In the past, Memorial Day celebrations included parades, air force flyovers, military gun salutes, outdoor picnics, and concerts, and lots of retail sales. Well, this Memorial Day is different, not because there are no Persian rug clearance sales, but because of the Covid-19 pandemic. So how do we “celebrate?”

As a Vet, I hung an American flag on my balcony railing. But I am beginning to question what it represents to many Americans. Have we lost the spirit of Memorial Day because we cannot celebrate as we had in the past? Or is there something about Memorial Day that we should still celebrate, even if confined to our homes or if restricted to self-distancing gatherings?

For those of us who have never visited Arlington, a video scan of this iconic cemetery will leave you breathless. Endless rows of tombstones remind us of how many Americans died in our foreign wars—so many lifeless stones in a field of living trees and grass. The names engraved there remain known only by the few who grieved and mourned their deaths. Apart from those mourners, what should the rest of us memorialize? Why should we feel grateful for the sacrifice of those who accepted the call to military service and the risk of injury or death in that service?

Whether a draftee from the past or a volunteer in the present, each soldier accepts a call to duty, specifically, to serve the most vital interests of the United States. But a soldier is not asked to accept the foreign policy initiatives of a specific Administration. No, instead a soldier pledges allegiance to America as “one nation under God with liberty and justice for all.” That pledge used to be made daily in every school in America. Its final words mirror the Preamble to our Constitution and reflect the values that inspired its authors.

Memorial Day provides us the opportunity to question and restore that fundamental allegiance that differentiates America from the history that preceded it. Not even a pandemic should interfere with our reflection upon and renewal of that basic allegiance. For it is the very definition of patriotism.

In our current reality, political divisions within our population and our government can test the strength of our patriotism. But it should not deter us from our allegiance to America. We can critique our elected representatives and still honor the offices they hold in our name. We can disagree on political matters, but still serve the greater good implied by our patriotism. There is an ebb and flow to politics—remember once there was slavery and the absence of women’s suffrage—but Americans have shown an ability to redirect their country towards a greater realization of its grand purpose. Memorial Day should remind us to renew our allegiance to America’s founding principles and hold accountable our elected representatives to their oaths of allegiance as well.

Certainly, being a patriot can be challenging when our government strays from its core principles or basic human rights. During such times, we must look past present circumstances and aim our efforts towards a future that builds upon our progress. There are times when we must rise above divisive issues, listen to all voices, and then choose a path forward that aligns with the long-held promise of America. We cannot be a country defined by ill-conceived wars, short-sighted foreign policy, caged children, and a government riddled with corruption and incompetence. We cannot allow ourselves to be sorted by race, economic status, gender, country of origin, or political party. We are Americans! And we define our future rather than have it defined for us.

Vote! And honor the patriots who went before us and who now stand by our side.

Unanswered questions can breed presumptuous answers or theories. We humans abhor the chaos of unanswered or, worse, unanswerable questions. Like gas in a vacuum, chaos fills a closed space without shape or purpose. But our science explains how gas enclosed in a vacuum adheres to predictable laws. There is an explanation. It turns out that even chaos can be understood in nature. Unfortunately, it works differently in politics. A political leader can create chaos for no other reason than to fabricate an explanation that suits his/her political fortunes. The most effective fabrications are often conspiracy theories. They suit our need for explanations, without taxing our ability to understand—that is, to discriminate fact from fiction, truth from falsehood, a scientific hypothesis from a tested theory, or a theory from an established law of science. Conspiracy theories have no need to replicate science. They are just assertions, willful and likely biased. Often, they do not even pass the test of common sense. But they do provide answers that can satisfy our unquenchable need to explain what escapes our knowledge. And they excuse our responsibility to search for the truth. Consequently, they are effective tools in manipulating public opinion without the need to prove their predicates.

Let us review a few of the more prevalent conspiracy theories perpetrated against the American public during this time of chaos and confusion.
(1) The FBI investigation of foreign influence in the 2016 election was a hoax created by the Democratic Party to unseat a duly elected President. But no Democrats were involved. There was prima facie evidence that the ongoing foreign interference investigation was warranted. The known foreign contacts with Republican campaign operatives in the 2016 election gave the appearance of collusion. And the firing of a lifelong Republican FBI Director appeared to co-op any potential investigation into campaign collusion. The acting FBI Director then made the reasonable decision to include the Trump campaign into the ongoing Russian investigation. His job required as much. No hoax or bias appeared to be operative in his decision. He had no Party affiliation, having never registered as either a Democrat or a Republican. (Note: The Chris Steel report, funded by Republicans initially, then by Democrats, had no impact on the foreign interference investigation that had been started months earlier.)
(2) The Special Prosecutor appointed to investigate foreign interference in the 2016 election was a stooge of the Democratic Party. But former Attorney General Robert Mueller was a lifelong Republican who served under both Republican and Democratic Presidencies.
(3) The final Mueller Report was a complete exoneration of President Trump: there was no collusion and no obstruction of justice. But over a thousand prosecutors signed a letter stating that Donald Trump, were he not protected by the office of the Presidency, would have been found guilty of obstruction of justice on several counts (at least six and potentially as many as 10). Or, in Mueller’s conclusion, “this report . . . does not exonerate him.” Regarding the matter of collusion, Mueller concluded that the Special Prosecutor’s “Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on” the investigation. That “unavailable information” included encrypted or deleted communications, documents stored in other countries or destroyed, witnesses living abroad, and proven lies committed by many Trump associates (some of whom were imprisoned for lying to authorities).
(4) The Mueller Report is based upon fabrications created by Democrats. But the Report only records the testimonies of foreign agents and Trump campaign operatives. No Democrat is quoted or referenced anywhere in the document. (Note: the Steele report is not referenced to support any finding in the Mueller Report.)
(5) The transcript of President Trump’s conversation with President Zelensky was a perfect call. Really? The House impeachment team proved otherwise, as even Republican Senators admitted. But they also argued that the President’s transgressions did not merit his removal from office. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65 would not agree, for he defines an impeachable offense as “an abuse or violation of some public trust.” Nor would signers of the Constitution who concurred with the arguments of Gerry, Madison, Mason, and Franklin. The President was guilty of what the Constitution defines as “bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors.” Over a thousand Constitutional scholars, judges, and lawyers signed a letter to that affect. Even as early as November of last year, the details of the President’s violation of the public trust was obvious (reference “Q for Q or Bribery and Extortion”).
(6) The President saved millions of lives with his Chinese travel ban . . . if only this were true. We cannot know whether the President believes it was so at the time or not. But the fact that he still advances this belief now qualifies as another conspiracy theory because he uses it to blame the Chinese. We now know that COVID-19 had been community spread in Santa Clara County, California, before the travel ban was enacted. And we now know that thousands of lives would have been saved if the President had listened to his advisors and declared a national emergency at the same time as the World Health Organization alerted the world of a global pandemic.
These conspiracy theories are just a few highlights. There are many more created by Donald Trump, like “birtherism,” the Kurds’ culpable absence at Dunkirk, NATO’s lack of support for American interests (disregarding NATO’s involvement in Afghanistan after 911), Ukraine’s interference in the 2016 election, the allegedly baseless prosecutions of Trump allies—like Manafort, Cohen, and Stone, all of whom were provided due process in a court of law, found guilty, and sentenced to multiple years in prison—and so on. What is noteworthy about all these conspiracy theories is not their substance, but their purpose. That purpose is to dupe the public and vindicate bad or harmful behavior. The President uses Twitter and his “bully pulpit” to assure a wide audience for his conspiracy theories. And there are always people inclined to believe a good story that supports a specific bias, prejudice, or point of view.

