Both the former American President Donald Trump and the current Russian President Vladimir Putin seem to agree on the role of America in world affairs.  

 President Putin, for example, has argued that the world has reached a turning point, where “the West is no longer able to dictate its will to humankind but still tries to do it. And the majority of nations no longer want to tolerate it.” He claims that the Western policies will foment more chaos, adding that “he who sows the wind will reap the whirlwind . . . (T)heir goal is to make Russia more vulnerable and turn it into an instrument for fulfilling their geopolitical tasks, (but) they have failed to achieve it and they will never succeed.” Ukraine, he states, is an “artificial state” that received historic Russian lands from Communist rulers during the Soviet times. As such, he opines that the world must admit the war in Ukraine is a civil war—even though he calls it a “special military operation.” The goal of NATO and the US, he argues, “is to make Russia more vulnerable and turn it into an instrument for fulfilling their geopolitical tasks. They have failed to achieve it. And they will never succeed.”1 His many attempts to undermine that success include substantial diplomatic and political actions, to include the subversion of American election campaigns. 

Former President Trump seems to concur with Putin. For he has often argued that America should step back from world affairs and, most especially, withdraw from its role in NATO. His argument for making “America great again” has always centered on isolationism, high tariffs, and abstaining from defense agreements with allied nations. Rather than align with nations that support democracy, he would welcome relations with dictators whom he addresses as “strong leaders,” and finds easier “to deal with.” He even found “love” with Kim Jung Un and declared Vladimir Putin “very strong” and a world leader with whom he often conferred in private phone calls. (In fact, he has been reported to prefer the advice he received from Putin over the import of his intelligence briefings.) While Russia was violently seizing Ukrainian border states, he used Ukraine’s need to defend against invading Russian tanks to bribe its President. He wanted President Zelensky to confirm false claims of nefarious profiteering by Trump’s future election opponent in exchange for defensive weapons against the Russian tank assault. This attempt to misuse the power of his office for personal political gain was the occasion for the first of his two impeachments. Recently, he continued his support of Putin’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by encouraging his advocates in the House of Representatives to defund aid for Ukraine’s defense. In his own words, Putin should be allowed to “do whatever the hell he wants with Ukraine.” 

But is Ukraine Putin’s only target? Or rather, in one analyst’s words, “We must accept the reality—that this war is a Russian attack on the collective West deliberately orchestrated by the Kremlin. Russia has long sought to restore its sphere of influence . . . (as) established at Yalta and Potsdam in 1945. But Russia, under Putin, is not the Soviet Union.”2 In like manner, the United States would not be the United States if Trump should regain the Presidency. For example, what influence would Putin have in a second Trump Presidency? For any of us who read the Mueller Report, the answer to this question is unmistakable.3 Presidential candidate Trump had previously sought both Putin’s favor and his support. Not only did he offer to build a hotel in Moscow—with a presidential suite specifically designed for Putin; but he also accepted Putin’s Ukrainian mole, Paul Manafort,4 as his “volunteer” campaign manager. Mr. Manafort received no pay for his work on Trump’s campaign but was subsequently convicted of multiple felonies including tax and bank fraud. The funds involved in his fraud were kept in Ukrainian banks but traced to Russian sources. (He was also charged with witness tampering, but those charges met with a hung jury.) He was not, however, the only Russian agent involved in the 2016 Presidential election. Concurrently, Prigozhin, one of Putin’s chief acolytes, enacted a plan to overwhelm the internet with false accusations against Trump’s electoral rival. Trump may well feel beholden to Putin for his slim electoral victory despite falling three million votes short of a majority of the votes cast. 

 

Even before he became President, Trump had already and willfully aligned himself with Putin. Both of Trump’s impeachments remind us that he can and will forgo personal ethics in exchange for power, wealth, or status. Moreover, given his predilection for conducting business on a transactional basis, his diplomacy marries well with Putin’s as they attempt to carve out mutual fields of influence. Certainly, the possible emergence of a new bilateral—or even trilateral world of superpowers should China choose to join—would be more attractive to Putin than the new “Axis of Evil” he is concocting against the West in the form of Russia/Iran/North Korea. For, if America under Trump should capitulate to Putin, he would gain immediate ascendancy over Europe—gradually by means of political subversion or violently by force. Why else do NATO leaders tremble at the possibility of Trump regaining the American Presidency? 

 

Both Trump and Putin are aligned around a common heresy that favors fascism over any government aligned with the will and needs of its people. Instead, they promise an autocratic regime that exalts nation and often race under their sole governance. If one might wonder what such a regime would look like, I would recommend Thomas Jefferson’s description of “an absolute tyranny” in the second part of his Declaration of Independence wherein he defines “a tyrant, (as). . . unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” I especially appreciate his denunciation of “judges dependent on his (the tyrant’s) will alone for the tenure of their offices,” “giving his (the tyrant’s) assent to their acts of pretended legislation,” (for) “excit (ing) ed domestic insurrections amongst us,” “for cutting off our trade with all parts of the world,” and “altering fundamentally the forms of our governments.” When Trump proposed candidates for life-long seats on the Supreme Court, he first secured their intent to overturn Roe v. Wade. He then organized and encouraged an insurrection against the peaceful transfer of executive power and the outcome of a fair election. He consistently imposed tariffs on trade when he was President. And he wants to eliminate what he terms “the deep state” that is, what his nominated Supreme Court judges identify as the institutions our legislators created to provide clean water, unpolluted air, abundant energy, safe drugs, availability of universal public education, scientifically established standards of medical care, and myriad standards for safe travel by air, boat, or vehicle travel. In exchange for this empowerment of our Supreme Court, Donald Trump only requires the Court’s establishment of his dictatorial power by way of “absolute Presidential immunity.” He would then realize what former President Nixon believed when he said, “if the President does it, it is not a crime.” But Nixon’s belief was not his reality for he needed his successor’s pardon. Otherwise, he would have faced trial and likely convictions for several crimes during his presidency. Trump’s plan to convert the Presidency into a dictatorship had to include a Supreme Court willing to grant him absolute immunity. Only then would he be truly equal to Putin and all the other dictators he so admires. This blog will no longer be able to call him “Putin’s mini-me.” For he would have more power than Putin. In fact, only he could grant Putin the very power he has so consistently sought, that is, the elimination of NATO and the restoration of the Soviet empire. Why else would Putin offer so much unprecedented support for the Trump Presidency? 

  

Putin and Trump are aligned in their quest for power and their threats against all who oppose them. While Putin has persistently quashed all opposition in Russia, he threatens all neighboring states with his nuclear armament. Trump, however, is not yet a dictator. His only obstacle to dictatorship is the laws and norms of a democratic state and its institutions. Until recently, his fight has been against the bogeyman of a so-called “deep state.” If he should regain executive power, he would certainly seek revenge against all who have opposed him. And, as is his wont, he will use surrogates or the power of office to avenge those who continue to oppose him. But recently, it appears “his” Supreme Court is willing to grant him executive immunity for all “official” acts—which apparently5 include whatever he enacts as President. If so, the Supreme Court has just given Donald Trump a “get out of jail free card.” Any American President would now be “officially” above the law. As quoted above, the author of our Declaration of Independence most certainly would not have agreed with this Supreme Court. Its decision nullifies not just the rationale for our war of independence against the absolute rule and so-called “divine right” of kings. But it equates the United States President with any fascist dictator. And it rewards Donald Trump with the same executive authority possessed by the dictators he so admires. Just as Putin’s foes inexplicably throw themselves out of six story windows, suddenly fall to an unexpected heart attack, or are sentenced to hard labor in harsh prison camps, Trump’s future antagonists may find themselves shot by Seal Team Six at Trump’s command, fired without cause from government jobs, or indicted by Trump’s Department of Justice and imprisoned on trumped up charges. 

As a final note: this Supreme Court’s singular decisions on Dobbs, Chevron, and Executive immunity not only eliminates a woman’s freedom to assure proper medical treatment for her pregnancy and her body, but also negates the freedom of lawfully empowered institutions to determine how to best serve the needs of the general population and, perversely, transforms the American President into a fascist dictator. None of these “achievements” reflect the goals of a free democratic state designed to serve the general welfare of all its citizens. Instead, they are the realization—perhaps inadvertently—of Putin’s success in turning an “idiot source” into the President of the United States. His commitment to secretive conversations with former President Trump, to massive internet subversion of the American Presidential election, to spending billions of dollars in campaign “dark” money, and to his permissive support of Russian oligarchs’ purchase of Trump real estate have all returned the success he sought. 

This apparent Trump/Putin convergence spells the death knell for the new world order created after World War II. And it could be the end of America’s democratic republic. This Cassandra-like forecast is at odds with America’s 248th celebration of its independence from tyranny for it may well spell the end of our free democratic republic.  But only if we let America’s demise happen! 

_______________________________________________________ 

1 The above excerpts were taken from President Putin’s speech on 10/27/2022. 

2  Sededin Dedovic, “Putin’s ‘Peace Plan’: Surrender or Die,’” in current edition of Financial World. 

3 Since the Mueller Report determined “not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment . . . (it) does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,” as quoted in “Conclusion,” The Mueller Report, p. 347. 

4 Trump’s initial campaign manager was Paul Manafort who had previously served Putin in the same capacity for Ukraine’s President, that is, as Putin’s puppet master. Manafort was convicted and sentenced to multiple years in prison but was later pardoned by President Trump. 

5 At this writing, I have not had the opportunity to read the full text of the Supreme Court’s decision. But the distinction between “official” and “non-official” acts must be explicitly defined and, further, the issue of “intent” must be clearly addressed. Any official act could have an illicit intent. If so, the Court’s decision may well result in the end of our democratic republic.  

(from “A Tale of Two Cities,” by Charles Dickens)

More humans today experience a higher standard of living than at any time in history. The population of many wealthy nations benefit from international trade, better healthcare, longer life expectancy, enhanced food production/delivery, and computer/network technology that has increased productivity and enhanced lifestyles. Many living in this “developed” world might believe they live in the “best of times.” But, at this same moment in history, there are billions of humans who live in abject poverty, enslaved to Russian mercenaries in Central Africa, ensnared in endless wars in the Middle East, divested of their natural resources by international hegemons, and subject to natural disasters and epidemics without the required recovery resources. These citizens of poorer nations may well experience life as the “worst of times.”

