A woman was attacked and beaten by her husband, repeatedly. When he threatened her little boy, she mustered what resources she had and left her home, her relatives, and her country. She carried that boy on her back or in her arms for over a thousand miles. She protected him as best she could from downpours and blistering heat. Months later, when she finally arrived at the U.S. border, she sighed a breath of relief. She told the uniformed guard at the border entry station that she came for asylum. The guard took her statement—and her son. After instructing her to board a bus, he had held back her son.

There are so many stories like hers that I no longer can remember how many days or weeks elapsed before this woman’s toddler was returned to her. But the joy on her face was undeniable as she clung to her son. Most of us can remember a like experience when our mother picked us up after a fall or, as a grownup, when our mother wrapped us in a bear hug after a lengthy time between holiday visits. Mothers are like that. But this woman was one of the lucky mothers. Her child seemed mostly normal—suffering only nightmares when he woke up screaming for his mother.

Another mother-detainee saw her child ripped from his father’s arms and disappeared for 85 days. With the help of a lawyer, she finally was reunited with her son, though she hardly recognized him. He was filthy and covered with lice. At first, he seemed not to recognize her. He was bawling and screaming for his mother. She said she felt like a woman at an orphanage, looking to adopt her own son. Eventually, she was able to quiet and comfort her little guy. She cleaned him, dressed him, spoke gently and reassuringly to him. But he acted like he was still living in terror. He refused to leave her side, even for a moment. If she let loose of his hand, he would immediately start crying. His determent was now a permanent verdict—at least for the foreseeable future and perhaps beyond. Psychologists tell us that his trauma is more likely a life sentence.

The Trump Administration’s border policy is an attack against the sacred bonds of family, to include mothers and the most vulnerable amongst us, children. If 70,000 years of homo sapiens existence has taught us anything at all, it is that familial bonds are at the very heart of our common nature. That bond enables us to cooperate with and relate to other humans with understanding and compassion. We are all born of woman and reared in families. Raising and protecting family is the impetus that drove hunter gatherers, tool makers, and caretakers to form those larger bonds that gave us communities, nations, and empires. Without human families, we would no longer be human, but just another animal species, merely seeking to survive and extend the gene pool. We would never have considered sacrificing for other members of our species or organizing into a rules-based society to further its general welfare. As any sociologist would explain, families are the basic units of human society.

Separating children from families is inhuman. It pivots our species away from thousands of years of evolution. It denigrates what we have held as most sacred.

To make something sacred is to make it holy, as reflected in the word “sacrifice” (from the Latin, sacer, “holy,” and facere, “to make”). A woman carrying a small child over a thousand miles to secure her child’s safety sacrifices her body. Mohammed sacrificed to protect families and the Islamic community. Jesus sacrificed his humanity to protect his followers. And Siddhartha Gautama believed in and exemplified compassion for others. Like Jesus and Mohammed, he believed all humans were born with the potential to be good or evil. He taught that our “true nature” was pure, wise and perfect. I cannot think of a better definition of humanistic aspiration, though these mothers exemplify the reality. Could they make a more eloquent expression of the sacredness of humanity? Can we?

The events of the last few weeks have driven me into a writer’s block. How has America so twisted itself into this distorted funhouse mirror image? We are now gazing into a self-image reflective of 20th century horrors like Stalin’s Russia or Hitler’s Germany. Certainly, Karl Marx was a humanist who never anticipated that a communist society would become a soulless totalitarian state. And Nietzsche, likewise, was a humanist who could never have imagined Hitler and the extermination of six million Jews. Perhaps the seeds of America’s fall can be seen in its very beginning. Imbued with the spirit of the Enlightenment and the writings of social philosophers like Rousseau and Locke, Jefferson wrote that “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” But Jefferson was a slave holder. And the founders of our democratic republic were mostly aristocrats. Benjamin Franklin, for instance, was the Jeff Bezos or Bill Gates of his time. His Franklin Institute persisted for a hundred years on the bounty created by his will. (It still exists today, though on its own merits.)

If we really want to understand our heritage we must recognize that it is an ideal to be realized. After a hot Philadelphia summer in 1787, Franklin emerged from the Constitutional Convention and confronted the question that was on every patriot’s mind. “What form of government did you create for us?” He responded, “a Republic, if you can keep it.” The preamble of the very Constitution he signed states its purpose as aspirational, “in order to form a more perfect union.” In truth, America began with slavery and lived through the Civil War, reconstruction, Jim Crow, Women’s Suffrage, the Civil Rights Movement, and myriad migration “crises” from the Chinese rail worker camps, the potato famine in Ireland, Eastern European displacements, and so on. The greatness of America is in its ideals and the willingness of its citizens to make those ideals its reality. In the past, we have been challenged by our prejudices, our crassness, and our tribalism. But we were able to respond to enlightened leadership and discover our better natures. What does seem different today is not just the absence of a Washington or Lincoln, but a government that represents our interests and our founding ideals. How could Jeffersonian humanism run so afoul as to produce immigrant internment camps, tender age shelters, and refugee tent cities? Maybe the answer is related to what happened to humanism in the 20th century.

I stated above that Nietzsche was a humanist. He is famously remembered for saying, “God is dead.” In place of that sacred personage, he elevated the super human whose will to gain power is expressed in intelligence, self-mastery, and creativity. Only this super human, he thought, would survive evolutionary selection. Although his evolutionary humanism spoke eloquently of human potential, Hitler falsified its import to justify his persecution of those he deemed inferior to the Aryan race. But Nietzsche was not advocating power over others, but power over oneself to attain personal superiority. His super human was a sacred ideal that required total commitment, in other words, a personal sacrifice. It raised the bar of “sacredness” and demanded more of the individual human to attain it. But would he hold the less accomplished among us as sacred? I suspect not. Hitler, of course, exploited that gap in Nietzsche’s thinking to establish only the Aryan race as superior. He would have agreed with Trump in considering brown people as an “infestation” that should be punished (zero tolerance) and separated from the superior race by imprisonment in internment camps, even “tender age shelters.” Trump’s initial solution for Latino immigrants at our southern border—to deport the parents and institutionalize their offspring—is a step less harsh than Auschwitz, but in the same vein. He demonstrates no respect for them as human beings.

Karl Marx was a contemporary of Nietzsche, though 26 years older. He believed that human history was created by the activity of human labor, not by ideas or religious ideals. Famously, he said of religion, “it is the opium of the people,” or simply an illusion to assuage depression and suffering. His economic theories glorified the role of labor and, differing from Adam Smith, he believed capitalism would self-destruct under the weight of class suppression of the proletariat. Once the proletariat rose up to seize the means of production, a new classless, egalitarian society would emerge. This society would represent another type of humanism, one represented by the collective. As a social philosophy, communism became quite popular by the beginning of the 20th century. But its actual application required an authoritative system to assure its uniform enforcement. In effect, this requirement was an open invitation for any authoritarian ruler or dictator who might clothe himself in the mantle of the state.

Trump identifies with a collective—his base—that mirrors his propensities, while ignoring the diversity within America as a whole. It is not the means of production he wants to overthrow, but the wheels of power. When he says he wants to “drain the swamp,” he means whoever stands between him and his authority. Europeans recognize this Trump predilection as the bullying tendency of a nationalist leader. He openly admires strong leaders who wield absolute power over a nation. Putin, one of his idols, maintains his power by a system of thought control or propaganda and persecution. Trump likewise attempts to control public perception with his tweets and outrageous attacks on all who oppose him. As Russia replaced Marx’s idealism with the anvil of state totalitarianism, Trump seems committed to rule America’s “teaming masses” by suppressing the free press, controlling the justice department, and transforming the Executive Branch into the single source of state power.

Recently, elected officials—mayors, House Representatives, and Senators—have been refused admittance to immigrant internment camps. They told press reporters that the “government” refused their request for admittance. But they are our government! Trump heads the Executive Branch and is Commander-and-Chief of the military. But he is not the government, as much as he might pretend to be. Most Americans, I believe, would not be willing to concede that much authority to this President.

As human culture drifted away from its god-centered axis after the scientific revolution, it experimented with differing human-centered world views. Collective humanism and evolutionary humanism rose and fell with communism and nationalist socialism. Marx was discredited with the advancement of capitalism. Nietzsche is largely forgotten. Hitler was defeated. And the Soviet Union collapsed. In their place, the human individual, personal freedom, equal opportunity and personal well-being became more dominant as sacred ideals. They comprise individual humanism. From “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” to liberte, egalite, fraternite, the ideas of the Enlightenment have dominated western civilization. Certainly, they were held as sacred by the end of the 18th century when America declared its independence from a monarchy and have become more so with the advancement of the Western Democracies. America has suffered wars and treasure to promote this form of humanism in the world. Today we call the result of its sacrifice the Pax Americana. The question before us today is whether that world order can survive Donald Trump.