In fact, anybody can create a conspiracy theory that might go viral on the internet. Suppose we imagined that Donald Trump wanted to be part of an alliance of strong male leaders who could dominate the world. Then we could explain his actions to that purpose. It would become obvious why he would allow Erdogan to invade Syria, satisfy Kim Jung Un’s wish to eliminate allied military exercises near North Korea, agree with Putin’s long held desire to eliminate the short range nuclear missile ban, leverage Ukraine to exonerate Putin for interfering in the 2016 election, and support Putin’s proposed treaty that would concede Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine to Russia. His “summit” meetings with the North Korean leader and his frequent secret phone calls with Putin and Erdogan would imply a hidden diplomacy apart from the State Department and absent any national agenda. Also, his distain for globalism and international organizations would be seen in a new light as justification for weakening any efforts to respect borders, to defuse potential conflicts, and to discourage universal adherence to human rights. Effectively, his actions would be understood as attempts to use America’s influence worldwide in favor of a few like-minded dictators. After all, Dictators generally resent any strictures on their power. Would not this construct make a doozy of a conspiracy theory?

And, as President of the United States, he would be able to remove the one obstacle to this grand conspiracy—that is, American democracy. He could persuade the American electorate to view his policies in a new light, as merely an exercise of his executive power. His constant and persistent message to his constituents would be that he was the state, the very embodiment of America. Therefore, Americans should accept his defiance of congressional oversight and desire to pack the courts with judges he hoped would support his interests. As President, his claim of total power should therefore be unquestioned when he crippled democratic institutions by defunding, by appointing incompetents and sycophants, and by aligning them with the interests of corporate and powerful interests made solely beholden to him. In this manner, he would have consolidated his power and assured his spoken word was the law of the land. His Republican majority in the Senate would be compelled to become complicit in his stranglehold on power or face a campaign funding drought and Presidential belittling in Republican primaries. Within his Administration his punitive actions against subordinates would be readily accepted as consistent with the absolute authority of his Presidency. Specifically, those truly dedicated to public service he would either fire, remove from positions where they could not hinder execution of his orders, or be silenced by his political appointees. Donald Trump, then, would be intent on just one goal, that is, becoming the most powerful President since Franklin Roosevelt. The difference, of course, is that Roosevelt was ceded power by Congress (not so much by the courts) in order to save the country from the Great Depression and to win a world war. President Trump, according to this conspiracy theory, demands power not to serve his country, but to bolster his self-image as one of the most powerful men in the world.

The other part of this imagined conspiracy theory is its portent for the future. Obviously, any plan for Trump to join the club of dictatorial leaders must require that he hold power indefinitely. But first, he must win reelection. Since he has never won the majority in any national poll or even in his initial election, it behooves him to suppress a free election. In the middle of a pandemic, he could veto any legislation that might fund enhanced mail-in voting. He could urge Republican controlled State legislators to reduce early voting, to limit voter registration, to cull official voter records, to limit voting locations, and to block registered voters without selectively issued voter ID cards. And, perhaps somewhat perversely, he could continue to limit the development of a national COVID-19 testing strategy that could make voting safer. Who would want to risk infection at crowded polling locations? Even more perverse would be a limited national pandemic response that proliferated contagion to reduce the African American and Hispanic population who are 2 to 3 times more likely to succumb to the virus. That objective would be met simply by the President urging Governors to remove home isolation orders without reference to the CDC guidelines. He could say “I’m deferring to the Governors” or “we have to open our economy.” This apocryphal scenario would be a bizarre enactment of a possible conspiracy theory. But some people might believe it.

This imagined conspiracy theory is only convincing to those already inclined to believe its truth . . . unless it is supported by facts. Then, it becomes America’s worst nightmare.

In America, only a few States still have the death penalty. Once the prosecuting attorneys deliver the case in chief, a jury of its citizens determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. If found guilty, the accused faces a judge who follows strict legal guidelines in determining an appropriate sentence or verdict. Only in the most heinous crimes is that verdict death.

Some view death as a verdict we all suffer. But death is not a penalty for our crimes. It is simply nature. All living things die and are replaced by other living things. Some living organisms kill other living organisms in order to survive longer than others. Killing is one mode of survival, both as individual organisms and as a species. Killing within a species is usually a form of competition for power, territorial hegemony, or sustaining resources like food or shelter. But our species grew to recognize that internecine extermination was counterproductive, and that communal cooperation and/or collaboration made us dominant over all other lifeforms. Humans came to recognize that killing each other can violate norms that assure our survival and benefit human society. In other words, our conception of justice is born of a concern for the general welfare. Murder, therefore, is defined as a crime against humanity and is punishable in a court of law. Within civilized societies, only a conviction by a jury of peers can subject an accused murderer to a sentence of death. And that death is the verdict of a judge acting in accordance with the law and the will of the court’s jurors.

So, when is death not a verdict? Obviously, people die in wars, often by chance and unjustly. (I wrote a novel about the injustice and inhumanity of war.) And people die of natural causes. As my high school Latin teacher taught us, leges natura non cognoscit (“nature knows no laws” for it is above human laws). But only in a court of law can death be a verdict rendered by a judge. At least, that verdict is authorized by the consensus of all civilized human societies. However, when this civilized consensus is ignored and death is dealt without trial, jury, or a non-partial verdict, then a wholly other form of crime is committed. That form of crime is lawless and likely political. It is usually committed by those who grasps absolute power without regard for the norms and/or laws of any civilized human society.

Genocide and the war crimes of national pariahs often draw little attention in main street America. But how can we ignore crimes committed by our own government? For the last three years we have witnessed an unfettered attack on the lives of fellow human beings at the hands of our own government. Our President ordered a zero tolerance immigration policy that resulted in family separations, the interment of children under inhuman conditions, and the return of migrants to violence and possible death in the northern triangle countries of Central America—often to countries other than those from which they matriculated. This policy resulted in many unaccounted deaths among the deported, including the deaths of at least seven children held in US custody. Our Department of Health and Human Services still cannot account for over 1500 of those children separated from their parents and lost under its jurisdiction. There has yet to be any accounting of how many died as a result of being interred and/or deported. Who delivered the verdict of death to these immigrants and their children?