 

But is it not true that every human baby is born with the same genetic profile? Therefore, why does not every human being have the same inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? The answer to this fundamental question rests with diverse definitions of universal rights—what sages have defined through the ages as the “rights of man (sic).” One definition, sometimes popular in “free” societies, recognizes an individual right to use the goods of nature and society in whatever way he/she chooses—even to the extent of seizing control of the “peoples” government to serve that individual right. This belief anticipates a laissez faire attitude that can result in the excesses of capitalism and criminal behavior that can and has resulted in periodic periods of economic chaos and even a recent attempt to overturn the American democracy¹. Another definition, more popular in totalitarian or communist societies, suborns these rights to the human dignity attained by submitting the goods and labor of all to the community and its control of a collective history.² A third definition, reflective of liberal democracies, associates human dignity with “the power to make these same goods (of mankind and nature) serve the common conquest (or acquisition) of intrinsically human, moral, and spiritual goods and of man’s freedom of autonomy.”³ The American Constitution reflects this definition both in its preamble and in the restrictive “check and balance” structure of the government it defined. The “freedom” therein requires “we the people” to establish, insure, provide, promote, and secure the personal freedoms that define a democratic society and assure the general welfare and the blessings of liberty and justice for all its citizens.

 

The first definition results in an illiberal democracy, as forewarned by our first President and by many subsequent Presidents⁴. The second definition can define an idealistic communist state, or perhaps a more pragmatic totalitarian—usually fascist—state. And the third definition reflects the ever-evolving American struggle to maintain and evolve its Constitutionally based democracy—which is the oldest such government in human history. And that struggle is currently engaged with encroachment by its illiberal cousin, as it has been throughout its history. The result of that struggle could determine both America’s and the world’s future—whether either or both may face the “best of times” or the “worst of times.”

 

As referenced in previous blogs, America has overcome serious setbacks to its democratic venture in democracy—specifically in pursuit of the general welfare of all its citizens. It has persistently fought to maintain its union and reaffirm its commitment to the Jeffersonian ideal that “all men (sic) are created equal.” Those previous blogs outlined many achievements in the rights of women and beleaguered minorities—both in voting and civil rights. And they also highlighted America’s role in creating and promoting the United Nations’ peacekeeping mission through its many agencies. But, however far removed from the World Wars of the 20^th Century, America may no longer be the model for a peaceful democracy or the anchor in an international sea of dangerous currents.

 

“Rule by the people,” the very definition of democracy, implies a people capable of self-rule. And that capability requires a citizenship educated in and supportive of the established principles of its democracy and the laws derived from those principles, as enumerated in the American Constitution. But are they applied consistently by each generation of Americans? Previous blogs have outlined how America has struggled to realize the intent of those democratic principles. Our Civil War challenged our “more perfect union” and our commitment to the principle that “all men (sic) are created equal.” Over 750,000 Americans died in that internecine war—about 6.5% of the estimated population⁵—to save our union and our democratic principles. How do we Americans live up to that same challenge today? Or have we now, like Hamlet, become “dull and muddy-nettled . . . unpregnant of . . . (our) cause.” How else can we explain support for a Presidential candidate who attempted to overturn a democratic election and now promises to return to the Presidency and to rule like a fascist dictator (reference “A Dark History Reprised”)? He would “weaponize” government to seek his promised revenge on political opponents, rather than seek the general welfare of all Americans. Only sycophants and rapacious parasites would populate his Administration. His would be the very definition of an illiberal democracy—which, by definition, is no democracy at all. Donald Trump has already introduced America to the “worst of times” and promises the same for its future.

 

Meanwhile, in Russia, an established dictator, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, engages in an unprovoked war against Ukraine because of its desire to join NATO. As his General Apti Alaudinov has declared, “for Russia, this is nothing else but a holy war . . . we are safeguarding our national interest about spirituality, morality, divine and universal human values.” But, at the same time, he reveals the true purpose of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, namely, that it is “just the beginning . . . Russia will persist in fighting until it finds itself at the peak of the world.”⁶ The purpose of Putin’s war is not just to stymy NATO’s alleged infringement on Russia’s border, but to lay the groundwork for invading and/or dominating all of Europe. Has not history illustrated the ambition of “holy” wars to extend imperial dominance over neighboring countries? What Putin seeks is no different than what Napoleon or Hitler sought, that is, a 21^st century version of an empire he could rule as a fascist totalitarian state. His is the ultimate vision of the “worst of times.”

 

America, and many democratic states aligned with it, face an unapparelled threat both from illiberal parasites within, and from fascist imperialists without, to include Russia, Iran, and North Korea—the new axis of evil. Meanwhile Russia seeks to enslave parts of Central Africa and to regain its “colonies” like Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. But it also has made political inroads in some European countries, like Moldovia, Hungary, Belorussia, and Slovakia. No less imperialist, Iran uses terrorists’ proxies to extend its power over many Middle Eastern nations and threaten the trade routes that support Europe and the world economy. And North Korea not only test-fires missiles across the bow of South Korea and Japan, but continuously expands its nuclear war capabilities to the alarm of not just neighboring Pacific nations, but mainland America itself.

 

Do not fascist regimes like Russia, North Korea, and Iran already threaten the “free” world? And how is that threat increased by their nuclear capabilities? Russia and North Korea are already threatening the “free” world with nuclear weapons. Iran, which is no longer being monitored effectively, has the nuclear infrastructure to build nuclear weapons but so far has denied any intent to do so. These three nations are now aligning much like the Axis powers of World War II. Given the conflicts already underway in Europe and the Middle East, what are the risks of another world war, even between nuclear powers? Russia is already facing off NATO and the US in Ukraine. Meanwhile, North Korea confronts US allies in the Pacific, to include South Korea, Japan, and Australia. China, which is also a nuclear power, is surrounded by nuclear armed countries, but shows more interest in economic hegemony than nuclear intimidation. Nevertheless, China recognizes the threat of nuclear proliferation and is actively upgrading and extending its nuclear war capabilities.

 

Given the reality of nuclear proliferation, is the world edging closer to nuclear annihilation? Let us relive a moment in history when only two nuclear nations confronted each other. That moment was the Cuban Missile Crisis when the Russian Navy threatened to break through an American blockade to protect its nuclear missile sites in Cuba. But American intelligence was unaware that these missiles were already armed with nuclear warheads aimed at America’s Atlantic Coastal states. The American Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara, recommended that these sites be attacked before the Russian naval armada drew closer. Also unbeknownst to him, Prime Minister Khrushchev had already given the order to fire these missiles if under attack. Of course, if Russia had done so, the American President would have been duty bound to obliterate Russia in a counter nuclear attack. But President John F. Kennedy stayed McNamara’s recommendation. Instead, he opted for direct communication with his Russian counterpart. The defense department at that time had no established communication channel between the leaders of these two nations. But the American President ordered that direct communication be established ad hoc. And, as a result, a nuclear war was barely averted. The point of this reiteration of history is its illustration of how a misunderstanding or miscommunication could have resulted in a nuclear disaster. How much more likely is such a mishap when undisciplined men like Kim Jung Un, Donald Trump (should he be reelected), or a headstrong nationalist like Putin hold the nuclear trigger? If a nuclear war were ever initiated, its proliferation could easily include nuclear nations like the NATO countries, Pakistan, and even China. Welcome to the world this generation could leave for the next one, a very deadly inheritance indeed!

 

The world does not need a twenty-first century Cassandra to point out the obvious. Kim Jung Un has been developing a nuclear arsenal for years. During the Trump Presidency, he developed missiles that could deliver a nuclear payload to America. And, with Putin’s help, he now has a satellite that might be able to guide that payload to its preferred target. Trump, before he found “love” in his kinship with the Korean dictator, declared his ability to wipe North Korea off the world’s map. And Putin constantly reminds NATO and the world that he is prepared to use “tactical” nuclear weapons if his encroachments in eastern Europe are resisted. These nuclear “saber-rattlers” have only one recourse when all their threats go unheeded. Have either Kim Jung Un, Putin, or Trump ever conceded defeat without doubling down on their threats? No, they always prefer to escalate, unless removed from power. . . sometimes even by their death at the hands of those they governed, like Mussolini, or by suicide, which was Hitler’s preference. Once the Rubicon of absolute power is crossed, only assassination or suicide can stop the hubristic conqueror. That Rubicon is now the capability to deliver a nuclear warhead.

 

As China expands its nuclear arsenal, Russia and North Korea continuously strive to improve their delivery systems. Meanwhile the United States has begun to execute plans that will upgrade both its entire nuclear arsenal, and delivery systems. Will mutually assured destruction (MAD) continue to secure the world’s human population? Ask yourselves what stopped men like Julius Ceasar, Napoleon, Hitler, or Mussolini and how is their threat different than ours today.

 

For those of us who believe we now live in the “best of times,” it is well past the time to wake up to the future we are creating for ourselves and the innocents who already live in the “worst of times.” As our world fueled by gas and oil boils to an unlivable future, we may yet explode ourselves into a premature oblivion under a world circulating nuclear cloud. While we differ and dither over how we are governed, all of us humans must awaken to the future we are creating for ourselves and our planet. We are facing not just the “worst of times,” but truly “the end of times.”

 

_____________________________________________

¹ Run-away capitalism is not just a threat to, but part of the American democratic experience as summarily outlined in “American Exceptionalism Revisited.” It can impower the ambition of wealthy opportunists to subvert the free electoral process of a democracy for personal gain. This type of subversion was forewarned by our first President, as quoted in “What is American Democracy’s Fate?”

² The dangers of totalitarianism as reflected in Putin’s Russia are described in “Eat Crumbs and Bask in The Glory of Empire.”

³ Jacques Maritain, “Man and the State,” p.207.

⁴ In “The Rapacious Public Servant,” Washington and Jackson were quoted for denouncing those who seek office for self-serving purposes. But many Presidents have taken to this same pulpit, including America’s current President.

⁵ By comparison, the 450,000 Americans who died fighting in WWII represented less than 1% of the American population.

⁶ These quotes are excerpts from an interview on the Kremlin Broadcast network. They were also published on Twitter (X).

How does public ennui relate to sovereignty? My previous blog relates how ennui can be quite shortsighted, in the sense of its narrow focus on the present without anticipation of its effect on the future. But it also permits a specific delusion regarding democratic sovereignty.  

