “Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” in service of his personal interest or self-aggrandizement. They had, after all, rebelled against a monarch. While they recognized the need for a powerful executive capable of securing the individual liberty of America’s citizens, they also provided for impeachment of any President who assumed dictatorial power at the expense of that individual liberty promised to current and future generations of Americans. But is our individual liberty secured when an impeached President is acquitted of proven abuses of power and obstruction of justice in his attempt to serve his personal political interests rather than his oath of office, the law of the land, and the general welfare of all Americans, including their posterity? An affirmative answer to this question implies, even forebodes, an existential threat to our American republic.

The American Constitution alone cannot, as stated therein, “secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity.” It requires the good faith support and willing adherence of an informed—that is, generally educated—polity and its elected representatives. Just as we teach our children to follow the golden rule and be good citizens, we expect our leaders to take an oath to support our Constitution and pledge allegiance to our republic. Nevertheless, political leaders sometimes seem more invested in their reelection than to either their oath of office or the welfare of their constituents. But a craven lust for office and power cannot be justification for failing to remove from office a President proven guilty of crimes and abuse of power. That spineless justification makes the current Senate’s Republican majority complicit in our President’s crimes and abuses. And it abandons the great task that Lincoln laid down for us “that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.” At Gettysburg, Lincoln was reminding us that Americans died to preserve a “nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” Their courage is belied by the Republican senators who failed their oath to be just jurors and support the dictates of our Constitution. As a result, they bequeathed the helm of our ship of state to a captain intent on steering us onto a shoal.

Acquitting President Trump of gross misconduct in office—the trifecta of using the power of office for personal gain, of conspiring to undermine a national election, and of undercutting our national security by withholding support from a foreign ally in an extortion scheme—flies in the face of every conceivable expectation of an American President. By comparison, Bill Clinton violated the propriety of his office. Andrew Johnson ignored the legislative will of the majority Party in Congress. Clinton’s lie under oath violated the law. And Johnson’s opposition to Congress’ Tenure of Office Act violated the Constitutional separation of powers. Although Richard Nixon was never impeached, he resigned rather than face impeachment for his role in orchestrating crimes, specifically a burglary and its subsequent coverup. But President Trump far exceeded these former Presidents in his misconduct, abuse of power, disregard for our Constitutionally mandated separation of powers, and violation of his Article II responsibilities to assure that our “laws are faithfully executed.” Neither the Mueller report nor the impeachment transcripts exonerate President Trump. How then can we not conclude that he is indeed an existential threat to our democracy—that is, to our individual freedom and personal prospects for ourselves and our children?

His acquittal by a complicit Senate majority has further negative consequences. He now believes he is, in his own words, “the chief law enforcement officer.” He considers himself empowered to dictate who the Department of Justice should investigate or prosecute and what sentences, if any, should be assigned to convicted felons. If he disagrees with prosecutions or sentences, he reserves the right to pardon a convicted felon or commute a sentence without any supportive evidence that might justify leniency. He reserves to himself the right of kings to administer justice and disregard any legal restraint on the execution of his office. Although the Constitution grants the pardon power to the President, it does not grant him the power to pardon or commute a felon who can incriminate him in a crime. That pardon is itself a crime. Even President Trump’s loyal and subservient Attorney General admitted as much in his testimony under oath to Congress. And yet the President committed that very crime in pardoning Roger Stone for not testifying against him, as Stone readily admitted. Does not the Senate’s acquittal further support the President’s belief that his power is unlimited, that he is above the law, and that he is the chief law enforcer in the land? His impeachment defense lawyers unabashedly argued as such. In truth, the Republican majority in the Senate is traitorous to the primary principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence and implemented in our Constitution. Our freedom and equal opportunity are now at risk to the whims, corruption, and incompetence of a rogue President who considers himself above the law. In both his words and his actions, he has demonstrated his belief that he is the state. Therefore, he feels justified in eschewing both Congressional oversight and any legal constraints.

Some believe that the President’s promise to “make America great again” is a viable political justification for his actions. In his mind, he realized that promise with the passage of tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy. And the subsequent stock market boon justified his self-proclaimed success. His tax policy’s effect on the average wage earner, however, was somewhat masked by the economic expansion he inherited from the previous Administration. Nevertheless, both his MAGA promise and the market boon ended with his mishandling of the Covid-19 pandemic. While China and Europe have long since emerged from the first wave peak of the virus, America has extended its peak to new heights with no end in sight. Meanwhile, the President dismisses the virus as if it does not exist or, as he says, “it will just disappear.” True, the virus’ rampage will end when there are no more victims to infect and untold numbers have died. The President assures this bleak outcome by refusing to develop and execute a national policy for a nationwide mitigation effort in lieu of a successful vaccine that could be months or even years away. In fact, he “takes no responsibility at all” and blames the governors for their myriad and uncoordinated response to the pandemic. As a result, his personal inaction has resulted in the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. His recent promise to rebuild the economy—”I can do it again”—is only believable if you accept his fantastical premise— “it (Covid-19) will just disappear”—and disregard the facts. Should we believe the President rather than the evidence of our eyes? That belief is not justified by the facts and can be fairly characterized as truly blind faith.