On the day after a call from the Turkish leader, our President ordered an American troop withdrawal from the Syrian/Turkish border. Immediately, Turkish troops spilled over the border and engaged in a genocidal attack on the homes and families of our Kurdish allies in order to kill or vacate all Kurds within 20 miles of the border. Families fled with nothing other than the clothes on their backs. Initially, an estimated 300,000 Kurds, including 70,00 children, escaped to neighboring countries. Many died in the artillery bombardment preceding the Turkish troops. Others died and/or were raped in their homes before they could escape or find refuge. We do not know how many died in makeshift refugee camps after the Turkish invasion. Who delivered this verdict of death to these Kurdish families and their children?

Currently, during the worst pandemic in over a hundred years, our President has convened a team to orchestrate a partial end to home isolation by the end of April. He wants to reopen America to business and put some of us back to work. Many of us “white collar workers” are working at home and could continue doing so until our country reaches some level of control over this viral contagion. But the “blue collar workers” who harvest our crops, drive our public transportation systems, stock our grocery shelves, cook and serve us food in our restaurants, care for our children, our elderly, and our sick should put their lives at risk? Their contribution to American society is crucial to our society and essential to the American economy. The need to protect them then is equally essential to any recovery from this pandemic. Who wants to deliver a verdict of death to this vital community?

It is the consensus of both healthcare professionals and economists that the best strategy for reviving the American economy is a robust attempt to control this dangerous virus by mitigating its spread. That strategy involves home sequestering and public self-distancing. Though mitigation would be significantly enhanced if it could target populations already infected, the test kits required to scope the extent of contagion are not available in sufficient quantity. It is impossible, therefore, to know how many Americans are already infected. Testing is mainly occurring when those infected show up sick in the Emergency Room of hospitals. As a result, less than one percent of our population has been tested for COVID-19. And our healthcare professionals have no idea how many more Americans are already infected. Meanwhile, the virus is now migrating from population centers to rural America.

Our healthcare professionals are overwhelmed wherever the contagion flourishes. Further, protective equipment shortages put our frontline care workers in jeopardy. Many have already died. Since the intelligence community warned the President of this impending pandemic over three months ago, there is no excuse for ignoring the preparations required by documented pandemic plans prepared by previous Administrations. But those plans were ignored by this President. In fact, he fired officials in the NSC, FEMA, and his Bio-defense team, thereby sidelining the very experts who could have enacted a strategic response to this impending threat. He made himself the sole authority left to address a national emergency. But even then, he failed to recognize his responsibility to declare a national emergency. After belatedly executing the act that gave him emergency powers, he insisted on deferring to the governors his responsibility to develop a national strategy. As a result, different States competed for resources like ventilators and protective equipment with different levels of success or failure. The life/death results of this diverse and chaotic effort were left to beleaguered healthcare professionals to address, even while under-equipped with the necessary protective equipment and overwhelmed with the sick and dying. So, who can we hold responsible for the deaths of these healthcare professionals? How many have been infected and died as a result of the Administration’s delayed response to this pandemic?

Of course, a pandemic is a natural occurrence. But the President’s unwillingness to exercise his executive authority or to act in a timely manner to a national emergency is irresponsible. His failure to act has resulted in a death sentence for many innocent Americans. Although it is difficult to ascribe intent to somebody who acts on a whim, a “hunch,” or a “very strong feeling,” he does provide political justifications for his actions— “I want to open the economy.” For three years he has taken credit for a booming economy and made the economy his main justification for reelection. Is he now willing to risk the lives of more Americans to assure a political victory? Are we all now subject to his death verdict?

My questions may appear too harsh. Many presidential decisions can have life or death consequences. But few draw a clear moral imperative without any downside. For example, how can the mistreatment of immigrant families be justified? They are not the rapist and murderers the President claimed are victimizing Americans. In fact, there is not and never was any evidence to support his claim. His zero-tolerance policy was a death verdict for innocents. In a similar vein, what did the Kurds do to deserve his betrayal of them to a Turkish invasion? They fought as proxies in America’s war against terrorists, losing thousands of their own soldiers in the process. His withdrawal of American troops from the Turkish border was a death verdict for innocents. Now he threatens to deliver this same verdict to Americans still untested for COVID-19. We can only hope that his team develops a balanced strategy that highlights viral hotspots for extensive testing and surveillance screening. We should, however, fear his peevish reaction to wise advice where he defends a whim and exercises judgment without concern for consequences—specifically, human “life-or-death” consequences. He values his image more than the general welfare of those he vowed to serve. And his reelection is more about tightening his hold on the power of his office to quash all his self-perceived political enemies. We should not be surprised when he issues a death verdict without any remorse.

The answer to the question in my title should be obvious. If, however, a death verdict is rendered outside of a court of law, then, whether executed directly or indirectly, it could represent a crime against humanity. If done for crass political gain, then it is indeed a crime. In a constitutionally framed democratic republic, it is also a violation of the oath of office, of the trusts of the American electorate, and of common human decency.

The title of this blog may cause my readers some consternation. For the cynic, an “honest politician” is an oxymoron. But, for others, it presents a moral conundrum. The difference in these perspectives may provide us with some insight into the political morass we Americans are now experiencing. Let me explain.

If you believe that all politicians are dishonest and, therefore, blatantly hypocritical, then you might be tempted to elect somebody who can use the same character flaws in a no-holds-bar battle against these dishonest politicians. In other words, you may need a swamp dweller to drain the swamp. In fact, Donald Trump presented himself in 2016 as that swamp dweller for, as he bragged, he bought politicians to do his bidding. In other words, he was able to compel them to do his will. It should not be surprising that the cynics among us wanted to believe he would do so in office but in support of their interests. Those interests merely needed to be defined to unite his followers behind his MAGA banner. Of course, he did so by promising to rehabilitate the coal industry, make great economic deals with other countries that would provide new markets for farmers and revitalize blue collar jobs in manufacturing, reform immigration practices that, he claimed, resulted in job losses and increased crime in our communities, eliminate foreign engagements that waste our resources and cost the lives of our soldiers, and restore an undefined American greatness that, according to him, had been lost by the poor management of previous Presidents.

After three years in office, we find the President’s achievements mixed. The coal industry has continued its decline. Agricultural tariffs have bankrupted a record number of independent farmers. The manufacturing industry is now officially considered in recession. His Administration has increased the number of soldiers now stationed in the Middle East while, at the same time, alienated our Iraqi and Kurdish combat allies. But, despite these failures, he has succeeded in two areas by reducing immigration and subduing the Republican Party to his will. This immigration “success,” however, comes with the worst humanitarian crisis since the Japanese internment camps of World War II. Most Americans, I believe, would question any benefit derived from breaking up families and abusing children. And the subjugation of the GOP is an embarrassment that could yet destroy our democracy. What the President now claims as his greatest success is something he did mention during his campaign: the continued expansion of our economy after the Great Recession. But he did not dwell on this claim, for his predecessor was responsible for this recovery and candidate Trump’s promise of 5 or 6 percent growth in GDP drew universal ridicule. Nevertheless, his tax cut legislation has indeed benefited corporations, the wealthy, and the stock market but at the expense of the Federal debt and of overall income/wealth inequality. Its success, then, is in the eye of the beholder. Or, as my ethics professor once cautioned his students, “ask whose ox is being gored.”

