Do our present circumstances dictate our future now or merely draw a picture of a future “now”? This question is particularly relevant as Americans approach a national election in 2020. The Presidential candidates who have already announced provide a pot-pour-ri of visions and policies for America. But none of these perspectives or prospective policies can become America’s future unless they capture the support of the electorate. And, even then, political opposition or unforeseen events may suppress any candidate’s intent once in office.

While the future may be the subject of pundits’ predictions, it cannot be predestined. It evolves in its own manner from the present context. At this writing, Americans face diverse futures with respect to the provision of healthcare, the integrity of government, the problem of income/wealth inequality, the future of immigration policy, the conduct of foreign affairs, the mitigation of home-grown terrorism, and the disastrous consequences of global climate change. Some would deny any problem with America’s current direction. The present Administration has already set its course. But Americans have set new directions throughout America’s history, sometimes gestating change between elections or over much longer periods of time. We are currently preparing for a national election that could give birth to a different course. We can see glimpses of this new path forward already taking shape.

Americans incubate the embryo of political change for months and years before delivering them in the voting booth. That incubation period is born in the hearts and minds of every citizen. It is constantly changing and evolving until consensus is reached by a majority of citizens. Why else are the press and political campaigns addicted to pre-election polls? And why are so many interested parties—domestic and foreign—so intent on manipulating public opinion? Polls and trolls are the bane of modern democracies, for they attempt to either predict or control the future. In this manner, these attempts appease/foment some groups’ fears or satisfy another’s desires. But they should not substitute for the reasoned will of an electorate. The only question is whether reason and free will are the determining factors in an election. Reason builds on a base of fact and valid evidence. And free will depends upon reason and the courage to act. If well-informed voters vote their conscience, then America will prosper, regardless of which political party wins their vote. For a conscientious vote reflects what the body of the electorate finds necessary now—at this point in history—to satisfy its pursuit of happiness. Otherwise, democracy cannot survive. Each election is America’s rebirth into a new future. Will this next election bring forth a stillborn or a promising newborn?

For example, the health insurance industry for years denied coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. Insurance companies had prospered by excluding high-risk customers. As a result, market power and money dictated health outcomes, while the uninsured died or suffered bankruptcy in order to prolong a life. But the electorate began to consider whether healthcare should be a right for all Americans rather than a privilege for those who could afford it or who were fortunate to have employer-supported coverage. This newly reasoned approach to healthcare has gestated over several generations (reference, “The Republican Path to Healthcare”). The Affordable Care Act (ACA) not only eliminated restrictions based upon pre-existing conditions but supported the extension of basic healthcare to include preventive care and treatment for various societal health issues such as prenatal care, vaccinations, diabetes prevention, addictions, annual checkups, and so on. While insurance companies lost a key lever in their control over people’s health, they gained millions of new subscribers, many subsidized by the ACA. At the same time, the ACA extended Medicaid to millions in those states that accepted Federal help. And it also provided additional Medicare benefits while shoring up its future financial viability.

The ACA is an example of a slow-moving tide that took generations to cross a deep sea of public opinion. The electorate now measures healthcare in terms of health outcomes and the universality of its coverage. It has rejected the Republican mantra of “repeal and replace” in favor of a more reasoned approach to “reform and extend” (reference, “Why Repeal and Replace Obamacare”). In reality, “replace” meant a return to the previous insurance industry business model; whereas “reform and extend” implies a path to cheaper and more universal healthcare. Is it reasonable to assume that assuring individual healthcare is more important than increasing healthcare industry profits? This is still a question before prospective candidates for elected office. Will they respond with well-thought out proposals and with good will? Or will they continue the current Administration’s efforts to cripple the ACA: discourage enrollments, reduce subsidies, decrease the mandate penalty to zero dollars, crimp the risk pool, and authorize short term, high deductible policies to individuals with no pre-existing conditions. These efforts have driven up the costs of healthcare insurance for everybody and forced some carriers out of some insurance markets. The Republican Party has voted over 70 times to repeal the ACA without offering any comparable healthcare plan. Can we believe it will now offer any viable plan (reference, “Shim, Sham, or Shame”)? Undoubtedly, powerful monied interests will also attempt to define America’s healthcare system. But what will 2020 voters decide as the best option for the American healthcare system: a return to the pre-ACA health industry model, a new Medicare-like ACA public option, or something completely different, like a new single payor system, sometimes characterized as “Medicare for all”? Can you envision the future “now” for healthcare in America?

Meanwhile, the newly elected House of Representatives seems to be re-imagining the founding vision of American democracy by restoring the power of the vote. Its first official act was the passing of HR1 as a strong initial step towards reforming campaign financing and securing voting rights for all. As I suggested in August 2015, Americans have always expected their government to be a “protector of the American way of life” (reference, “American Revolution 2016“). But, in recent decades, we have begun to believe that “government is the problem,” that the “system is rigged” against the less privileged amongst us, and that our elected representatives use “politically correct” statements to conceal their self-serving intent. Many voters in 2016 agreed with this analysis, but not with my prescription for change. A large plurality—though not a majority—of Americans voted for a disruptor instead of a reformer as their chosen change-agent. A disruptor, as we have witnessed, chooses to work outside of a system rather than to reform it from within. But the American system was designed to be self-correcting. Since it is built around checks and balances and adherence to the rule of law, working outside of this system is the same as working against it. Dismantling institutional norms of ethics and standards, authorizing nepotism, ignoring legal—even Constitutional—restrictions, and substituting personal goals for the general welfare undermine American democracy rather than serve its evolution. More to the point, a disruptor invites corruption and violation of the integrity demanded of a democratic republic. When an American Administration operates outside the law and institutional controls, it allows sycophants, opportunists, and sleaze to infest government and thwart the will of the governed.

Perhaps Americans will now reconsider whether our system of checks and balances should not only endure but be strengthened. Removing the excessive influence of large public campaign donations is a first step to eliminating corruption in government. In addition to the House’s action, several state legislatures have attempted electoral college reform. In a creative application of the 12th Amendment, they will vote all their electoral college votes according to the national popular vote. * Will these campaign and electoral reforms appeal to the electorate as a reasonable way to advance and strengthen our form of government? Will America once again rise to reclaim Lincoln’s vision at Gettysburg, “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.” Is a new future “now” on our horizon?

After World War II, America experienced a massive growth in the middle class. There were far less mega corporations then than now. And labor unions encompassed a major portion of the work force. Today, .01% of the population control 60% of the nation’s wealth and labor unions represent less than 12% of the work force. In 70% of the states, 40% of our fellow citizens cannot afford to buy a home. In addition, 40% of full-time workers earn less than 15$ per hour. Whether you accept those government statistics or not, many who read them also live them. If you are not one of those people, then drive through the poorer sections of one of our major cities or many parts of rural America. If you live in a “better” neighborhood, check out the gardeners, housekeepers, and repairmen. They do not live in your neighborhood. They live paycheck to paycheck. And they worry about the future of their children: will the best public schools be available; will college be affordable. My father was a mail carrier who put his son through college. My current mail carrier regrets that he cannot do the same for his daughter. Frankly, a time traveler from the mid-20th century would not recognize the America of the 21st century.

How did this face of America change in the space of two generations? How did we develop this bifurcated economy? Well, it changed almost unperceptively over time. Despite elections, most Americans have lost an effective voice in their government. High paid lobbyists too often dictate the Congressional agenda to suit the monied interests of corporations and/or the super-rich class. It was only a matter of time before the Presidency would fall into the same hands. The current President, for example, acts in support of his own wealthy class while falsely claiming a majority support that has never existed. Is it not obvious that we must address income and wealth inequality in America both to break the stranglehold of power and money and to restore faith in our democracy? When elected officials truly dedicate themselves to the general welfare, then they will begin to address the needs of our educational system, of infrastructure, of job training and opportunities, of climate change preparedness, of a safe and habitable human environment, and of healthcare reform. These needs exist for all Americans. Subverting national resources to serve the interests of billionaires and large corporations does not serve the general welfare, especially when the Administration vows to cut federal spending for a myriad of social programs that enhance the lives of all Americans. Recent tax policy, for instance, only serves those invested in capital. Most Americans do not own stock, a home or, at best, more than a minority interest in a house. They are saddled with rising rents or mortgage payments. The current President’s tax and government policies do not serve their interest. Not only are their voices not heard, but their rights as citizens are ignored. This Administration belies Lincoln’s concept of “a government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Which vision of the future will unfold in the next election: Lincoln’s or Trump’s?

In the course of 243 years, America has expanded its citizenship and/or voting rights to include all races, women, immigrants, and asylum seekers. But this expansion of citizenship and subsequent rights has not been without pitfalls. The Civil War and the Women’s Suffrage Movement stand out as painful leaps forward in our history. But America still battles with human rights issues from racial prejudice to religious intolerance, to misogyny, to white supremacy, to class privilege, and so on. At this writing, Americans are witnessing the worst civil rights violations since the internment of Japanese citizens during World War II. Our government is responsible for violating the rights of immigrants and their families on our southern border. We attempt to deny them abortion rights, asylum, due process, and the sacred right to hold and care for their own children. At least the Japanese internment camps kept families together. But we have separated children from their parents and held them in separate internment camps where many still await assignment to foster care. The potential for long term psychological damage to these children is high. But their treatment is just one more example of current human rights violations that include DACA children and TPS victims (see “Bon Mots or Deceits”). This non-white purge continues at this writing with the newly announced plan to deport 4,000 Liberians who were welcomed to America in 1991 as their homeland was torched by civil war. Every Republican and Democratic President since then has protected these refugees from deportation by renewing their special status termed the Deferred Enforced Departure (DED). This purge is not only a denial of our shared human nature but a negation of America’s progress towards its vision that “all . . . (humans) are created equal.” How can we accept this recidivist vision of America or even consider it as our future?