Trump has strived to undermine this international expression of humanism. He will not adhere to treaties, the world court, or to any rules-based system designed for the resolution of trade disputes, the establishment of economic order, and the peaceful resolution of border disputes. Included in his agnostic position on world order is his withdrawal from the United Nations Human Rights Council. That withdrawal coincides with his current zero tolerance immigration policy. He has put America in clear violation of human rights alongside such pariahs as North Korea and Syria. Separating children from parents is not only inhuman but recognized as such by most people and the community of nations. It reveals a man with no moral center and makes one wonder how he won the vote of some 62 million Americans.

The writer’s block I mentioned at the outset of this blog was not the result of a loss of words, but of a tsunami of thought lines. (I spared you my usual rant about money in politics.) Since passion is one of my motivators, it became maddeningly difficult to focus between anger and sorrow. I watched as a commentator unraveled on TV while attempting to read a breaking news report about tender age shelters. I saw children being escorted after midnight to shelters in far flung corners of America. Our own government was clandestinely hiding its actions. Elected officials were being turned away at the entrance of government internment camps. These are not the type of events we accept in a free and open society. And then there were those distraught mothers and crying children. As I cried along, my mind was blown with the realization that nobody knows how to right this wrong. One man’s decision has ruined the lives of thousands. And that man was elected by us.

A year and a half ago I wrote a blog entitled “Optimism for a Trump Presidency.” In it, I tried to make the case for that optimism. Today, that case has been trashed. Our hope for America rests with women who abhor the treatment of women under this President, with young people who protest the absence of common sense gun laws, with the one remaining branch of government willing to uphold our system of laws, and with the next elections. There are 62 million Americans who have put their faith in a man who shows no respect for humanity.

Is nothing sacred anymore?

It is my honor, as a humble writer of fiction, to interview the power behind the Presidency. He stands before me, an imposing figure, hooded and draped in a black flowing robe. Most are afraid to acknowledge his presence and even fewer dare to address him. He is known as the Trump Whisperer. And he has agreed to this interview which follows:

Sir, I’m not sure how to address you. Do you have a name?

I am who President Trump is. He is my physical representation, what I want the world to see. You know, the one who can make America great again!
____________

Yeah, I’ve heard that line before. Then you and the President are the same? How does that work?

You’ve never heard of an alter ego? I write the tweets. When I’m silent, you see the pantomime of a President sitting in the oval office or reading from a teleprompter. That’s one image, but I’m the reality. I’m showtime!
___________

Are you saying that prepared speeches and staged events are just image stagecraft and have less real content than the tweets and off-the-cuff remarks which are the main event, the show?

Your question reveals your naivete. The show, as you call it, is always top billing . . . the greatest show on earth. The media companies would go broke without me. Who wants policy initiatives or detailed analysis of legislation. Americans want to hear that their President is “for the working man,” “against illegal aliens taking their jobs,” and “focused on protecting the American people from foreign threats and trade rip-offs.” My presidency is probably the greatest of all time. It IS the greatest. We’ve accomplished more in our first year than any Presidency in history: tax cuts, court appointees—including the Supreme Court, record highs in the stock market, record high employment, and the return of American power throughout the world. America was dying. I’ve saved it. Only I could’ve done that!
___________

But policy initiatives that contradict your taglines undermine their message. I can illustrate this contradiction for you. For example, tax reform that increases economic inequality and increases the national debt by 5 percent per year is a reality that will have a negative effect on low and middle-income Americans. Also, undocumented workers contribute to the economy and pay taxes while foreign trade tends to keep inflation under check by providing low costs goods. Besides, America has been at full employment since before your Presidency. We are still riding the wave of recovery from the worst recession since the Great Depression and World War II. That recovery lasted for the better part of two decades. Your recent tariffs and tax policy threaten the current recovery. While the nation’s budget devotes 600 billion dollars to national defense, there is practically nothing in the budget for job re-training or for stimulating any wage increases. Your policies hinder or even decrease support for public education, business competition, reduction of college tuition costs, protection of our natural resources, fair housing practices, healthcare reform, and the liberal international order that has helped secure the peace for the last 70 years.

Americans don’t care about your liberal “order.” They know what counts. And they support what I’m doing. The stock market is up; we have the highest employment in history; an overseas outfit is relocating to Topeka like so many other companies; employers have increased their Christmas bonuses; and many great things are happening. You liberals don’t understand what makes America great. But I do!
__________

Okay, I’ll take the bait. What does make America great?

Wealth! We need money—lots of money—circulating throughout the economy. That’s why we encourage investment and business growth. It’s just that simple. The people who’ll contribute to my re-election know this. My voters know this. The men I’ve put in my cabinet know this. Everybody knows this—including you. And my Republican colleagues know this too. They have no choice but to support me. Democrats can complain. But they have no voice in this Administration unless they play by my rules. Most Americans with 401Ks also know we’re on the right track. They’ve done well, unbelievably well. And that’s thanks to me! Only I can do what I do.
__________

Most Americans don’t have 401Ks. As the President of all Americans shouldn’t you be focused on the general welfare? After World War II, the government gave tax incentives to promote education from K-12 to the G.I. bill, affordable housing, and job growth for millions of returning soldiers and depressed households who sacrificed to maintain the war effort. The top tax rate then was 90%. But the wealthy class still prospered. The country experienced one of the greatest economic expansions in its history. Does it not make more sense to promote the general welfare? Is not the benefit of the many also the benefit of the few?

No! Look, I’ve made billions. Probably I’m the only one who can make America great again. I’ve created jobs for thousands of people. My buildings provide services for many more. What do you know? You write fiction books, right? Did you make any money with those books?
__________

You’ve got me there. Is it alright if we change the subject? Two days from now you will be meeting with Kim Jong Un to discuss denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. What does denuclearization mean to you? And does it mean the same thing to North Korea’s Supreme Leader?

Are you a journalist? Is that supposed to be some kind of tricky question? Everybody knows what denuclearization means: no nukes and no missiles, especially ICBMs that can reach us. President Un knows that we can annihilate North Korea.
__________

No, I’m not a journalist, just a poor novelist. But I must point out that the North Korean Supreme Leader—or, as your counterpart, President Kim—has never shown any interest in denuclearization as we may define the term. In fact, he has continued the development of the nuclear program started by his grandfather and continued by his father. Why would he give up his nukes now?

He has no choice. No previous President—and especially Obama—had the guts to back up our words with actions. I brought Kim down a notch with sanctions. And I reminded him that I have a bigger nuclear button—a much bigger nuclear button-than his.
__________

You do know that previous administrations also sanctioned North Korea. Clinton, Bush, and Obama did so. Also, Clinton and Bush brought North Korea to the negotiating table and even signed agreements, which the North Koreans quickly violated. They agreed in bad faith: took billions of dollars from the West and continued development of their nuclear capabilities. Unlike the Iran deal, there never was a verifiable program to assure their compliance. How will you obtain a realistic verification agreement that will assure compliance?

The Iran deal was the worst deal in history. Iran cheated. They got billions. We got nothing.
__________

The verification regime imposed on Iran was the strictest ever imposed on any signatory of the Non-Proliferation Pact. And it was verified by the Atomic Energy Commission of the United Nations. Its compliance was concurred by all signatories, including the intelligence institutions of the United States.

That Iran deal—the worst deal ever made by a U.S. President—never addressed Iran’s behavior in the Middle East. Look at what they’ve done in Syria and the threat they present to Israel, our closest ally.
__________

Does your position then intend to stop North Korea from selling their nuclear technology to other rogue regimes and attacking countries, including America, with their cyber espionage as they have done in the past?

Yes, of course . . . all that stuff has to stop. Remember, I’m giving them a path to rejoin the world community and to rebuild their nation. Imagine a Starbucks in Pyongyang, even a McDonalds.
__________

Boeing just lost a potential contract with Iran due to your action in canceling the Iran deal. Before that deal, America had very little trade with Iran. Because America holds the world currency, we were able to freeze their credit. Iran’s capital held in world banks was not only frozen but used to pay off accumulated interest. The Iran deal allowed them to reclaim their money but at a significant lost. It also allowed them to resume trade with Europe, their main trading partner, and to gain the promise of trade with America. Given North Korea’s isolation from world markets, how would we convince our Western allies to create trade markets that they never had with North Korea? Or do you propose that the U.S. alone could equal or supplant China as a major trade partner?

China is their main trading partner today. But the U.S. market is much bigger. We have more to offer. And North Korea is one of the richest countries in untapped reserves of minerals and other resources. If they agree to denuclearization, their future will be great, really beautiful. Just look at South Korea. What we’ve done with the South, we can do with the North. I offer Kim a future. But he can choose annihilation instead . . . that’s his choice.
__________

After America dropped out of the Iran deal, do you expect the world will believe or support any North Korean deal you negotiate? Perhaps more relevant, why should North Korea believe you would keep any promise, unless they just want to string along negotiations for whatever gain they can obtain? And, given China’s trade relations with North Korea, do you expect them to support any deal the U.S. can obtain without China’s support in the negotiations? And, finally, would you expect Russia to assist with the negotiations or altruistically to support any deal the U.S. can obtain? Remember China and Russia are nuclear powers who share a border with North Korea. And both countries have supported North Korea: China provides a life line of energy and vital resources; and Russia supplied the missile technology that enabled North Korea to develop ICBM’s, well ahead of our intelligence community’s estimates of 3-5 years. They succeeded just last year.