Perhaps the greatest achievement of our cynic-in-chief is his border wall. More myth than reality, it nevertheless serves as a symbol of the President’s quest to disrupt Washington with its dishonest politicians. They are, in his terms, evil democrats who, with support of “deep state” phantoms, lie and thwart his quest to build his wall and make America great again. Donald Trump, we are to believe, is a self-proclaimed hero. But his quest against invading hordes at our southern border resembles a more appealing faux hero, namely, Don Quixote tilting at metaphorical windmills. How else can we explain his fixation on border fencing? Ronald Reagan, by comparison, also supported the financing and building of a border wall, as did several of his successors. But he also gave amnesty to illegal immigrants. For Reagan and his successors, the wall was just a wall—or one part of an immigration policy. For Trump, it is much more. It is a symbol of his heroic stance against “caravans” of foreign invaders. His zero-tolerance immigration policy, he claims, will save America from drug addiction and violent crime. In his own words, “otherwise, we have no country.” His wall then would save America from an existential crisis. One might ask whether families fleeing death and violence are equivalent to the barbaric hordes that descended upon the Roman Empire. The President, however, operates in the world of demagoguery where fiction replaces reality. More significantly, the myth of a “great, beautiful” border wall—rather than just steel or concrete fencing—has become a rallying cry for all things Trumpian. The selling of this myth may be the President’s greatest achievement . . . and the best justification for cynicism.

Cynicism harbors little space for honesty, neither in politics nor in life. Without honesty, however, how can the American Republic survive. Any representative democracy must be based upon the trust the electorate places in its elected officials. Without honesty, there can be little or no trust. So, what happens when citizens lose trust in their leadership?

Well, the history of political suppression and revolutions, including our own, has answered that question. It should now impel us to question how we define an honest politician and what we can or should expect from him/her. The founders of our American Republic defined in the Constitution and exemplified in their public service what we should expect from our representatives. My previous blog provided some insight into how Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, and our first four Presidents carried out their public service within our Constitutional framework. They differed in their political policies but came together in their dedication to our form of government—separation of powers, checks and balances, rule of law, and absolute commitment to the Constitutional framework defined in its Articles and designed to meet the challenges of its Preamble. Like Honest Abe, they all showed integrity in their public service. The question we now face is whether our contemporary politicians reflect their example. Are they honest politicians?

Pollsters consistently inform us that Congress has dismal approval ratings, usually in the teens. Our current President has never received majority support neither in an election nor in polling. Currently, he is the subject of an impeachment trial in the Senate. But, paradoxically, the Constitution appears to be more on trial than any alleged Presidential misdeed. The President’s legal defense team not only questions the House’s process in developing its case, but also the substantive relevance of the Constitution. They argue against the Constitution’s empowerment of the House to define and execute its impeachment process, against its limits on Presidential power, and even against its establishment of a system of separation of powers. But underlying these arguments is something other than the Constitution. They are not based upon accepted interpretation of the Constitution or the substance of the House’s impeachment case. Instead, these arguments reflect an ongoing struggle between political parties to secure power. The current impeachment trial reminds me of George Washington’s Farewell Address in which he warned against factions that “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” (as quoted in “Presidential Farewell Addresses,” ¹ published 3-6-2017).

The question of the moment is how can elected Senators ignore the trust their constituents placed in them to support the Constitution and execute justice in an impeachment trial. They took oaths both to serve the Constitution and to be just jurors. These Senators are men and women of character and learning. But they are conflicted by a moral conundrum. They are not only committed to their oaths of office, but also to their constituents and to Party. In ethics, one of the more difficult moral challenges is the determination of the greater good. Most objective observers would find no difficulty in balancing these seemingly conflicting commitments. An oath would seem to take precedence, whether it is in a marriage ceremony, military service, or public service. Among the least benign exceptions would be any action taken to harm or violate a principle of natural law, like the Bill of Rights. The Constitution includes those rights within the very structure of our government. Our society, at its foundation, agreed on the values by which it would be governed. All public office holders show their commitment to our government’s structure and values by taking an oath to the Constitution. A Senator’s constituents should view that commitment as justification for their trust a/o vote, like a quid pro quo. Otherwise, its betrayal may well replicate the mythical image of an ouroboros, where a democratic Republic consumes itself.

But constituents not only vote for their chosen candidate, they also fund that candidacy with the expectation of support for promised legislative deliverables. They trust their chosen candidate to deliver on these campaign promises as well as on his/her oath of office. Besides this oath and the public trust, Senators also owe some measure of allegiance to their political Party. And that allegiance comes with significant sanctions, specifically, withdrawal of Party support and/or campaign funds. In our current system, no prospective office holder can succeed without promising to meet the expectations of voters and raising enough funds to win a campaign for office. But the Senate Majority Party Leader controls both the campaign funding apparatus and the legislative agenda. Party leadership then holds the sword of Damocles over the heads of every Senator. Can any erstwhile Senator guarantee his/her commitment to the oath of office, constituents, and Party priorities? The same conditions, of course, apply in the House of Representatives. There is no problem when these objectives are aligned. And alignment should be the intent, born of informative debate and compromise. But what happens when they are not aligned? Or, in other words, whose ox is going to get gored—the Constitution, the voter, or the Party?

First, let’s flip the greater good aphorism to consideration of the greater harm. For example, if an impeachment trial is conducted without any attempt at due process, then Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution and the oath therein enumerated are violated. But that same reference, a cynic might object, does not define due process or the requirements for a fair trial. True. But Americans do have common sense. We know what is entailed in a fair trial—starting with the Declaration of Independence where amongst the grievances listed are mock trials and the deprivation of trial by jury to the experience of millions of Americans who have served on jury duty. Moreover, President Trump’s impeachment raises very real Constitutional ramifications regarding the balance of powers and the rule of law. President Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment for far less. And the impeachment managers used the same references I raised in previous blogs. If the founding fathers and the Federalist Papers cannot convince a Republican majority in the Senate, then what does influence them to adhere to their oaths both to the Constitution and to the execution of impartial justice? Where Nixon believed he was above the law, Trump now expects to be enthroned above the law.

The Senate’s vote on admitting witnesses and relevant evidence occurred while I was writing the previous paragraph. And that vote questions the proposition that the Republican Senators should or would consider their oaths before other considerations. But what other considerations should interfere with these oaths of office? What is absent in these overarching oaths to ensure domestic tranquility in the face of divisiveness, to provide a reasoned and farsighted foreign policy agenda for our security and common defense, to promote the general welfare, and to secure liberty and justice for all Americans? These goals were intended to form a more perfect Union and the very template for the structure and operation of our government. They also should resolve the moral conundrum of any honest politician, for they give guidance to the demands of constituents and of Party. They highlight the path to alignment of conflicting objectives around the ideals and values of a democratically formed Republic. What is absent is allegiance to our Constitution, to sworn oaths, and to our Republic. The relevant question is why?