Our fellow revolutionaries, the French, gave us the Statue of Liberty. Engraved in a plaque at its base, are the words of Emma Lazarus, “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free . . . Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” Instead of “a golden door,” do we now offer an impenetrable border, the gates of an internment camp, or summary deportation? Is this the picture of America’s future?

Will the future America lead the world via peaceful alliances and fair-trade policies that bind world powers into interdependent relationships? Or will America’s interference into the domestic affairs of other nations lead it into regime change, revolutions, foreign military interventions, and the creation of more ungovernable nests of future world terrorists? The forces that determine the actions of nations are not always logical or even moral. America’s foreign policy, on the other hand, must be rational, humane, and, at minimum, explainable. But it must also encompass historical relevance and diplomatic contexts. We must elect leaders who grasp the nuances of diplomacy in our international affairs. Real diplomacy involves negotiations with foreign dignitaries, not Presidential twitter proclamations behind bedroom doors. The “only I can” syndrome is the self-aggrandized fallacy of monarchs and despots. It should not exist in a representative democracy with well-informed democratic institutions. America cannot become the international bully that must have its way without consideration for the well-being of the international community. Nor can it ignore the prospect of a renewed nuclear proliferation with the advent of unstable or increasingly antagonistic nuclear powers. America can neither be an isolated power on the world stage, feared and resented by other nations, nor a quirky partner, untrusted by its allies. In the present context of human history, the global community is either on the cusps of coming together or breaking apart into new or historically engendered conflicts and violence. As a military and economic power, America cannot avoid playing a part on this stage. What role do Americans want their country to play in this global community? Can they still embrace Reagan’s vision of the “shining city upon a hill? **

Ronald Reagan, like several Presidents before him, was the victim of an assassination attempt. The irony here is the contrast between his “shining city” vision and the reality of senseless violence in America. After Al Qaeda’s attack in 2001, America armed itself against foreign terrorists. But we ignored the more serious problem of homegrown terrorists. Gun violence is rampant in our country and the most overlooked example of terrorism. Cities like Chicago are literally under siege. Congressional representatives from both Parties have been shot within the past decade. And some of our congressional representatives are now openly identified with white supremacists. Of course, not all gun violence is associated with hate groups. But those who espouse anger and hate can give impetus to those prone to violence. During the term of our first Black President, hate groups proliferated across America. And now, encouraged by the current President’s often demeaning rhetoric toward racial groups, there has been a continued increase in hate groups throughout America, increasing 30% in just the past year and now numbering 1,020. *** Our non-white, Muslim, and LGBT children are attacked verbally and sometimes physically. And all our children are threatened by gun violence, as witnessed by many school shootings over the past decades. It is especially difficult to rid the image of Sandy Hook from our collective memory—that is, the massacre of innocents just beginning to learn their three “r’s.” If we cannot get past hateful rhetoric and the well-financed gun lobby, we will never have respectful dialogue or reasonable gun control laws. Moreover, no rational arguments will prevail unless we elect politicians who share our outrage and commit to providing the necessary moral leadership. Should we and can we create a less discordant, more peaceful, and humane future for America?

The issues just enumerated here appear almost daily in print and cable news. But, in terms of global impact, they are dwarfed by the larger issue of climate change. From as far back as Rachel Carlson’s treatise on the environmental damage caused by pesticides (“The Silent Spring”) to the unnatural history described by Elizabeth Kolbert (“The Sixth Extinction”) and to the war between capitalism and the climate described by Naomi Klein (“This Changes Everything”), the present course towards destruction of a habitable environment and its potential harm to humanity has been clearly presaged. That destructive course, however, predates by billions of years our unavoidable extermination by the devolution of our solar system. Instead, we are on a chosen path to a premature end—paradoxically, our own species’ suicide. As we exterminate all life on our planet, we seem immune to the reality that humanity cannot survive without this planet’s eco-system. While this self-imposed expiration may seem a distant fate, we ignore the omens already at hand in catastrophic fires, floods, storms and the increasingly frequent announcements of floral and animal extinctions. Are they the canaries in the mine? Is this the future we predestine for our immediate offspring and their descendants? Our progeny will be challenged to survive an environment in which they were never genetically evolved to exist. Unlike the ice age, humanity will not emerge from caves into a more welcoming environment. Unless global warming is mitigated within the next generation, its effects will be irreversible. And that prospect explains the title of Naomi Klein’s book.

Will the science supporting climate change be recognized by all our elected officials; and will they come together to reverse the momentum towards global warming and begin to mitigate its deleterious effects? Will we elect representatives who admit our species responsibility for the sixth mass extinction and for advancing the end of the Holocene period in which our species and cultures have thrived for the past 10,000 years? Are the record numbers of climate refugees fleeing Central Africa a portent of a future exodus from the South and Central Americas during the lives of our children and grandchildren? Whatever vision Americans may have for the future, it cannot be that of an uninhabitable earth. That future “now” should be so foreboding as to force carbon reduction now.

In conclusion, will America continue its progress toward universal health care or retrench by limiting or reversing that trend? Is this the point in American history when Americans abandon the vision of our founding fathers and turn to government by dictate or, worse, by corrupting or self-serving influences rather than by informed consensus and by rule of law? Will the productivity engendered by capitalism and market competition increase the wealth and well-being of the many or just the few? Is it possible that a nation once proud of its ability to assimilate immigrants will not only close its borders but terrorize, punish, and deport them without due process? Can Americans live with the prospect of becoming a pariah amongst the nations of the world where diplomacy is a zero-sum game that America must always win? How can Americans continue to accept hateful and discordant public discourse while their cities become terrorized by gun violence and their leaders engage in vitriolic arguments and uncompromising disputes? Will Americans’ “general welfare” be served best by deregulating market forces that pollute our air, water, and land rather than preserving the natural resources that serve the health and well-being of all Americans? Further, will the national government wake up to science and begin to mitigate the effects of climate change and to prepare for a carbon free economy?

Too many questions? Of course. Welcome to your citizenship role in a democracy. We have more than a year to develop answers. Now is the time to weigh facts, consider arguments, and determine the best policies that address the issues and serve the general welfare. At the same time, we must choose representatives we can trust to support those policies in office. With respect to the Presidency, we must look for somebody with the courage to rise above partisanship and with the humility to wield power with restraint and compassion.

The Presidency is an almost impossible job where “the buck stops,” both figuratively and literally. It is more than one person can bear alone and requires a team of experts to offer counsel. The person we elect to be President must adhere to the Constitution, make decisions with a view to their long-term consequences and their overall effect on the general welfare of all. Whoever holds the office must be able to articulate a vision all Americans can support. The “bully pulpit” is not for demagogues who spout taglines and propaganda. It is that exclusive venue where a President can educate, persuade, and inspire. But a President is still just a reflection of America and of a moment in time. That person may have more impact on our future “now,” but will be elected by who we are now. His/her integrity may well mirror are own or lack thereof.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

* Currently the states taking this tack account for 189 electoral votes. If enough states join this quorum to add another 81 electoral college votes, they will control the 270 votes needed to elect a President. It will then become impossible for a Presidential nominee to win a national election without garnering the popular vote.
** l would encourage my subscribers to read this speech delivered on January 24, 1974. The occasion was the return of three war heroes from Vietnam, one of whom was John McCain.
*** This number is documented by the Southern Poverty Law Center and has been traditionally used by the FBI in monitoring these hate groups for potential violent behavior.

In June of last year, a certain writer who sometimes dabbles in fiction attempted to interview the Trump Whisperer (see “An Interview with the Trump Whisperer”). That interview had some difficulty focusing on the truth. Could a similar interview be conducted in another dimension of reality, specifically, a truth dimension? Some string theory physicists believe other dimensions exist. So, why not a truth dimension? Let’s test this hypothesis.

The following is an interview with the Speaker of the House, the President, and the Senate Majority Leader. (DISCLAIMER: the interviewer cannot be held accountable for the following statements of truth, nor for the intervention of the Trump Whisperer who often speaks for the President.)

_________________________________________________________________________________

Interviewer – Let me say how thankful I am for your participation in this interview. There are two current subjects I would like to cover today. The first concerns the month-long shutdown of the government. How would you characterize it and how would each of you resolve its political stalemate?

President – The Democrats clearly refuse to support border security. They won’t even support my extensions of DACA or TPS for a three-year period in which we could come together to reform our immigration policies.

Whisperer – Liberals bleed for minorities and government services. By shutting down the government, I hold the sword of Damocles at their throats. Their weakness is that they care. I don’t. And I will win.

Speaker – Have you ever heard of a Pyrrhic Victory? The President wants to win while losing. The problem here is that he doesn’t consider others’ loss as his own.

________________________________________________________________________________

Interviewer – Madam Speaker, could you be more specific?

Speaker – I’m referring to the 800,000 civil servants who are furloughed or working without pay and the millions of Americans affected by the lack of food inspections, of tax returns, of healthcare services, of border security by land, sea, and air, of maintenance of our national monuments and parks, and so much more. King Pyrrhus of Epirus sacrificed his army to win a war. What the President is doing is similar. In addition, that so-called sword of Damocles he swings will cut off his own head.