Such faith in the President may be based on a cynical belief that incompetence or corruption exists to some degree in nearly every Administration. Or it may be attributed to one of his many alleged conspiracy theories, including a “deep state” conspiring against the will of the people or a malicious cabal of Democrats and “fake news” harassing a much aggrieved and innocent President. According to these rationalizations and conspiracy theories, the President has either done nothing any other elected official has done or something he self-proclaims as right and lawful, though unappreciated by his deluded adversaries. A certain plurality of Americans remains unwavering in their support for this President’s excuses, grievances, and his various conspiracy theories. And that support has granted him the power he now holds over the Republican Party. Given his impeachment, how can the exoneration of a rogue president—an active disruptor of our democratic system—benefit the American people? How could Republicans acquit him? Obviously, they feared his supporters would enact revenge in the primary elections. How then could American voters reelect them or, more crucially, this Republican President? Well, they must believe more in him than in the principles of a democratic republic. For it is impossible to reconcile his actions with those principles and our Constitution.

There never was a rational policy premise to MAGA. The President’s tax policy was tilted toward wealth creation rather than any stimulus to productivity. His promises for rebuilding infrastructure never resulted in any policy initiative. His “law and order” justification for violent suppression of largely peaceful protests and his “zero tolerance” immigration executive orders failed to preserve life and liberty for either citizens or immigrants. Instead, they were met with myriad legal challenges since they violate human decency, existing laws—such as due process, and/or other Constitutional restraints. His appointees are not “the best people” he promised, but mostly sycophants and/or wealthy supporters poorly suited to the positions for which he nominated them. Many of his cabinet appointments were not only unaligned with the departments they managed but determined to undermine their mission. It is not difficult, by contrast, to find previous Republican Presidents who would disagree with opening Federal parks to gas and oil drilling, with removing 90+ regulations—many of which secure our health and safety, with removing all scientist from the USDA, with reducing funding for public education by diverting funds to private schools, with suppressing the EPA’s work on climate change and environmental pollution, with deploying the US military or Federal officers to contain public protests, with denial of due process and mass deportation of asylum seekers, and so on. Ironically and regrettably, President Trump’s failures over his first three years in office seemed less to demoralize his supporters than to normalize his misbehavior before the general public.

For many Americans, the President’s failure to address the Covid-19 pandemic is the singular failure of this Administration. The impact on our health system, the economy, and the suffering of so many Americans—not only from sickness and loss of income, but especially from the deaths of loved ones—is more than sufficient reason to vote President Trump out of office. But the pandemic response, I would contend, is only the latest example of his disregard for the lives of fellow human beings, for their freedom, or for their futures. His handling of our nation’s pandemic response fits an already well-established norm which includes 5400 immigrant children separated from their parents—at least seven of whom died in our custody, immigrant internment camps, the Kurdish genocide, his attack on our healthcare in the courts and by executive orders, and his support for foreign dictators who unleashed their militaries on civilians in Turkey, Syria, and the Philippines. These grievous offenses against humanity offend the conscience of Americans and the very integrity of our founding principles. His tariff wars and tax cuts demonstrate a quid pro quo management style designed to demonstrate his power and make wealthy or corporate benefactors financially beholden to him. He has never shown any interest in serving the general welfare, whether it involved education, healthcare, the environment, mitigation of climate change, income/wealth inequality, or the conduct of his office in accordance with the law of the land and our Constitution. Instead, he is now emboldened to make preemptive attacks on our voting system and to suppress the vote of his non-supporters.