Xi Jinping and Putin have been supportive of what I’m doing. And European leaders want a denuclearized North Korea. They will follow my lead. Look, Kim Jong-un has no choice. He has no choice. We can make North Korea a wasteland. He has no choice.
__________

So far in this discussion, you have made no mention of South Korea or Japan. South Korea is particularly vulnerable. Even if the North agrees to some level of denuclearization, Seoul faces decimation from hundreds of howitzers aimed at its heart. And the rest of South Korea would suffer millions of casualties from a conventional war. Likewise, Japan is in range of thousands of short range missiles which have already been tested in fly-overs of Japan’s cities. Would any nuclear agreement with North Korea address this conventional military threat to our allies?

This summit is on, for now. Let’s see what happens.
__________

Since the Korean War, the North has never relented on its mission to conquer the South and reunite all of Korea under its rule, would America sign a Peace Treaty without assurances that North Korea would not and, most importantly, could not invade the South?

There would not be a Peace Treaty without those assurances.
__________

But how would we assure that North Korea abides by such an agreement? Would we continue military support of the South? Considering the likelihood that North Korea would never sign an agreement that allowed an American military presence on the peninsula, would we not be forced to demand a de-escalation of North Korea’s military threat to the South? Mutual de-escalation of both conventional and nuclear weaponry would be required. And how would we verify both their denuclearization and military de-escalation? Would we seek third party support—from the U.N., South Korea, China, or even Russia?

We’ll see what happens.
__________

Finally, Mr. President, you have said that you have prepared for these negotiations all your life and that you will know in the first minutes of your face-to-face meeting with Kim Jong-Un whether he is serious about a deal. If in that initial moment, your gut told you he was not serious, would you quit the summit?

Of course. I’ve already done so once.
__________

Then what recourse would there be for any attempt to denuclearize Korea?

Let’s see what happens first.
__________

With those closing words, the Trump Whisperer vanished, like Hamlet’s ghost. I felt it was “most like” what Horatio saw and described, “It harrows me with fear and wonder.” It did, however, have “that flair and warlike form” which promised a death-dealing tragedy would most likely follow its appearance. What was it really?

Well, it could be living proof that Julian Jaynes’ theory of the bicameral mind can still appear as an evolutionary aberration or throwback to the late second millennium B.C. Humans, according to Jaynes, were then not capable of conscious discernment as we know it now. The collateral transmission of representative thought to conscious speech had not yet evolved in the human brain. So, humans then heard voices, like the Trump Whisperer, that dictated words and actions without any judgment or intermediary reflection in the frontal lobe. If true, then the President cannot be held accountable for what his Whisperer says and does.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the rest of us. Sad!

Juvenal, a Roman poet, coined the phrase panem et circenses (bread and circuses). But circenses did not have clowns in the first century A.D. Instead, the Roman Colosseum staged executions, animal attacks on slaves, and bloody gladiator contests, all of which passed as entertainment at the time. The phrase took on a distinct political connotation when Roman Senators, like Cicero, used it stealthily to pass controversial legislation. Rome’s citizens barely noticed what the Senate was doing, as long as food and entertainment were freely available. American legislators also know the strategic value of this Roman sleight-of-hand trick. Panem et circenses, in contemporary parlance, translates to tax cuts and a playbill of litigious debates, outlandish name-calling, conspiracy yarns, and/or scandal investigations. How, you might ask, has this Latin phrase become relevant today?

Although the government’s recent tax legislation mainly benefited the wealthy, it did provide some tax relief for the less prosperous. For example, some Trump voters averaging $72,000 per year in income might see as much as a $70 to $100 increase in their monthly pay checks (depending on their overall tax status). Low income earners, however, will experience little or no tax relief. By design, the biggest tax savings will be in 2018, an election year. And, except for the wealthy, the tax savings decrease year over year until they are phased out after ten years. At that point, everybody’s taxes will increase, except for corporate America and the super wealthy whose tax rate remains the same in perpetuity. If income and wealth inequality were concerns before 2018, they will become irremediable by 2028.

This inappropriately called “tax reform” is like throwing loaves of bread to the crowd gathering before the Roman Senate. It may feed the masses’ present appetite but starve their future. While the previous Administration cut the trillion-dollar deficits of its predecessor by two-thirds, the current Administration has reintroduced trillion-dollar deficits with its first budget for fiscal year 2018 and for all succeeding years into the foreseeable future. These deficits are self-made, not the result of war or recession. The result has been Increased Federal Reserve borrowing and, eventually, higher interest rates for auto loans, mortgages, and business investments. The economy’s recovery from the Great Recession will stall, along with the Stock Market which will become more volatile and at risk for a major setback. These deficits also will advance the case for cuts in retirement programs, healthcare, and any Federal support for infrastructure. This type of “tax reform” does promote wealth in corporate America and amongst the already well-heeled, but at the expense of American fiscal solvency, the overall economy, and the future welfare of most Americans. Should we feel placated by this tax relief—or just duped?

Meanwhile, the news media is fed a constant diet of conspiracies, policy chaos, fear-mongering, diatribe, and scandal. Late night comedians no longer need to create material for our entertainment. Their satire is pre-written in the daily news cycle by the misadventures of Congress and the White House. The Roman Colosseum glorified in physical violence but was no less contentious or chaotic than the mayhem in our current politics. The ring leader at center stage is a former reality show entertainer. He provides us with a constant display of loyalty tests in his hiring and firing antics, of ad hoc and ill-considered policies, of twitter fantasies, of legislative bricks, of short-sighted or illegal executive orders, and of preposterous “deep state” conspiracy theories. While it may bemuse the body politic, his real purpose is to distract us. As a result, we may fail to notice that his culpable malfeasance and manipulative propaganda are dragging America like an insidious undertow into the depths of chaos. Are we entertained by the show—or just stupefied?

But why are we being duped and stupefied? The answer becomes apparent when we change the “why” to “who”—specifically, who benefits?

In Timothy Snyder’s short treatise, “On Tyranny,” he states that “the Founding Fathers sought to avoid the evil that they, like the ancient philosophers, called tyranny.” Specifically, those philosophers warned us of the instability that grows out of inequality and the exploitation of a demagogue’s opportunism. But do we really need to read Aristotle or Plato to learn about tyranny. In recent times, we have witnessed the rise of oligarchies and dictatorships. The 20th century world wars alone should have taught us all we need to know about the evils of government supported inequality—whether ethnic, religious, or economic—and the dangers of morally challenged demagogues. These men (yes, they are all men) tell us who to scapegoat for troubled times—any group that differs from them in race, gender, ethnic origin, class, political ideals or religious affiliations. And, of course, they denigrate all who might oppose them, whether the press, opposing parties, or the courts. Their avowed purpose is to make us believe that only they can fix what ails us. In the words of our President, only he can stop the “losing” and make us and America “winners” again. And when he throws crumbs to the masses—like tax relief—be wary of the cupboard left bare. For it is not your benefit that he seeks, but his own. Personal power, fame, and enrichment are his only goals. Whatever “ism” or promise he rides to power is only a ruse, a con, and a lie. His only guiding principle is winning a zero-sum game where his opponents are vanquished. History tells us so. Nationalist socialism, communism, and fascism all rode a form of populism to dictatorships. Maybe it is time to heed the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.

Donald Trump should not be underestimated. He is neither the glorified change agent or cult hero his followers love, nor the devil incarnate or destroyer of representative democracy. He is, however, a clever operator and opportunist who earned his position of power by capitalizing on the failing state of constructive politics in America. His ability to win the Presidential election was not the result of business acumen or deal making ability, but of self-promotion—specifically, of a well-advertised brand. His use of “truthful hyperbole” or imaginative realities were never policy positions that spoke to fundamental change, but fabrications that appealed to and inflamed long held feelings within an aggrieved portion of the electorate. What grievance would justify voting for an opportunist demagogue with a morally bankrupt past? Well, the answer should not surprise any American: he took advantage of an existent morally bankrupt and opportunistic political system.

The irony in this answer is my own belief that most of our elected officials are not personally immoral. But they ARE opportunistic in their pursuit of re-election: fund raising requires their advocacy for the interests of the donor class and for the euphemist campaign stratagems of Party leadership over the interests and general welfare of the electorate. Maybe the ultimate euphemism in the last election was Trump’s “make America great again.” Behind that campaign slogan lurked his promises (1) to appease Evangelicals with a Supreme Court nominee who might sway the Court to repeal Rowe vs. Wade and (2) to secure the safety of Americans with a border wall and a Muslim travel ban. In truth, the demagogue-in-chief is not concerned with the cohesion of these promises with his four-word campaign slogan. The separation of church and state is enshrined in our Constitution. Just as no law can force an evangelical woman to get an abortion; no woman can be refused an abortion on religious grounds. Likewise, there is no statistically relevant evidence implying that immigrants or Muslims have endangered Americans. The over-turning of our Constitutional separation of church and state or the provisioning of a border wall and travel ban are no more likely to make America great than Don Quixote’s assault on a windmill made him a great conquistador.