________________________________________________________________________________

Interviewer – In truth, Madam Speaker, is that the basis of your own strategy? In other words, do you believe the President’s intransigence in holding hostage the government will ultimately cost him his job?

Speaker – In truth, yes.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Interviewer – And what is the position of the Senate Majority Leader on the government shutdown?

Senate Majority Leader – I will not put any legislation on the floor of the Senate that will not be signed by the President.

________________________________________________________________________________

Interviewer – Yes, we know that you refused to send to the President a funding bill that had passed the Senate by an unanimous vote. You realize your action makes you complicit in this government shutdown. Don’t you consider your role in Congress to be independent of the President, to be a check on Presidential power, and to work with the House in funding the government?

Senate Majority Leader – The President decided he wanted to add 5.7 billion dollars to fund a border wall of some kind to be determined later or “as appropriate.” That is his prerogative. I told him that the Speaker would not remove her opposition to his wall and would not back down. She might even go so far as to allow the House to consider articles of impeachment against a President who effectively shuts down a democratic government by his personal fiat.

______________________________________________________________________________

Interviewer – In truth, Mr. Majority Leader, are you revealing here a strategy that would wait for the House to file articles of impeachment, thereby allowing the Republicans to divorce themselves from a Republican President that has gone rogue?

Senate Majority Leader – In truth, yes. As long as his base supports him, I cannot risk our Republican Senate seats in the next election. Only impeachment would move that base and untether my Party from his unpredictability and disregard for Republican ideals.

______________________________________________________________________________

Interviewer – It is reported that the Mueller investigation is nearing a conclusion. Do you believe it will give you, Mr. Majority Leader, the impeachment you secretly anticipate? What if that investigation continues for months? Would the President eventually back down? Do you really think the Speaker would risk her Party’s credibility and attempt to impeach a sitting President who has a staunchly supportive base? Remember what happened to the Republican Party and Newt Gingrich when they attempted to impeach a popular President? In truth, are you waiting for this President’s removal from office?

Senate Majority Leader – In truth, I have no other option than to wait for impeachment or resign myself to the destruction of the Republican Party and, consequently, control of the Senate.

Speaker – Don’t forget about the rule of law and our Constitution. We are a country that revolted against the whims of a monarch that held absolute power over us. The Declaration of Independence lists the grievances we had with this monarch. Compare those grievances with the acts of this President regarding the rights of asylum seekers, family separations, racial immigration policies, the well-being of our citizens in terms of clean air and water, and refusal to address problems in education, infrastructure, income inequality, and preparations for the impact of climate change.

________________________________________________________________________________

Interviewer – Mr. President, you don’t seem to have much support in Congress, even though it appears you have cowed the Senate Majority Leader. In fact, your only real support comes from those in your base who believe in you. In truth, what are you going to do?

President – As long as I’m President, I will preserve the national security of our country. The situation at our southern border is horrible. No President before me has attempted to stop the crime, drugs, and human trafficking that pours through. It’s a disgrace. The Democrats want open borders. I don’t. If I have to maintain the shutdown for months or even years, I will. I may even declare it a national emergency and order government resources including the military to building my wall . . . fence . . . barrier . . . or whatever. As long as I’m President, I will always protect our country. If we don’t secure our borders, we don’t have a country!

Whisperer – As long as these positions hold with my base, I will win. That is all that matters. I don’t believe in truth, just truthful hyperbole. Whatever I say is what I want people to believe because I want them to believe in me. My hyperbole reflects my most sincere conviction that I must be right, otherwise I’m a loser. And I’m never going to be a loser. Winning is what I’m about. That’s why I can speak with conviction and why people believe in me. I’m a winner! A great deal maker! And the greatest President in the history of our country!

___________________________________________________________________________________

Interviewer – Alright . . . maybe I should change the subject. Recently, the press has published two stories that may be an existential threat to this Presidency. In one report, Mr. President, it appears that the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation into the possibility that you were working for the interests of a foreign government. In another press release it was asserted that during the campaign you told your private attorney to lie to Congress about your attempts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. During the 2016 campaign you repeatedly denied having any business interests in Moscow and specifically any proposed deals to build a Trump tower in Moscow. Can you comment upon the truth of these stories?

President – The most shameful thing ever written about me! I’m not a spy for the Russians. Mueller admitted that story is a lie. It’s just fake news! And Mr. Cohen’s testimony has nothing to do with me. Besides, he’s a convicted liar. Whatever he did, he did on his own. I was only aware of the possibility of a deal with Russia. But nothing happened. And Cohen’s lies are his own. He’s a proven liar!

Whisperer – I have to misstate things to redirect public attention. Mueller’s statement that the press report was “inaccurate” must be called out as a “lie.” And Cohen’s testimony, whether in the past or in the future, has to be characterized as a “lie” told by a proven liar. Notice how often I use the word “lie” and look for any chance to call out the press as “fake news.” When the public hears it often enough, they accept that it must be true. Brilliant, no?

Speaker – May I comment? The public has a right to know the truth. We must maintain the integrity of the Mueller investigation and interpret his outcome on the evidence uncovered. Calling the press “fake news” and refuting sworn testimony before it’s even presented are statements that fail to recognize Constitutional guarantees of a free press and due process before the law. It may be true that part or all of this recent press report is “inaccurate,” and it is true that Mr. Cohen has admitted to lying to Congress, but we cannot draw the conclusion that all press reports are fake or that everything Mr. Cohen says is a lie.

Whisperer – Madame Speaker, you are so naïve! Only losers parse words. I’m a fighter. Your base is not as strong as mine. You sound “politically correct.” But I’m President. I won in a landslide. I even overcame the Democrats’ massive voter fraud. Maybe I’m not politically correct, but I’m a winner. You lose!

_________________________________________________________________________________

Interviewer – OK, you’ve both made your points. What is the Senate Majority Leader’s position on this topic? Do you, sir, have anything to say about this reported counterintelligence investigation or Mr. Cohen’s past or future testimony before Congress? (Pause) Mr. Majority Leader, in truth, what is your position on these matters?

Senate Majority Leader – In truth, these are not legislative matters. I’m busy preparing legislation that will put the President’s proposals on border security before the Senate. I want to broker a compromise that will open the government and address the President’s priorities.

Speaker – Please, Mitch, you can’t possibly . . .. Really? The President is going to grant a 3-year extension to DACA, after he cancelled the program? Likewise, he’s going to do the same for the Temporary Protected status of thousands of victims of catastrophic conditions or natural disasters in Honduras, San Salvador, Haiti, and Nepal. Again, he’s going to extend the life of a program he has terminated. You realize that DACA and TPS together affect nearly a million Americans in addition to their families.  These people have lived here their whole lives, raised families, gone to college, or, in some cases, served in our military. Even this shutdown is the result of his stipulation that he would veto a government funding bill that he had previously supported. Put bluntly, he wants to fix what he has broken. The President’s proposals are not so subtlety covering up his disastrous decisions while at the same time pretending to justify his equally disastrous decision to shutdown the government. Mitch, if you give him what he wants, he will shutdown the government whenever he feels the urge to overrule the Congress. That is what is meant by a Constitutional crisis! We in Congress have a duty to check a rogue President!

_________________________________________________________________________________

Interviewer – Alright . . . ok, I think we now know what it’s like to be in the truth dimension. The truth carries no less passion there than in the political arena. I see the Trump’s Whisperer has removed his black hood and has a likely rebuttal.

Whisperer – She’s a left-wing extremist. The Democrats want open borders. If they have their way, we’ll have murderers and rapists in our neighborhoods! They refuse to negotiate an end to the shutdown even when I give them what they have always wanted. They are obstructionists. Even their radical left supporters will tire of the Speaker’s empty promises for free education, healthcare, and hand-outs. She would bankrupt the government just to foil my efforts to make America great again. It’s so sad.

________________________________________________________________________________

Interviewer – Please, Madam Speaker, I see you want to respond. But this back-and-forth volley can go on forever while no meaningful solutions will ever be considered. Obviously, it is difficult to stay in the truth dimension. This interview has just fallen on its own sword.

.

.

 In conclusion: this journey into a truth dimension makes a poor writer of fiction wonder whether truth is stranger than fiction. Perhaps we are all mesmerized and living in an alternate reality. As a representative political figure of antiquity questioned, “what is truth?”

(SECOND DISCLAIMER: If my readers are wondering how America fell into this alternate reality, they can review one opinion on this fall from grace and truth in “The Manchurian Party.”)

America has proven it can do a lot of things. It threw off the yoke of despotism to become a representative democracy. It suffered and overcame the existential threat of a civil war to realize more fully the promise of freedom and equality for all its citizens. When that promise still proved unfulfilled, the American government legislated amendments to its Constitution guaranteeing due process under the law for everyone and voting rights for all regardless of race or gender. In its roots then, America never donned the cloak of perfection, as a fully realized ideal, but instead saw itself, according to our second President, as an “experiment” in democracy. More than a century later, when Churchill became frustrated with American foreign policy, he correctly caught the zeitgeist of the young nation when he said, “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.” In my own words, I would say we are a nation that proceeds by trial and – sometimes tragically – by error.