 

Sovereignty was traditionally defined as an independent and supreme power, inalienable and transcendent. But Webster’s dictionary offers us a synonym for sovereignty as merely an “autonomous” or self-ruled state, not necessarily imbued with supreme, inalienable, and transcendent power. Our current United Nations Charter recognizes this contemporary definition of sovereignty and demands its support by all member states. The UN Charter, however, does not differentiate between diverse types of claimed sovereignty. And that lack of differentiation is at the heart of an ongoing struggle between democracies and fascism. 

 

When any government claims independent and supreme power, that is, its “sovereignty,” it must justify its source for commanding such power. And history shows many such justifications. Divinity was the initial source for wielding absolute power over peoples of many different nations. Priestly vicars spoke for the gods they represented, and people followed their dictates without question. Furthermore, belief in the “divine right of kings” bequeathed supreme power to an individual as a God-given birthright, inalienable and transcendent. And the crown was then passed to subsequent generations, each of which demanded obeisance in the name of God and country. The many empires of history were thus led by revered leaders believed to be officially ordained by God to wield independent and supreme power. Pharaohs, kings, queens, emperors, and empresses claimed this supreme power as bequeathed them by the gods. But their power was often challenged and occasionally usurped by militaristic leaders who assumed supreme power by force and subjugated their conquered populations. Those conquests were examples of human self-rule justified by force, a different kind of “sovereignty.” Except for brief experiments in ancient Greece between the fourth and sixth centuries, B.C, the concept of a people’s self-rule by choice, rather than conquest, was not considered viable. But the Grecian experiment with democracy in ancient Athens was one of the inspirations for James Madison’s proposal for a democratic Constitution that has defined the 245-year-old republic we call the United States of America. But do these myriad examples of sovereignty justify its traditional definition or, rather, characterize the evolution of the concept of “sovereignty?” 

 

The United Nations Charter assumes and recognizes the sovereignty of nations as an absolute and transcendent right to govern themselves within established borders that all member nations must recognize and respect. This Charter was established after World War II with the intent of creating a mechanism to prevent territorial disputes and incursions often justified by rogue/radical ideologues or despots. But it makes no distinction between different forms of “sovereignty.” There are still monarchs who are crowned in religious ceremonies where they are anointed before God and their subjects as heads of state. But they do not always hold the absolute power of past monarchies. Instead, they often function within some form of power sharing with parliaments. There are also democratic states that are governed by laws derived from constitutions established and supported by their citizens. And these citizens also assume responsibility for self-governance by means of their democratically elected representatives. In fact, some degree of self-government tends to be the aspiration of our modern era, except for outlier regimes. And these outliers are those rogue states often governed by dictators who assume power by political intrigue, deception, a/o violence. Hitler, Mussolini, Putin, and others assume absolute power in such manner (reference “Ruled by Veracity or Perfidy”). Within democracies, however, sovereignty is invested by their citizens in a formal Constitution written and modified by elected officials via a formal process and ratified by their majority vote. And those officials take an oath to serve both the principals documented in that Constitution and the general welfare of their entire citizenship. In America, this form of government was described by Abraham Lincoln as being “of the people, for the people, and by the people.”   

 

In truth, the traditional definition of “sovereignty” has mostly passed into history with the “divine right of kings,” though its current derivative serves to guarantee the territorial integrity of nations. The various sovereignties the United Nations seek to preserve cannot be uniformly categorized. Whether believed to be established by God, like the Vatican, by all-powerful dictators, like Russia, by royal lineage, like several European nations, or by democratic Constitutions, like the United States and many other democracies, sovereign nations cannot and do not fully realize the formal definition of sovereignty. Specifically, no nation is considered to have supreme power and independence as a right that is absolute and transcendent. A democratic republic like the United States, for example, endeavors to be a more perfect union of its citizens, who constantly adapt it to changing times and an evolving electorate. Its very existence is justified by the United States Constitution and the laws designed to enact its principles as determined by elected representatives and enforced by judges appointed by those representatives. Whereas the belief in a sovereign God is a religious affirmation and the prerogative of every human, the decision to form a government is a political decision that rests with humans who do not act with supreme and transcendent power. So, who now believes state sovereignty is supreme and transcendent? Well, Putin believes in it, as did Hitler and Napoleon before him. The absolutism implied in the traditional definition of “sovereignty” naturally leads to totalitarianism which often means fascism, as recent history has graphically demonstrated.  

 

Territorial disputes, like the unprovoked war Putin has initiated, must be condemned by the United Nations for it violates the very Charter Russia has signed and swore to support. Its unprovoked war with Ukraine is not a war of liberation, but one of conquest. Putin, for example, claims he is liberating Ukraine from Nazis. More recently, he claims that the right of self-government was a “gift” from the Russian government that Putin has the right to revoke. But he is clearly fabricating justifications for his despotism. Many thousands of Ukrainians and Russians will pay the price for his deceit and lack of personal accountability. Even so-called wars of liberation, like the American interventions in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan also have had a price to be paid. And American Presidents and politicians continue to pay that price before their electorate. While no democracy is perfect, the fact remains that citizens bear ultimate responsibility and must endeavor to hold their elected officials accountable for any behavior adverse either to their oath of office, to morality, to their campaign promises, or to the general welfare of all. Politics in any democracy must be anchored in the common good (bonum  vitae civilis), or else it serves only the interests of the politician, in which case it becomes Machiavellian and simply amoral. Democracies fail when the “art of the deal” preempts the general welfare in favor of self-serving political goals like campaign funding or unconscionable power.  

 

American “sovereignty,” consequently, is not an absolute, though its governance is firmly anchored in the principle of self-rule. Each of the American States reflect the will of their citizens as defined in their constitutions and, further, align with the Federal Constitution which defines the will of all Americans. But what does this democratic form of “sovereignty” mean and what does it require? Well, it means we Americans agreed to form a more perfect union by affirming our support for the principals and form of government delineated in our Constitution. To the extent that each generation of Americans continue this allegiance, America will continue as a democratic republic. Our “sovereignty” then is not guaranteed by God and does not command absolute and independent power. Instead, it must conform to our Constitutional principles, reflect the contemporary will of the American electorate, AND be held accountable to that electorate. The only states who claim absolute sovereignty are totalitarian by nature. Democracies are sovereign only to the extent that they are ruled by principles upheld by their citizens who alone are accountable for the laws and actions of their state. Otherwise, America itself could and would become a failed democratic republic. 

 

The United Nations cannot and will not differentiate a failed Republic from any other totalitarian regime. And America might no longer become representative of a democracy, but rather aligned with states like North Korea, where our former President found “love.” He also aligned himself with Russia’s leader whom he characterized as “brilliant” for his characterization of an unprovoked invasion as a “military exercise” to free Ukrainians from Nazis ghosts. How is it possible that the American voter cannot recognize these characterizations as a drift towards totalitarianism and its mortal threat to our democracy?  

 

American ennui ignores the only basis for American sovereignty which is a citizenship held self-accountable for its own governance. Instead, such ennui allows a craven politics to subvert democracy in the service of rapacious and perfidious politicians. Remember, it is always “we the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,” that must assume responsibility for who represents our Republic and what policies are represented. When that responsibility is not reflected in the voting booth, the gradual shift to totalitarianism becomes inevitable.  

____________________________________________ 

Postscript: As this blog was materializing, war broke out in the Middle East. Although the initial assault was a violent and brutal attack on a sovereign nation, it is not possible to call it unprovoked. It was the product of an unholy alliance between a democratic state and the terrorist organization whose governance it recognized. The victims include both the Palestinians denied fair representation and the innocent Israeli citizens who became victims of unimaginable brutality. And now as that war escalates, centuries of tribal antagonism and enmity threaten the lives of many innocents on both sides. Our American President has spoken of a “two state solution.” I certainly do not have the wisdom to solve this humanitarian crisis. But I am sure that continued escalation of war will not ameliorate the underlying distrust and ill-will between Palestinians and Israelis. It seems simplistic to propose a two-state solution when a terrorist organization persists in Palestinian government and war ravages both parties in the contest. But somehow fair-minded men and women must curtail any escalation of this war. They must find a path towards reconciliation that includes both holding those accountable and building a framework for peaceful co-existence in the future. Unfortunately, I have no answers for this long-brewing tragedy—just my prayers for peace and understanding between fellow human beings. 

(Cut to live feed) 

Broadcast journalist: “In a few minutes we’ll see the former President leaving his limousine to board his private plane for his trip to Washington to face his third felony indictment . . .” 

Onsite journalist: “Here in Washington, the courthouse is surrounded by barricades and police in preparation for the former President’s arrival. There is a scattering of protestors, some with signs supporting his reelection or “stop the steal” logos . . . 

 

The ubiquitous TV camaras and news reporters seem necessary to make real this dark moment of living history, specifically, the arrest of a former President for crimes that strike at the heart of the democratic republic he was elected to serve. His alleged crimes include (1) conspiring to defraud and impede a lawful Federal election, (2) conspiring to obstruct and impede the congressional process by which the votes cast in that election are counted and certified, (3) and conspiring to deprive American citizens of both the right to vote and to have their vote counted. These alleged crimes strike at the heart of a democracy, specifically, the peaceful transfer of power and the right of citizens to vote their conscience. Stated more bluntly, Donald J. Trump is being indicted for his attempt to overthrow America’s democratic republic, that is, Abraham Lincoln’s “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”  

 

Since this Federal indictment, the Fulton County District Attorney in Georgia has also indicted the former President for racketeering, specifically, for directing the actions of eighteen other defendants to overturn the results of the Presidential election in Georgia. In other words, the former President is being accused of crimes like those of a mob boss. As these words are being written, his “mug” shot is being shown on television screens around the world. The image of America as “the leader of the free world” has been smeared by this man, though the wheels of justice will now determine his and America’s fate. 

 

Of course, Donald J. Trump will have his day in court to appeal these conspiracy and obstruction charges. And there will be political debates and sensational reporting illuminating and distorting every aspect of Trump’s trials, including his trips to and from the court and his sitting in the docket. But his trial is more than journalistic cat bait or an evening broadcast “breaking news” segment. It will also recall and reprise that villainess pattern previously established by fascist dictators. Characteristically, they have staged bureaucratic coups accentuated with violence. Hitler, for example, as Chairman of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party took control of the Reichstag before his lieutenant burned it down. And Putin, as head of the FSB and Prime Minister staged a bureaucratic coup to assume the Presidency under the promise of staging a violent war against Chechnya for its alleged attacks on innocent Russians. ¹ Trump did likewise by means of an expansive conspiracy to overturn a democratic election coupled to a riotous assault on America’s Capital. Also, in an analogous manner, these petty dictators initially assume control over a politicized faction such as Germany’s National Socialist Party or Russia’s Unity Party or the current American Republican Party. Then they use violence or the threat of violence to gain absolute power. Naturally, most Americans would shrink from these comparisons, believing it unlikely our system of government could fall to a similar fate as Germany or Russia once did. Unfortunately, those of us who ignore history may well be doomed to repeat it.  