A campaign slogan may sound good, but, as a euphemism, it is just an alluring fantasy. The fact that most, if not all, politicians subscribe to such alluring fantasies translates into a demeaning political discourse where fiction overrules fact, generalities substitute for practicalities, and emotionally-charged demagoguery wins over reasoned argument and honest persuasion. A successful campaign slogan is malleable and can be applied to any cause that might appeal to specific voter groups, like Evangelicals worried about the lives of the unborn or rural homogeneous white communities fearful of Mexican workers or Muslim terrorists. A successful campaign slogan is not subject to analysis for it is too amorphous to be critiqued in detail. Its purpose is not to inform but to persuade. Its content is not a specific or realistic policy, but any general issue to which voters may be emotionally attached. It operates as a generic reference to prejudices, fears, or all possible dreamscapes, like everybody’s vision of a great America. (Have you ever experienced a timeshare sales presentation?)

If it is unfair to call politicians personally immoral, the same cannot be said for the campaign system that overrules their decisions and conduct in office. That system must change. Simply voting for a disruptor will not suffice, especially a self-serving opportunist. Because of term limits, we will outlast his time in office. But America may not outlast its electoral system. Both political parties now fall under the sway of purchased propaganda, paid campaign operatives, expensive analytics, and the need to attract otherwise expensive media coverage with provocative, though enticingly quotable, remarks—however hyperbolic, irreverent, or unrealistic. And now foreign adversaries can sling mud in our campaign cesspool as well. We must establish public funding and regulation of our campaigns. Yes, I am still advocating for Federal election reform (reference “American Revolution 2016”).

How did Americans fall prey to panem et circenses? Why are we so easily manipulated by politicians and special interests—even foreign adversaries? Well, more than a few political pundits and armchair philosophers have tried to answer this question. Perhaps Americans are so invested in jobs, family, shopping, and entertainment that they have little time for politics. Though we may have busy lives, we must become an informed electorate else risk severing ties to our democratic roots and drifting aimlessly into troubled waters. Our individual future is tied to America’s future. Our investment in civic duties is really a matter of self-preservation. Maybe the humanist ideals at the heart of America no longer inspire us to take responsibility for our form of government.

Humanism has more than one face. In America, it has evolved to cross several divides. Equality, for instance, can imply equal opportunity rather than identical gifts and capabilities. Social collectives of religious, ethnic, or race can avoid conflict and overcome differences by respecting each other’s common rights. And even the physically or mentally disabled can contribute more to society than their genetic inheritance. Personal freedom and equality are not frozen ideals and can be every citizen’s inheritance. But the wisdom gained from the Enlightenment must continue to evolve, else we risk veering off-course. For example, both political Parties reflect aspects of the same founding principles. Conservatives are just on one end of the liberal scale, as liberals are on another end of the conservative scale. Both sides must adhere to our founding principles, or risk being radical and un-American. For example, any attempt to undermine our democratic institutions is radical. In the same vein, any attempt to suppress dialogue and debate in our legislature can become un-American to the extent that it limits representation. Any attempt to undermine free elections or deny the right to vote is radical. Any attempt to undermine the rule of law is radical. Any attempt to gain political power in collusion with a foreign adversary is radical and possibly treasonous.

Both American conservatives and liberals agree on how to form a more perfect union. It is written in our founding documents. No monarch, Pope, Mullah or foreign adversary can dictate the future of this republic. So why would we ever yield to one of the oldest ploys in representative government to bait and distract an electorate? Ours is still a “government of the people, by the people, for the people (that) shall not perish” unless we let it. Self-serving politicians can be voted out of office; demagogues can be silenced by a fact-checking free press; and an informed electorate cannot be bamboozled by lies or manipulative propaganda. If our President and a complicit Congress choose to distract us with tax cuts while they undermine our fiscal and general welfare, we can still vote them out of office. We can still define our future and the further development of our democracy.

Children ask “why,” even before they have command of language. Behind their curiosity is a very human attribute—the presumption of an underlying meaning or intent. There have always been creation stories that explained the nature of our world and why it exists. For millennia, religious leaders answered that question. For the last 500 years, scientists have joined the chorus. But neither gods nor the laws of nature can fully explain why we humans do what we do. For we create our own history, our own governments, and our own laws. We define “right” and “wrong.” We are responsible and, therefore, liable for our actions. But those actions often defy logic or offer questionable benefit. For example, why do we form governments unresponsive to our needs? Why do we allow senseless violence in our midst? And why do we sometimes seem less capable of providing our children with the institutions and communities that would secure their future and demonstrate our love and care? We raise them to have better prospects than our own. But do we secure their safety and the promise of those prospects? It should be no surprise then that our children might want a better future than their parents had sufficient lifespan or wisdom to determine? They will naturally resist a future they did not choose or create for themselves. They will want change.

Our children ask “why” because they want to understand how it all works and how they fit into the fabric of human life and into the world they will occupy. What are the standards of behavior? What goals are allowed? What can be explored? And how is everyone held accountable for his/her decisions and actions? If you analyze the basis for each of these questions, you will arrive at the same place: the precarious balance between free will and a moral consciousness. But the awakening of a moral conscience may very well challenge existing apathy towards long-held beliefs and norms. With fresh eyes, the young will readily recognize contradictions between values and actions. They will exercise their power of free will with a righteous fervor. Nearly every generation of Americans have done so. They protest. They will demand change.

One of the Florida high schoolers asked why the words “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” seem not to apply to the gun laws in America. He asked why our political leaders seem incapable of common sense gun laws designed to protect their constituents. This teenager was exercising his awakening moral consciousness and asking why these leaders could not or would not exercise their free will to support the moral basis for our free society. Why is Jefferson’s clarion call no longer heard? Perhaps, when civic service becomes subject to self-interest, when acquiring campaign funding becomes more important for reelection than demonstrating character and trustworthiness, when Party loyalty outweighs the good of the country, when well-healed donors determine the legislative agenda rather than the will of the electorate, when gun-lobbyists can dictate gun laws that favor gun sales over safety, then the moral consciousness of children will find fault and revolt. They may well expose not only the moral vacuity of our political leaders but the consequent corruption of our American system and betrayal of its founding principles. The fresh eyes of our children can see the contradiction. And they demand change.

Over two years ago, I wrote a blog entitled “American Revolution, 2016.” It proposed how we might turn back the effects of Citizens United by replacing “dark” money and large donor networks with public campaign funding. It also proposed a possible mechanism to focus campaigns on real issues rather than spin, scandal, and vacuous taglines. My purpose then was like the student protests over guns now. The right to own a gun is no less legal than the right to vote. But both rights must serve the general welfare as stipulated in our Constitution and exemplified in the Declaration of Independence’s definition of unalienable rights. Are these rights administered in a way that serves the general welfare? Our gun laws, for example, allow untrained and unqualified individuals to own guns, to purchase weapons of war that have no civilian application, and to store them unsafely and without inspection. By comparison, the legal structure of our electoral system permits gerrymandering, voter suppression, exaggerated influence of large campaign donors, subversive and divisive propaganda, and insufficient policing of existing campaign financing laws. Do you see how the failure to administer these rights properly are interrelated? A fast majority of voters may favor common sense gun laws that assure responsible ownership and safe use but find it impossible to vote their prescriptions for administering the Second Amendment.

Mass shootings in our schools have become commonplace. Do our children have to die before we recognize the corruption that has seeped into our political system? Our political will has been silenced at the voting booth. The majority vote no longer controls Congress or the White House. Special interests are attempting to control our government. The gun lobby is just one manifestation of a virulent cancer. To quote Benjamin Franklin, our founding fathers “created a Republic, if you can keep it.” We keep it by adhering to our moral compass, supporting our founding principles, and diligently rooting out corruption and subversive interests.

America requires each generation to rebalance the egalitarianism of its democracy with the self-driven interests of capitalism. Controlling the sale of guns in a manner that assures the safety of all our young school children could be the first step in a wider reform—a harbinger of a new era. In the sixties, a generation arose that repudiated an unjustified war, the rise of the military-industrial complex, racial discrimination, and blatant voting rights violations. Maybe we now are witnessing a new generation that begins by establishing equivalence in gender privilege and reasonable gun control laws but morphs into addressing the underlying corruption of power and money.

What this new generation is facing is much more than the gun lobby. That lobby is just one element in a recidivist political class. Remember the robber barons who usurped power at the height of the industrial revolution. Compare them to the billionaire campaign donors and the current White House family and cabinet secretaries. Remember the unregulated speculation in Wall Street before the Great Depression and the more recent Great Recession. Compare those periods with the current Administration’s desire to undo existing regulations designed to forestall another economic freefall. Remember when 16,000 Klu Klux Clan members marched through New York to a cheering crowd of onlookers. (Yes, it happened in the 1920s.) Compare that to the hundreds of torch-carrying Clan members who marched through Charleston—though to a much less receptive audience. Nevertheless, the President claimed that the opposing parties were equivalent, saying there were good people on both sides. Remember the divisiveness of McCarthyism and the citizen rebellion against a lying government’s Vietnam war policies. Compare the sixties to our current lack of trust in a bullying and lying President whose enumeration of lies, adolescent name-calling, and threats exceed his days in office. Remember when the South’s minority population used its economic and political clout to advance policies that ran counter to the promise of equality and freedom in the Declaration of Independence. Compare those positions to the current Republican Party support for an unequal distribution of wealth—as demonstrated in the recently passed tax plan—and its unravelling of government programs that support the health, economic opportunity, and education of Americans. That Party’s support for gun manufacturers, the National Rifle Association, and gun lobbyists is just the tip of an iceberg.