At times, trying “everything else” has been painful. Subsequent to the World Wars of the 20th century, our young nation emerged as a world leader and established itself as a military power. But, after assuming military preeminence, we stumbled into many conflicts that may befuddle historians. Does the average American know why we fought the Korean War or the Vietnam War? Or what we gained from those wars? We still do not have a peace treaty with North Korea. And all we gained from the Vietnam fiasco was several hundred thousand dead or wounded soldiers and a “victorious” body count of over a million Vietnamese. In recent times America has been militarily involved in various campaigns such as Iran (1980, 1987-88), Libya (1981, 1986, 1989, 2011), Lebanon (1983), Kuwait (1991), Iraq/Il Qaeda/ISIS (1991-2011, 2014-2016), Somalia (1992-93, 2007-present), Bosnia (1995), Saudi Arabia (1991, 1996), Afghanistan/Il Qaeda/ISIS (1998, 2001-present), Sudan (1998), Kosovo (1999), Yemen (2000, 2002-present), Pakistan/Il Qaeda/ISIS (2004-present), Syria/ISIS (2014-present) and many other post World War II military interventions within our own hemisphere. America’s “can-do” attitude sometimes preempts a “must-do” justification.

Fortunately, America can “do the right thing” as well. American ideals have driven diplomatic efforts to establish an international order that promotes commerce, resolves trade issues, establishes banking practices, resolves border disputes, and in general defines relationships among nations. Amongst the benefits of this international order are an absence of world wars, a global interdependent economy, and the meteoric rise of new developing nations. These successes have established America as a leader in world diplomacy and shown the world what America can do when it is aligned with its own ideals.

The question my blogs often address is whether we remain aligned with those ideals. One of my college buddies recently questioned whether I was too partisan in my criticism of Donald Trump. But I do not believe in partisanship. Instead, I put my faith in our founding ideals and in their promise of further elucidation in changing times. Party loyalty should never trump the will of the people to realize those ideals. President John Adams, whom I quoted above, warned us about the divisiveness of political parties. And President George Washington identified a “fatal tendency . . . to organize factions . . . to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of the party.” Our founding fathers may not have been perfect or totally non-partisan; but they believed in reasoned debate and compromise—neither of which are prevalent in our political campaigns or legislature. Today, the political leaders of our major Parties tend to focus less on reason than on emotions, like fear and hate. The Parties rant and rave as if in tribal warfare rather than policy debates. They scapegoat opponents and sometimes those less able to defend themselves – like the undocumented, the immigrant or racial minorities – with conspiracy theories, unsupported evidence, made-up facts, and imagined threats to our jobs, our personal safety, and national security. Now, under Trump’s leadership, there is even an attempt to defend America against these scapegoated minions who allegedly threaten our way of life. He orders the military to secure our border from the impoverished and victimized, many of whom are merely seeking asylum. His Attorney General maximizes penalties for non-violent crimes, effectively putting minorities in the crosshairs of the law. He uses the internment of children as a detriment to asylum seekers. He says he speaks for his supporters and for a nationalist agenda that will “make America great again.” But how does “nationalism” and his agenda align with American ideals?

First, how does Trump define “nationalism?” Is it love of country? Well, that love is called patriotism. Anybody can love his/her country without being a nationalist. I think every one of our Presidents loved America without calling themselves “nationalist.” If what is meant is a belief in the special identity of America in world history and the loyalty owed to that identity, then nationalism can align with patriotism. But, in contemporary parlance, nationalism means something more specific. For example, Trump claims that he believes in “America first” and its need to follow its own interest without regard to international alliances, multilateral trade agreements, or any norms or laws that might restrict it from “winning.” In other words, for Trump “nationalism” means that America must be the preeminent power in the world and all others must succumb to it. Therefore, his supporters owe the nation—and Donald Trump—unwavering loyalty as a result. His “nationalism” is a system of belief that demands almost absolute adherence without regard to truth or reason. It is the very definition of radicalism. And it aligns more with the leaders of the Axis Powers of the 20th century than with our Constitution or Declaration of Independence.

Second, what is the Trump agenda? I have outlined it in previous blogs: it includes the appointments of unqualified sycophants who often oppose the very institutions they manage; and it often disregards the Constitution. For example, he opposes the Constitutional provisions of citizenship by birthright, of due process, of freedom of the press, and of the Senate’s authority to approve his nomination of a cabinet level official. He wants to deport the children of immigrants, not only the DACA dreamers, but even those born here. He denies due process to asylum seekers and to their children whom he places in internment camps. He calls the press “the enemy of the people,” even restricting media access to public information and denying reporters access to formal press briefings. He has appointed an Attorney General without seeking the Constitutional authority relegated to the Senate for approval of his nominee. Further, his Executive Orders have failed to pass enumerable Constitutional and legal challenges in the courts. California alone has won 29 of those cases with no defeats. He defies the emoluments clause of the Constitution. And he threatens to use military force to defend Americans against immigrant “invaders,” even though the use of the military for domestic law enforcement violates the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. No American President has ever run afoul of the law as much as Donald Trump. His actions defy the Constitution and the rule of law whenever they present obstacles to his authority and power. Again, his agenda resurrects 20th century history neither Americans nor global citizens would choose to repeat.

How does one justify the actions of a President who is at odds with the very structure of the American government? I believe there is no justification for his actions. But his Presidency is justified by his election. Then how do we explain this anomaly? Or why did we elect him? I believe the answer to that question lies in public opinion and belief, or more specifically, in the ability of propaganda to influence public opinion and belief. There is a quote in Yuval Noah Harari’s recent bestseller (“21 Lessons for the 21st Century”) that implanted itself in my mind: “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly—it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.” When Hitler wrote those words in Mein Kampf, he presaged the likes of “fake news,” “enemy of the people,” “make America great again,” “America first,” “crooked Hillary,” “immigrant invaders,” and so on. Only a talented demagogue can dupe a nation and manufacture facts and evidence to support the con. Donald Trump has that talent and is making history. But when will his supporters realize the costs?

President Trump has attempted to address many real issues, such as North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, China’s unfair trade policies, NATO countries participation in their own defense, regulatory reform, and tax/deficit adjustments. History will decide the outcome of his policies, however intentioned or effective. But how will the Presidency be changed in the process? Or America’s Constitution and the rule of law survive? Is the price worth the admission to the greatest reality show of the 21st Century? Should we allow this performance to continue? My answer: NO, WE CANNOT!

“America seems more divided today than at any time in the past.”

This statement seems to be the mantra of our politicians, our press, our private conversations, social media, and even our personal self-talk. Like many of us, I find myself constantly weighing the scales of truth versus fiction, of right versus wrong, and of liberal versus conservative. But there are two obvious misconceptions here. First, the comparison of our current divisiveness to our nation’s past is patently false. From its outset, America has always been divided in almost every conceivable way—ethnically, racially, morally, theologically, and, of course, politically. It had to become a democracy. Otherwise it would have had to become a nation of citizen mimes marching in lock-step to a single authority, the very condition that spawned the American Revolution. Secondly, the division between liberalism and conservatism should not be substantive in a country founded on basic principles, unless either political philosophy divorces itself from those principles. To disagree is human, but to deny the basic assumptions upon which a family, community, or nation are founded is to negate what unites us. Such denial, whether explicit or implicit, fractures the only bonds that can bring us together. Remember America fought a civil war over the fracturing of our union. Perhaps, what we are experiencing today is a different kind of fracturing, or divisiveness.

Is our divisiveness mainly political? Our political parties, for example, define themselves as either liberal or conservative. So-called “moderates” exists somewhere in-between. Democrats are characterized as the Party of “big government” or of the idea that the Federal Government should provide for the “general welfare” of all its citizens. Republicans are characterized as the Party that believes in States rights and in an individual’s right to exercise personal and family values without the interference of government. Both Locke and Rousseau would term both positions as liberal. The Preamble to our Constitution and the first ten Amendments affirm these beliefs. While Democrats often propose regulations that prohibit corporations from infringing on the general welfare, Republicans argue for policies that free corporations to compete and prosper, increasing the wealth of their stockholders, promoting productivity in their workforce, and growing the nation’s fiscal economy. But, taken together, the Parties’ positions define economic liberalism, both as it was understood in the nineteen century and in the twentieth century global market. Capitalism itself is a liberal construct. Adam Smith clearly envisioned capital markets as a liberal adjunct to free enterprise and a free society that guaranteed equal opportunity. Perhaps what distinguishes liberal and conservative social and economic policies is a difference in emphasis rather than a presupposed antagonism between opposing political philosophies.

One hears the bromide that “America is an idea.” More accurately, it is an ideal. And therein is the difficulty, for ideals have no value as mental constructs unless lived. As individuals, we may struggle through a whole lifetime to clarify our ideals and to learn how to live them. How much more difficult is it for a diverse country like America to evolve into a full realization of its founding principles? Even our founding fathers (and the women who motivated them, like Abigail Adams) compromised with those principles in order to win the southern colonies into the proposed union. But the Civil War and the Woman’s Suffrage Movement enabled America to realize the promise that “all men are created equal,” where the definition of “men” was effectively redefined as “human.” Consider the circumstances that gave birth to the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments. For over six decades America struggled to make the changes these Amendments signified. But, while our better angels inspired these changes in law, many of us still struggle to live up to their underlying ideals.

America’s current problems are not racial, ethnic, religious, or gender differences. We have always had a diverse society. But maybe we have stopped addressing these differences and ceased our 242-year struggle to realize the promise of our American ideals, specifically, to “form a more perfect union.” Our problem today could be defined as a failure to evolve the very ideals of a liberal democracy. Instead, we allow political divisions based less on democratic policies than on spoils, that is, financial benefits or incumbent re-elections. A winner-take-all mentality displays a total obeisance to power rather than a commitment to our democracy. Of course, we decry our elected representatives’ failure to compromise. But the real problem too often is with the nature of the compromise being considered. Will compromise strengthen our Constitutional commitments to the justice, security, welfare, and civil rights of all our citizens? Or will it serve the interests of well-paid lobbyists, campaign contributors, and political leaders who control Party campaign coffers?