This last point regarding voter suppression could become an endpoint for this democratic republic. President Donald J. Trump is attempting to mimic leaders like Erdogan, Putin, or any leader where the popular vote is not permitted to represent the will of the people. Instead, it is merely a pretense used to validate the office holder’s current position in government. The President wants to manipulate the vote in the November election. If he is successful in crippling the Post office before the next election, he could limit the number of mail-in ballots delivered by November 3rd, thereby reducing somewhat the number of votes against him. Because of the pandemic, a time-consuming absentee ballot count is anticipated. Wherever vote counting significantly delays results, he could focus on discrediting vote counts, especially in contested swing states. Given the likely prospect of delayed election results and contested vote counting, he could then claim voter fraud and formally dispute key state vote counts. In this orchestrated context of disputed vote counts, he could then engage a bevy of lawyers to contest the election—as he has already prefigured in recorded statements. Then he would declare victory in the midst of the chaos he has created—as he has done so often before whether with a government shutdown, illegal use of Congressionally allocated funds, border wall construction, and so on. What he wants is not a free election but some guarantee of his hold on the Presidency. Only then could he demand the assent of the governed by use of force if he deems it necessary. Police states have long used this technique. In fact, he has already done so to “dominate the (battle) space” occupied by mostly peaceful protesters.

Consider what this President would do if given another four-year term. He would have the military, the Department of Justice, the IRS, and federal officers of various agencies at his beck and call. In the last 3 ½ years he has slowly and determinedly put sycophants in charge of all these agencies. We have already seen how he uses them to force his will on the American people and to serve his personal/political interests. Just ask yourselves the following questions: who is investigated or acquitted by the DOJ; when are peaceful protests protected or suppressed; why are legally requested tax records not provided; and how are government expenditures managed to benefit the President’s personal interests rather than the American people as required by law? You already know the answers.

Have too many Americans abandoned the lessons learned in civics class? Has the “party of no” lost the ability to overcome political differences in service of core Constitutional values that demand due process, a free press, and the rights to peaceful assembly, to petition the government, and to impeach a rogue President. The overriding goals expressed in Jefferson’s declarative statement regarding inalienable rights and further delineated in the Preamble to the Constitution must be the sole guiding principles of this democratic republic. Otherwise, we are reduced to an election where voter suppression and criminal manipulation of the vote count replace winning the hearts and minds of voters and preserving our founding ideals. “Winning” in this instance would vindicate one man’s illusion of grandeur at the expense of “the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” How many of us choose to live in an illiberal democracy ruled by Nero incarnate? At least, Nero created music, rather than cheat at golf. And, unlike Trump, he did not start the fire that destroyed the civic entity he was sworn to serve.

To foreign observers, America warrants their pity for it no longer appears to be that “city on a hill,” holding up a beacon of hope to the world. This President has exposed and manipulated political fault lines to enhance his power. He has exploited the absence of more stringent oversight laws to benefit his personal and political benefit. He has exasperated income and wealth inequality to the detriment of the hopes and ambitions of millions of Americans. He has ignored the educational needs and future opportunities of our children. He has subordinated the health of all Americans during a pandemic to personal political goals. And he has brought a great nation to the brink of political and economic collapse. The corruption and incompetence of this Administration has recharacterized the public service role of American institutions to self-serving political agencies aligned with private/special interests. His demagoguery has effectively divided our country along racial and political lines. And his foreign policy has self-isolated America from any constructive role in the global community. Unless existing in a bubble of self-deception or suffering from an acute case of apathy, you, my fellow Americans, must admit our President has declared war on America. And, worse, he has unmasked our weaknesses, thereby challenging us to respond.

Do we believe every American has a right to a general education, to advanced or apprentice training appropriate for a personally chosen career, to a tax and tariff system that favors the prosperity of all Americans, to a political system aligned with our Constitution and capable of self-correction through Congressional oversight and judicial review, and to Presidential leadership dedicated to preserving our lives, laws, values and general welfare? If so, we must reject what divides us, whether partisanship, prejudice, avarice, power mongering, or cynicism. Then we must turn away from the demagoguery and lies that promote these divisions in our culture. America was born with lofty goals. But, compared with other cultures, we have not had much time to grow out of our infancy and realize the full maturity of our founding ideals. In some sense, we are still suffering a persistent adolescence. And, like the experience of our youth, it is not unusual to confront challenges to our rights of passage like a petulant bully or the grosser appeals of our own nature—both of which inhibit our progress. Nevertheless, we must eventually pass into adulthood. This moment in our history is that coming of age point. The bully is our President who believes he has “total power” with no sense of American history, jurisprudence, or our very subsistence as a democratic republic. We must remove him from office if this democracy is to survive. And the grosser appeals of partisanship over patriotism and of power over consensus present the immediate obstacles we must also overcome to reach our maturity. Furthermore, we must remove from office any elected representative who fails to support the basic principles and Constitutional structure of our government.

It is time to resurrect our hope for change and reengage the American quest for a more perfect union. What hangs in the balance is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for us and our children.

__________________________________________________________________
¹ This quote is taken from a conversation between two popes in the movie “Two Popes.”
² Merrill D. Peterson, “Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation,” p. 961.
³ Alexis de Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” Volume 1, p. 280.