 

At the very least, we Americans must begin to recognize the similarities between these cult-like leaders of political movements. Hitler was a talented organizer with an ability to publicize his political philosophy, as presented in Mein Kampf. He was also ruthless and vengeful to all who opposed him, including his political and racists scapegoats. Putin is a wily manipulator who controls his gang of thieves by either granting them an unmerited share of his people’s wealth or showing them an exit out of a high-rise window. Since he controls the courts, any who oppose him or his policies face jail and hard labor, if not assassination. And, like Hitler, he also has his own political philosophy whereby he alone controls the vertical power system he described in his personal treatise. ² Although it would be difficult to equate Trump with the talents of either of these men, he does at least share their dictatorial characteristics. Stated more in American terms, he is a loutish embodiment of an archetypical mob boss who controls his acolytes with the promise of wealth/position/power. But those not sufficiently sycophantic, risks falling out of his favor. They may then be threatened with whatever vengeful punishment he can muster from verbal assaults, lawsuits, expulsion from the Trumpian orbit, or the threat of physical attacks from his more violent-oriented followers. In place of a political philosophy, he presents himself as the star of a MAGA cult. Like a center-ring P.T. Barnum, the great showman of glitz and glamor, he entertains with his bravado as the hero who promised to replace the “American carnage” he touted at his inauguration and to restore America’s lost greatness. For those who oppose him, he offers his personal scorn, the ire of his more rabid supporters, and/or his promise of the unwelcome attention of the IRS or DOJ, should he regain the Presidency and the opportunity to have his revenge. 

  “If you come for me, I’m coming for you.” (Donald Trump, 8/5/2023) 

Trump is that anti-hero who seeks only his own interests and whom you dare not cross, for he can be ruthless in his pursuits and vengeful to any who oppose him, as exemplified by his personal history. When his ailing father was on his death bed, he persuaded his ailing father to sign over control of the Trump estate to Donald Trump instead of his oldest son. Thereby, Donald assumed control of his father’s estate and disabused his siblings’ inheritance, though he was neither the oldest son nor the most competent sibling. During his business career, he bilked and outlasted some 3500-4000 civil lawsuits (as diversely reported). As President, he attacked those who disagreed with him and replaced public servants like Inspector Generals who did or might find fault with his Executive Administration. And he forged a similar trail of anti-social and self-serving behavior as he used the power of his office against all who opposed him—even to the extent of conspiring against the will of American citizens to hold onto the office he lost in a fair and legal election.  

 

Amid troubling times, with war in Europe, its impact on prospective famine in Africa, the fire and flood disasters resulting from global warming, and divisive civil/political unrest in many countries around the world, including the United States, what prospects exist for world peace and the health and safety of humanity? If we find ourselves in communities ostensibly determined by a dire fate and threatening circumstances, we could feel powerless and driven by forces outside of our control. But if, on the other hand, we discover our ability to inculcate human values into our culture and society, then we can change the course of history. Such change is more feasible in a democracy, but it is also achievable in other systems of government when like-minded people unite to demand equal justice, personal freedom, and the general welfare of all citizens. We may be born into established communities, but we can develop and must support those human values and their respective governing principles in our respective societies. In most cases, that choice is made easier by connecting with a common cultural heritage. In America, we can simply rediscover and reapply the values infused in our institutions and established by our founding documents. That reapplication process determines and assures the ongoing evolution of our democracy (reference “Revolution, Evolution, Devolution). 

 

In the many countries I have been blessed to encounter personally, I have consistently found in their citizens a common ground of human values. We do not just share a common DNA, but a shared experience of our world and of each other. Though cultures and languages may differ, we feel hurt and pleasure the same way. And we can also relate to each other as fellow human beings, born of women, with a common experience of life and of our expectant deaths. Unfortunately, like the animals from which our species evolved, we can also compete against each other for territory, resources, food, and/or herd dominance in the form of wars of conquest or insurrection. The choice between living in harmony with fellow humans and competing with them for dominance begins with an individual decision. And that decision contributes to the type of society it evokes, like a democracy of equals rather than a pre-established stratification of power and position—the very condition that promotes divisive and competing factions. The difference seems to be whether we choose to relate to others as fellow human beings or to compete with them. The latter presumes a hierarchy that must be scaled to become the “top dog.” Otherwise, we become “losers,” governed by the “winners” and doomed to a lesser class. Our lives will then be more likely determined by the facts of our birth and circumstances. But to revolt or struggle against the inertia of a fixed communal existence is fruitless without a purpose, that is, the guiding principles of a society. Democracies are societies where morally driven principles form the basis for law and the rights of individuals to pursue their lives’ goals. Democracies are born of reason, whereas communities merely reflect the facts of time and circumstances. They can be transformed, however, by actions inspired by a society supported by guiding principles, such as those inherent in a democracy.  

 

America fought a Civil War to re-establish one of its founding principles: “that all men (sic) are created equal . . . endowed . . . with certain unalienable rights . . . (of) life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” But a society built on this principle must contend with human nature. Whether focused on either preventing evil or supporting good, ³ our kind must come together on primary principles or forever contest our power over each other. The basic principles of the American republic are good, wherein evil is referenced by the absence or violation of the good. But we often dive into the muddy pool of fighting a non-descript evil—which is too often identified ubiquitously with the “other,” like the non-white, the immigrant, the gay, the Jew, the non-male (i.e., a dysfunctional view of womankind), the Democrat, or the Republican. This fight can never be won for it is fought on negative terms, that is, the elimination of whatever is labelled “evil.” Instead, the real power of a democracy is its emphasis on what is good, that is, the principles that assure our rights, our liberties, and our general welfare as fellow human beings. We are a rules-based democracy to the extent that our laws assure these principles are protected and enforced. And, of course, enforcement means offenders are held accountable. Broadcasting Donald Trump’s apparent lawlessness as some kind of gamesmanship, instead of attempts to violate our laws and his oath of office, is a disservice to the principles of our democracy. Instead, we should celebrate the fact that he will face judgement before a jury of his peers in accordance with the principles of our democracy. If found guilty, he will be held accountable, and our founding principles will be vindicated. 

 

Some decades ago, it was common for the two political parties to argue over policies, even to the point of questioning each other’s patriotism. Whether supportive of capitalist tycoons or the hoi polloi, the parties argued over issues of budget deficits, crime prevention/punishment, regulated markets/free trade, self-serving foreign relations/general world order, or a realistic definition of fair taxation. But both political parties would then attempt to justify their differences in terms of the general welfare. That guiding principle allowed them to agree on some measure of common benefit wherein compromise preserved the general welfare. Were these resolutions always perfect? Of course not, but over time, voters modified them at the polls. Americans seldom realize difficult change in one swell swoop. It took 132 years before women gained the right to vote. The Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts required over a hundred years to reach fruition. But major changes like these seemed always to require popular social movements to galvanize the electorate to demand changes that extended democratic rights in the face of previously unquestioned suppression. Why does that system of progressive change now seem anachronistic?  

 

I believe the answer to this question rests in the rise of nationalism, an interesting word, derived from the past participle of nasci, “to be born.” Just as each of us is born into a specific community, we can experience our lives under the influence of our nation as the broader community. But democracy demands more of us than mere assimilation into a staid moment in history. It must evolve, thereby requiring an electorate and citizens willing to address the common good in a changing environment. The task of a successful democracy is to mature and adjust to changing circumstances, for example, to assimilate migrants and technological evolution, to address health crises, global warming, ideological/philosophical differences, international relationship challenges/dangers, and so forth. In a previous blog, America’s quest for a just society was related as an ongoing project (reference “Democracy and the Just Society”). In 1870, our Congress established comprehensive public education to address this ongoing project of our democracy. After the Civil War, it became apparent to our legislators that the assimilation of slaves and the changes required by the Reconstruction Amendments (13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments) would require a reasoned and informed electorate. But nationalism, as understood and practiced by autocrats and their supporters, is a form of preservation, not evolution. It is a particularly self-serving ideology for an autocrat who chooses to retain position and power indefinitely. Putin, for example, wants to restore the Russian empire of the 19th century and secure his position as its czar-like leader for the duration of his life. Likewise, Trump wants to overturn the results of the last election and retain the Presidency for the remainder of his life. Both MAGA and Russian imperialism are nationalist “fever dreams” with harrowing promises for the futures of Americans and Russians.  

 

Nationalism is, and has always been, the mechanism for men such as Hitler, Putin, and Trump to assume executive power and retain it by whatever means available. While Hitler and Putin chose suppression and conquest as their means to hold and extend their executive power, Trump chose subversion of democratic institutions, including a free election, in his attempt to extend his presidency. If he had succeeded, would he have accepted the results of any future election? Did either Hitler or Putin ever do so? In fact, it is more likely that Trump and Putin would have agreed to support each other’s self-interests on the world stage. Did Trump not support Putin’s efforts to undermine Ukraine’s turn toward democracy and to blame Ukraine instead of Russia for undermining Hilary Clinton’s campaign in support of Trump’s? And did not Putin explicitly state his preference for the Trump presidency and back up that preference by ordering a massive cyberattack in support of his campaign. The Mueller Report provides massive evidence of that fact. If re-elected, Trump has been reported to have told his former colleagues in office that he would remove America’s support for NATO. Would NATO then be able to contend with Putin’s desire to annex Ukraine in the face of his threat of a World War III without the support of America? Why then would Putin be satisfied to add just Ukraine to his conquest of Chechnya, Georgia, or Syria? What would stop him from securing Moldovia, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, or even the jewel of Poland that has repeatedly been coveted by Russian autocrats. And what would stop Trump from securing permanent control over America’s electoral system, from extending voter suppression laws and gerrymandering to passing Federal legislation to authorize Republican State Legislators to name candidates for the Electoral College. Imagine a world intimidated by the two largest nuclear states under the leadership of the Trump-Putin alliance.  