Although the American Revolution was against monarchy, our Constitutional framers recognized the need for a strong executive in our tri-partite system of checks and balances. They recognized the need for a man of high moral character and outstanding leadership ability. Of course, the general who led our insurrection and won our freedom, George Washington, quite naturally fit that profile. President Trump most certainly does not.

Although it is unseemly for any person to judge the moral character of another, I think it is fair to say that our current President does not inspire our better traits or appear to support the democratic ideals of our country. His concept of a “more perfect union” includes a zero tolerance immigration policy, travel bans, elimination of universal healthcare benefits, privatized education, pollution of our air, water and land, and an unequal share of our countries’ wealth. The “general welfare” are not words in his hyperbolic lexicon of personal achievements which embrace his self-diagnosis as a “stable genius,” who “in two years, has accomplished more than any President in the history of our country.” He has hired a Secretary of Housing and Urban Development who initially turned down the job because he considered himself unqualified. He hired a man who acted as a shill for the Koch brothers as the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency. Then, after repeated legal and ethical scandals, he replaced him with a former lobbyist for the energy sector. He hired a Secretary of Education who diverts money from public education because she favors “for-profit” institutions over public education. His Secretary of the Interior is breaking up national parks and opening them to drilling and mining. His Secretary of Energy had formerly campaigned for the Presidency on a platform that promised the elimination of the Department of Energy. The man who ran his campaign is now in jail, along with one of his foreign affairs advisors. Others have pleaded guilty to various charges, including conspiracy against the United States. To put it bluntly, this President is anathema to a democratic state. He rules by executive orders. He surrounds himself with sycophants or incompetents who appear to serve the President’s interests as long as they serve their own. Others have written more comprehensive summaries of this Administration. But I think it is fair to assess it as undemocratic. For it shows little competence in managing our institutions to serve the general welfare or advance justice and liberty.

The only branch of government that has so far resisted the influence of these undemocratic initiatives is the Judicial Branch. But the President has waged a continuous battle with the Department of Justice, where he has succeeded in removing personnel he deems a threat to his power. Meanwhile, he has teamed with Republican Congressional leaders to pack the courts with prospective political operatives. Hopefully, these so-called “conservative” judges will be more aligned with the law than with the political objectives of their sponsors. Nevertheless, these initiatives have the same goal as the President’s executive orders and legislative agenda. And that goal undermines our centuries-old progress to fulfill the promise of our democracy.

America can be characterized by its diversity, both in its land and in its people. But it is defined by its ideals. They unite us as a nation. Their realization, however, is a continuous battle against self-interests that supersede the general welfare, that seek unchecked power, that suborn the institutions of government to criminal ends, and that subvert the national economy for the benefit of the few at the expense of the majority. If we fail to vote for those who support the ideals of a democracy, then America will lose its place in history as a beacon of liberty and justice. It will become an illiberal democracy, where corruption, influence peddlers, and power brokers rule. Some of us may have believed that the 2016 election provided the change we needed. But electing a disruptor who does not share our ideals is a prescription for chaos and, as we have witnessed, for the attempted subordination or dismantlement of our democratic institutions.

Democracy presumes diversity. With diversity comes debate and divisiveness. Our challenge is to resolve our differences within the framework of our American ideals and of our democratic institutions. Democracy is hard. Believing in it will accomplish nothing if we fail to preserve it.

A mother gives birth to a child. And a family is born. Within that family is bred a feeling of concern not only for the child, but for every member of the family. The child both consummates the love between the parents and solidifies their ongoing relationship. Most of us feel an obligation to nurture this familial relationship born of mutual concern, though, sadly, some abandon it. For the nurturers, however, it is easy to extend concern to other families, to a paternalistic or maternalistic concern for communities, and even for a nation state. Roman law and organization, for example, were built upon the concept of paterfamilias (“father of the family”), though before 3500 B.C. it was the Mother Goddess who reigned supreme. In either tradition, family was at the center of society and the focus of concern. Sociologists have long related that familial concern to the humanistic values of every known culture and civilization.

But perhaps human concern for others runs deeper and mirrors our relation to the physical world. We can look at the world in its most basic stance, as it exists in se (in itself). Philosophers used to call this metaphysics, or the study of being. Eastern belief systems offer an experiential awareness of this abstract concept through such practices as transcendental meditation. Our modern physics explains it through quantum mechanics, wherein the basic components of all being are particle/waves. Every atom of our human body is composed of these tiny elements, as is everything else in nature. The waves they produce have frequencies, literally a chaotic chorus quite unlike the Pythagorean “harmony of the spheres.” Nevertheless, each of us is part of this chorus that exists within and resonates without. Our science can explain the physical nature of being, but each of us experiences it uniquely. And that personal experience connects us both to our most basic sense of existence in the natural world and to each other. If you share that experience, then you will likely feel connected to the human family and to a physical environment to which we are all intrinsically connected at the very core of our being. And, therefore, you probably already accept the obvious conclusion: we have every reason to be concerned for each other and the world we inhabit.

The birth image with which this blog began has a broader connotation. It reflects a creativity in humans that extends beyond a mother’s conceiving of a child. The word “conceive” comes from the Latin concipere, “to take in” or “conceive.” When we “take in” the natural world, we “conceive” images in our mind and represent them in words. We may share our words, but they do not always mirror the images we create individually. Too often what we mean, or the image in our mind, bears only partial relevance to the reality we share. In a sense, we can create an “alternate reality.” That “reality” may reveal more about our limited perspective than what is real. We are even capable of conceiving a still born, that is, words that distort reality. Worse, we may nurture this false reality as if it lives in the real world and defend it with all the vehemence of a mother protecting her child. We can term this type of conception and its verbal expression as a “conceit.” It may be no more than a fanciful opinion or a strained metaphor. It can also appear as an arrogant expression of a personal belief based upon nothing other than a bloated assessment of self-worth or virtue. Such a conceit pretends to need no justification. Facts or evidence are irrelevant. Its words convey conclusions without premises and persuade solely on a narcissistic superiority divorced from reality. This type of conceit is unable to show concern for others or for the world they inhabit. A psychologist might disagree with my use of the word “narcissistic.” It literally implies a self-love for one’s personal appearance, or metaphorically, for one’s ego. In my use of the term, it is not just ego that is favored, but the id.

If conceits can control a person’s behavior, how does that person manage in the real world? Advice from others has no weight against them. Facts or evidence simply do not register in an inflated ego’s alternate reality. A truly conceited person can survive in the real world only by establishing personal superiority and by exercising control over everybody and everything. Therefore, such a person will be unwavering in craving and/or holding onto a position of absolute authority as if it was his/her right. It is the same claim made by monarchs and dictators. Conceit drives one to control without concern for anybody or anything other than the preservation of a personally conceived reality. Moreover, to the extent the id is involved, such a conceit may prefer the baser instincts of the human psyche over any more altruistic interests benefiting either society or even the individuals that compose it.

Though no psychologist, I do have an opinion about how the foregoing is relevant to America’s President. It may help us understand why he considers himself a “stable genius” who is his own expert on foreign affairs, criminal justice, trade management, immigration policy, environmental hazards, and anything that crosses his desk. His inaugural address cemented the promise of his campaign. He stated that “only he” could save the American dream which “is dead” and stop “the American carnage” which resulted in part from enriching and defending our allies. The “American first” agenda he then announced more than justifies the foreign policy he now conducts as a zero-sum game. America, after all, must win, and every foreign relation must be a contest. While he pretends to embrace our adversaries and distance America from its longtime allies, his trade policies tend to isolate America from international markets. He even threatens withdrawal from the World Trade Organization that America championed. His zero-tolerance immigration policies violate the Constitution (the 5th and 14th Amendments) and international law. And he lacks any concern for the physical environment that supports us all, as evidenced by his overturning the suspension of flood building standards, of the proposed ban on potentially harmful pesticides, of the freeze on new coal leases on public lands, of the anti-dumping rule for coal companies, of the offshore drilling ban in the Atlantic and Arctic, of the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews, and of so much more. Perhaps most indicative of his disregard for the world in which we all co-exist is his withdrawal of America from the international climate change accord.

His agenda for America reflects the alternate reality he has created for himself and demands the world to accept. For the last 70+ years, millions of Americans have participated in building a more inclusive America and an international system based upon cooperation and a growing set of international norms and laws. President Trump’s conceit would instead make America reflect him: a bully who suffers no critique and demands obeisance to his will or every whim. Further, this conceit isolates him from any concern for individuals or families. How else can we explain his willful policies to separate children from their parents at the border or his total disregard for nearly three thousand Puerto Rican hurricane victims.

Who believes there is no need to reference history or the institutional wisdom of career civil servants in the conduct of foreign affairs? Who thinks that maximizing penalties for non-violent crimes and contracting more for-profit prisons will reduce violence in our cities and reduce the costs for crime prevention? Who claims that isolating America from international trade agreements will enhance America’s export capabilities or magically benefit American consumers by eliminating low cost imports? Who denies that a zero-tolerance immigration policy is inconsistent with a nation born of immigrants and increasingly dependent upon their labor to offset the impact of declining birthrates? Who accepts the reality of mercury in our drinking water, dangerous pesticides in our food, poisonous air in our cities, and the defilement of our most precious national parks? The answer to all these questions is the same: a man driven by a conceit born of a fractured psyche and a debilitating delusion but, nonetheless, empowered to enforce his conceit upon us.

