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—in particular, 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 witnessing 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. Yesterday, he warned that any country opposing him would face the full force of Russian power. (Is this 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 his Russian oligarchs. Those governed are destined to a limited or even meagre subsistence while told to bask in the glory of a powerful state and in gratitude to its supreme leader.  

What the world is witnessing 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. Georgia, Crimea, and Syria are behind him. Belorussia and Moldovia may be next. 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 ordained 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, to counter NATO’s infringement on Russia’s hereditary lands, or to establish 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 initiated 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 must unleash the hell fires of war and extend their dominion to match their inflated egos.  

The twentieth Century has taught us of both modern warfare’s enormous devastation and its unpredictability. I certainly cannot offer any bromide here. 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, he rose 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.) The Soviet era and his KGB training had been the major influences in his life and on his mindset. ¹ And, 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.” Trump’s mindset was not dissimilar to Putin’s. 

It should not be surprising 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 tested this source, like any good KGB handler, by inviting him to Russia and offering him free publicity and a Moscow venue for his beauty pageant. Subsequently, he took advantage of the opportunity to support this source’s campaign for the Presidency. He had his intelligence operatives engineer a massive online effort to support that candidacy. If he did not personally suggest, he most certainly approved of the man who volunteered to lead the candidate’s campaign for free. That man was Paul Manafort, a Putin operative who had served/guided Yanukovych, the Ukrainian President who also served at Putin’s pleasure.  

When Putin’s plan succeeded in duping American voters to elect his candidate, he must have been delighted to witness him –  

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

(2) decommission the spy plane that had previously participated in mutually agreed overflights of American and Russian terrain, 

(3) destroy the plane’s state of the art surveillance equipment, thereby prohibiting its reuse, 

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

Meanwhile, Putin was busy – 

 (1) amassing a 600 billion government surplus in a strained Russian economy, perhaps as a future war fund established at the expense of the Russian people,  

(2) establishing a favorable bilateral relation with the President of Belorussia who later would allow the placement of the Russian military on Ukraine’s shared border just north of Ukraine’s capitol,  

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

Over a period of years, Putin had been able to concoct this elaborate plan to attack and subjugate a democratically free state. 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 deranged visionary of more recent vintage? 

Yes, I refer 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 24 days (about 3 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 His 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 frequently 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 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). 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. And the sword he wields is not the “sword of the spirit” (Ephesians 6:17), nor Hitler’s blitzkrieg, but a nuclear bomb. Putin threatens an apocalypse unless granted unbridled power over the lives of innocents. 

The lesson of history here is plain: as Lord Acton stated, “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 communities and social justice. For the past 234 years, the United States has struggled with both traits. How have we survived? The answer: we 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 just 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. No human society is or remains innocent of wrongdoing. The 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 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 a Putinesque fanatic. Of course, our “fanatic” is less likely to speak in religious terms, but in terms of wealth. 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. 

Americans must 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 a monarchized system under a soulless dictator. 

  ______________________________________________________________________

 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.   

Since the beginning of Donald J. Trump’s quest for power, one mystery has hovered over this man and his ambitions. Perhaps no moment highlighted this mystery more than the photograph of a petite, 80-year-old woman standing with one arm and finger pointing out the President amidst his seated cabinet and military leaders. Her scolding words caused the military brass to lower their heads while the President seemed muzzled by her rhetorical question, “why do all roads for you lead back to Putin?” Of course, Nancy Pelosi’s physical stature belies the power of her presence as the Speaker of the House, the third in-line to the Presidency, and the unquestioned leader of her Party for the last two years of this President’s term. Her question was an arrow shot directly at the heart of his Presidency. Only now, after four years in office, can we more fully appreciate her targeting.