So, what greater good are these Senators serving in President Trump’s impeachment trial? I would posit that no greater good is served, but rather fear. Specifically, fear of reprisals in Republican primaries and fear of losing campaign funding. This moral conundrum is then entangled in the web of Party politics and campaign funding. A Senator cannot serve the interest of his/her constituents if denied the ability to put legislation on the floor of the Senate for debate and a vote. And a Senator will never serve the interest of his/her constituents or of the nation if denied campaign funding. So, his/her moral conundrum is not a matter of choosing the greater good. Instead, our erstwhile Senator is left with an existential choice between adherence to the directives of Party leadership or to obsolescence. Not the oath of office, not the public trust, but the Party dictum is served. Consequently, who or what is served? Remember Washington’s warning quoted above “that 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.”

Follow the through-line here from voter and Party support to the legislative agenda in Congress. That line is monetary in nature. Politicians cannot run campaigns, represent their constituents, or uphold the oaths of office or of conduct without the funding and support of their Party. These are the constraints placed upon whatever honesty politicians bring to office. Somewhere it is written that money is the source of all evil. In our system, money is power as well. While the President’s impeachment trial is about the abuse of power, underlying this abuse is the influence of money. Money and power are covalent entities that, unchecked, can destroy our system of government. Bob Woodward in his recent book titled “Fear,” quotes President Trump’s definition of power, “Real power is . . . fear.” ²

Of course, fear can make cowards of us all. It can also suborn otherwise honest Senators to give credence to a public lie. Both the Republic’s elected representatives and its citizens bear the smear of this dishonesty. We are all injured.

____________________________________________
Footnotes:
¹ The quoted 4.7% unemployment rate stated in that blog was an unadjusted number from the last quarter of 2016. It was the only number available to me when I wrote this blog at the beginning of 2017. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has long since provided updated numbers. As mentioned in more recent blogs, the unemployment number in January of 2017, when President Trump assumed office, was 3.7%.
² This quote is taken from the book’s preface. The last quote in the book is also its last words. John Dowd, the President’s lawyer, explains what he could not tell the President about why he should not provide public sworn testimony in his own behalf: “You’re a fucking liar.” These bookend quotes encapsulate the program of a despot: strike fear in subordinates and lie to the general public.

Still the 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?

Our first Republican President did not campaign to end slavery, but to end its expansion to the new territories. His personal moral position revealed itself later when, as President, he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation and deposited it into a desk drawer. He decided not to reveal this document to Americans until his Union Army began to turn the tide of the Civil War in its favor. Instead, he berated his General for failing to advance the Union cause more aggressively. Contemporary politicians may interpret Abraham Lincoln’s reticence to support the abolition of slavery during his campaign and the withholding of his Proclamation for a more acceptable time as “good politics.” But they would mischaracterize Lincoln’s action by perceiving it through the lens of 21st century politics. When a majority in Congress overturned the Missouri Compromise to allow a potential majority in these territories to vote their admission into the Union as slave states, Abraham Lincoln broke with the concept of majority rule. He understood that a nation divided among slave and non-slave states could not stand united. Moreover, it would break with the promise of its Constitution “to form a more perfect union.” He became resolute to preserve what the founders created, “a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” ¹ Always mindful of public opinion, he chose not to follow it slavishly, but to lead it to “a new birth (italics mine) of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.” ¹ He was—above all else—dedicated to the nation’s core values. And, as President, Abraham Lincoln exercised moral leadership.

There is no doubt that President Lincoln and our nation faced an existential crisis in the 19th century. Although slavery had existed in the colonies since 1619, the prevailing influence of its economic value had persistently cloaked its moral character—even during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. But when a majority in Congress created the possibility of extending it to the new territories, one man staked his political career against that initiative. Then, as President, he led a young nation through the most catastrophic phase of its existence to a “new birth” of its founding ideals. Why, you might ask, do I bring this history into focus now? Perhaps I see a symmetry in what followed Lincoln’s Presidency, that is, Andrew Johnson’s impeachment. While our 16th President defined Republicanism, his successor is an analogue for our current President. After Lincoln’s assassination, Andrew Johnson, a former anti-abolitionist and southern Democrat from Tennessee, fought with the liberal—then considered radical—Republican majority in Congress over elements of the Reconstruction Act and opposed its oversight of his executive actions to reinstate former Confederate politicians. As a Democrat, he was the only southern Governor to support the Union. By restoring these Confederate politicians to office, he hoped to both strengthen his power and diversify the nation’s representation in government. But these same politicians could also threaten passage of the 14th Amendment which, among other civil rights, would grant citizenship to anybody born in America, including former slaves. Eventually, the Republican majority in the House passed 11 articles of impeachment pursuant to Johnson’s failure to support both a law passed by Congress (The Tenure of Office Act) and the legitimacy of Congress’ opposition to his executive initiatives. He was subsequently acquitted by the Senate on all counts by only one vote. Although his tenure as President was marred by chaos and furious dissension—both within his administration and Congress—his acquittal has been attributed less to his presumed innocence than to a political consideration. ² In “The Federalist, No. 65,” Alexander Hamilton writes, “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision (in a Senate trial) will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Do you see the parallel between Johnson’s impeachment and Trump’s?

Besides this similarity, there is an even more instructive difference between these impeachments. While President Andrew Johnson was intent on shoring up his power by assuaging former Confederates, the Republicans in Congress were committed to follow Lincoln’s moral leadership. Beyond freeing the slaves, they were intent on granting them citizenship and civil rights. While President Trump’s trial may replicate President Johnson’s politically inspired acquittal, the differences will be not only in the nature of their respective abuses of power and obstruction of Congress but also in the moral stance of the respective Republican Parties. In the 19th century, Republicans stood with Lincoln in support of the Constitution, the Union, post war reconstruction, and the extension of voting and civil rights to all citizens. Our 21st century Republican Party, by contrast, intends to exonerate a President accused of abusing his power and obstructing justice by attempting to extort a foreign country to help him rig his own reelection and blocking Congress’ lawful oversight of his illegal actions. This version of Republicanism is the adverse of moral leadership, intent on exonerating crimes against democratic elections and the Constitution, rather than holding parties accountable, most especially, the chief architect of these crimes, the President. The Senate Majority Leader has even vowed to subvert a Senate trial by excluding witnesses who might impugn President Trump. The question for Americans is whether any President should be more concerned with his/her political power than with the moral leadership his constituents entrust in and expect of any President. The question for the Republican Party is whether they choose to hold onto their seats in primaries over the more appropriate moral stance of conducting a fair trial. So far, the current Republican Party has not shown itself to be the Party of Lincoln.