In defense of President Trump, I should add two points: he is a father whom his children apparently love; and not anyone of us is devoid of conceits. In fact, any person who seeks the Presidency must have a certain amount of arrogance. The position is replete with moral hazards. A President may feel impelled to start a preemptive war to defend against terrorists or conduct drone attacks within the borders of sovereign nations where civilian casualties cannot always be eliminated. Likewise, a President may extend healthcare to millions while offending the religious beliefs of an anti-abortion constituency. The principle of the “greater good” is not easily enacted in governmental policy or practice. Any attempt to “do no harm” can be very difficult to attain, especially in complex legislation or broad administrative application of the law. Except for the opposition Party, the general electorate tends to give our Presidents a bit of leeway in the general conduct of their office. Nevertheless, some of our former Presidents have fallen short of the electorate’s expectations. Two have been impeached; and one was forced to resign. Only the latter left office before the end of his term. But each of these men (yes, they, like all our Presidents, were men) failed to reflect the high moral character erroneously attributed to them by the electorate. Further, amongst our last eight presidents, only President Carter and President Obama avoided the cloud of a special prosecutor’s investigation. For their part, none of these Presidents represented himself as a person of low moral character. President Trump is the first to do so.

The President’s supporters, both foreign and domestic, seem less concerned about his morals and integrity than what he promised to deliver to them. Except for the 150 multi-billionaires at the top of the food chain, most Americans are waiting to see whether the President’s policies will benefit them. How will the Presidents tax and trade policies affect wages and the living standards for most Americans? How will his regulatory reform and healthcare initiatives effect safer environmental conditions and better medical treatment outcomes? Will the nearly ten-year economic recovery end abruptly because of wage stagnation, the cost of imports, debt infused high interest rates, or the effect of the Administration policies on the fastest growing segments of the American economy, namely, healthcare and energy?

The answer to these questions seems almost irrelevant in the context of the Trump Administration. The President’s interest lies elsewhere, specifically, in extending his influence and control. When he rails against his intelligence institutions, the FBI, and the DOJ, his criticism focuses on his lack of control. He wants to bend them to his will, rather than their defined missions to serve the Constitution and the American people. When he decries “fake news,” “witch hunt,” “dishonest” or “hateful” reporters, he not only discredits the free press but the First Amendment. His animosity towards the press is two-faced in the sense that he is gleeful about his dominance of the news cycle while at the same time advocating jail time for reporters whom he terms “the enemy of the people.” He not only wants to control the news cycle, but the substance of the news as well. He has cowed fellow republicans in Congress to either do his will or slither in silence away from reporters. Do you recognize an Orwellian reference in this behavior?

On the international front, he conducts foreign affairs as a zero-sum game where even our allies must submit to his positions without reference to historical alliances or negative outcomes. He has specifically targeted two of our closest allies from previous Administrations, that is, Canada and Germany. These two countries have played a key role in supporting America’s economic interests and its foreign wars. But the President prefers to bully them into submission rather than to maintain our partnership with them.

And, of course, he condemns the special prosecutor as “conflicted” and his team of attorneys as “democrats,” which is his pseudonym for enemy partisans. If he is unable to discredit Bob Mueller and his team, he will endeavor to castrate them by removing their security clearances or by terminating their civil service careers (as he has already done or promised to do with his growing enemies list of DOJ and FBI employees). He fears they are a threat to his control over the ship of state and to the image he presents to his supporters. If the special prosecutor’s office drafts articles of impeachment, will there be enough support from this base to forestall the President’s removal from office? Or will he be able to convince his supporters that the “deep state” is engaged in a conspiracy to stop his efforts to protect them from immigrant intruders and terrorists? In his deluded mind, these immigrants on our southern border are “aliens” who threaten to change our American ethnicity while all Muslims are “terrorists” who want us dead. In truth, there has never been a singular American ethnicity, just white privilege—which is a derivative of our cultural heritage and racism. And his Muslim ban was an anachronistic ploy to remind Americans of the horror and fear engendered by the 911 attacks 17 years ago. Meanwhile, we continue to wage wars abroad against foreign terrorists alongside Muslim allies who resist the perverted ideology of ISIS and al-Qaida.

While the President continues to wage a personal vendetta against his own intelligence community, the so-called “deep state,” the press, the democrats, our international allies, the special prosecutor, and his alleged scapegoats—Hispanics and Muslims, he has completely ignored any real threats to America. The most obvious of such threats is Vladimir Putin and his staged attack on the American election in 2016. That attack was an exceptional example of a well-developed Russian strategy of Kompromat. Our intelligence community terms this strategy an “advanced persistent threat.” Please note the adjective “persistent” in this context. The Russians will no more relinquish the use of this strategy than America or its allies would forego counter espionage. Their success in 2016 should assure a repeat in the coming election. In fact, if recent press reports are accurate, it has already begun. The question remains: what is the Administration doing to counter this impending attack on our democracy? In fact, the President fired his White House coordinator in charge of cyber security. Not only does the President see no evil, hear no evil, or think no evil here. But he even considered President Putin’s offer to assist the American investigation as a “generous” proposal.

(Message to President Putin: you are a brilliant strategist, but you should be wary of the man you wanted to win the American Presidency. He is destroying the economy of President Erdogan, a man he previously admired and a prospective ally on your border. He reportedly ordered the assassination of President Assad, whose authority he promised to acknowledge and an ally you have supported with arms and resources. While he has never criticized your annexation of Crimea or support for the upheaval in eastern Ukraine, he has authorized the arming of your opponents with advanced defensive weapons. Although he proposed to lift sanctions— “wouldn’t it be nice to have better relations with Russia”—he eventually caved to the will of Congress by increasing those sanctions. He will befriend you only so long as you protect or serve his interests. Be mindful that when a scorpion feels threatened, he reactively takes an offensive position. The American President is currently under siege, both at home and abroad. His natural tendency is to lash out at his enemies or to create a diversion. You could be that diversion. No American President has ever been challenged by his electorate during a time of war or the threat of military confrontation. Neither Americans nor Russians want a dangerous escalation in this ongoing contest for power and influence. Perhaps you feel in control of the situation, but the American President cannot control his basic instincts or his need for public approval.)

President Trump is not only a threat to the international world order but also to our American democracy. While most conceits have an ideological basis. His is bounded solely by his narcissism. He screams his tweets when discomforted in any way. He shows no understanding of our Constitution or the balance of powers within our tripartite system of government. He has little concern for Americans, their healthcare, environmental safety, or the security of their electoral process. His motivation, instead, comes from highly ego-centric conceits about his self-proclaimed superiority. Remember he promised that “only he” could correct the “carnage” of America and reverse his diagnosis that “the American dream is dead.” His conceit is not bounded by any ideology other than self-promotion. And it self-justifies and empowers his attempts to quash all resistance to his will and his concomitant desire to attain near tyrannical control over the institutions of government and public opinion. While Russia may be the enemy without, he is the enemy within. He is more than a hollering tweet. He is a baby with a gun.

While he golfs on most weekends and expends hours watching cable news, his government reels in chaos and reeks of corruption. While some recoil either in fear of his bogus threats from immigrants or Muslim terrorists, others are dismayed by his dismemberment of our institutions and the cowering of his own political Party. His actions trump the Flavian metaphor for the unraveling of Augustan norms and rules, that is, specifically, the image of Nero fiddling while Rome burns. But Donald Trump is no metaphor, for he holds the match.

Like many Americans, I enjoy team sports. My interest was spawned when I was very young. In middle school, I played football, baseball, and basketball. Those three team sports earned me the coveted letterman sweater which I wore every day to school, regardless of the weather. It hung in my bedroom closet for years, well past the time I had outgrown it. It was a symbol of the love I had for team sports—a love I share with many Americans. In fact, being part of a team is attractive to nearly everybody. But one must be careful in choosing a team. Let me illustrate why care is required.

Teams pull together to win games. We Americans root for teams and love to be part of a winning team. Maybe that love explains how some of us become lifelong Republicans or Democrats. There is security in the support we receive from—presumably—likeminded people. And, if all Party members pull together, we win. Remember our current President tapped into this psyche when he promised all who joined him that they would win: “there’ll be so much winning you won’t believe it.”

Long before Trump, the Republican Party was dedicated to winning. Even though there are more registered Democrats than Republicans in America, the Party had a plan to win the seats of power. First, deny a Democratic President any victories and excoriate his “liberal” initiatives, even those that represent former Republican policies. Second, win as many State legislatures as possible before the ten-year census, so that Republicans could redraw districts to their advantage. (In all fairness, the Democrats had also practiced gerrymandering for four decades after World War II.) And, finally, use their hard-won legislative advantage to suppress voter turnout of traditionally Democratic voter groups. This strategy allowed them to win control of the House in 2010 while losing the popular vote. Once Republicans took control of the Senate as well, they focused on a legislative agenda that would defeat any Democratic opposition. Their plan worked because they were disciplined, hung together, and won as a team.