It is natural for the young to ask “why.” When the answers fail to persuade the moral conscience, it is equally natural for them to seek the truth and advocate for change. That advocacy is not just their right, but their responsibility. We cannot deny the young their future and, with respect to gun laws, their lives. They must demand change. But the change they now seek is just one link in a chain. As they pull on that chain, they will have to overcome the weight of many links sunk deep below the surface. They will need the wisdom of their elders who have pulled on that chain in the past. They will not be the first generation who have fought the weight of corruption and tried to reclaim our American ideals. If they succeed, their progeny will benefit. If they fail, they might be the last who have tried. Maybe you doubt these “if/then” propositions. You might question why we need change now. But if you consider the alternatives, then your question will be why not?

The President’s acolytes, Messrs. Porter and Sorensen, have resigned due to alleged acts of domestic violence. Both men deny the allegations. And the President, believing Americans stand for fairness, reminds us that these men claim to be innocent and are entitled to “due process.” Does the President have a point?

Of course, everybody, including these accused men, have a right to due process. But it is not their rights that are relevant here. When were their wives’ rights recognized? These men, one might say, were never arrested or tried in court. So, one might conclude, the allegations against them were never prosecuted or litigated in court and therefore must not be justified. But the lack of prosecution implies that their wives were either not heard, believed, or too embarrassed/afraid to air their abuse in public or in the courts. Were these women given due process? I think not. As a result, the women’s accusations remain unadjudicated in the courts. But they are speaking up now—and so are a lot of other women in America. They demand to be heard and, hopefully, will demand due process in the future.

The President, in effect, reminds us that Messrs. Porter and Sorensen are innocent until proven guilty. He is right. But he ignores the fact that his Administration has failed to acknowledge the right of their former wives to be heard. Although these women declined to file battery charges against them, they did inform the FBI and, in one case, filed for a restraining order. The police reports and the courts restraining order give credence to these women. Moreover, the FBI believed them, for it refused to grant Porter and Sorensen their requested security clearances. So, the police, the courts, and the FBI believed the battered wives. Also, public opinion appears to believe their accusations. And the accused wife beaters have resigned rather than have their case further adjudged in the press and the public forum. The only remaining unbeliever in their guilt is Donald Trump.

Everybody accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty. That dictum is jurisprudence 101 in America. We can only acknowledge that alleged crimes may have been committed. So, Messrs. Porter and Sorensen should be given their day in court—even in the court of public opinion. The President has already claimed that privilege for them. But he cannot exclude the same privilege to their wives. By his omission, he has stigmatized them as liars who would willingly destroy the careers of these men. He not only invalidates their wives but, in the process, minimizes the crime of spousal abuse. Maybe he is simply unable to recognize the crime of which his former wife accused him guilty. If so, he is afflicted by the same moral myopia that afflicts Porter and Sorensen. They cannot see the truth beyond the privileged bubble bequeathed them by male-dominated history. Is this not the very blindness the “#metoo” movement attempts to address?

The beauty of America has always been its ability to recognize and change moral injustices. But change of this nature requires persistence and moral leadership. Obviously, this President is incapable of the leadership required. But many Americans have taken up the challenge. Women are proving themselves persistent. And men willing to admit the unfairness of male privilege are joining them. As a husband and father of two daughters count me with those men— “#mentoo.”

Congressman David Nunez, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, used the promised release of his memo to initiate a two-week campaign to discredit the FBI investigation into possible collusion of Donald Trump/his surrogates with the Russian “influence campaign.” But the memo finally submitted to the President for declassification merely deals with the authorization to surveil Carter Page, a volunteer foreign affairs consultant to the Trump campaign. Why is there this discrepancy between hype and fact?

Let’s begin with the President’s official declassification of this memo for public consumption. That response was written by the President’s Counsel, Donald F. McGahn II and states as follows: “To be clear, the Memorandum rejects the judgments of its congressional authors.” While the Administration rejects the memo’s conclusions, declassifying its contents supports its avowed purpose. And that purpose, as outlined in Nunez’ memo, was to highlight concerns about the legitimacy and legality of the DOJ and FBI interactions with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and potential abuse of the its legal process that was originally designed to protect the American people. Although McGahn wrote the Administration’s reply to Nunez declassification request, the decision to declassify the document could only be made by the President. It has been reported that he had a three-and-a-half-hour window in which to deliberate his decision.

The following is my summary of Nunez’ “case-in-chief” after a six-minute perusal of his memo:
(1) Neither the initial request for a surveillance warrant nor any of its three renewal requests-authorized by Comey, McCabe, and Rosenstein, successively, as the memo highlights—mentioned the DNC’s or FBI’s role in partially funding Christopher Steele’s investigation into Carter Page’s relations with Russian contacts. This alleged failure is noteworthy. The implication is that the investigation was merely political opposition research supported by partisan DOJ and FBI officials and not worthy of clandestine surveillance.
(2) The surveillance request sites Yahoo’s reporting of Steele’s investigation as unverified. Further, it fails to mention that Yahoo incorrectly stated that its reporting of Steele’s “dossier” did not come directly from Steele. The implication is that Yahoo either had other, more corroborating sources which it failed to disclose or, more likely, was guilty of giving cover to its lone, unreliable source.
(3) After disclosing his FBI relationship to Yahoo in October, 2017, Steele was suspended and “terminated” by the FBI as a reliable intelligence source. Further, the FBI failed to terminate him in the previous September when he showed his dossier to Mother Jones. The memo states that Steele “lied” to the FBI about his contact with Mother Jones in September. The implication is that the FBI belatedly acted to terminate its relations with an untrustworthy source and failed to admit its incompetence in its surveillance request. (It should be noted that “termination” implies a formal contract, of which there is no evidence. Normally, the FBI simply suspends a relationship with a source. And Steele’s “lying” to the FBI is a felony which, as of this date, remains unverified and unprosecuted.)
(4) Steele’s numerous contacts with the media violated “the cardinal rule of source handling—maintaining confidentiality—and demonstrated that he had become a less than reliable source for the FBI.”
(5) Steele revealed his bias against Donald Trump to the Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr, a DOJ official who worked closely with Deputy Attorney Generals, Yates and later Rosenstein. Ohr reported that Steele was “passionate about him (Trump) not being elected.” Ohr’s wife also worked for Fusion GPS, Steele’s employer, and was instrumental in supplying the FBI with her opposition research. The Ohrs’ relationship to Steele and Fusion GPS was allegedly concealed from the FISC, along with Steele’s incriminating bias against Trump. The implication is that the dossier is a faulty intelligence report based upon animus and not credible evidence.
(6) The FBI Deputy Director testified to the House Intelligence Committee in December, 2017, that no surveillance request would have been requested without the Steele dossier. The implication is that the dossier was the sole, rather than the final, piece of evidence to initiate the FBI’s surveillance of Carter Page.
(7) Finally, the memo effectively exonerates Carter Page as the initiator of the investigation into Russia’s “influence campaign.” Although his visit to Moscow is mentioned in the dossier, the memo inexplicably admits that the dossier did not initiate the investigation either. Instead, the memo states the investigation was launched in July, 2017, because of George Papadopoulos’ admissions to the Australian Foreign Minister. Carter Page reportedly had no contact with Papadopoulos. Perhaps the reference to Papadopoulos has an ulterior motive—that is, the opportunity to mention the lead FBI agent in the July investigation, namely, Pete Strzok. He was also one of the investigators in the Clinton email case. His text message exchanges with his mistress admit leaks to the media and discussions with Deputy Director McCabe about an “insurance” policy against President Trump’s election. The implication here is that a conspiratorial cabal exists within the FBI. Its purpose is to derail the Trump Presidency.

Carter Page was not just an extraneous and unwitting victim of this conspiracy but an appropriate ruse to out this conspiracy. Does the Nunez’ memo prove its case that the DOJ and FBI falsely and illegally petitioned FISC to grant and renew surveillance warrants against Carter Page, thereby abusing the legal protections of FISA? If that were its purpose, then it missed its opportunity to appeal directly to the FISC. Carter Page seems to understand that, even if no one adequately defended him in FISC, he still can sue the government for abusing his privacy. He admitted as much on national television. If he proceeds with a libel suit, he might want to include Congressman Nunez who has made his case fodder for the press and his guilt or innocence subject for debate in the public forum.

But Nunez’ purpose was not to vindicate Carter Page, but, as admitted in the memo, to damn the DOJ and the FBI. Certainly, he has no problem with FISA, for he stood on the floor of the House less than a month ago defending it and eloquently supporting its renewal. Many have argued that the surveillance authorized by this secret court can and possibly does violate individual privacy, but few Republicans—and certainly not Nunez—have made that argument.