Remember when much political capital was given to hope and change. The context then was the reapplication of American ideals in a diverse and ever-changing world. The core issues within that context centered around securing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for everybody in an increasingly pluralistic population during an explosive expansion of technology, a global economy, and contending media crosstalk. The goal then, as our President repeatedly reminded us, was to continue the American quest to “form a more perfect union.” Is that goal still sought today?

My thoughts on this question must inevitably fall upon the person who knocked on the door of the White House over 2 ½ centuries ago. When President Lincoln was told a negro man by the name of Frederick Douglas was at the door, he stopped whatever he was doing and ordered him admitted. It was not unusual for any person to show up unannounced at that time. In fact, Lincoln often had people lined up in front of the White House requesting an audience with the President. But never had a negro made that request at the door of an American President. But Douglas was on a mission. He wanted the esteemed log-splitter to understand why it was not enough to block the expansion of slavery to the new territories. He wanted slavery abolished. And he was living proof of that injustice. He had returned from exile in England with enough money to buy his freedom from his slave owner. Many white Englishmen and Americans had contributed to his personal cause, not just because of their ethics, but because they believed in him as living proof of inherent human dignity. He was manifestly not a piece of property.

A few nights ago, we received word that John Lewis had passed. He had been part of Martin Luther King’s attempt to form a coalition of conscience to free African Americans of residual systemic racism. He had walked with King across the Edmond Pettus bridge where he nearly lost his life. And, with King, he too knocked on the door of Presidents, namely, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. They, like Douglas before them, wanted to recruit a President to their cause and awaken the conscience of America. They also wanted what Lincoln wanted—to preserve the union. But they also knew that union could not survive unless made more perfect by assuring liberty and justice for all. They wanted to save the soul of America, that is, the revered goals upon which it was founded. I believe it was Lewis’ dedication to saving America that inspired John Meacham to call him a saint. How else would you describe a person willing to sacrifice all his time and energy and risk his very life to a cause that so intrinsically benefited others of all colors?

But the cause that consumed Lewis’ life does not end with him. It continues with the “black lives matter” (BLM) movement. In fact, his life not only inspires but impels that movement forward. For the soul of America has never been more endangered. Centuries of progress are at risk as our President threatens to turn back the clock—and with the aid of a complicit group of Republican Senators and Congressmen/women. We are not only witnessing a reincarnation of the Confederate legacy of white supremacy and George Wallace’s racism, but a reemergence of the political divisiveness characterized by the McCarthy era. But there is a countervailing reemergence of hope and change inspired by recent protests. America has seen similar moments of change before. Joseph McCarthy, for example, was replaced by Republicans who redefined conservatism closer to the vision of Jefferson. In fact, led by Republican Senator Everett Dirksen, the GOP helped pass the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Today, we have the Lincoln Project, a group of influential Republicans, who are attempting to unseat a corrupt and incompetent Republican President. Together with the BLM protestors and many other American patriots, they are knocking on the door of the White House. Though it is not likely the present resident will welcome them in, they still retain the power to reclaim the “people’s house” and escort him out.

If every human being enters the world through their mother’s birth canal and with the same genetic base, then every individual begins with a clean slate and deserves an equal opportunity to develop their individual talents and realize their personally formed goals. This is the basic birth right that inspired Jefferson to assert “unalienable rights . . . of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The challenge we still face as Americans is full realization of what Jefferson wrote in our Declaration of Independence and what our founding fathers reiterated in the Preamble of the Constitution. That is the realization that puts all Americans in the same ship of state, all together rowing forward in sync. We no longer need a military revolution, for we have the political power to implement equal opportunity or liberty and justice for all. Unless we do so, we will never realize that “more perfect union.”

At his inauguration, President Trump painted a very dark image of America. Sixty million people identified their grievances with this image. Perhaps, after 3 ½ years, his supporters may well begin to reevaluate how their President has redrawn that image into an even darker portrait. But, as our previous President reminded us, “that’s not who we are” and “that’s not who we can be.” It is once again time to raise the torch of freedom. We must all knock on that White House door and carry that torch forward.

Recently, former President Barack Obama spoke of a conversation he had with John Lewis after a virtual town meeting with young activists. He penned the following remarks:

Afterwards, I spoke to him privately, and he could not have been prouder of their efforts—of a new generation standing up for freedom and equality, a new generation intent on voting and protecting the right to vote, a new generation running for political office. I told him that all those young people—of every race, from every background and gender and sexual orientation—they were his children. They had learned from his example, even if they didn’t know it.