What follows are a series of parallelisms between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. In part, they are influenced by far more erudite and insightful presentations from books by Fiona Hill¹ and Timothy Snyder². And they elaborate on a previous blog wherein I casually described Trump as Putin’s acolyte. That metaphor equates Trump with an obeisant candle bearer lighting the path for an honored dignitary. For the past four years, we have witnessed Trump’s deference to Putin. But only now can we see the path he has lighted and begin to grasp the meaning of his anthem to “make America great again” (MAGA).

The First Parallelism: MAGA is a vision of a totalitarian government, like the Russian Federation.
In Trump’s world view, State governors should be subservient to the President of the United States as the appointed governors of the Russian Federation are to Putin. The wealthy and powerful are also answerable to the President as their protector, much like Russian oligarchs depend upon Putin as their protector. Their excessive accumulation of wealth is inevitable, driven by the market in America’s capitalist system just as it is driven by theft in Russia’s managed kleptocracy. In Putin’s Russia, political parties only exist to ritualize elections and assure his hold on dictatorial power. And that power allows Putin to pull the strings of Russia’s economy and government like a puppeteer. The “only I can” theme of President Trump impels him to “make America great again,” for he slavishly mirrors Putin’s self-image as the master puppeteer and redeemer of Russia’s past imperial greatness. That same theme explains Trump’s disregard for the functions of a republican government and his appointments of sycophants to its institutions, of “his” judges to the courts, and of loyalists to Republican Party’s primary elections. Though markets rise and fall endlessly, creating interim institutions in their wake, Trump’s America persists as an unchanging MAGA myth amidst chaos and turmoil. Therefore, he can be indifferent to governing since neither laws or institutions matter as much as belief in this illusion created by and embodied in the person of Donald Trump. In other words, only Trump can lead America to a fictional former greatness. Therefore, he must demand absolute loyalty. President Putin, by comparison, believes the Russian Federation is the embodiment of Russia’s past greatness as a century’s old empire. He has resurrected that past in the myth of Eurasia, a land mass extended from the Atlantic to the seas contiguous with the Pacific and governed by the Russian ethos. As Russia’s tsar-like President, he alone must have absolute authority over all branches of his government, to include all administrative, judicial, and legislative functions. In fact, he does have that authority, whereas Trump only imagined so.

The Second Parallelism: Trump, like Putin, cannot accept succession for “only he can . . . make America great again” as only Putin can redeem Mother Russia.
Given their immortalized status, neither Trump nor Putin can ever leave office, for no successor could possibly replace them. Putin has already reigned for over 20 years and has arranged to stay in office until the mid-2030’s. And Trump convinced himself in the “continuation” of his Presidency via his certainty of reelection. While Putin controls his elections, assuring he wins 90+ percent of the votes, Trump could not control State-run elections. So, he ignored the ballot count and just announced “I won in a landslide.” His justification for this lie was his often-repeated conceit that he was the “greatest President in history” who alone could make America great again. But his vision of greatness lacked the potency of Putin’s. Whereas Russia’s long history as an empire inspired Putin’s belief in an eternal Eurasia, America is a relatively newborn state that is constantly evolving. Putin can present himself as the great leader who redeems Russia’s past glory, albeit at the expense of Europe. Not coincidently, Trump’s war on democracy and globalism serves to weaken American support of and influence on the European Union. Perhaps unwittingly, he becomes Putin’s ally in his grand redemptive scheme. Trump uses MAGA as justification for both his overturning a democratic election and his anti-globalist policies. But an American President must envision a better future democracy rather than return to a fictional greatness. Trump was never capable of envisioning that future America, for he never cared about the country’s future. At his inaugural, he drew a bleak picture of his country’s present condition, naming it “American carnage.” Effectively, MAGA became no more than a renunciation of America’s future. Therefore, Trump could ignore the needs and welfare of the voting public, legislative initiatives, legal or official duties, and court decisions. His stated purpose was to stay in office indefinitely under the banner of MAGA. Although both Putin and Trump cannot accede to succession, there is a difference in motive. Putin believes in Mother Russia as a sacred and unchanging entity to which all Russians owe allegiance. His self-styled patriotism is poorly matched to Trump’s narcissism which demands absolute loyalty as a sycophantic salve for a damaged ego. He clings to power and status like a leech that would die without its host—in this instance, the office of the Presidency. Although Trump appears to admire Putin, I suspect Putin views him as a useful curmudgeon in his Eurasian crusade. Nevertheless, both men must retain power to attain their respective ends.