Once again, it should be obvious that Nunez has little interest in defending Carter Page’s suitability for surveillance. Nunez provides us with excerpts in lieu of a point-by-point rebuttal of the full body of evidence submitted by the FBI. We cannot know whether the evidence supplied to FISC in Page’s case was adequate, for its full disclosure reportedly encompasses hundreds of pages. The FISA judges ruled that the evidence provided was adequate to warrant surveillance.

Nunez had a different goal in mind in drafting this memo. He cleverly has drawn a line of incompetence, bias, and conspiracy through Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, Yates, Ohr, Strzok (all of whom, except for Rosenstein, have been fired, retired, or reassigned) and the media. His pretense to champion Carter Page’s cause is a sham. The subversive purpose of Nunez’ memo was to discredit the DOJ and FBI. The Page surveillance warrant offered him a pretext for undermining the investigation into Russia’s influence campaign and any possible connection to collusion with the Trump campaign or to subsequent obstruction of that investigation. In other words, the Nunez’ memo is a political document.

Despite the hype surrounding this memo, there are a few positive facts we can discern from its publication. First, Carter Page who has been characterized by Russian agents as an “idiot source,” has not been indicted by the DOJ or the special prosecutor to date. Since 2013 he has been merely a person of interest to the FBI because of his frequent meetings with Russians and his support for Putin’s policies. Second, the Speaker of the House did in fact have the authority to release the Nunez’ memo; and the Administration did appropriately have it vetted by its intelligence council before releasing it to the public. As they say in basketball, no harm, no foul here.

The real problem is with our political parties. Remember when the Democrats attacked the Special Prosecutor during the Clinton investigation into obstruction of justice. Now we have the reverse situation: Republicans defaming the DOJ and the FBI over Trump’s or his campaign’s involvement in collusion with the Russians and Trump’s alleged obstruction of justice. (Apparently, Mueller is still believed untouchable to defamation.) Meanwhile, his investigation rolls on. And this memo is just a distraction. The harm here is to the image of the DOJ and the FBI, and the foul is on Nunez.

Paradoxically, Nunez does less to impugn FISA, the FBI, the DOJ or to exonerate Carter Page than to imply his complicity in obstruction of justice.

“The times, they are a-changing . . .”

We Americans elected a President who describes himself as a “stable genius . . . like, really smart”—a claim no other President has made. Whereas his immediate predecessor incessantly quoted from the U.S. constitution and urged us to “form a more perfect Union,” President Trump’s “genius” has focused elsewhere. Although he provided some short-lived tax breaks for the middle class, his overall tax policy shifts over 500 billion dollars of wealth from the lower and middle classes to the super wealthy. This policy will increase income/wealth inequality, thereby exacerbating the divide between the very rich and every other American. Moreover, his signature positions are also divisive. He has often derided Congress for its failure to fund his wall or repeal Obamacare and complained about the courts impeding his immigration bans. Berating all who oppose him, he proceeds to alienate various ethnic and racial groups and to disregard both the healthcare of all Americans and the livelihood of black or brown immigrants. Obviously, he shows no interest in bringing people together. In place of unity, the President offers discriminatory exclusion and dispassionate indifference.

In contrast to past Presidents, President Trump differs in his approach to government. Our democratic republic is not “a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere” (President Reagan). His mission, as he sees it, is to save a failed system—or “drain the swamp”—for, as he attests, “only I can fix it.” His attempts to do so have met with more than a little backlash. For example, he states how “sad” it is that there is resistance to his bending the Justice Department and intelligence services to do his bidding. But, as former President Nixon found out, our system does not put the Presidency above the law. Likewise, he wants control over the public media, even suggesting the press become more subject to libel suits. But his frequent claims of fake news and threats of libel suits are really sad attempts to violate the First Amendment (freedom of the press). The Federal Courts have frequently ruled that his immigration bans violate the Fourteenth Amendment (the equal protection clause). Obviously, his actions reveal his ignorance of or enmity for our Constitution and the rule of law.

Perhaps President Trump’s real objective is not to save our American system. Whether he fully realizes it or not, he seems to want to destroy it. For example, he shows no respect for the coequal branches of government: he supports sycophant Republicans for Congressional seats and nominates judges more preferential to his authority to the Federal Courts. He appoints Cabinet Secretaries who promise unwavering loyalty to him and often oppose the very purpose of the Departments they manage. They are against funding public education, clean air and water, national wildlife preserves, national parks, fair housing practices, work place safety rules, bank regulations, a robust diplomatic corps, international agreements, and multi-lateral trade agreements. Pundits tell us that this Presidency is not normal. But “normal” only implies its divergence from past Presidencies. It is not a true characterization. This Presidency can only be compared with Andrew Johnson, who deliberately worked against the hard-fought American Union, and with Richard Nixon, who thought himself above the law. In other words, a true characterization of the Trump Presidency is impeachable.

Not only does President Trump disregard the implications of our constitutionally established system of checks and balances and of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. He also is cravenly abusive of the emoluments clause and dismissive of Article II, Section 4, regarding treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors. He insists that his “fighting back” at the Justice department and FBI are not “obstructions of justice” and that “there is no collusion” with the Russians. Yet he has persistently—and suspiciously—attempted to derail the criminal investigations into the Russians “influence campaign.” And he repeatedly defends the Czar-like Russian leader. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin continues his attempts to infiltrate and subvert our democracy and to isolate American influence around the world. He would undo what King George tried to prevent. And Donald Trump is his accomplice.

Now in a new year, Americans seem even more perplexed by a government radically incoherent and untethered from its moorings–that is, embroiled in lies, incompetence, a growing moral morass, an undiscerning dismemberment of everything “Obama,” and, most significantly, a willful disengagement from American history and ideals. The question remains: what do Americans want? Do we still believe in the mythic land of the free, where all “are created equal” and with “certain unalienable rights?” If so, then maybe we should protest with more purpose and vote for our ideals. In America, we create our future at the ballot box and in our hearts and minds. We are still a nation founded upon principles defined in our founding documents and coded into our laws. If we choose to believe in them, then we can and will progress with this American experiment in Democracy.

Last year I wrote about “The New Age of Bafflement.” I cannot make this earlier blog more relevant than its inherent prescience. (If you can spare the time, you might want to reread it.) Without a doubt, technology and social media have accelerated change in every aspect of modern cultures and societies. Along with that change we have experienced job dislocation, growing divisiveness in nearly every medium, and uncompromising gridlock in our politics. But how we experience change is more about us than the nature of change. American have overcome environmental cataclysms, civil strife, and world wars. We should be well equipped to adapt America’s core values and systems into this brave new world. President Trump, by contrast, seems intent on dragging America into past divisiveness quandaries which we had worked diligently to overcome and, in many cases, did overcome. Do we want to revisit long lines in emergency wards, polluted air in our cities, oil spills like Exxon Valdes that required a 2.1-billion-dollar clean-up, despoiled lands in our National Parks, an onslaught of new age “robber barons,” racial-gender-ethnic discrimination, and a disregard for the poor, the sick, and the elderly?

President Trump’s agenda is not to “make America great again.” His vision for America is extreme and dangerously radical. He would make his Presidency imperial and subservient to his economic empire and to the wealthy who share his perch at the top of the economic pyramid. If we become cynically resigned to Trump’s America, then we put this self-governing experiment in jeopardy and abandon America’s lead role in a fast-changing future. Instead, our nation will sink into the quagmire of incoherence, incompetence, and the erratic autocracy of this President’s Administration. As the eye of the media storm he creates, he focuses attention on himself, while tearing apart America’s institutions. He is the evil wizard of chaos, who would rebrand America into his likeness.

While Congress seems reduced into complicity, many of us appear bamboozled by a chameleon who in the guise of populism steals our birthright and our future. How has Trump duped the electorate and cowed Congress to his will? How, indeed? I am still baffled after all these months.

Why do Americans tend to identify with and vote for a Party? When you ask this question, you get various responses: I’m a Republican and have always been a Republican; my family and friends are lifelong Democrats and so am I; I’m an anti-abortionist; I’m pro-life; I’m a free-market advocate; I’m for fair practices in business and a reasonably regulated economy; I believe in states’ rights and a limited Federal government mainly focused on the security of our nation; I believe the Federal government must also secure the rights of all its citizens; I believe in family values without government interference; I believe in supporting families through government action; and so on. Most of us would readily recognize these conflicting answers and could add many more areas of disagreement and even conflict.

At this moment in American history, Congress is at loggerheads. At the heart of this disagreement is whether our current immigration system is fair, or not? In general, should it allow an undocumented person to live in this country and apply for full citizenship? But the immediate point of contention concerns whether children brought into this country by undocumented parents are liable for the actions of their parents. They are demonstrably in violation of the law and subject for deportation. But is the law fair and reflective of our core values? In other words, do they have a right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”? More to the point, do they have a right to become naturalized citizens?

Before 1776, there was no such thing as an American citizen. But the Declaration of Independence stated that “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . .” And those words gave birth to America and its key founding values—equality of all its inhabitants and their possession of God given rights. “Equality” defines the nature of our society—communities, towns, cities, states, and nation. And those “unalienable rights,” as further elaborated in our Constitution, define the integrity of the individual citizen in our society.