 

Fortunately, it is not likely that the American electorate will return Trump to the Presidency. He is a proven liar who claims his innocence by his firm belief in his lies. Belief and reality do not exist together in his mindset. Nevertheless, he has been twice impeached, fourfold indicted, and held liable for rape. But, even if he loses his reelection, America faces the grim reality of recovering from what the Republican Party has wrought on the American democracy: mischievously tilting State elections in its favor by voter suppression and gerrymandering and by manipulating Congressional committees to misuse their power to engage in fruitless and evidence-deprived attacks on elected Democrats. We must salvage the Republican Party from its takeover by a fringe group who took advantage of the Party’s efforts to gain control without winning the majority vote. There are many former Republicans who would and should disavow its current leadership. Many of them stood firm on their patriotic values by supporting Trump’s impeachment, by blocking his illegal attempts to subvert a federal election, and by abetting his felony indictments with their honest testimony.  

 

Nevertheless, America now stares down a dark fate, not unlike what it faced in its past. We overcame a monarchy and a civil insurrection in our attempts to gain independence and a fully democratic republic. We have battled the myriad forces of discrimination that have always inflicted humankind. And that battle continues, but not without its incremental successes. What we now face, however, is a serious backlash from the forces of racial prejudice, misogyny, hate crimes, divisive politics, and—most threatening—an autocratic overthrow of our democracy. We must now support and extend our democracy or unwittingly reprise a dark history our forebears sacrificed so much to overcome. Let us re-engage that pledge that used to be made in every classroom daily throughout our country: 

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” 

 

_______________________________________ 

1   Of course, that war’s pretense was false since those attacks were committed by Putin’s FSB (reference the fifth paragraph in “The Rapacious Public Servant”). 

2   For more specific information on Putin’s style of governance, check out “Is War in Europe Inevitable?” 

3 This is a reference to Nietzsche’s master versus slave morality wherein he depicts the emphasis on “good” or “evil,” respectively.  

 

We humans, like all mammals, are helpless at birth, dependent upon parents for survival. Before gaining maturity, we are nurtured both by parents and our extended family or community. Once anointed as adults by some culturally appropriate initiation or graduation tradition, we assume responsibility for the conduct of our lives within the social structures of our time and circumstances. That assumed responsibility must be the result of our free choice. Without that choice, our responsibility can be usurped, and our lives determined by others. Given the freedom to choose, should we not pursue our personal goals and the best interests of our family, community, and government? Given the training and education required, would we not freely choose to serve worthy goals and do what is best for others? Well, the answers to these questions are wrapped in the mystery of human freedom. Our lives may be limited to preset conditions of place and circumstance but are not preordained. Each of us must choose our life’s path within preset or even unusual circumstances. But ours is not Hamlet’s question whether “to be or not to be.” For most of us, the question is not one of life or death, but of how to live, while free and undetermined. Rather than be ruled by others, would we not prefer personal freedom and self-rule—to become the best version of ourselves rather than not to be so?  

 

But, in our time, self-rule is challenged by the strange perversity of certain world leaders and the governments they attempt to impose or—worse—succeed in imposing upon their fellow citizens. These men (yes, they are always men) lie, cheat, threaten, and punish any who oppose their authority. Of course, as in previous blogs, I am specifically referring here to President Putin and his “mini-me,” former President Trump. Both claimed to be patriots, but love office and power rather than their country or its citizens. They are both inveterate liars, promising to “drain the swamp” of “deep state” infiltrators or command a “limited military action” to rid a neighboring country of “Nazis infiltrators.” Of course, there is no “deep state” or “Nazis.” Likewise, Trump’s designation of “swamp” dwellers fails to acknowledge the role of Inspector Generals who are appointed to assure government institutions adhere to the laws and norms of our democracy. And Putin’s “limited military action” makes Hitler’s claim to “free Czechoslovakia” a minor fib compared with Putin’s genocidal and unprovoked attack on a country a third the size of Russia. Neither Russians nor Americans should be led by such liars who violate the trusts of their people to gain the power of office. Although they feign friendship and support each other, their fellowship is just a matter of convenience. Trump claims Putin’s “limited military action” is “brilliant,” while basking in the wealth of laundered rubles stolen from the Russian people. And Putin, for his part, has shown his preference for Trump not only in praise-worthy words but in an extensive online intervention into America’s 2016 Presidential campaign to sway voters in his favor. Both in words and deeds, these two miscreants know how to polish the façade of each other’s out-sized egos. More to the point, how did these egomaniacs gain the Presidency over their respective countries?  

 

As stated above, both these men are inveterate liars. As referenced in my previous blog, Putin rose to power by means of a bureaucratic coup and then lied about his justification to remain in office as the great defender of Mother Russia against Chechnya’s alleged atrocities. And Trump lies about everything: his credentials as a great businessman, his wealth, his success as the “greatest President in history,” his endless winning that enables only him to make America great again. All these claims come from a man who has declared multiple bankruptcies, benefited from laundered Russian money, and has been twice impeached, twice indicted for felonies, and held liable for defamation and sexual assault. And Putin also has a despicable past with regards to dealings with foreign mafias during his leadership of the Foreign Affairs Office in St. Petersburg. His thievery of foreign overcharges was mostly clandestine, whereas Trump’s grifting was as public as any snake oil salesman. He sold steaks, wine, apartments, uncredited and bogus degrees from his so-called Trump University. He even solicited charitable contributions to a Trump Foundation that he used “as a personal checkbook,” according to a state court that terminated its license as a charitable institution. Both these men lied about their accomplishments and deceived the citizens of their country to win their support for the highest office in their respective countries. As a result, both Russians and Americans have been ruled by men who gained their trust by lies and deceit. 

 

What then does it mean to be ruled by veracity or perfidy? The question presumes a choice. Well, most of us would prefer to be ruled by truth which is the definition of veracity (from the Latin, veritas, or “truthfulness”). Who, by contrast, would choose to be ruled by perfidy (from the Latin phrase, per fidem percipere, “to betray” or literally “to deceive by trust”). Trump, for example, won the Presidency without winning the popular vote largely because the Electoral College is distorted in States where Republican controlled legislatures gerrymandered their Districts. With respect to Putin, there is little evidence that the Russian people have ever chosen him as their President. His initial electoral victory was suspect on many levels (reference the 9th paragraph in “Is War in Europe Inevitable?”). Subsequently, no one, to my knowledge, has successfully dared to challenge his reelection victories since. Dictators rarely are transparent with the truth, for they rise to power by means of lies and deceit. They maintain their position by continuing their deceiving and perfidious ways. But the truth still condemns them before all who recognize it.  

 

Brought before Pontius Pilot, the man who could condemn him to death, Jesus Christ claimed to have come into the world to give testimony to the truth. Then he baited Pilot with the statement, “all who are of the truth hear my voice” (omnis qui est ex veritate, audit vocem meam). To which Pilot responded with the question that rings like a clarion call through the ages, “what is the truth” (Quid est veritas?).  

 

We humans have struggled with Pilot’s question throughout the centuries of our existence. Often, we rest our search for truth in affirming evidence, in theories, in beliefs, or in hope. Science, for example, can explain when a fetus becomes human, capable of living outside of the womb and developing into an adult person. Religion can inspire us with the belief that a life force or divinity exists that brings all things into existence, including life itself. What can be agreed by all is that from the egg and seed to the zygote and fetus, every human emerges in the image of his/her procreator(s). Our truth, then, can take many shapes, not all of them scientifically proven, but still believed as verified truth itself. I have a dear friend who sees the face of God in an ant and will take great pains to protect the life of that little creature. It is not just the ant that he reveres, but life itself and its creative energy. Our beliefs can also inspire us to realize our hopes for that better future we humans can create for ourselves.  

 

As an American, “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” ¹ While we may have different beliefs and different shades of truth, we still can pledge allegiance to our Republic. In addition, every elected official must take an oath to our Constitution. A pledge of allegiance and an oath of office to our founding principles can bring a country together around core values. However diverse our political policies may be, we can and must unite around those fundamental ideals we hold as truthful and believable. Those ideals can and will inspire us to realize our hopes for that better future we humans can create for ourselves. Otherwise, our democracy cannot survive. 

 

Both science and religion flourish when scientists and preachers are honest and truthful. We hope and trust that scientists adhere to the scientific method and fully test their theories. Likewise, we hope and trust that preachers/priests live the faith they preach to their congregations. But this pact of trust must exist in politics as well and be confirmed not just by our hope, but by an oath and by its adherence. Every candidate for Federal office takes an oath to support the Constitution. And every citizen should revere the spirit of our Pledge of Allegiance which is also an oath of allegiance to an indivisible republic committed to liberty and justice for all its citizens. When these oaths are violated by dishonest candidates for office and the divisive factions that voted for them, then our democracy will be in peril. For we will have violated the truth of America’s founding principles and put our trust in those who would deceive us for their personal gain. Instead of “the truth shall make you free” we will become a nation ruled by perfidy rather than veracity.   

________________________________________ 

¹ The Supreme Court has modified the Pledge of Allegiance or its practice many times since 1892 to accommodate various interests and religions. Some States demand its recital in classrooms daily while others do not. Some provide exceptions for those who find it idolatrous or too dogmatic. But the Pledge of Allegiance still exists as a true representation of Americans’ core beliefs, while still recognizing our diversity.  

 

Putin’s Grand Plan for Europe and America 

 

Although Hitler made a fortune on the publication of Mein Kampf, few people have read his diatribe wherein he declared his hatred of democracy, Marxism and the Jews, and his belief that the Aryan race—specifically, the Germanic—was divinely decreed as the master race. Well, if you missed your chance to learn about his part in history and his advocacy for preordained nationalism, you now are witness to its reincarnation. President Putin believes that Providence guides Mother Russia to rule all of Europe, from the Atlantic to the Pacific Oceans—what he terms Eurasia. He detests democracies, LGBTQ people, and anybody, including Slavs, even Russians, who dare to oppose his right to re-establish—and extend—the former Russian empire under his rule. He has warned that any country opposing him would face the full force of Russian power. (Is this not a reference to his nuclear arsenal?) His Eurasia myth promises to replace chaotic democracies anywhere with nationalist rulers who bow to his dictates. Of course, the beneficiary of this proposed nationalist empire can only be Putin and the coterie of his chosen sycophants, who are currently his Russian oligarchs and chosen military leaders. Those he will govern are destined to a limited or even meagre subsistence while told to bask in the glory of an all-powerful state and in gratitude to its supreme leader.  