The Third Parallelism: neither Trump nor Putin want to integrate a pluralist society under laws that assure liberty and justice for all. Rather they favor a fascist state where likeness and conformity—even obeisance—is rewarded, and differences are shunned.
Although America has struggled to realize its ideals, over the past 50+ years it has finally begun to integrate people of different races, gender identities, and ethnic origins. Trump, however, would agree with Putin that these differences deserve less privileges. Even if he were aware of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act of 1965, he could neither understand nor support how they fulfilled the long-awaited promise of America’s democracy. Likewise, in Putin’s Russia there are many races, but there is no democracy or equal governance under law. Political opponents and homosexuals are poisoned or jailed after mock trials. On occasion, Trump has even admitted his admiration for Putin’s ability to subdue opponents or suppress the press. In a poor imitation of Putin, he had issued executive orders designed to reduce or eliminate Federal aid to the less privileged for healthcare subsidies, food distribution programs, and retribution of losses due to illegal loan practices. He withheld Federal assistance for Democratic governors he considered political opponents. He also issued executive orders to bar transgender applicants to the military and Moslem visa applicants to the United States. His recent legal attacks on vote counts in swing states focused on disenfranchising the Black vote. He has incessantly attacked the free press as “fake news.” His recent flurry of pardons was not adjudged on merit or mercy but designed to favor friends and associates without regard for the law or criminal justice. He often declined to criticize white supremacists and other conspiratorial groups. Further, like Putin, he had no tolerance for peaceful demonstrations and stated his preference for excessive force. And that preference reveals two things about Trump: his natural inclination to provoke violence—as he did recently when he incited an insurrection to overturn a free and fair election; and his belief in fascism wherein sovereignty resides rather in a tsar-like president than in the people.

The Fourth Parallelism: both Trump and Putin govern according to personal value systems which beg scrutiny.
In general, a leader attracts followers to goals that align with their existing values. Most politicians amass supporters in this way. A very persuasive or authoritative leader may inspire or command followers to support goals that redefine their understanding of the good or of their own welfare. This approach can be a trap for it presumes the leader is both wise and caring. Trump, however, is basically amoral, believing only in crass self-interest. He appears unfamiliar with the values underlining our democratic republic. It is doubtful he has ever read the Constitution. He seems to attract followers who believe any restraint is a violation of their personal freedom. Therein is a misrepresentation of freedom as a license to do whatever is self-serving. Consequently, Trump provides them the license to act irresponsibly and without any justification other than his authority. Unfortunately, he lies and traffics in conspiracy theories. Those who follow him are exposed to the sanctions of law, while he, as President, is immune from indictment by a DOJ legal counsel opinion. Putin, on the other hand, is in fact above the law in Russia. His values, it appears, are derived from the Russian Orthodox church and his belief in a mythical Eurasia which is a projection of a greater Russia even grander than its imperial past and beyond the limits of contemporary borders. Right or wrong, he will likely retain his power for as long as Russians accept these values without question. Putin can invade a country, have a political opponent assassinated, and never face prosecution. Trump, however, is an American President who is subject to the Constitution and the rule of law. He has no legal authority to rigg an election, to disqualify a fair election, to incite an insurrection, to justify an attack on citizens exercising their Constitutional rights, or to pardon criminals who might incriminate him. He does not have Putin’s unquestioned authority, however immoral its use. Fortunately for America, he is not above the law or our Constitution and can be held accountable for his misdeeds. His amoral swagger cannot replicate the license Putin exercises. He can only be a pretend dictator or Putin’s “mini-me.”