I could conclude with these remarks from our first black President. Or I might rephrase Jefferson’s declarative statement on when “it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve political bands . . . and to assume . . . the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them . . . they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” It is past the time when America should separate from President Trump and his war on America. We should all follow John Lewis’ example of peaceful, but determined, protests until we bend America to the justice of its grand aspirations.

Why is America a Democracy? The electorate does not legislate. It does not directly govern itself or determine national foreign policy. Nor does it decide on how the laws are enforced. It allocates all those powers of a legislator, executive, or judge to others who represent their will and secure their general welfare. Since “democracy” means “people rule,” how can the American people rule in a representative democracy, otherwise called a democratic republic? Our founders thought—perhaps, hoped—that America would always have an informed electorate, representatives of high moral character who could be trusted, and an independent judicial system. The only assurance they could provide for the preservation of this American republic was a Constitution that not only reinforced the ideals for this new republic but also a system of government that would assure it could not be overthrown by hegemonic, imperial/dictatorial, or corruptive forces. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787 Benjamin Franklin defined America’s new democracy as a “republic, if we can keep it.”

Even the author of the American colonies’ Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, had his doubts about the future of this new democratic republic. After receiving a draft of the new American Constitution from James Madison, he replied to his friend as follows:

“ this reliance (on the electorate) cannot deceive us as long as we remain virtuous (italics my own): and I think we shall be so, as long as agriculture is our principal object, which will be the case, while there remain vacant lands in any part of America. When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become corrupt as in Europe, and go to eating one another as they do there.” ¹

It may shock some to read this excerpt, but the context explains his words. As our ambassador to France, he was witness to the political turmoil in Paris, which mirrored the protests and street violence occurring in many cities throughout Europe at the time. Whereas the American population of three million souls was spread across the Eastern Coast of the new world, Paris, like all the major cities in Europe, was densely populated. Jefferson’s prognosis for the new world was realistic, given his firsthand experience of the old world. But I see some reprise in his use of the word “virtuous.” It speaks to the very ideals that inspired his enlightened declaration of freedom. He imagined an informed and patriotic citizenry committed to maintaining peace, the general welfare, and liberty and justice for all. He questioned,

“whether peace is best preserved by giving energy to the government, or information to the people. This last is the most certain, and the most legitimate engine of government. Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them. And it requires no very high degree of education to convince them of this. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” ¹

My wife is a teacher, so she has no doubt in the importance of an education. At times, I worry about how well we “educate and inform” our children in their American heritage and their role in the “preservation of our liberty.” Not many of us will earn Pulitzer or Noble Prices. But we should know and understand the significance of our founding documents and our individual responsibility to preserve and evolve that legacy in a changing world. Sovereignty in this democratic republic rests with the people. My concern is peeked during elections when we choose who will represent us. Will the people we put in office serve the general welfare and adhere both to our Constitution and our founding principles? Our elected representatives must be accountable to us, not to campaign financiers or Party bosses. This system of government depends upon an informed citizenry and both the trusts bequeathed to its representatives and their moral character in serving that trusts.

“In God we trust” is written on the back of our one-dollar bill. But God does not vote in our general election. Belief in God, however, can guide our every decision. When it does, we trust the outcome of our decisions and actions. In fact, belief is behind much of what we do, including who we love, what we support, and who we vote for. It is the basis for our Pledge of Allegiance. When we vote, we not only express our belief in “liberty and justice for all,” but display our trusts that candidates for government office not only share our beliefs but will act on them.

Why, you might ask, does this blog space sometimes sound a Cassandra-like alarm of impending doom? The answer can be found in the dark mirror of contemporary America where ignorance and apathy inhibit belief in our founding ideals, where our elected officials undermine our trusts by serving partisan and personal interests rather than the general welfare, where our government substitutes “educate and inform the whole mass of the people” with lies, propaganda, and conspiracy theories designed to dupe Americans into supporting the greed and power mongering of corrupt and incompetent public officials. Of course, this dark reflection can be shattered by an electorate that believes truth matters, equal opportunity matters, our Constitution matters, black lives matter, healthcare matters, planet health matters, and America’s virtue really matters.

America’s virtue is the belief its citizens must share in its founding ideals, the trust its citizens must demand of public officials to serve those ideals and their general welfare, and the patriotism its citizens must muster to realize the promise of a more perfect union. Without this virtue, our republic will not and cannot be called a democracy.

_______________________________________________________________________
¹ Thomas Jefferson, “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,” selected and edited by Saul K. Padover, Easton Press, Norwalk, Connecticut, P. 314-315.