 

What the world is seeing in Ukraine today is not merely Putin’s fear of Western hegemony, but his attempt to advance Russian dominance in Europe on his way to Eurasia. Ukraine is just another hurdle to overcome. Chechnya, Crimea, and parts of Georgia and Syria are behind him. Belorussia, already cowed to his will, and Moldovia may be next, then Poland and the Baltic states. He is acting on a long-held belief that it is his destiny to restore and extend the Russian empire to its full glory as preordained by Providence. As a result, he will concoct any imagined pretense—whether it is to rid Ukraine of neo-Nazis and protect its Russian inhabitants, or to counter NATO’s infringement on Russia’s hereditary lands, or to prove Russia as a legitimate counterweight to American power. Rather than a free democratic Ukraine, he will make Ukraine a vassal of Mother Russia like its former colonial status under Soviet rule. But the war he has started clearly has a purpose beyond Ukraine. Caesar recognized Gaul was divided into three parts and that he had to conquer all its parts before establishing the Roman Empire. Napoleon crossed every border with his massive army on his way to Moscow. And Hitler too was looking beyond Czechoslovakia on October 1, 1938, to extend his reign even beyond the point of Napoleon’s failure. These world conquerors—Putin’s kin—must unleash the hell fires of war and extend their dominion to match their inflated egos (reference “Recurring World Visions”).  

 

The twentieth Century has taught us of both modern warfare’s enormous devastation and its unpredictability. I certainly cannot offer a ready bromide for this recurring human ailment. But we can better cope with this current crisis if we understand how it came to be. Putin’s wars have a prelude where all the discordant notes were played in advance of the main theme. 

 

That prelude began with Putin’s sudden rise to power in 2000. From an unknown former KGB operative in the 1980’s, he came to prominence in St. Petersburg where he used his government position to enrich himself and his assembled gang of thieves. Meanwhile, he rose through the ranks of the KGB—now the FSB—to become its leader. Three months before President Yeltsin’s unexpected retirement, he was appointed Vice President. Then, in January 2000, he inherited the presidency when the former President was forced into retirement at the end of 1999. (He was eventually elected in March of 2000 under a very dubious “free” election, reference “Is War in Europe Inevitable?”) The Soviet era and his KGB training had been the major influences in his life and on his mindset. ¹ Shortly after Putin became the head of state, he consolidated his power by protecting and enriching the men—mostly his St. Petersburg gang—who would become his oligarchs. For Americans, his approach was not dissimilar to Trump’s appointments of self-interested millionaires, lobbyists, and criminally prone individuals to government positions or to his “kitchen cabinet.” Like Putin, Trump’s back story included mob boss tactics of bending the rules and of employing sycophants to serve his self-interests. Trump’s mindset was not dissimilar to Putin’s. 

 

It should not be surprising then that Putin’s intelligence network had noted Trump’s potential as an “idiot source” long before he won the presidency. He had been weaned on laundered money from Russian oligarchs. And Putin, as the experienced KGB handler he once was, tested this source by inviting him to Russia and offering him free publicity and a Moscow venue for his beauty pageant. Subsequently, he used the opportunity his newly won supplicant provided to assist Trump’s campaign for the Presidency. He had his intelligence operatives engineer a massive online effort to support Trump’s candidacy. If he did not personally suggest, he most certainly approved of the man who volunteered to lead the candidate’s campaign for free (reference “Why Does Putin Favor Trump?” written in 2015). That man was Paul Manafort, a Putin operative who had served/guided Yanukovych, the Ukrainian President who also served at Putin’s pleasure.  

 

Putin’s grand plan was hatched early in his Presidency and implemented in stages by – 

 (1) amassing a 600 billion rubles government surplus in a strained Russian economy, as a future war fund secretly financed by the Russian people,  

(2) staging a coup in Crimea, followed by the invasion and occupation of Ukraine’s Donetsk and Luhansk regions, 

(3) setting up a favorable bilateral relation with the President of Belorussia who later would allow the placement of the Russian military on Ukraine’s northern border, close to Ukraine’s capitol,  

(4) planning the elaborate movement of 70-75% of Russia’s military resources from all sectors of the country to strategic locations surrounding Ukraine. 

(5) and, of course, abetting the election of Donald Trump to lessen America’s official aversion to Putin’s annexation of Crimea and his ongoing incursions into southeastern Ukraine.

 

When Putin’s plan succeeded in duping enough Americans needed to elect his candidate, he must have been delighted to see how President Trump responded to his wishes by –  

(1) reducing America’s short range nuclear missiles deployed in Europe,  

(2) decommissioning the spy plane that had previously been part of mutually agreed overflights of American and Russian terrain to assure both signatories were adhering to their nuclear arms treaties, 

(3) destroying the plane’s ultramodern surveillance equipment, thereby prohibiting its future reuse, 

(4) reducing American support for NATO, even to the extent of pulling troops back from Eastern Europe. 

(5) and delaying arms shipments to Ukraine while accusing Ukraine of meddling in America’s Presidential election—thereby exonerating Russia, the actual perpetrator.  

  

Within a few short years, Putin had been able to concoct this elaborate plan to attack and subjugate a democratically free state, while neutralizing any American opposition. In his mind, he was on a divinely ordained mission to restore the Russian empire that had fallen victim to the hegemony of European democracies and to the United States. Does his elaborate plan not remind us of another obstinately determined and deranged visionary of 20th century vintage? 

 

As one might expect, the reference here is to Adolph Hitler. Of course, Hitler revealed his megalomania much earlier than Putin. In 1924, he had been arrested, trialed, and convicted of treason. But he denounced the verdict in his rebuttal: “You may pronounce us guilty a thousand times over, but the goddess of the eternal court of history will smile and tear to tatters the brief of the state prosecutor and the sentence of this court. For she acquits us.” After his three and a half weeks in court, he spent another 9 months in the Old Fortress at Landsberg where he dictated Mein Kampf to his forever loyal Rudolf Hess. ² This self-proclaimed bible fortified his quest for power and subjugation.  

 

Putin, likewise, has written lengthy treatises justifying his tactics, much of its philosophy torn from the pages of Ivan Ilyin’s writings. Note that Ilyin “began his article on ‘Russian Nationalism’ with the simple claim that ‘National Russia has enemies.’” ³ How often have we heard this refrain repeated by Putin? The world is Russia’s enemy until subjugated by Russia under its nuclear umbrella. And Putin has no need to call upon some goddess to justify his actions, for he believes Divine Providence already guides him. But, as warned in the Bible, “Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves” (Mathew, 7:15). And further, “They speak visions of their own mind, not from the mouth of the Lord.” (Jeremiah, 23:16). Putin, like one such ravenous wolf, has concocted a scheme out of his bewitched mind to swallow up the nation of Ukraine. He has become our 21st Century Hitler. But he wields not the “sword of the spirit” (Ephesians 6:17), nor Hitler’s blitzkrieg, but an unprovoked and genocidal war under the threatening cloud of nuclear war. Stated bluntly, Putin threatens an apocalypse unless granted unbridled power over the lives of innocents. 

 

The lesson of history here is plain: as Lord Acton told us, “All power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The quest for power is not an uncommon human trait. But so is the urge to form self-supporting communities and a system of social justice. For the past 235 years, the United States has struggled with these often-opposing traits. How have we survived? The answer: we repeatedly revive the power of our union and its guarantees of liberty and justice for all. And we do so at the polls. For example, we recently voted out of office a pretend dictator. Throughout our history, we have used our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms to correct any waywardness from their provisions and to right the course of our democracy. Nevertheless, no human society is or stays innocent of wrongdoing. The saving virtue of democracy is its ability to right its course. When America loses this ability, it loses its place in history as perhaps the best hope for humankind. All who support democracy must stand together, otherwise we will all face the same recourse that the Russian people face today, that is, subjugation to a maniacal tyrant or—in America’s case—to a rogue political party fallen under the spell of Donald Trump, our very own Putinesque fanatic. Of course, our “fanatic” is less likely to speak in religious terms, but in terms of wealth and power. But history has shown us that men who seek absolute power (yes, they are always men) surround themselves with sycophants who feed off the trough of that power and extend its reign. 

 

It is both natural and necessary for Americans to support Ukrainians, for their struggle is the same as ours. They were developing a democracy just as we have been struggling to preserve ours. Our futures are intertwined. And the world depends upon our success in this struggle. May God help the Ukrainian people and guide us to form societies and governments that guarantee liberty and justice for all. The alternative is a return to feudal conditions, aristocratic rule, and sworn loyalty to an autocratic system under a soulless dictator. If you will forgive my poetic fancy, there is a line from a Robert Burns’ poem that has always stayed with me:  

“The best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men

      Gang aft a-gley, 

An’ lea’s us nought but grief an’ pain, 

      For promised joy . . . 

But och! I backward cast my e’e 

      On prospects drear! 

An’ forward though I canna see, 

      I guess an’ fear!”˜  

 __________________________________________________________________________

 ¹ If you really want to understand this man and his objectives, read “Mr. Putin,” authored by Fiona Hill and Clifford G. Gadddy. And, if you want to know how he rose to such power, read Karen Dawisha’s “Putin’s Kleptocracy,” where his brutal rise is extensively documented. 

² William L. Shirer, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” pp. 75-79 (quote taken from P.78). 

³ Timothy Snyder, “The Road to Unfreedom, p.28.  

˜ Robert Burns, “To a Mouse,” Norton Anthology of English Literature,” p. 1786. 

 

On September 10th, 1938, Hermann Goering gave a bellicose speech at the Nuremberg Nazi Party Rally where he exclaimed “This miserable pygmy race (the Czechs) is oppressing a cultured people (the Sudeten Germans), and behind it is Moscow and the eternal mask of the Jew devil.”¹ Applying Goering’s speech before the October 1 invasion of Czechoslovakia to the preamble of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is as simple as replacing the “Czechs” with alleged Ukrainian Nazis, “the Sudeten Germans” with Russian speaking Ukrainians, “Moscow,” ironically, with the United States, and the “Jew devil” with Ukrainian’s current President. And so, we can recognize the similarity of Putin’s unprovoked war against Ukraine with Hitler’s invasion of Czechoslovakia: specifically, that the Ukrainian “pygmy race” of alleged Nazis who oppress Russians (the superior race) are backed by the United States and led by Zelensky, the “Jew devil.” This ironic parallelism becomes even more relevant when the strategic location of the Sudeten Germans is considered. It bordered Germany and provided the Czechs with the natural mountain defenses of Bohemia and its defensive fortifications against a Third Reich invasion. In a similar fashion, Ukraine is Eastern Europe’s borderline protection against Putin’s imperial ambitions. Like Hitler, and Napolean before him, Putin is obsessed with creating a great empire, his Eurasia, by extending his reign from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Perhaps not incidentally, he would then match America both in dominion— “from sea to shining sea”—and nuclear power. (If only Trump had been reelected, as Putin openly wished, together they could have intimidated the world. As a result, Putin would have had no need to align with China, a potentially greater threat on Russia’s border than Europe.) 