The Fifth Parallelism: both Putin and Trump project an improbably grandiose self-image of themselves as superheroes. They use lies, conspiracy theories, or scapegoats to justify or defend their words and actions.
Trump’s self-promotion is shameless and as preposterous as storied comic book superheroes. He always wins, is the greatest ever, has accomplishments “the likes of which nobody has ever seen,” and mercilessly vanquishes all his enemies. He consistently inundates the airways with this self-image through social media and manipulation of the free press. MAGA is the myth that appeals to his base as a return to the decorum of a privileged society, totally exclusive of Blacks, Hispanics, LGBTQ, and those petulant liberals. He uses campaign style rallies to reinforce his image as the embodiment of all that MAGA promises. Putin also uses public forums to purvey a somewhat more refined self-image of a tsar-like leader who can reclaim the greatness of Mother Russia, overcome adversaries who allegedly threaten its present or projected sovereign territories, and restore its sacred heritage. Eurasia is the myth that justifies his methods and inspires patriotic fervor in his people. Both men lie incessantly in the belief that repetition creates a facsimile of truth in the unquestioning listener’s perception. They both invent conspiracy theories, often conflicting ones that so scramble the field of inquiry that any reasonable explanation is lost in the planned chaos so created. For example, (1) Russia never invaded Crimea. (2) They were invited there to celebrate its declaration of independence from Ukraine. (3) Russian soldiers never fought in southeastern Ukraine where Ukrainians revolted against Kyiv and the United States. (4) And the Russian army is now there to protect the Donbas’ Russian inhabitants. Trump, in like manner, lies with such unrestraint that he overwhelms attempts to track or fact-check his lies. The latest—and greatest—lies concern the recent Presidential election which he termed rigged, stolen, and the “greatest fraud in history.” While Trump ridicules, disclaims, distorts, and objectifies or belittles his detractors, Putin simply jails or assassinates his perceived enemies. While Trump uses right wing news outlets—which includes some Fox News commentators—to silence his enemies and promote his self-interest, Putin uses State-controlled media and the incarceration of journalists to attain the same ends. Both men feel compelled to silence or control the media. They, like all dictators, understand that their greatest enemy is the truth.

As a side note, it is interesting that these men tailor their self-image to the point of manicuring their public appearance. Trump, for example, has his balding scalp hidden behind well-coiffed comb-overs and his face conditioned to an orange-tanned hue. His formal apparel rarely differs and is tailored to hide his obesity. Putin is more concerned with the image he thinks appealing to his subjects. He appears shirtless riding a horse, suited in appropriate gear playing hockey, helmeted on a motorcycle, and so on. He is an everyman—even a man’s man—with whom many Russians may identify. He needs to be admired, even loved. Trump attempts to win over his followers with his manly aggressiveness and identification with their grievances. He needs their votes and is absolutely besotted by the spotlight. His son once said of him, that he was the only billionaire who speaks the language of the “common man,” that is, the hoi polloi whose “soiled” hands he invariably declines to shake. Be that as it may, both men are chameleons. Their fake facades mask quite dangerous predators.

Conclusion
What is the point of comparing Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin? First, it provides an answer to the question raised by the Speaker of the House. Second, it highlights the danger Donald Trump and the insurrection he fomented presented to the American republic. To quote Alexander Hamilton regarding the desire of foreign powers to gain ascendancy in our government, “how could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union.” ³

Ask yourselves: how close did America come to losing its democracy on January 6, 2021; who are the enemies of our democracy; and how must we respond to those who incite insurrection — both within and beyond our borders.

I refuse to believe American patriots would prefer an amoral cult-like leader to transform our democracy into a totalitarian state that serves a privileged class to the exclusion of liberty and justice for all.