Throughout our history, Americans have faced the same problem we are now experiencing in Congress’ inability to resolve the DACA crisis (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). That problem concerns how we maintain an egalitarian society where the rights of all individuals are preserved. The concept of “equality” presumes a diverse society where “all men are created equal.” But our founding fathers excluded slaves from humanity and women from citizenship. While America has reversed these exclusions, we continue to suffer the same myopic view of American society with each wave of immigrants, whether Chinese, European, African, Middle Eastern, or South/Central American. In fact, we are wary of admitting immigrants of non-Christian faiths and non-Caucasian genealogy. Even the Muslims or Sikhs and the black and brown citizens in our midst are often considered outsiders that should be shunned, feared, discredited or segregated. If we can question individuals’ equality in our society, then we have no obligation to grant them any rights—and certainly no path to citizenship. If so, how do we reconcile ourselves with our founding principles?

Many of our Presidents—excluding the current one—encouraged us to form a more perfect union, as stipulated in the Preamble of our Constitution. Recall the Pledge of Allegiance, “one nation under God with liberty and justice for all.” American history is a record of our struggle to unite all our people under the same banner and oath. For us to reconcile the principle of individual rights to the ideal of an egalitarian society, it is imperative that we learn to abide our differences and to govern solely for the benefit of all—equally. In 1818, the American population of 9.5 million included 1.5 million slaves. Today, a population of about 320 million includes between 690 and 800 thousand DACA non-citizens who are subject to deportation. Why would we exclude from citizenship people who have lived their entire lives as Americans? It does not require a civil war or even a massive program of assimilation to treat them as equals and grant them their full rights as citizens. In effect, they are already Americans. Why would we ostracize them from the society of which they are already members?

Frankly, I find no satisfying answers to these questions. There is no issue of introducing crime or living off the public largess. The only obstacle to admitting these DACA enlistees appears to be their availability as leverage for the President’s border wall and the Republicans’ desire to reduce legal immigration. The President feels strongly that he cannot reverse his campaign promise about a border wall. And his Party has been ideologically opposed to any measure that would result in more immigrants entering America—even when past Republican Presidents have proposed work permits and a path to citizenship (Reagan and Bush 43, respectively). Perhaps a more recent President put it more succinctly, “I don’t think that Americans want hubris from their next President . . . a strong mandate for change . . . means a government that is not ideologically driven. It means a government that is competent . . . that is focused day in, day out on the needs and struggles, the hopes and dreams of Americans . . .” (Obama, January 6, 2009).

It has been said that we are a nation of immigrants. True, but that is not the whole story. We are a nation united by principles and the rule of law that supports those principles. Although Congress’ inability to pass a budget is critical to maintaining the viability of government services and its overall financial status, its inability to serve the founding principles of our nation risks the loss of our democratic underpinnings. America is an idea that must be constantly renewed. If we lose our dedication to the very core principles of our founding, our inability to pass a budget is not the most significant problem we face. We are.

The current stalemate in Congress is more than a budget impasse. It is less about how we default on balancing America’s general ledger. It is about how we shutdown America—what it represents to us and to the world.

The American colonies began their revolt against the British Monarchy over oppressive tax policies. Since that period, Americans have always looked upon government tax policy with suspicion. In the early nineteenth century, our ancestors questioned the need for tariffs and government secured loans to fund infrastructure projects such as canals. Later in that century, our government cleared the way for the expansion of homesteading and eventual construction of a national railroad system. By the beginning of the twentieth century, Republican Presidents began to explore the need for taxes to support government programs that might enhance this American expansion. They wanted to support the ongoing industrial revolution and its impact on improving Americans’ standard of living. The debate for and against a national income tax “without apportionment among the several States” was carried forth during the Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt and finally formalized in the Sixteenth Amendment under the Presidency of William Howard Taft. Neither of these Republican Presidents could foretell a time when their attempts to fund government programs would instead become a means for bankrupting the American government.

Our contemporary times have witnessed the argument over tax policy devolve into questions of who should benefit by it and of how it might affect the national debt. Should the government spend its tax revenue on programs that help citizens support their families, gain an education, enter the workforce, overcome discriminatory practices, maintain the peace and safety of their community, and secure their “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?” And should the government outspend its tax income to the detriment of future tax payers saddled with an unsurmountable debt? These two questions appear diametrically opposed inasmuch as they assume an inverse either/or equation.

These questions have riled our legislators in recent decades. The current tax proposals in Congress give evidence to an ongoing debate. According to Senator Orin Hatch, “We’re spending ourselves into bankruptcy. Now, let’s just be honest about it: We’re in trouble. This country is in deep debt. You don’t help the poor by not solving the problems of debt, and you don’t help the poor by continually pushing more and more liberal programs through.” Does the Senator believe that he is helping the poor by “pushing more and more” regressive programs that will increase the national debt? “Regressive” in this Republican Party context generally means “broadening the base” by raising taxes for the less well off in order to decrease taxes for the more well off and for large corporate entities. In the new lexicon of the moment, it is possible to raise taxes by eliminating deductions while loudly proclaiming a tax rate “reduction.” In fact, Hatch has ironically “settled” the debate by equating efforts to “help the poor” with “spending ourselves into bankruptcy” while advocating for a tax policy that will increase the national debt by 10%. The inconsistency in his argument can be rationalized by a blind faith in future growth stimulated by tax breaks for corporations—a supposition that recent history has twice disproved. Reputable analysts have used dynamic scoring to account for this dynamic increase in job growth and have shown the possible effects of this regressive tax policy. Although only a .4% increase in GDP would eliminate half a trillion dollars in our national debt, the actual dynamic scoring on the Senate’s tax reform proposal resulted in only a .04% growth in GDP. This level of growth may be insignificant for it is within the forecast’s margin of error. If this tax proposal cannot be rationalized, then only two debt reduction strategies remain: taxes will have to be raised; or so-called “entitlement” programs may have to be diminished or eliminated altogether. The current tax proposal raises taxes for some low/moderate-income citizens and eliminates funding or sets the stage for future defunding of programs that support education, job training, anti-discrimination programs, healthcare, retirement security, and environmental protections.

Who can be believed? We are living during a time when the statements of all authorities are questioned. There really is such a thing as “fake news.” In the midst of politicians’ distortions, prejudiced news sources, and foreign “influence programs,” where do we find fact based information? Well, let me offer the PBS News Hour. Check out the three tax charts PBS constructed to assess the effects of the current Congressional tax policy proposals on the rich and poor in America. If these graphs don’t draw the picture, then the closing statement is a good summary: Republicans are making taxes less progressive. In other words, they are shifting the burden of taxation from the higher income levels to the lower. Although this shift appears nominal in percentages, the multi-billion-dollar shift has much more significance to the average wage earner than to the billionaire class. it has two negative social results: it punishes those least able to afford any reduction in income; and it exacerbates the income inequality that already exists and currently threatens our democracy. In addition, it worsens the national debt, assuring the need to address future spending cuts. Even with so-called “dynamic” scoring, the national debt is still forecasted to increase to 14.5 trillion. One can only wonder whether Congress will once again raid the Social Security trust fund and increase the existing 6 trillion already borrowed. Such “borrowing” is really stealing from future generations. It is an example of the kind of profligate spending that risks the stability of the Social Security system.

Now, if these concerns don’t trouble the average citizen, consider the underlying hypocrisy of the GOP. Remember the so-called “Grand Bargain” during the previous Administration. It failed for several reasons. But the overall issue was the GOP assertion that any change in the tax code MUST be revenue neutral, i.e., it must not increase the deficit. Pres. Obama proposed balancing any cut in the top rate for corporations with off-setting elimination of tax loopholes. Most conservatives, like myself, applauded any effort to “level the playing field.” Well-paid lobbyists have long tilted tax policy in favor of their well-heeled constituents. The “Grand Bargain” could have stimulated business competition and the economy. But House Republicans preferred a reduction in entitlement spending (though they diverted blame to the President for changing the terms of their initial agreement). Now, we have a tax reform package that is NOT revenue neutral, but deficit increasing—by as much as 1 to 1.5 trillion dollars. And that increase not only sets the stage for future reductions in entitlements but also does nothing to promote business competition. It also becomes difficult to overturn. Can you imagine some scenario where big corporations and the mega-rich would allow their taxes to be increased in the future? Instead, they would pour millions into the coffers of GOP campaigns to assure their tax benefits remain intact. In fact, donor campaign funding is the likely desired alternative.

If the above conclusions seem more partisan than democratic, then you might consider another aspect of this Republican tax proposal. Tax payers in high tax States like NY and CA will pay more in Fed. taxes. College students with loans and tuition waivers will also pay more – probably discouraging many to forego college. What do these groups have in common? They’re largely Democrats. If you couple these actions with the recent Trump disregard for the Puerto Rico recovery, you would have to acknowledge the possibility of a sinister disregard for any Democratic leaning constituency. Some may consider these examples of a simple partisan or tribal divide in American politics. In other words, “it’s just politics as usual.” But the underlying motive is simply a bare-knuckled power grab. The centralization of power in any democracy is the beginning of the end for that democracy. Whether it’s an unfair tax policy, voter suppression, gerrymandering, or attempts at biasing judicial appointments, the intent is the same. And that intent is undemocratic and un-American. History may even call it perverse, if not actually subversive.