 

The craven imperial ambitions of Machiavellian autocrats or tribal leaders are the recurring world visions witnessed throughout human history. It is not just their recent 20th and 21st century versions. From the ancient Pandiyan and Byzantine empires to the more recent Holy Roman and Russian empires, humans have often subjugated others as sub-humans, killing them or sometimes reducing them to slavery. These last-named empires ended during the rise of the 19th century democracies of the United States and the French Republic. The nationalist and imperialist ambitions of rogue states, however, did not end. Instead, they were thwarted by democratic states, resulting in the two world wars of the 20th century. But the recurring vision of empire and the dominance of allegedly superior humans persist—along with its inhuman detritus of subservient vassals, slaves, and an impoverished proletariat. That vision, however, runs aground before the democratic concept that all humans are equal at birth and possessed of certain human rights including the opportunity to live the life they choose. Hence the inevitable struggle between democracies and autocracies persists into the 21st century. 

 

Democracies, as any elementary school child should know, represent an anomaly in the 315,000-year history of Homo Sapiens. With due respect for the short-lived Athenian experiment, America’s 235-year-old democracy is the longest surviving democracy. And yet it is a mere blip in the history of our kind. In fact, democracy is still in its incubation stage, not yet even an adolescent in the sweep of history. At its core, America subsists as a Constitutionally law-based government where free and fair elections allow citizens to choose their representatives and the policies that serve their general welfare. But from its birth it has suffered growing pains. There have been contested elections, starting with President Jefferson, our third President, and persisting to the present day with President Biden. And, of course, there was the Civil War, with which some present-day reactionaries seem aligned. Then, as now, the same challenges persist: should all citizens be treated equally and have the same rights of citizenship? Race and gender biases hotly contest this question. Similarly debated are what freedoms and opportunities should be granted universally to everybody. In the past, those who harbor these opposing reactions have created inhuman conditions such as slavery, gender inequality, disenfranchisement, voter suppression, and impoverished inner cities where opportunity is supplanted with hopelessness. America has grappled with these reactionaries throughout its history, even as these words are being written. 

  

As in the antebellum South, these reactionaries have feared the loss of white supremacy, male dominance, and wealth privilege. They believe that white men must control the wheels of power, else civilization as we have always experienced it will perish. Until that fear is understood and assuaged, humankind will continue to subsist amidst bouts of imperialistic wars and insurrections or revolutions. Western civilization does have an antidote for this “sickness unto death,” that is, the fear of relating to the humanity in others and of discovering our shared humanity. Religious principles, as exemplified by “love thy neighbor as thyself,” are reiterated in the great religions of human history. And our philosophers, artists, and cultural leaders often exemplify how to overcome the fear of losing status or power by becoming who you already are: a coequal member of a shared humanity. Once you can believe and muster the courage to “do onto others as you would have them do onto you,” you find in yourself that power you foolishly sought by dominating others. Instead, you gain power from relating to others as equals—Ich und Du.² Our common humanity reveals itself when we can identify with a fellow human being—when we indeed feel the import of “I am you.” How else should we interpret those democratic ideals by which we affirm ourselves equal by merely being born human and committed—each of us together—to form that fully human community, which is our more perfect union? 

 

The recurring world visions of humanity were always and universally exclusive, that is, only for the privileged, until America’s founding fathers defined the ideal of an all-inclusive society. But that ideal conflicts with human history—those recurring world visions—and the competing struggle for dominance, to include the class struggles defined by Communism and the ever-present threat of autocratic suppression. Today, American democracy is under siege by the same forces that have always defined human society, by distinguishing the “haves and have-nots,” the privileged and the subservient or “unclean classes,” the white and non-whites, the orthodox and the libertarian/libertine, and so on. Within the last century, America has fought World Wars of liberation from totalitarian regimes, welcomed immigrates from “ancient lands . . . (and) storied pomp . . . yearning to breathe free,”³ granted women the right to vote, own property, and earn fair wages equal to men, and finally extended voting and civic rights to its suppressed racial minorities. But this inclusive narrative is now and has always been at odds with the ever-prevailing narrative whereby only the socially/economically privileged or the politically self-anointed leader/savior must suppress those “not like us,” dominate all institutions of state and finance, and wield unchecked power.  

 

If democracy is the only answer to the recurring vision of world dominance and autocratic governance, how can it be protected, without another world war? First, we must admit the fateful import of another world war: faced with the interminable destruction of modern warfare, escalation to nuclear war could be considered the only reasonable endpoint—as witnessed by Putin’s oft repeated nuclear threats. In other words, it becomes inevitable. Democracy’s survival, then, becomes an existential necessity. Therefore, our survival demands we rededicate ourselves to our democratic ideals, reform our government wherever it conflicts with those ideals, defeat at the polls whomever candidates are misaligned with those ideals, and assure reactionaries and insurrectionists are held accountable for their disloyal/traitorous actions and demagoguery. Our current President has identified the existential struggle of our time as that between democracy and autocracy. He is not overstating the gauntlet before us all. 

 

A previous blog (reference “Democracy and the Just Society”) addressed the intersection between democracy and morality. Both share an arresting antecedent: we cannot support what we think is good in a democracy if we do not believe that democracy is good. But many moral philosophers have argued further that we cannot know what goodness is without becoming good. Therefore, being a good citizen in a democracy requires more than a stated preference for democracy over autocracy—though many followers of Donald Trump fail even that low hurdle. Rather, we must become good citizens in a democracy. Most of us recognize that voting in democratic elections is a prerequisite for any democracy. But our vote must be an informed vote. As a citizen in a democracy, we are responsible for the general welfare and the provision of all the rights guaranteed to us in our Constitution. Our first President warned us in his “Farewell Address” that “unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” That “enablement” can only be the result of a misinformed electorate. Unfortunately, many Americans have fallen prey to the “big lie” invented by Donald Trump, believed and circulated by his sycophant partisans, and promoted by the propagandized “reporting” of certain Fox news personalities and subversive legislators. If democracy, however, is defined as “people rule,” as the Greek derivative of “democracy” implies, then it essentially and definitively depends upon its citizens’ belief in the goodness of democracy and their dedication to assure its integrity. If the logic expressed here is understood and accepted, then any citizen in a democracy who considers him/herself a patriot—that is, a person who loves his/her country—must know, believe, live, and support the principles of democracy. 

 

Many philosophers, historians, and sociologists have made the case for a democratically inspired self-government. But unfortunately, the ideal of democracy can never be realized unless it is defined and implemented in practice. Its proponents must define what it means for themselves, as our American founding fathers did in drafting and winning ratification of the American Constitution. But sustaining the democracy they thereby founded, unfortunately, rests not just with them, but with all the Americans who succeeded them, including present day Americans. Surely, as my readers can attest, this blog has addressed issues with equality in the light of racial, gender, and economic disparities. In fact, present day Americans confront many threats to their Constitutional rights, to include the right to life threatened by incidents of police violence and the legal possession of lethal military weapons. Also threatened are our personal liberties and opportunities that are reduced by uneven court sentencing, by unnecessary or violent policing, by job/education unavailability, and by racial and sexual biases. Those biases can and do negatively affect asylum seekers, pregnant women (reference, “The Supreme Court: A Bulwark of our Liberty”), uneven law enforcement, and available job/education opportunities. And they can generate propagandized journalism, as we have witnessed in recent suits and/or indictments against Fox News and one infamous TV huckster. Obviously, democracy presents an ongoing challenge; and America remains, as always, a work in progress.  

          

However far humankind may search for peace and for liberty and justice for all, the pendulum of history swings back to this recurring world vision of dominance by the few—or the one—over the many. The United Nations Charter that commits nations to honor the territorial integrity and sovereignty of other nations is violated by a generation born after the World Wars of the 20th century. Not only is history forgotten, but even the recent experience of our grandparents. The allied nations that defeated Hitler and are represented on the UN Security Council can no longer preserve the UN Charter that guarantees the territorial integrity and sovereignty of nations, mainly because of one man. Russia is not only a signatory of that Charter but sits on that Security Council as a key member dedicated to assuring the sovereignty of nations. The main offender here is its President, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, a dictator who will order a genocidal war to realize his world vision of dominance over neighboring countries. When will we all unite—including all our national leaders—to end this recurring world vision of such men and their hateful ideology that has threatened humanity throughout its history? If not now, when? And will we have another opportunity to do so? 

_____________________________________ 

1 William L. Shirer, “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” p. 383. 

2 A reference to Martin Buber’s treatise, “I and Thou.” 

3 A reference to “The New Colossus,” otherwise known as the Statue of Liberty. 

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” 

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (The Communist Manifesto) ¹ 

 

Marx and Engels were not wrong. In some ways, their forecast of the future was inciteful with the emergence of East Indian and Chinese markets, of trade with the colonies, and of America’s rise and its ongoing industrial revolution. Ironically, America helped realize their forecast with its zealous capitalist system that redefined class structures under a democratic government, but not the communist framework advocated in The Communist Manifesto. From the burgers of the Middle Ages through aristocrats and bourgeoises to our modern-day capitalist Zions—whether Western billionaires or Russian oligarchs—serfs and the proletariat have been transformed into citizens of a multi-tiered middle class, ² but not without its privileged overlords. And that transformation has changed the nature of class struggles, though it has not eliminated them.  

 Though democracies promise a representative government via a general plebiscite, that representation still depends upon the integrity of elected officials to act in accordance with the intent and general welfare of voters. Therein is an assumption that mirrors Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” by which capitalism married with democracy. Both democracy and capitalism rely on the same premise that humans act in their own best interests and that those interests serve the whole of society. But is that premise valid?  

The grasp for power can corrupt just as much in a democratic state as in a totalitarian state.