__________________________________________________
¹ Fiona Hill, “Mr. Putin: Operative in The Kremlin,” The Brookings Institution Press, c. 2013.
² Timothy Snyder, “The Road to Unfreedom,” Tim Duggan Books, c. 2018.
³ This quote is taken from Snyder’s book on page 217. (The quote is uncited, but it probably was sourced from Hamilton’s private letters. I scanned all 52 of Hamilton’s Federalist Papers and could not find this quote. But I trust its authenticity because I trust Tim Snyder as a world class historian.)

Okay, there is no such word as “pejoraty.” But there should be. I would define it as the state of becoming or being made worse and derive it from the Latin perjorare, “to make or become worse.” “Pejoraty,” then, would accurately describe the current state of America’s majority.

Most of you know that our President won his election with nearly 3 million less votes than his Democratic rival. The Constitution allows that anomaly by disregarding the overall vote count of citizens in favor of State-won electors. You may also be aware that Republicans gained control of the Senate while winning 15 million less votes than their Democratic rivals. The Constitution, of course, mandates equal State representation, which translates to two Senators for each State. But did you know that from 2010-2018, Republicans also won control of the House without winning the popular vote? How do you explain the “people’s” house being controlled by a minority Party? Well, for that answer, you can review how Republican-controlled State legislators have defined Congressional Districts, created voting laws, and maintained voting records. You have certainly heard of gerrymandering, voter suppression laws, and purges of voter records. Now you can understand how it is that Republicans can ignore the will of the majority—as witnessed in all the polls—and focus so fiercely on holding onto power. Given this “sleight of hand,” how do Republicans use their power? Well, instead of allocating funds needed to mitigate the effects of a pandemic, they dither away their legislative time while worrying about the economy. American lives be damned. Instead of financing support for mail-in ballots during a pandemic, their inaction allows the President’s new Postmaster General to cripple the United States Postal Service. Our democratic right to vote be damned.

The Senate will not pass, and the President will not sign legislation that would help States’ pandemic mitigation efforts and relieve the stress on Americans quarantined at home, out of work, and denied classroom education for their children. That same legislation, passed by the House 3 months ago, would also address the expected tsunami of mail-in ballots. But the President takes “no responsibility at all” for addressing the pandemic—promising it will just “disappear.” And he declares mail-in voting leads to massive fraud and a “rigged” election—claiming so without any evidence or historical reference. Of course, the pandemic is real and massive voter fraud is not. But the President would rather create a false reality that serves his own interests. For example, he understands the connection between mail-in voting and the pandemic. Fear of Covid-19 may discourage voting at the polls and encourage mail-in voting. So, the President must shut down mail-in voting if he believes a majority of Americans favor his opponent, as the polls consistently indicate. His path to victory would then rests upon his ability to fire up his occult-like followers to turn out at the polls. His political path forward is clear. He must lead as many rallies as he can to muster his base. And he must suppress that growing majority of voters who support his opponent. Thereby, he uses fear of the pandemic to keep people home and dependent upon a postal service he attempts to debilitate. Of course, he can rely upon the complicity of a Republican controlled Senate to table legislation that would undo this scheme to win an election he appears to be losing.

Given this nefarious scheme, it was no surprise when the President fired the Postmaster General and replaced him with a former member of the Republican Finance Committee—and one of his million-dollar campaign donors. The complicit Senate remained silent while the House subpoenaed the President’s appointee, questioning his credentials and suspicious actions that have already degraded mail delivery across all of America. In self-incriminating fashion, he refused to provide documents or even admit direct responsibility for cancelling overtime, disconnecting/destroying 671 electronic sorters, and removing thousands of mailboxes. He alleged these actions were taken by others, though he justified them as part of a policy to restore the Post Office to fiscal solvency. The irony here is the Senate’s refusal to pass the beforementioned House legislation that addressed the Post Office’s financial and operational issues. The President and his complicit Republican Senators are deliberately discounting the life and death impact of Covid-19 and of a debilitated postal service on American citizens and their democracy, respectively. In other words, the Republican Party is sabotaging the general welfare and voting rights of the American people to steal an election.