Does it seem normal that politicians too often say they support something their actions disavow? Well, your answer reveals one of two things or both. You either agree the implied contradiction is normal as a statement of fact. Or you might disagree that this type of contradiction should be considered normal. And, finally, you might accept both answers as true in the sense that both the act and the implied contradiction are simply a commonplace reality. The first answer reveals that you are a realist: “things are what they are.” The second, reveals you as a moralist: “things are not what they should be.” And the third, identifies you as an agnostic who can only represent his/herself as a cynic: “so what.” To put it bluntly, immorality often seems unavoidable in politics. Or, as my East-Philly uncle would say, “what ӓr yӓ gonna do.” Herein is the basic case for apathy.

Why do I find the title of this blog relevant? Janus was a mythological figure with two heads joined back-to-back, therefore seeing both the receding present or past and the future at once. In modern parlance, Janus is also that two-faced anomaly that presents contradictory facades: not just the past/future of mythology, but right/wrong, good/bad, amicable/hostile, and so on. Our current President, for example, presents us with this type of Janus façade. He will often appear to take two sides of an issue. For example, he declares himself as a “law and order President,” while ordering a violent attack on peaceful protestors exercising their First Amendment rights. He claims to be the best friend of black Americans while equivocating the violent clash between Klu Klux Clan and American citizens as a principled disagreement between good people. He claims success on many issues that have challenged his Presidency, like nuclear non-proliferation issues with Russia, North Korea and Iran, Covid-19 mitigation, unfair bilateral trade with China, continued US economic expansion, and the “greatest stock market in history.” In fact, these “successes” are either boldfaced lies or, arguably, distortions of reality. Some, nevertheless, believe the President. While admitting he is a boldfaced liar, they just shrug their shoulders, equating the President’s claims as “par for the course” in politics. They accept his contradictory personae as the modern version of a successful politician, that is, a two-faced Janus or, simply, “Trump being Trump.”

Throughout history, there have been men who have sought absolute power, which demands their every word or action be accepted as true, lawful, and normal. For centuries, they subjugated their people under the auspices of the “divine right of kings.” And, within the lifetime of many of us, they committed heinous crimes against the peoples they governed and started wars to subjugate others under their command. Lord Acton of England understood these actions as “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Was Lord Acton stating a law of nature or divine mandate? Or was he defining a predictable and unavoidable aberration of human nature? Perhaps so. Nevertheless, his statement does not and cannot deny our ability to withhold the exercise of such power—what President Trump terms as his “total authority.” Our Constitution and form of government does not empower any President to exercise such authority. Nor should we as American citizens. Such an abuse of power would dehumanize the body politic by denying the exercise of free will and self-government according to laws and norms acceptable to our society and individual consciences. The exercise of absolute power is the greatest danger to any society that values liberty and justice for all.

Notably, on the same day that the President was both establishing his credentials as a “law and order” President and ordering his motley crew of enforcers to attack peaceful protesters, he had previously received a call from President Putin. Of course, we have no knowledge of the substance of that call. But the timing is ironic, in the sense of my Janus analogy. Both men appear Janus-like in their Presidency: savior/prosecutor, restorer/destroyer. They promise greatness or empire while delivering death, destruction, and chaos that extends beyond their sovereign borders.

More specifically, President Putin is a master of multiple faces – many of which are self-contradictory. I mean, we know that he has many more significant roles than that of a hockey player, a pilot, a shirtless horseback rider, a conservationist, or a biker. He is possibly the richest and most powerful man in the world. While he serves as a dedicated representative of his people, he is also a ruthless and vindictive adversary to his enemies. He can be admired and feared at the same time. He may well be President Trump’s model, but they have little in common besides their Janus-like self-image. President Putin is both a student of Russian history and an historical figure in the continuing evolution of modern Russia. While his American Janus has only one purpose—to win or obtain enough votes to stay in power, President Putin assumes absolute power for a more patriotic purpose, the restoral of Russia’s greatness. His many faces are designed to identify himself with the people he governs—not to win votes. He dominates by consensus of the governed, not via an electoral college. Unlike Trump, he has risen through the ranks of power and has a firm knowledge of Russian history, governing principles, and its people (narodnost). Russians generally like and support him. The American President’s following is not based upon any substantive contribution he has made to American institutions or history. He is either admired as a cult figure or hated for the same reason. While Americans can disagree with the Russian President’s excesses, they must take him seriously as a Russian patriot and elected leader. His American mimic, however, hides behind a façade of power and bleak bluster a fragile ego. In place of substance or character, he presents the many contradictory faces that comedians worldwide ridicule.