But their time in control of Congress suffered the lowest approval rating since such ratings were calculated. Where did the Republican plan go wrong? Given their non-compromising naysaying, they became the “Party of no.” Even though they ran successful propaganda campaigns against Obamacare and other Democratic initiatives, they were unable or unwilling to develop better solutions for healthcare or to support previously Republican proposals on balanced budgets, infrastructure spending, or trade agreements. Their opposition to a Democratic President became an opposition to governing. Winning control of Congress and blocking the nomination of a swing vote on the Supreme Court were victories over the Democrats. But those victories did not immediately translate into constructive legislation. While Republicans were busy winning elections, they were losing credibility with the electorate. And they left their right flank open for Trump. In 2015, Donald Trump started a populist revolution against the elites in Washington. But it was initially a revolution against the Republican Party. When he promised to “drain the swamp,” he meant all of the Washington establishment, which included the governing Republican Party. The lesson here is that politics is not football, which is to say winning can be losing. The 2016 election was a victory for Trump, but a loss for Republicanism.

Donald Trump is the chameleon who once was the color of blue, then turned red, and is only now showing his true color. There was a time when he seemed to support some Democratic positions. He was for a woman’s right to choose and against the Iraq war. But sometime in the last decade, he became a Republican. We can only guess why he made this switch. Perhaps he was motivated by his animus toward Barack Obama or by a growing ambition to stage a Presidential campaign. For whatever reason, he knew the Republican Party had lost the patronage of its supporters. They had become a team with neither a leader nor a positive agenda. All he had to do was cloak himself in the mantle of Ronald Reagan. If he became captain of the team—a team only concerned with winning—then, he could call the plays. Traditional Republican policies could be touted, but they would be played for different purposes—to unite the team, win elections, and cement control of political power. No agenda or policy was an end in itself. Repeal and replace Obamacare, for example, was just a ploy. There was never a viable replacement plan. Victory was never measured in health outcomes or the number of insured Americans but in elections won. Even the financial argument against Obamacare was a bust. The legislation that created the Affordable Care Act (ACA), aka Obamacare, not only paid for itself, but extended the solvency of Medicare. Trump opportunistically picked up the banner against his predecessor’s healthcare law without a second thought to the effects of its repeal. He never tried to get into the weeds, for his gambit was his brand as the successful billionaire businessman with a Reaganesque flair for policies.

Playing Reagan, however, is not the same as being Reagan. Our 40th President has been the keystone of Republicanism for nearly four decades. When you consider his positions on free trade, immigration, NATO, and Russia’s strategic interests, the current Republican President would seem to be an anomalous Republican. Reagan was not only a free trader, but he would have cringed at the very concept of “zero-tolerance,” tariff wars, or obsequious rapport with a Russian kleptomaniac. (I apologize to my Russian readers, but Putin’s vast wealth far exceeds his government income.) But on other issues, Trump does tow the party line, conforming at least in theory to Reagan’s positions by mirroring his policies on lowering taxes, on restricting the government bureaucracy, on proposing the elimination of the Department of Education, on opposing universal healthcare proposals, on fighting the proliferation of drugs, on advocating tougher penalties on crimes including capital punishment, on denying abortion as a woman’s right, and on dismissing any environmental concerns, which in Reagan’s day was just for acid rain. On these Reaganite initiatives, Trump’s only “successes” would be in hamstringing the Environmental Protection Agency, in eliminating or watering-down both EPA and financial regulations, and in lowering taxes.

Many would add to his Reaganesque successes his ongoing fight to repeal Obamacare, aka the Affordable Care Act (ACA). But reducing subsidies, hampering the risk pool, limiting support for ACA registration, repealing the mandate, and eliminating funding for key HHS support services have not reduced subscriptions. Instead, it has resulted in significant increases in healthcare insurance costs for everyone. And the President’s tax plan risks the nation’s fiscal stability and misses one of the key lessons-learned of the Reagan years. After Reagan initiated a large reduction in the top tax rate in his first year from 70% to 28%, he was forced to raise taxes on eleven occasions to fund the arms race and pay down a growing national debt that mushroomed from 1.1 trillion to over 2.7 trillion. His greatest regret on leaving the Presidency was the effect his tax policy had on the national debt. Except for Bush 41, Trump seems to follow in the footsteps of a long line of Republican Presidents who talk of fiscal conservatism but produce huge national debts for future Administrations to remedy or suffer.

The current version of Republicanism shows none of the Reagan sympathies for immigrants. It fails to learn from the one major failure of the Reagan Presidency, that is, the impact of his tax policy on the national debt. Moreover, the current Republican President has only paid lip service to the other Reaganite policies mentioned above. The point of this iteration is to illustrate the nature of the Republican Party’s fall from grace and the basis for its subjugation to Trump. Many grassroot Republicans revolted against the failures of the “Party of no” and voted for a change agent who seemed to embody the mantle of Reagan. But that red chameleon turned purple—which is, incidentally, the color of royalty. The Republican Party is now the Party of Trump. But Trump is not quarterbacking the team to run up the score for the benefit of the fans or even for the reelection of his Republican teammates. No, Trump wants to secure his position in the political hall of fame and, further, to enhance his power and self-proclaimed stature as a “stable genius” and the “greatest President in history.” His game is not politics, but despotism. In that game, only he can be the winner.

Republicans are afraid of Trump supporters because they may hold the key to the Republican primaries and their possible reelection. But they need to break with their quarterback, for he is not playing in their behalf. He does not follow the norms and rules of American politics or government. Instead, he uses campaign-style rallies and propagandized tweets to rally his supporters. For his aim is not to govern well, but to maintain a cult-like following. If permitted, he would disenfranchise Democratic voters with his proposed voter fraud commission. What he really wants is power to deconstruct our government’s institutions and reorient them to serve his personal whims and interests. If he holds onto his position, he will continue to disengage America from its leadership in international affairs. And, if he ever does “make a deal” on the world stage, it will not be in the service of America’s national interests but in the aggrandizement of his prestige, power, and/or personal wealth. His Republican teammates will simply become complicit in the devolution of America unless they overthrow his leadership and save the Republican Party from infamy.

The American people are the referees in this game. They know a foul has been committed. While reporters and political sages point to the quarterback, what are ordinary people saying? Do they say, “I don’t see any reason why it would be” Trump? Or do they say, “I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be” Trump? The first question implies there is no evidence of or intent to commit a foul. The second question implies there is no evidence to exonerate him of the foul. In the first instant, the referees review the video replay. The video evidence indicts the quarterback as guilty. In the second instant, common sense indicts the quarterback as the only one who could have committed the foul precisely because he was the quarterback, not an innocent bystander. If you left your dog in the kitchen to answer the phone in the next room, upon your return who do you think ate the steak on the kitchen counter?

Trump has fouled a lot of things in his brief time in the Presidency. But Team Republican has made his foulness possible. Trump cannot change who he is. The question remains, however, whether Republicans will continue to be complicit. Will they support America first or their Party leader? Where is their loyalty???

Many of us Americans live busy lives, caught up in the helter-skelter of accelerated change and an unceasing information blitz. Maybe we hear in passing about the collateral damage caused by drones. Or we read about another American corporation’s exploitation of a third world nation’s natural resources. Perhaps we shake our heads disapprovingly and admit America is not perfect. What happens in foreign lands seems so remote and less relevant to our daily lives. But we cannot ignore what is happening in our name and in our country. We have an Administration that is terrorizing asylum seekers. And that crime is happening at our doorstep.

Men in uniform are taking children from the grasp of their parents and incarcerating them in temporary internment camps. Please stop and visualize that moment of separation. The parents are told they have only two choices: either agree to deportation with their children or deportation without them. In either case, our Government succeeds in forcing them to forego their request for asylum. Meanwhile, their children are lost in our bureaucratic maze as they are relocated to all four corners of the continental United States. How do we feel about children being used as leverage against their parents and as deterrents for future refugees? How can we accept the now evident fact that the Administration had no plan to reunite them with their parents? But, if there was no plan, then there was either no intent to return these children or a total disregard for their welfare.

The Administration has blatantly violated the 5th and 14th Amendments of our Constitution. Asylum seekers are being held without due process. Their children are seized and held in some unknown location. And they are not even able to comfort their children by phone. Our government, by order of our duly elected President, is criminalizing our Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In addition, America is now guilty of a form of terrorism by violating our international obligations to respect the rights of asylum seekers. These rights include the right of a state to grant asylum, the right of an individual to seek asylum, and the right of an individual to be granted asylum. Are we Americans prepared to don the cloak of an international pariah? I think not!

As a famous historian once said, “Americans are better than their leaders.”* We must challenge our government to undo the misery and pain it is inflicting on these innocents. It must obey the court order to reunite these children with their parents. And it must cease its attempts to make the situation worse. Examples of the latter include forcing parents to forego their asylum request to win return of their children, continuing deportations without hearings on asylum cases, forcing under age children to appear before an administrative judge without legal representation, and adjudicating misdemeanor border crossings in mass, sometimes as many as 40 defendants at a time. Are we a country that disregards human rights? Are we a country that subjugates law to the whim of a dictatorial Administration? And are we a country of “kangaroo courts?”

This Administration’s inability to return these children to their parents is totally unacceptable. It now admits to having about a hundred children under 5 years old and maybe as many as 3 thousand older children in a hundred or so locations throughout America. Now we hear there may be as many as a thousand additional children surreptitiously taken under a pilot program in advance of the zero-tolerance policy’s enactment. These estimates not only expose ineptitude, but crass indifference. A small country like Thailand can pull together its resources in a matter of days to rescue children trapped in mountain caves, but America cannot return children already in their custody at government operated locations. Does anybody believe this level of obtuseness? Or worse, is it deceit?