You might not have realized that since 1992, Republican Presidential candidates have only once won the popular vote—that was in 2004. And yet they have served three terms as President since the turn of the century. In fact, Republicans have dominated this century but, for the most part, without a popular mandate. They became the “Party of no” during the Obama Administration. And, more recently, they have become “the uncompromising” Party under a Senate Majority Leader who calls himself the “grim reaper.” Bipartisanship dies with the House bills buried in the Leader’s desk. Is this a healthy phenomenon for a democratic republic whose very existence depends upon resolving political differences under the guidance of common principles? In fact, the word “compromise” seems absent from the Republican legislative lexicon. It was John C. Calhoun, part of the “Great Triumvirate,” who first laid down the non-compromising gauntlet over the admission of slave states. Eleven years after his death, America realized the consequence of his non-compromising position, specifically, the Civil War.

Political dissent by public factions can be healthy. But political intransigence in the Congress can be subversive. Deliberate suppression or manipulation of the vote in a democracy is subversive and pejorative. When a President abuses the power of his office to tilt the electoral system in his favor, there is no other way to describe his action other than traitorous and pejorative. And those who support his action are complicit. The victim in these subversive and traitorous actions are the American people. And when a majority of American voters suffer the consequences of these actions, they have experienced what I have coined as “pejoraty.”

Now victimhood, however pejorative, needs to be defined. To clarify, let us take a quiz. Who suffers when the President minimizes the need to mitigate a pandemic? Who suffers when legislation designed to both mitigate and address the human impact of a pandemic is tabled in the Senate? Who suffers when the United States Postal Service is deliberately deconstructed by the President’s Administration? Who suffers when the instruments of a free election are attacked by a sitting President? Who suffers when the institutions of government, like the EPA, HHS, HUD, USDA, CDC, DOJ, DHS, the Departments of Education, Interior, and Agriculture, or even the White House itself can no longer be trusted to do the people’s work? Who suffers when America’s domestic and national security interests are subordinated to a President’s personal political benefit? Who suffers when a President is proven guilty of abusing the public trust and the powers of his office by soliciting foreign interference in a Presidential election, by engaging in the extortion/bribery of a foreign president, and by obstructing justice in the investigations of his conduct? Who suffers when the Federal Government tilts the scales of the economy in favor of the wealthy and corporate America to the detriment of essential workers, the poor, and the middle class? Who suffers when a government promotes medical care as a for-profit enterprise rather than a public service? Who suffers when a President denies that the increasing pressure of environmental disasters makes undeniably evident the unmitigated impact of climate change?

The answer to these questions should be obvious: a majority—if not all—of Americans. Admittedly, some of these questions challenge strongly held partisan positions. But who would contend they do not affect—at minimum—a majority of Americans? Therefore, most of us are in “pejoraty.”

If we focus on the “becoming” part of this pejorative experience, we can identify key agents of our worsening. First, as stated above, our current President, his appointed acolytes, and complicit Republican office holders have used the power of their offices to manipulate the vote, thereby weakening citizen sovereignty. And their obstructive actions are abetting a decades-long trend of distrust in government and, therefore, in the efficacy of our democracy. Second, like the unrest in the 60’s and 70’s, we have grown disillusioned by the pain and deaths caused by unprovoked foreign wars, by persistent racism, and by a President obsessed with the belief he is above the law. Regarding this last reference, President Trump has carried lawlessness far beyond anything Nixon would ever have conceived.