In this context, my use of the classical Janus allegory is a simplistic derivative of its core message. The Romans, for example, used the Janus figure as a generalized symbol of transitions at doorways, gates, or the beginning of a new year. Here, I am applying it to two world leaders who stand as pivot points in modern history. One of these leaders reinterprets an historical past in his strategy to build a new future for his country. The other boasts about self-perceived attributes he demands his country validate. The first is a Russian patriot who dearly wants to incorporate Russia’s past governance into a future Russia, founded on law-based order, strong central government, and reflective of all ethnic and civil elements of the Russian people. The second is an imposter whose only interest in leadership is self-aggrandizement rather than the future advancement of his country or its people.

Henry Adams, writing at the beginning of the 20th century, foresaw Russia’s empire history as a premonition of a future threat to Europe. In part, his prognosis was realized, at least until the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics of Russia collapsed at the end of the century. Vladimir Putin is the leader who wants to restore that union and Russia’s influence on the world stage of the 21st century. Donald Trump, however, has no historical precedent and no strategic imperative for the nation other than cannibalizing its resources and power for his personal gain. His Presidency is out of sync with well established norms for the office he holds. It functions in violation of the American Constitution, in repudiation of Congressional oversight, and in constant conflict with the rulings of judicial courts. Trump’s knowledge of his country’s history seems so vacuous that it remains questionable whether he has even read the American Constitution. While Putin exercises the power of a tsar with both electoral and constitutional legitimacy, Trump assumes powers neither the electorate nor the American Constitution grant him. While Putin exercises near absolute power, Trump salivates for acolytes to bend a knee before his Resolute Desk. Both men are dangerous, but for different reasons. President Putin, though a careful strategist, could overplay his hand. The result might be Russia’s economic collapse or the onset of an unstoppable war. President Trump, however, has already accomplished the feat of establishing a corrupt and incompetent Administration and of single-handedly destroying America’s influence in maintaining global cooperation on all matters of health, peace, and justice.

While Putin is the prime agent of an ascending world power, Trump is the catalyst for a descending world power. Both men present Janus-like transitions to a new world order, neither of whom preclude the machinations of Xi Jinping to build a dominant world power.

It is time for Americans to face facts, not false façades. When Donald Trump touts his message of “make America great again,” he is referring to the America that emerged as the lone super power after a world war and as a pluralist society still deeply entrenched in the Jim Crow era. That America existed in his teens. His adolescence then appears to have informed his predominant policy tendencies: “America first” in foreign diplomacy and white privilege in domestic politics. Trump’s vision of America ignores the second half of the 20th century. It is recidivistic. It lends itself to myriad contradictory interpretations. And it ill-prepares him to address the real problems of our time.

Both Trump and Putin want to recapture their country’s “greatness.” Putin, mindful of the two catastrophic collapses of the Russian empire during the previous century, wants to reimagine a new Russia for the 21st century. He is attempting to build a more modern economy and provide the strategic reserves that future setbacks may require. Russia’s emergence from the 2008 Great Recession is evidence of his success. By contrast, Trump was oblivious of his responsibility to refurbish FEMA’s stockpiles after two natural disasters during his Administration. Moreover, he has tragically reversed the economic expansion he inherited by failing to address its most serious threat, a world pandemic. America is now in the grip of the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression as a result. His only plan for the foreseeable future is to win reelection. The price for ignoring his responsibility to address a national crisis is a huge increase in the national debt, massive unemployment, an unchecked viral contagion that has infected millions, and American deaths that number in six figures. There is a maxim that states “any leader ignorant of history is doomed to repeat it.” Putin, to his credit, understands this lesson of history. Trump, however, follows a different dictum, which I would characterize as “any leader ignorant of history and grossly incompetent can create a disaster unparalleled in history.”

This year, Americans face an historical pivot point. That point is Janus-like in that it demands we reprise history to guide our future. The history I reference here is our founding ideals and the purpose of our tripartite government. We must reject a rogue President, his corrupted Administration, and all Republicans complicit in his misconduct. We may well have to reinvent America, demand the next Administration right the ship of state, and undo the damage Donald Trump has unleashed on our democratic institutions, our foreign policy, and our national security. We must renew our quest for a more perfect union. America must have a renaissance or face an unheralded demise.
_______________________________________________

< For more thoughts on specific threats to our democracy, refer to a year-old blog entitled “All Problems Solved.”
< For more thoughts on the impact of American democracy on the world, refer to a blog written in April of 2016, “American Democracy in a Dangerous World.”

Most of us would agree, American cities must do a better job of securing public safety, especially regarding systemic racism and the use of excessive force by our local police. We hear the chant from demonstrators across the nation for defunding police departments. But I doubt they want criminals taking over their streets. Instead, they want their local constabulary to address criminal behavior in their community, rather than deliver the social services that social workers and community health professionals are better trained to provide. And, most especially, they want actual police work done humanely by better trained, closely monitored, and fully accountable officers. Unleashing tear gas and brutalizing peaceful protestors cannot be the actions of any police force trained and dedicated to public safety. Legal loopholes, like qualified immunity or complicit relationships with politicians or State attorneys must be legally and structurally eliminated. Otherwise, how can we restore/maintain integrity in our local police departments and trusts in the communities they support.