Perhaps the Republican Party has been the minority Party for far too long and has simply forgotten how to govern within our Constitutional framework. Perhaps, as some political pundits claim, the GOP has just fallen prey to an aggrieved substratum of our population and to its avowed representative in our President. But the fact remains, that this President and this Republican-controlled Congress have done nothing to appease the plight of wage earners or the unemployed who have experienced wage stagnation or job loss to technology, respectively. They could, for example, raise the minimum wage (perhaps proportional to each State’s wage profile). They could advance a tax policy that is more progressive with the intent of reducing income and wealth inequality. They could make higher education more affordable and even target occupational training for the emerging job markets (for example, renewable energy, healthcare expansion/reorganization, or new internet empowered jobs). They could promote competition in the business market by eliminating tax preferences won by corporate lobbyists. They could energize the small business community by making employee healthcare more affordable, by revising patent laws, and by easing start-up regulations and simplifying reporting regulations. Instead of simplifying and reforming the 75,000 pages of the tax code, they are reconciling an additional 500 page amalgam of backroom tax proposals that few, if any, in Congress have even read.

Why have they not pursued the populist policies they claim to be pursuing? Instead, they are about to pass a tax law that will save the President millions, and his family, billions. It will also reduce the corporate tax rate without eliminating any tax preferences and without providing any wage relief to low income workers. Nevertheless, the President and Republican leadership in Congress claim their tax proposal favors the middle class. Why do their actions belie their words?

The answer can be found in the intent behind those words. The Republican congressional leadership promotes policies that benefit its wealthy donor class and its desire to stay in power. The President administers the Executive Branch to suit his interests and the extension of his influence and power. Both elected branches of our government show little regard for our general welfare, except in the words they use to camouflage their intent. To state what should be obvious, this tax policy is misnamed as reform. It is regressive in its economics and abusive of our Constitutional ideals.

We cannot allow our democratic republic to slip into a Russian-style kleptocracy!

**Disclaimer: The tax bill now being reconciled between the House and Senate is not complete. On the surface, it appears to lower taxes across the board for all taxable units. But it eliminates popular deductions for individual tax payers, while keeping those tax preference items used by big business and the very rich. In addition, some tax loopholes are widened, such as pass-through income (favored by privately held companies, like those owned by the Trump family) and carried interest (which President Trump said he would eliminate). In addition, the estate tax would be eliminated altogether—a gigantic gift to the super wealthy (which could provide a two-billion-dollar bonanza for the Trump family). Until the law is finally passed, no accurate appraisal can be made of its effects. Since our legislators created this tax bill without public hearings and voted on it before reading it, it should not be surprising that they have difficulty explaining what is in this tax legislation. They can, however, tell us what they think we want to hear. **

The answer to this question may appear premature, even suspiciously revolutionary. But it is timely and appropriate within the context of Presidential history.

In 1787, Thomas Jefferson was in Paris while the constitutional convention was underway in Philadelphia. A month passed before he received a copy of the document that would establish the American government. It crossed the Atlantic by ship, likely arriving after the convention was disbanded. Given the circumstances, his response could not affect any change in that document. But he did have an opinion. He felt the Constitution gave more power to the President in the conduct of foreign affairs than to a king. Nevertheless, he supported the man who would become the first President. Washington, he knew, was a man of character and a great leader. The question we might ask today is whether Jefferson’s reservations should have outweighed his acquiescence to the selection of our first President. If he had been in Philadelphia that summer, would he have attempted to curb the power of the Presidency in matters of state? Perhaps his absence was an ill omen that has shadowed some subsequent Presidents. It certainly casts a pale over the current President.

The history of American Presidents reveals men (still only men) of very different character and ability. Some of their Administrations have been quite successful, while others have been disastrous. Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon had failed Presidencies insofar as they both left office in disgrace. Johnson was under impeachment proceedings when his term expired. Nixon resigned under threat of impeachment. Our current President may be or not be impeachable, but he is very far removed from the high moral character and unifying leadership of George Washington. Since the beginning of his Presidency, he has built upon his campaign promises to rattle the “Washington elites” or, in his words, “drain the swamp.” His very vocal supporters wanted him to refocus government on their needs. They also wanted him to upset the political Parties’ gamesmanship, mutual rancor, and legislative gridlock.

But President Trump has taken aim at more than his opponents in both Parties. He has set his target on the very democratic institutions that have insured the rights and privileges of all Americans, including those of his supporters. Most of his cabinet appointees are adversaries to the organizations they supervise and sycophants to is bidding. Whether he is handcuffing scientists in the EPA, crippling the effectiveness of our healthcare system, opening public lands to drilling and fracking, alienating our allies, provoking a possible war with his bluster, attacking our workforce and communities with discriminatory deportations of refugees and immigrants, disabling effective diplomacy, ignoring the warnings and concerns of our intelligence community, or abetting wealth inequality with his tax proposals, he is challenging the very framework of our democracy and dismantling its institutions. While Congress dithers with legislative brinkmanship and reelection concerns, our government is being slowly and effectively taken apart.

Amid this chaos, President Trump attempts to make the government subservient to his dictate or even whim. Whereas George Washington sought to unite the colonies into a democratic republic, President Trump would make us all vassals to his administration and to him personally. He would be happy to rule by executive order, quash the free press, and bully all opponents into submission. The brutish and provocative way he conducts the affairs of state is reckless in our nuclear age and inconsistent with the considered, restrained leadership required of a statesman. His Administration has already pushed the boundaries of criminal behavior and shown total disregard for civil or even moral norms. Jefferson’s reservations about the power of the American Presidency has suddenly mushroomed into a contemporary nightmare.

Is it possible for the majority Party in Congress to restore its loyalty to the American people rather than to Party leadership? Republicans could be dutiful civil servants by simply being a check on the excesses of this President. In other words, they should and must take on the role of a co-equal branch of government that represents the interests of all Americans. Unless both Parties liberate Congress from the control of election financiers and lobbyists, America will no longer be feasible as a bastion of liberty and the rule of law. My real question—or fear—is whether the American experiment is approaching the point of no return.

I am not able to answer this question. Others have suggested America would be better off with a parliamentary system where an elected prime minister forms his legislative body and governs for as long as he/she can hold together a majority. Unfortunately, any form of government can fall prey to a populist demagogue, to corruptive practices, to power brokers, and to criminal or parasitical self-interested elements. Perhaps the question I should raise is one we can answer. Is the idea of America still alive and well amongst Americans?

If the answer to that question is affirmative, then we can turnaround the path America appears to be taking. We must demand our representatives curb the dictatorial and inconsistent actions of the current Administration by demonstrations, petitions, and our votes. We should petition the Supreme Court to rule against political Parties’ attempts to gerrymander their votes. Consistent with our check and balance system, Congress should come together to overturn the Citizens United ruling of the Supreme Court by legislating funding restrictions and campaign reforms. (“American Revolution 2016” represented one such approach.)

But no systemic change can substitute for an informed electorate. Americans cannot be expected to vote wisely, if they are unable to trusts their information sources or validate the factual basis of proposed policies or political statements. Considering the foreign influence on our recent Presidential election, Congress needs to unravel the many infiltrations Russia made into our public forum and to prevent their reoccurrence. And it must work with social media companies not only to uncover the extent of fake news and manipulative propaganda but also to block future incursions of this nature.

If the answer to my question in the title is affirmative, then what kind of change is needed and when. Can there be any doubt that gridlock in Congress and incompetency in the Presidency demand change now? If the approval ratings of both elected branches of government have any relevancy, then the issue of urgency has already been determined. But what kind of change should we pursue? Of course, it would not be practical for America to disregard its Constitution or change its form of government. After 241 years, why would we abandon a system that has already transformed itself so many times for the better. The Constitution only defines the goals and structure of our government. But it has always been the responsibility of the American people to translate those goals into practice.

When George Washington became President in 1788, America had slaves, restricted the vote by race and gender, assumed gay people were perverts, and believed a Federal income tax an abomination. He could not possibly have imagined a future where nuclear war, social media, pervasive false journalism, or foreign election-influence campaigns were threats to the American system of government. But just as the American system overcame the problems Washington faced, it can still resolve the problems it now faces. We simply must re-imagine the change we want. Our problem is not with the Presidency, but with the President. It is not with the Constitution, but with those pledged to support it—including both our elected officials and ourselves.

I believe our system cannot survive without a President – at least not as it was envisioned. That vision demanded a President of high moral character who, along with all elected representatives, adhered to our founding principles. But we could—and did—elect a “disruptor and chief.” We, perhaps unwittingly, put our democratic republic in peril. It is imperative that we citizens now take control of our nation’s future. We must demand the removal of this President from office and fair representation of our interests in Congress. I can think of no better way to renew our allegiance to “one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.” That pledge is the only true promise of our nation’s survival as a democratic republic.