But, somehow, we have overlooked the key culprit in our disillusionment, specifically, the trust we seem to have lost in ourselves. Are we still believers in inalienable rights and their extension to all Americans regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, or place of origin? And can we still answer Lincoln’s call for a rebirth of that government of, by, and for the people? In an ever-changing world, that rebirth is a continuous process. Yet nearly half the eligible voters do not vote. Conspiracy theorists spewhate and dissent on social media and often hijack broadcast news with their vitriol. Do we question their apocrypha and seek the truth? Moreover, after blaming the government and absolving ourselves of any responsibility, many of us have turned to a “strong man” to deliver us both from the failings of our government and from our self-perceived powerlessness/hopelessness. But there are at least two misconceptions about alleged strong men and their self-declared authority (“only I can,” “a stable genius,” “the greatest President in history”). First, they exaggerate their prowess and silence any evidence to the contrary by discrediting or punishing their dissenters. The 20th century bore witness to the death and chaos such men unleashed on the world. Second, they are incapable of serving ideals greater than their own self-interest and therefore of serving the needs or promoting the prospects of others. In fact, they are shallow and weak, very unlike the men and women who founded our nation and fought to preserve it. Remember that the signers of the Declaration of Independence would have been hung, drawn, and quartered if the colonies had lost the war of independence. They were men of character, conviction, and courage. And they had trust in their convictions and in themselves. They should still be our models today.

In the 1980’s we were told that “government is the problem.” President Reagan, a former governor, used these words to justify reducing the size of the Federal bureaucracy and assisting State self-governance. In fact, the States currently manage many programs funded wholly or in part by the Federal government. But I doubt President Reagan would consider it a State right to impede or subvert a free election. Free elections are mandated in our Constitution and are an essential cornerstone of any democracy. He was a firm constitutionalist—much like Barack Obama—and referenced the founding fathers extensively in his speeches. And he certainly would not have aligned with the Newt Gingrich Congress of the 1990’s that maligned the very bipartisanship that Reagan so carefully nurtured. President Reagan had trust in our system of government. From his first inaugural to his last speech to the nation, he adhered to one principal, what he called “a rediscovery of our values and our common sense.” ¹ He had trust in America and its people. His optimism for our country was captured in his metaphor of the shining city on a hill.

But that shining city is less visible today. Are we not “becoming” or “being made” worse? The answer depends upon perspective. For example, yesterday I woke up in a very dark world, reminiscent of the Greg Bear sci-fi novels I read as a pre-teen. But the dark red dawn that greeted me was not Mars. It was the same earth wherein I have lived since birth, but in an alternate universe. Like the southeast hurricanes, our Pacific Coast fire season starts earlier, is more intense, and lasts longer every passing year. And these changes are only the most visible part of a new terrestrial environment. Our “now” has already been made worse and will become more so unless the majority of people on this planet decide to mitigate the effects of climate change and begin now to adapt to what can no longer be avoided.

Our species has survived the Ice Age and many cataclysms, some man-made. But we do not survive as individuals in mass extinction events. The same can be said of survival in the fall of civilizations. Everybody suffers and falls victim unless everybody works to preserve our humanity and way of life. America at this junction in history is experiencing two disasters. The first is global, like climate change and a pandemic that have already endangered lives while promising worse to come. The second is political and threatens the end of our democratic experiment—the loss of America’s identity as a democratic republic governed by law and a constitution. In place of a more perfect union, we have a criminal and perverse Administration that promotes fear, chaos, violence, and divisiveness. But America does not have to become the vile state of Trump. We still have the prerogative to vote for a new administration and restore our democracy before we lose it altogether. Only then can we develop national plans to address Covid-19 and the impact of climate change.

We need to regain the spirit of America, that same idealism that inspired our Constitutional founders and energized Americans to extend the fruits of that idealism to all. Presidents Reagan and Obama, our most popular Republican and Democratic Presidents over the last 40 years, both called us all to support the ideals and principles of our founding and hold them up to the world. These are times that demand us to pull together in recognition of our American heritage and common humanity. The problems we face are unique, but so were the problems faced by our forefathers. America has overcome the existential threats of a Civil War and two World Wars. And our current economic crisis is no more challenging than its predecessors which our parents and grandparents overcame. We must restore our trust in ourselves and in America. If we do so, we can turn this page of history. And we will overcome a pandemic, disavow climate deniers, and restore our economy. But, first, we must reject a demagogic despot.