Private citizens and local elected officials are volunteering their assistance. Lawyers from across the nation are offering their services pro bono. But our government not only does not welcome outside assistance but at times has shown itself uncooperative. There must be enumerable suggestions on how to overcome the bureaucratic maze in which these parents and children are trapped. I am no expert, but even I can suggest one. Why not photograph all the children held in custody, put those photos with captions provided by the children on a secured web site, and give parents access to that site for the purpose of identifying their children? Whatever information the children can provide—like their name or the name(s) of their parent(s), their age, or where they came from—could be used to corroborate any claim by a parent. The search algorithms could be arranged by name, age range, and country of origin. If insufficient web access devices are readily available, it would not be difficult to provide rented or donated devices. Parents would easily recognize their own children. In the suspicious, though remote, circumstance of multiple claims for the same child, then normal investigative procedures should be used to resolve the case, perhaps even time-consuming genetic testing. Instead of being hamstrung by the necessity to resolve individual cases without any reference points, the process of reuniting families would then be using the only references that matter, that is, the children and their parents.

Maybe someone amongst my 10,000 subscribers can improve on my suggestion. Yesterday the Administration told the court that it could only identify 59 of the 100 toddlers it was ordered to reunite with their parents. These children are lost in our bureaucracy and may not be able to provide much identifying information about themselves or their parents. But their mothers could still identify them in a photo. If after 2 weeks the Administration could only identify 59 of the 100 children under the age of six years, how long will it take to identify the thousands still held hostage? There has to be a better way forward.

Can we live with what has been done in our name? If I know my American readers, you will agree with me that we must right this wrong. For my readers from other countries, I must ask your forbearance. We are not unlike you. We do care for children and respect families. But, like people from many lands, we do not always agree with our leaders—even though they are our elected leaders. Democracy can run afoul of itself but, thankfully, allows for course correction. It just requires a responsible electorate . . . and the next election.

*Footnote: I am quoting Alexis de Tocqueville from memory. Though I do not have a page reference, you can find many interesting insights from this 19th century historian in his book, “Democracy in America.”

Several years ago, a lawyer friend of mine explained the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United. The concept that campaign donations were expressions of free speech challenged my belief in common sense and semantics. But he painstakingly explained the Court’s rationale. The Justices cited the First Amendment and a body of precedents that were well established in contract law. My friend patiently explained that the Judicial Branch interprets the law but does not make the law. In other words, my problem with equating money with speech should be directed at Congress, rather than the Supreme Court Justices. So, I redirected my angst towards Congress and the obvious requirement for campaign finance reform. Corporations may be treated like people in contractual agreements and in their monetary expression of support for candidates, but their campaign donations can still be limited or even eliminated by Congress. For example, Congress could establish tomorrow that all Federal elections will be financed by public funds.

Yesterday, the Justices approved the latest iteration of the President’s travel ban against Muslims in deference to the President’s Constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs. The President is after all the Commander-and-Chief. And Congress has always acknowledged the powers of the President to determine what best serves our national security. Therefore, the Justices ignored the political context and adhered strictly to established precedence. Previously, the lower courts had considered the President’s words to establish his intent in prohibiting immigration from Muslim nations. After a series of court injunctions, the Administration adjusted its “Muslim ban” to limit immigration from nations that it assessed not equal to the vetting standards of the United States. Also, the Administration softened its more inclusive “travel ban” by touting a Visa waver program for the seven nations subject to its restrictions. The Justices chose to ignore the obvious intent behind this third iteration of the Administration’s angst with Muslims. Instead, they accepted the analysis presented by the Government that there was a national security interest involved. At the same time, they stated their expectation that Visa wavers would be used as promised.

Traditionally, the Supreme Court has always deferred to the Presidency in foreign affairs and to the Congress in its Constitutional powers to declare war, ratify foreign treaties, and limit the exercise of Presidential actions (like imposing tariffs). Congress, of course, could limit the reach of the President’s powers in foreign affairs. Clearly, it has chosen not to do so. It never bothered to authorize drone strikes within the borders of sovereign nations, the practice of international surveillance of foreign leaders whether allies or adversaries, or the use of missile strikes and troop deployments against rogue nations. These precedents belie the fact that the Constitution reserves for Congress the authority to declare war and to legislate the limits of Government intrusion into personal privacy both here and abroad. So, here again, the Justices followed precedence established in practice and traced to a non-specific Constitutional authority granted the President in the exercise of foreign affairs.

Today, the Supreme Court ruled against the assessment of labor union dues on non-union civil servants in city, county, and state governments. There has been a long-standing disagreement on the fairness of charging non-union members for that portion of union dues associated with the collective benefits won on behalf of all employees. But the Constitution would seem to vindicate the employee who feels the union does not speak for him/her on the grounds of the free speech guaranteed in the First Amendment. I believe this decision will be conclusive and unchallenged, that is, become settled law. But Congress could have ameliorated this dispute decades ago by adhering to the Constitution and relieving companies from the obligation to provide collective bargaining benefits to non-union members. Of course, such legislation would have disrupted labor/management relations. But it would have forced a more honest cost/benefit analysis of union participation. Bargaining then would have to include the interests of all civil servants in labor/management negotiations.

You may conclude that blaming Congress in these matters is patently unfair. Also, you might feel that the issues are just too unwieldly and potentially explosive for our legislators. But if I asked you why you feel legislators cannot deal with these issues, you might be forced to reconsider. The answer to that question could be manifold: the absence of political will; fear of voter blowback; obeisance to Party positions; pressure from powerful lobbyists; loss of large single-issue campaign donors; bad press; and an inability to explain complex issues to constituents. You might even acknowledge all these suppositions as legitimate political considerations. And you would be right. But consider what is missing in these political considerations—specifically, any attempt to address the problem. We could have, instead, campaign reform that eliminates the growing threat of a kleptocracy. We could also improve the “meritocracy” of our immigration system without enforcing ethnic, racial, or religious discrimination. (Yes, I’m excusing the Administration’s national security justification as just a ruse to appease the Court.) And we could actually improve labor-management relations by honoring the vote of all employees in determining the outcome of labor/management negotiations.

Nobody would consider playing football on a hockey rink. But Congress consistently legislates in the arena of its own political context rather than on the field of the people’s public forum. Of course, the political concerns surrounding re-election and Party politics have an undeniable influence on politicians. But these concerns should not be the governing influence in determining what benefits the American people. Occasionally, we identify legislators’ public interest with bi-partisan behavior. I would agree that bi-partisan behavior usually implies compromise. And compromise is required for Congress to serve the full spectrum of over 330 million Americans. But too often what is compromised is one dead fish for another—my moldy mackerel for your calcified cod. President Clinton’s compromise with Speaker Gingrich, for example, won Republican support for parts of the President’s legislative agenda in exchange for cutting back a welfare program. (ADFC, an ongoing welfare program for families with children, became TANF, a temporary welfare program with a 5-year limit.) Although Clinton presided over an internet fueled economic expansion, his legislative agenda eliminated support for many poor families with children and paved the way for a decade of multiple recessions in 2001 and 2008 as a result of his signing the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act in 1999. In this instance, compromise was a lose-lose proposition. An example of a win-win compromise would be a bill that funded rebuilding America’s infrastructure. The initial investment would be justified both by the jobs created and by the resources needed to promote productivity and future economic expansion. Both labor and management would benefit. And both Republican and Democratic constituents would benefit as well.

Consider the wrangling in Congress over healthcare reform, DACA, immigration reform, budgets, and so on. What are the results of these political contests? We hear many distortions, accusations, and one-sided policy proposals. What we do not hear are legislative proposals that solve problems or benefit Americans. Instead, Congress reduces healthcare subsidies and the availability of some preventive healthcare practices. It shaves three years off Medicare’s financial longevity. It fails to legislate a path to citizenship for DACA dreamers or even their security from the threat of deportation. Meanwhile, Congress does nothing to check the Administration’s zero tolerance policy that results in mass deportations, many of which violate American due process and international asylum laws. The inhuman practice of removing children from their parents and placing them in internment camps is a key ingredient in this immigration policy as its primary deterrent. Some members of Congress are investigating and empathizing but seem unable to do anything constructive to undo these crimes. And Congress acts as a rubber stamp for the Administration’s fiscal policy that creates annual trillion-dollar deficits over the next ten years. You might ask why Congress should be blamed for this rogue Presidency. A cynic would reply that Congress is captive to its political leadership and that its Republican majority is afraid of losing the President’s support in the mid-term elections. And that analysis would be correct. It is also mired in a swamp of cynicism!

America’s judicial system seems to be the only branch of government that is working. But it is handicapped by a distracted and very partisan Congress more concerned about holding onto political power than legislating solutions for America’s problems. Congress has become complicit in Trump’s radical attempt to undo the checks and balances built into our form of government. While it stands idyll, children are suffering in internment camps and our DACA neighbors face deportation to foreign countries. Meanwhile, the fate of these children and our American raised neighbors will depend on the courts because Congress refuses to legislate.

As I write this blog, there is nothing prohibiting Congress to pass laws that protect children from being separated from their parents and that formalize humane and just processing of immigrants at our southern border. It could also legalize DACA and provide a path to citizenship for its dreamers. Because of its inaction and political cynicism, it shames all Americans by making us complicit in the suffering of immigrants desperate to escape violence and of dreamers fearful of losing the only life they have ever known. The failure of our legislators to represent a better America handicaps progress, overwhelms our courts, abets a rogue administration, and shakes Americans’ belief in their government. They risk making cynics of us all, thereby creating a self-reinforcing circle of cynicism.

Just consider this: cynics could never have created America, its system of government, or its democratic institutions. But optimists did. We must become their contemporary counterparts who will run for office and/or vote in November.