Most dictators, like Napoleon, Hitler, or Putin, have sought to rule in service of their own interests without the restraints of law, morality, or any substantive consideration for the general welfare of citizen-subjects. They have—even currently—waged unprovoked wars of conquest without regard for lives lost, including their own soldiers. But elected officials in a democracy also can and do fall prey to the same dictatorial inclinations by using the power of office to extend their influence and better serve their grandiose ambitions. Or they can yield to the whims and interests of wealthy capitalists who fund campaigns for the sole purpose of enhancing their coffers with government expenditures and services. This grasp for power can corrupt just as much in a democratic state as in a totalitarian state. The common element is that dark “dictatorial” side of human nature—that immoral urge to serve only self-interests, even to the detriment of others. As stated in a previous blog (reference, “Democracy and the Just Society”), democracy may be “humanity’s best hope for a just society,” but it still depends upon an ever-evolving implementation of its founding principles as the moral pathway to the general welfare of all its citizens. And those moral principles require an enlightened citizenry that both believes in core principles and has the tenacity to live by them.

In America, we pledge allegiance to “one nation under God with Liberty and Justice for all.” And we demand that all elected officials pledge before God their oath to serve our Constitution wherein the nature and ideals of our government are established. Our universal assumption is that such an oath or pledge will assure not only loyalty to the democratic principles at the root of America’s existence but also the general welfare of all Americans. But is that assumption still valid? The word “valid” implies more than mere acceptance. It comes from the Latin Valere, “to be strong.” ³ The question raised here is how strongly do we believe in democracy and our commitment to uphold its principles? Let us review a few current events in the light of this question.  

Too often our American ideals conflict with the American reality.

Currently, a very vocal, and sometimes violent, minority in America believes the former President’s lies regarding the fairness of the last Presidential election results. This minority refuses to acknowledge the results of myriad court cases and an extensive investigation by the House’s January 6 Committee. In other words, a notable number of Americans do not accept the validity of a free election, the decisions of American courts in many state and federal districts, and the conclusions of a year-long Legislative investigation. If any American defies demonstrably fair election results, the courts, and his/her elected legislature, then one must question whether that American believes in democracy. And, in addition, any Presidential candidate, including the incumbent Donald Trump, who endeavors to undermine a democratic election, refuses to acknowledge the transfer of power, and incites supporters to “fight or you will not have a government anymore,” is not an American patriot but an anti-democratic subversive and a traitor. His followers can no longer call themselves patriots after they staged an uprising against the seat of government and the peaceful transfer of power under flags touting allegiance to the Confederacy, to the usurper Trump and his duplicitous “MAGA” emblem. Whether they were dupped into believing they were fighting for democracy or inspired into a violent rage over the grievances Trump claimed he shared with them, their actions were anti-democratic, insurrectionist, and illegal, as subsequent court convictions clearly demonstrated. These Americans clearly do not trust, believe in, or support our democratic system of government. Whatever patriotism they espouse cannot be identified with the assumption that democratic principles are valid and that, by their very nature and definition, must serve the general welfare. Instead, they have fallen under the spell of a man besotted with the lust for absolute power. They strongly believe in his ability to serve their interests and address their alleged grievances rather than the general welfare of all Americans. And they represent a significant class of denialists who defy democratically established institutions of government in their quest to form a populist government under an all-powerful fascist-like leader.   

This new class of denialists espouses beliefs not only at variance with democracy, but adverse to its unifying principles. The basis for the human rights enumerated in America’s founding documents is predicated upon Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence wherein he declares that “all men (sic) are created equal. . . with certain unalienable rights . . . that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”  Therein, he prefaced the colonies’ lengthy list of grievances against the British Monarch with a rebuttal to “absolute tyranny” and its rejection of laws “most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” America, therefore, is predicated upon principles of equality and the general welfare of its citizens. Yet some Americans seem disinclined to recognize human equality as a birthright. They subscribe to closing the borders to desperate asylum seekers and to supporting discriminatory laws and practices inspired by white supremacists. The racial nature of this discrimination reveals itself in attempts to limit access to jobs, education, housing, protective policing, lending, and many social settings or environments. And male machismo still affects women in the workplace, in career mobility, in governance, and in the management of their own bodies (reference “The Supreme Court: A Bulwark of Liberty”). Even the reluctance to eliminate military style weapons from civil society reveals a moral ambivalence about the most basic Jeffersonian principle, the right to life. As the American press constantly reminds us, mass killings now seem ubiquitous in present day America—the worst cases involving Ar-15s, the apparent weapon of choice for mass murderers. How can we Americans live with the fact that most childhood deaths in America are now reported as the result of gun violence? It appears that too often our American ideals conflict with the American reality. And that reality reflects a people at odds with themselves because a minority of naysayers within the body politic are not aligned with their espoused democratic values and want to impose their subversive will on the majority. 

Our union is the main prop to our liberty.

 In America, as in any vibrant democracy, governance must depend upon the unity of a diverse citizenry, potentially composed of different races, genders, educational profiles, and potentially diverse cultural backgrounds and/or political persuasions. That unity can only be obtained by a universal acceptance of majority rule, usually assured by a transparent and fairly administered free election. Without free and lawfully executed elections, democracy cannot exist. Likewise, without acceptance of election results, democracy cannot exist. Donald Trump’s incitement of his followers against the results of the last Presidential election is categorically unlawful and anti-democratic. His insistence that the election was rigged—against all evidence to the contrary—is treasonous to America’s democratic system. He may yet be held accountable for inciting an insurrection and be made ineligible to hold any State or Federal Office again. In a democracy, nobody should be above the law, including the President. Every American President takes an oath to uphold the Constitution and to “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed” (reference Article III, Section 3, Constitution of the United States of America). In addition, as President he is specifically tasked to serve the general welfare of all citizens, regardless of party affiliations, rather than his/her own profit or personal interests.  

For the real—and ongoing—test of our democracy is Americans’ ability to support free and open elections and to vote for the general welfare of all their fellow citizens. We can disagree over candidates but accept the results of elections. Likewise, we can disagree on policies, but learn to compromise for the good of all. Autocrats, conversely, cling to power for their own benefit, often blaming scapegoats to justify their use of force or incitement of violence. In George Washington’s Farewell Address, he would designate them among those “designing men” who excite division or “a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views.” But if Americans uphold their dedication to free elections and the will of the majority, then Washington’s promise rings true that our “union ought to be considered as a main prop of (our) liberty and that the love of the one ought to endear (us) to the preservation of the other.” Freedom admits diversity, but democracy demands commitment to underlying principles. 

Can humanity survive without just societies?

A society that rises against tyranny and declares all its members equal as a birthright will have—and has had—the difficulty of realizing its most fundamental raison d’état. Although America’s Civil War allowed the slaves citizenship, the Hayes Compromise of 1877 ended Reconstruction and allowed the Jim Crow laws to persists until the civil rights movements of the 1960’s, a century after President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Likewise, the women’s suffrage movement finally gained the right for women to vote nearly a hundred and fifty years after Jefferson’s declaration that “all men (sic) are created equal.” What can we learn from these ongoing struggles to attain America’s most fundamental ideals? In truth, a just society—where the welfare of all is government’s primary mandate—is an ongoing commitment and not easily attained given the nature and history of humankind. The recent women’s “Me Too” and “Black Lives Matter” movements are the most recent expressions of angst over America’s laggard implementation and ever-evolving agenda of “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” for all. But America’s struggle to form a truly just society where diversity is valued as much as individual excellence or merited privilege is now more urgent than at any time in human history. For we may now be faced with this unwelcome forecast, that humanity cannot survive without the structures of a just society.  

The well-being of every human inhabitant of this planet is now at stake.

If the World Wars of the twentieth century have not yet alerted humankind, then the nuclear age of the twenty first century should awaken the nations of the world to the dangers of their current course—that is, the demise of human history. As America swims through the rough waters of white supremacy, LGBTQ/gender inequality, political turmoil, and a revolt against its institutions (the so-called “deep state”), China prepares to invade Taiwan while Russia conducts an unprovoked and genocidal war against Ukraine. Meanwhile, both North Korea and Russia threaten to use their nuclear power to regain “lost” territory from neighboring independent countries. Iran, already abetting military conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and Ukraine and fomenting internal uprisings, is now actively pursuing entry into the nuclear club. Meanwhile, violent conflicts persist in the Middle East, Africa, and South America. Amid this global-spanning violence and chaos, humankind faces the universal threat of climate change. Instead of the nations of the world acting like inmates in an asylum—each occupied within their own self-delusions—they should awaken to the urgent need of cooperative and responsible joint efforts against their common foe, that is, their collective inaction. The effort to build a peaceful world order after the twentieth century debacles must be renewed to face the very real threats of the current century that include both a nuclear holocaust and global climate change. The United Nations Charter, signed in 1945 by its initial 51 member states, was designed to forestall future world wars by guaranteeing the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all member states. As membership now approaches 200 member states, it is long past the time to redress not merely the threats to peaceful coexistence of nations but more urgently the broader mission to preserve humankind itself. More than respect for borders and self-governance is now at stake before the threats of nuclear annihilation and of an uninhabitable planet. The nations of the world must come together to assure the well-being of all humanity, which means support for and promotion of just societies where individual lives, liberties, and opportunities are both secured and advanced for all classes of people. How else will Marx and Engels’ assessment of self-annihilating class struggles be eliminated from human history? Otherwise, the “free” world will never convince the inhabitants of rogue states that the hegemonic ambitions of maniacal dictators are not only a threat to their liberties, but to the peaceful coexistence of all humans and to a constructive world order as well. The well-being of every human inhabitant of this planet is now at stake. 

What prospect for a better life will we leave for our progeny?

It is frightfully possible that I am writing this blog for a future generation of archivists, shocked to find their world’s dire fate forecasted. God help us all if we leave our progeny such a dastardly destiny. Our forebears ended world wars and created a world order they thought would provide us with a more secure and prosperous life. What prospect of a better life will we leave for our progeny?         

_____________________________________ 

1 “The Communist Manifesto,” The Norton Anthology of English Literature, Volume 2. pp.1180-1190. 

2 A previous blog outlined the uneven course of American capitalism (reference, “American Exceptionalism Revisited”) under its democratic system of government. A companion blog (reference, “A More Perfect Union”) attempted to describe in brief the evolution of American democracy itself. 

3 Puer Ille Ut magnus Est et multum valet, M. Accius Plautus, died 184 B.C. (my translation: (“the boy in order to be great must also be very strong.”)