What Lincoln endeavored to preserve was the revolutionary ideals expressed by Thomas Jefferson in 1776 and realized in the democratic republic constituted shortly thereafter by our founding fathers. In his response to James Madison’s summary of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Jefferson wrote from Paris how much he liked “the general idea of framing a government” ³ apart from state legislatures, organized into legislative, judiciary and executive branches, and designed to counterbalance their separate powers. He had only two significant objections. First, he decried “the omission of a bill of rights.”³ And, second, he “strongly dislike(d) . . . the abandonment . . . of the principle of rotation in office, and most particularly in the case of the President.” ³ The newly established Congress addressed Jefferson’s first objection on March 4, 1789 when it passed the first ten Amendments, otherwise known as our Bill of Rights. The state conventions desired these amendments “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers.” Jefferson’s second concern had to wait until after Franklin Roosevelt was elected for the fourth time. The 22nd Amendment limits a President to two terms, heeding Jefferson’s fear of an “officer for life.”⁴

It should not be surprising that the author of the Declaration of Independence would make these objections. A full reading of Jefferson’s Declaration (reference the version approved by Congress on July 4, 1776) includes a list of “abuses and injuries” whereby the King of Great Britain tried to establish an “absolute Tyranny.” If you read Jefferson’s grievances, you will undoubtedly note some similarities to the Trump Administration in terms of suppressing laws serving the public good (e.g., regarding the environment, consumer protection, worker safety, et al), representation of large groups of people via voting laws and census changes, naturalization of foreigners (reference DACA and immigration quotas), the role of civil authorities—like Congress—in military affairs, the jurisdiction of military tribunals in murder cases (via pardons), free trade with foreign nations (e.g., tariff wars), and fundamental institutions of our government such as HHS, EPA, USDA, HUD, and so on. Jefferson’s was the declarative voice condemning monarchical rule and suppression of representative government—the very “high crimes” specified in Trump’s Articles of Impeachment. His words heralded a revolution. Trump’s impeachment trial could spawn the rebirth of a pluralist democracy. His acquittal, on the other hand, would abet the suppression of a free people and their democratic institutions. And it would make Republican Senators complicit.

In “The Federalist, No. 65,” quoted above, the author specifies that impeachment is a political act regarding “the abuse or violation of some public trust.” That trust is established initially by the oath of office every public servant takes. An oath requires a special kind of humility, born of a conscientious submission of the self to an ideal. The proudest among us can find difficulty with oath-taking or, at least, adhering to it. Our greatest Presidents have often combined humility with their allegiance to the demands of office. Many Americans consider George Washington the epitome of a dedicated public servant. When John Adams, the key organizer of the colonists’ rebellion, nominated Washington to lead the revolutionary army, Washington immediately left the room, apparently not wanting to appear in support of his nomination. He then told his aid he did not seek command and did not feel qualified for the commission. But after his unanimous selection, Washington accepted the call to service though not the offered compensation. He declined what was then a considerable compensation of $500 per month. ⁵ Nonetheless, he became America’s first commander-in-chief, leading his outgunned and volunteer army to victory over a professional British military. Naturally, he was elected to become America’s first President. But, after his second term, he declined to continue in office. His decision was consistent with his character. He was ever committed to the service of his country, but not to office, title, enrichment, or the exercise of power. His example sets the standard for any public service, but most especially for the Presidency. Should we not apply this standard to any President, including President Trump? If so, Republicans should find it difficult to support a President who shows such disdain for Congress, for the Constitution, and for the trust the American people bestow in him. That trust requires him to serve our interest rather than his own.

In the foregoing paragraphs I have referenced Abraham Lincoln and the first four Presidents of these United States. The latter not only introduced the revolutionary ideals that formed America. They also demonstrated their commitment to those ideals in their service to a young country. The former preserved what they bequeathed: The United States of America and its Constitution. Each of these Presidents had unique talents and personal foibles. Madison and Jefferson were lifelong friends. But a growing rift developed between Adams and Jefferson. It would be somewhat of an understatement to admit that they were not always politically aligned. But each of these Presidents built upon the contributions of their predecessors. Jefferson, for example, continued Adams’ work on foreign treaties to enhance American security. Each of them sacrificed to meet the call to service. In Jefferson’s case, for example, he hated the idea of becoming Washington’s Secretary of State. But, when cornered by Washington, he accepted the call to service. Adams’ term as Washington’s Vice President forced him to separate from his beloved Abigail for lengthy periods. And, though devoted to his President, he detested aspects of his job, most especially, his duties as President of the Senate. And Lincoln grieved extensively over the suffering the Civil War brought upon his young nation. But this melancholia he kept private and absent from his public duties. What these Presidents shared was an unremitting dedication to public service, specifically, to “my flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Our Pledge of Allegiance mirrors the sentiments expressed in the Preamble of the Constitution. And those sentiments form the basis for America’s liberal tradition, for a republican form of government, and also for the “Grand ole Party.”

Today, the panoply of “liberalism” seems only to dress the modern Democratic Party. But, from a traditional Republican perspective, Democrats tend to extend liberty and justice beyond the intent of the founders—to the governance of social norms and to unconstitutional limitations on the individual pursuit of happiness. To my mind, the political differences between these interpretations of liberalism is more a reflection of the different perspectives and ambitions in a truly pluralistic, democratic society. As a nation, we are more heterogeneous that we were at are founding. No longer an Anglican nation of farmers, we are a mix of people from every corner of the world. It is far too easy for contention to overrule the peace and order of a democratic polity when tribal, race, political, or religious differences collide in competition for power and influence. As Jefferson noted, maintaining an orderly democracy requires a government less concerned with its power to enforce change than with informing its citizens. He wrote, “educate and inform the whole mass of people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order . . . They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” ⁶ Majority rule cannot work in a society ill-informed and not uniformly committed to the ideals of liberty and justice—that is, to the natural rights of all humans. When we go astray of these ideals, we sometimes need that moral leadership that founded our nation and sacrificed to preserve it.

But Jefferson also sounded a prescient warning that are reliance on majority rule can only succeed “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.” ⁶

Jefferson wrote these words to Madison during the many uprisings Europe was experiencing, including those presaging the French revolution. He foresaw the conflict America would face as its rural character might change and its diversity became more conspicuous and, possibly, more contentious in crowded cities. Today, America has realized the nightmare Jefferson, perhaps reluctantly, foretold. We have more hate groups than at any time in our history. Within the last two decades, our nation has spawned wars that draw contending forces into a whirlwind of destruction and death. Our population has indeed become “piled upon” into massive cities that require huge investments while rural areas go largely unattended by government largesse. And our political leaders seem to follow a spinning compass leading in every direction except true north, that is, where our founding fathers blazed a path for us. We still have the government structure they built and a Constitution to guide our way. But we at times lack both the moral leadership from those we elect to represent us and their dedication to telling us the truth. Americans are not being enabled by propaganda and demagoguery to vote their conscience. Instead, we are wittingly and unwittingly following a path that could terminate this experiment in a free and just democratic republic.