Changing policing in America will fall mainly upon local governments, though the Federal Government can be more supportive. Consent decrees and Federally sponsored data collection efforts can aid the States in their efforts to address issues like excessive force and racial profiling. But the current Administration ended these efforts immediately upon taking office in January of 2017. And the President’s Attorney General shows no interest in police reform. Currently, Congress is proposing legislation that would, among other things, outlaw choking as an appropriate means of police restraint and restrict the use of force in “no-knock” entries. But the Administration and the Republican-controlled Senate have so far refused to consider these proposals. Instead, the President has advocated for harsher policing. Recently, he ordered an odd mixture of prison riot police, ICE officers, park police, and the National Guard to attack a peaceful demonstration so that he could stage an unimpeded political stunt, aka, photo op.

Unbelievably, he even ordered combat troops to Washington D.C. to “control” demonstrations. And, yes, if you are wondering, this action is an abuse of power and a violation of Americans’ First Amendment rights. Thankfully, many military officers, including the past four Generals of the Joint Chiefs of Staff expressed alarm at the President’s actions. These troops, fortunately, were not used and were quietly ordered back to their bases. As one four star general and former Secretary of Defense in the current Administration stated, the President was using the Nazis’ playbook of “divide and conquer.” Many other military leaders agreed, stating that the President would not be justified in invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807 to engage the US military in the suppression of overwhelmingly peaceful and lawful protests. Such action violates the concept of the bill of rights as outlined in the US Constitution. Donald Trump, however, characterizes himself as “the law and order” President opposed to criminal arsonists, looters, and miscreants. Ironically, he associates hundreds of thousands of peaceful protestors with a few bad actors and provocateurs. In his own words, he correlates “looting and shooting” thereby justifying an indiscriminate response to all protestors in lieu of the actual instigators. He even tweets a Russian propaganda conspiracy that implicates the “left” which he identifies with his political opponents. With this phony conspiracy, he attempts to justify his Administration’s suppression of peaceful protests. But, contrary to his purpose, his actions merely establish him as an instigator of violence.

Today, George Floyd was laid to rest, next to his departed mother—the woman he called out in his last moments of life. Besides the protest marches in all our 50 States, there is one image I cannot remove from my mind. It is the expression on the face of Floyd’s murderer as he slowly crushed the life out of his victim’s body. He could not have appeared more nonchalant—as if he were casually stomping out a roach. I have seen that face before. And it chills my blood still.

In combat, soldiers face death in a kill or be killed situation. For even the most battle-tested warrior, the killing field presents an intense and emotional experience that persists in memory or nightmares for the rest of his/her life. For any person of conscience, the experience of taking another person’s life—however justified as self-defense or the preservation of life and liberty for others—leaves one with feelings of remorse. But this experience may not be shared by a soldier who napalms a village of defenseless civilians or who mistreats a helpless prisoner of war. That soldier may not consider the “gook” a fellow human. He has no conscience! For he cannot recognize humanity in the enemy. We have seen his like in every war—whether it is “japs,” “ragheads,” or “gooks” he dehumanizes—he justifies his superiority by subjugating, even killing others “not like him.” From the story of the Good Samaritan to the history of tribal warfare between and within nations and civilizations, we have witnessed “man’s inhumanity to man.” Thankfully, there are few times we confront this dark image of our species in the face of a soulless individual. I described such a person in my first novel (“A Culpable Innocence” ˟). His face still haunts me. I saw his likeness in Floyd’s murderer. And it still chills my blood.

There are many reasons why soldiers and police volunteer to “serve and protect.” Killing the innocent or helpless cannot and must not be one of those reasons.

Many thousand protestors have reacted as I have. They see the common humanity we all share trampled not just by a few bad cops, but by systemic racism. The Africans that were kidnapped and sold into slavery 401 years ago became a millstone around the neck of America’s conscience, strangling the life out of our founding ideals. “All men are created equal,” if not born into slavery. We all have “inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” if not descended from slaves or share their skin color. But the protestors are not merely demanding justice for Floyd’s murders, but for themselves. They are speaking for the conscience of America. In the most diverse nation in history, Americans must realize our common purpose “to form a more perfect union,” else lose the promise of our founding. And that promise is America’s soul.

_______________________________________________________________

˟In case of interest, my first novel is still available in paperback. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1618563246/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vamf_taft_p1_i0