The title of this blog might imply America’s current Constitutional impasse is solely in the hands of the Republican Party. But that implication would not be correct. We have all participated in the decline of America’s founding ideals. In Jefferson’s terms, we have become less virtuous. But the Republican Party, in particular, has brought us to a pivotal point in our history. Remember that period in the 1960’s when the Republican Party momentarily awakened to a rebirth of America’s classical liberal tradition. Besides recognizing what Lincoln did to preserve this tradition, it emphasized the roles of our founders in establishing classical liberalism as the bedrock of American politics. That liberalism was considered radical at its birth, but it was mother’s milk to an infant democracy. Through many generations it has born many offspring, some extending liberty and justice and some unintentionally inhibiting the same. But we can never fall prey to right-wing theories and conspiracies that promise to replace our people’s sovereignty with a more effective monarchical or dictatorial leadership. That leadership would spell the end of our democratic system. And we should not identify those theories with the sensibilities of a true conservative. The only excuse the Republican Party has for calling itself “conservative” is its dedication to conserving the classical liberal tradition that gave birth to this nation. Absent that dedication, the Party loses its identity, its birthright, and its purpose in a democratic republic. Without that dedication, Republicans will have killed Republicanism when America needs it most.

___________________________________

Footnotes:
¹ Abraham Lincoln, “The Gettysburg Address.” (The rest of this paragraph reflects various sources recalled from memory and reminiscent of the same civics education shared by most, if not all, Americans.
² Andrew Johnson’s potential successor was considered too radical because of his support for women’s suffrage. The references to Johnson in this paragraph was found in Wikipedia and attributed to Annette Gorden-Reed, the Pulitzer awarded author of “Andrew Johnson: The American Presidents Series—The 17th President 1865-1869” (Times Book/Henry Holt), p. 139.
³ Thomas Jefferson, “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,” selected and edited by Saul K. Padover, Easton Press, Norwalk, Connecticut, P. 311.
⁴ Thomas Jefferson, in loc cit., p. 312.
⁵ This summary of events was condensed from “George Washington,” an abridgement by Richard Harwell of the seven volume “George Washington,” by Douglass Southall Freeman, pp 219-220.
⁶ Thomas Jefferson, in loc cit., pp. 314-315.
⁶ Ibid., p. 315.

Since 1787, America has been a democratic republic with a capitalist economy. These political and economic characteristics define our national character in many ways. When in balance, they assure our freedom both in opportunity and in wealth creation. But when that balance is not regulated, as experienced in the last half of the 19th century, not only was there a rise in economic inequality, but also a disproportionate increase in the influence of wealth on the conduct of government and of the economy.

Today, we are witnessing the same imbalance. Does anybody seriously disagree? One of the candidates for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency is proposing “structural changes” in our economy and a wealth tax to address this imbalance. You may disagree with her proposals, but you cannot ignore the reality she attempts to address. It is the same reality previous Administrations attempted to address in the 20th century with anti-trust legislation, the New Deal, and progressive taxation. But for the last four decades, America has reversed its preoccupation with economic inequality by quashing unions, eliminating the estate tax, and gradually adopting a more regressive tax system. Today, the wealthy pay, on average, only half the percentage of their economic income than what the less wealthy pay.

Recently, several billionaires, both Republican and Democrat, have criticized the concept of a wealth tax˟. Perhaps it may be impractical to implement in our current environment. But we must get serious about reversing the course the President’s tax bill has only accelerated. That bill favors hedge funds, real estate developers—like the Trump family—and corporate income. The latter has reinvested much of the Trump tax windfall into stock buybacks instead of in real economic growth. While the President praises the resultant rise in the DOW indices, he brazenly ignores any increase in the minimum wage or investments in infrastructure, education, healthcare, a clean environment, and job training for the new tech economy. The President is leading his Republican constituency into a dead end where the country’s productivity will disproportionately benefit the privileged to the detriment of most Americans. Meanwhile he tells the country what he believes it wants to hear—that the economy is booming.

Recovery from the recent great recession has indeed continued during his Administration. But that recovery has slowed down. As of August, the unemployment rate had decreased by only .14% since the day he took office, compared to the 43% improvement during his predecessor’s time in office (see The Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics as quoted in “A Stable Genius”). Meanwhile, the President’s policies have reintroduced recession’s trillion-dollar deficits and has begun to isolate America from international markets and alliances. Taken altogether, they portend disaster, regardless what the President tells us.

Should we believe our President? Or should we characterize him as just another ubiquitous pitch person we find on every commercial TV channel? Advertising, broadly speaking, dominates nearly every phase of an average American’s life: TV commercials, road signs, store displays, “robo” calls, mailed ads and coupons, pop-up computer ads, tracking cookies, email ads, et cetera. All these marketing attempts serve up the same hodgepodge of what retailers believe we want to hear: cream to clear our faces, toothpaste for a brighter smile, pills for greater brain power or sexual potency, investment opportunities for a richer life, and so on. And, in the same vein, the President assumes responsibility for “the greatest economy in history.” But his pitch is not for your tax dollar. He already has that. No, he wants your vote or, at least, your complacency.

Of course, we expect our politicians to support a strong American economy. But we do not require them to mimic its retail nature in their campaigns. We expect them to impress us with policy positions and personal characteristics of leadership and integrity. We do not require them to sell their “goods” by telling us what we want to hear in a campaign advertising blitzkrieg. Its purpose is to influence minds, even if only subliminally. In other words, we are being told either what we consciously want to hear or, subtly, what we should want to hear. The latter is the basis for both reflex consumer purchases and tribal voting. How else can we explain our vote for a Party candidate who violates our Constitutional order and shows no respect for the general welfare of American citizens? Have we deliberated on what we want to hear or are we being told what we want to hear? The former implies personal judgment and free choice. The latter only requires obeisance and submission. There is more at risk here than the economic maxim of buyer beware.

Maybe, the barrage of mass advertising and ceaseless politicking has made us apathetic. Perhaps, as a society, we tend to accept the sales hype as background noise and become cynical of its promises. Our politicians tire us with their tribal skirmishes, their lying, their unkept promises, and, at times, the abuse of their office. Why engage? Why not just accept the Party line? It takes less effort to simply accept as fact whatever we want to hear.

At this point in time, we are inundated with stories of political corruption. Our President, for example, has surrounded himself with sycophants and incompetents who have violated both ethical norms and legal restraints. Some have been convicted of actual felonies. Even the President has been implicated in various crimes. By reason of his office, he is considered unindictable. Nevertheless, he could not be exonerated from numerous instances of obstruction of justice. And now he is the alleged kingpin of an international bribery and extortion plot involving Ukraine. But he claims there was no “quid pro quo,” just a “perfect” phone call between heads of state wherein promised aid and a Presidential meeting were conditioned upon specific deliverables, termed a “favor.” Should we believe the President when he says, “I want nothing?” But the evidence belies his words. Instead, we now know that he attempted to bribe and extort Ukraine’s President Zelensky to announce rogue investigations into both the 2016 election and his supposed political opponent in the 2020 election. He wanted to elicit Ukraine interference in the upcoming election while invalidating the intelligence community’s findings regarding Russian interference in the past 2016 election. But he wants us to believe his only interest is in exposing corruption—not in exonerating Russia for its election meddling in 2016 or in benefiting his potential reelection in 2020.

Even as I am writing these words, he is mustering his only possible defense—that is, a full presentation of his conspiracy propaganda in a “made for TV” exposé. Will Americans take note of the fact that neither President Zelensky’s government nor any established investigative body such as the FBI will have participated in this bogus conspiracy investigation? Or will they simply believe either what they want to hear or what they are told on a special TV infomercial? Our “reality star” President continues to bet on our gullibility. Even in the face of Articles of Impeachment, he pitches a baseless defense, that is, his ongoing taglines/pitches, such as “no quid pro quo,” “I want nothing,” “a perfect call,” or “no obstruction of justice.” He wants us to believe he did not do what he did, did not say what he said, did not deny every Congressional request for documents, and did not order his staff to disregard legitimate subpoenas. There is no abuse of power or obstruction of Congressional oversight here—nor is there a Constitutional prerogative for Congress to hold an impeachment inquiry. No, he obscures facts with fiction.

Underlying this whole impeachment process is an unanswered question. Why is he so single-minded in his pursuit of Russia’s interests? Perhaps he truly believes that defending Russia’s role in the 2016 election and promoting its interests in all matters effecting NATO, Syria, Ukraine, and Russian sanctions is really the only way to improve relations with Russia. He has been telling us as much for nearly four years. It is what he wants us to believe or, at least, what he wants us to hear repeatedly and relentlessly until we all submit to his lie. As he once said, “don’t believe in what you see or hear.” Instead, as if in a Star War fantasy, he tells us his lie is the truth and what we should want to hear. But is it really what only Vladimir Putin wants us to hear?

In criminal cases, often the most difficult thing to uncover is intent. How can we assess the President’s intent behind his attempts at bribery and extortion? He wants us to believe he is that disinterested executive who fights corruption in countries receiving American foreign aid. Well, there is one aspect of his character that provides us a clue into his actual intent: he is irrevocably and incessantly involved in self-promotion. Ironically, that is the bases of his so-called “authenticity.” He is a self-serving chameleon who presents whatever façade suits him in the moment. Consequently, he becomes an unapologetic liar who finds it impossible to admit any blunder or incompetency. He may not be the only politician with these traits. But he appears alone in his ability to normalize this behavior and even win public support for its abnormality. He is, as members of his staff have proclaimed, just “Trump being Trump.” And Donald Trump is unequivocal about his public persona: his lie must be your truth. He demands that perversion of integrity in his followers. Fraud, then, is the basis of his authenticity. When he says, “don’t believe what you see and hear,” he is stating his case for believing only him, the “stable genius” with a “great mind” and “the best words.” Whatever he says or does is what he wants Americans to hear and accept.

“Tell me what I want to hear” without regard for any personal judgment is not the basis for an informed electorate in a democratic republic. From the public forum in ancient Athens to the American voting booth the same prerogative faces every citizen: free choice. Citizens in a democracy must be free to use their best judgment and to choose the best course for their country. They either define the state’s sovereignty or abrogate it to rulers instead of elected representatives. In other words, it cannot be about “Trump being Trump.” America must be about Americans being Americans.

So, does our economy need regulative intervention—perhaps some form of “structural change”—or is it simply “booming” as the “best economy in history?” Is climate-change a hoax? Are immigrants from the depressed northern triangle really a security threat to America? Is abandoning our Kurdish allies to possible genocide a reasonable option in our fight against ISIS terrorists? In what world does repealing the Affordable Care Act through the courts improve healthcare for Americans? And why should we exonerate a President for “bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors” and reelect him as “the greatest President in history?” Remember when he told the United Nation’s assembly that he had “done more in two years than all the Presidents in American history.” The UN Assembly laughed at him. If we, instead, believe his shtick—specifically, what he wants us to hear and accept—then the joke is on us.
_________________________________________________________________________

˟ Some of these billionaires, it should be noted, are currently campaigning to be elected or reelected President in 2020.
My postscript 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?

The term quid pro quo has a meaning embellished by legal precedent and opinion. Some of our media has tried to translate the term in the most simplistic manner as meaning “this for that.” But the Latin implies more. Quid is an interrogative that explicitly asks for something. Quo refers to something else. And the pro means “for,” sharing the same derivative as our English “prior.” In plain English, this Latin phrase means that something requested cannot/will not be granted before something else is provided.

Why do I risk boring you with my meagre linguistic skills? In this case, I am trying to point out that the underlying meaning of quid pro quo implies a question or request. But if a positive response is deliberately withheld as an inducement for something else, then this deal becomes the very definition of a bribe. Interestingly, a “bribe” in Middle English refers to something stolen. Again, in plain English, our President offered a bribe—using tax funded money authorized by Congress for foreign aid—in order to induce a favor from the Ukrainian President. Now you may argue that the $400 million was already authorized by Congress and therefore cannot be characterized as stolen. The President, however, employed taxpayer money as if it were his to employ for banal political purposes. Moreover, he usurped Congress’ intent for his own criminal benefit. And he attempted to make the Ukrainian President a co-conspirator in bribery. The analogy here would be the wayward offspring who steals money from his mother’s purse to buy candy. In this case, it is America’s budget rather than the family budget that is ransacked.

Finally, the President further pressured the Ukrainian President through a variety of means, by phone, in person, and via surrogates. When an official engages in this kind of coercion, it is called extortion. Naturally, I cannot restrain from providing you with the Latin root for the word, “extortion,” namely ex, “out of” and torquere, “to twist.” The latter is also the root for the word “torture.” If you watched the joint press conference between the two Presidents, you may have noticed the tortured look on Zelensky’s face when the President urged him to settle with Vladimir Putin.

While Ukraine is facing an existential threat and burying soldiers and civilians on the field of battle, our President is victimizing it by his strategy of bribery and extortion for political purposes. Whereas two American Presidents have been impeached in the past 231 years, neither were prosecuted in a court of law. This impeachment inquiry is different in substance and without historical precedent. Without the shield of the Presidency, Donald Trump may face prosecution not only for bribery and extortion but also for obstruction of justice as outlined in the Mueller report.

The next phase in the House’s impeachment inquiry involves open hearings. Keep in mind the core issues. You will hear various political arguments about whether there was an “abuse of power” or “an impeachable offence.” But the operative issue is the Constitutional directive that a President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (quoted from the Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 4). Bribery is clearly stated therein, and extortion can be implied as a “high” crime.