As a famous Roman Senator once said, “I will think you a man . . . (but) I will not think you human.” ² Let us restore our common humanity and avoid the state I coined as “pejoraty.” What kind of species are we if not human?

__________________________________________________________
¹ Ronald Reagan, January 11, 1989, Farewell Address
² This is my rather literal translation of Cicero’s comments about human nature: “virum te putabo . . . hominem non putabo.” In context, he was distinguishing human decency from grossness. But his words also imply that human nature encompasses gender, rather than be defined by it (a point I made in a previous blog).

Some years ago, I wrote a fictionalized account of my experiences in Vietnam and of its historical background. Recently, a new reader found the following passage relevant to the Turkish invasion of the Kurds’ settlements in Syria.

“There was hatred in those eyes . . . If they were staring over the barrel of a rifle, there was no doubt in Regis’ (my protagonist’s) mind that he would be a dead man . . . These NVA soldiers had marched half the length of Vietnam through bombing raids and cluster mine fields, avoided search and destroy squads along the way, and now found themselves captured and forced to work for an invading army that they had sworn to eliminate from their land. Had Regis lived through as much, would he not be like these angry young men?” ¹

While President Trump talks about “happy Turks” and “happy Kurds,” we are witnessing an ongoing assault under cover of an alleged cease-fire. The Trump-Erdogan agreement has no third-party assurance of a safe zone. What will prevent the atrocities that are sure to follow as the Arab militia, comprised of many Il Qaeda and ISIS radicals, fall upon the receding Kurds. This invasion does more than “clean out” Kurdish rebels on Turkey’s border, as President Trump suggested. Rather, it incites a brutal ethnic cleansing campaign and a reactive violent resistance that will cost many lives, create thousands of homeless refugees, and likely stir anew the conflict between the many warring parties in Syria. Like the Vietnam War where a million Vietnamese lost their lives, the Kurds will fight to the death. Our President now accuses our former allies, the Kurds, of being “more of a terrorist threat” than ISIS. But the Kurds fought ISIS in our name, as well as for their own homeland. In the process they rescued an ethnic Christian community from genocide and formed a budding democratic community with full gender equality. Now they face a very real existential threat. Fortunately for President Trump, he will never face the “hatred in those eyes” of a betrayed and vanquished people.

It is unfortunately true that Presidents have led America into disastrous international wars before. President Johnson turned away Ho Chi Minh’s request for assistance in throwing off the yoke of colonialism. He was a nationalist before he was a communist and thought the democratic republic of America would assist him in his revolution against a foreign imperialist power. Instead, President Johnson ordered our Marines to conduct a Normandy style invasion of the seaside city of Da Nang. The citizens of that coastal town watched in some bewilderment as foreign soldiers scoured their town with drawn weapons. Merchants continued to ply their wares. Men and women casually walked past the anomaly of western soldiers looking for an enemy. In my mind’s eye, I can see the incongruity of Vietnamese women dressed in immaculately white silk pants and colorful ao dai outer garments as they paraded past these sopping wet Marines who had just “stormed” the welcoming white sands of their beaches. The irony of this scene is dramatically underscored by the devastation and bloodshed that followed.

Decades later—and just a week after Saddam Hussein finally admitted he had no nuclear weapons—President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq. Just as President Johnson was convinced that Vietnam could become a communist threat to the American world order, President Bush was persuaded that Iraq could be a nuclear threat to America and its allies. Once again, American leadership erred and misled American soldiers into a disastrous campaign that resulted in over a million deaths, the birth of Il Qaeda, and the riling of many Middle Eastern factions. America’s involvement in both these Southeast Asia and Middle East wars spurred other conflicts that eventually embroiled Cambodia and Syria. Would there have been the Khmer Rouge or Il Qaeda/ISIS scourge without America’s mindless agency? Perhaps, but would it have been as heinous and widespread? Not likely.

The difference between President Trump’s action and that of his predecessors is that the latter acted in behalf of perceived American interest: prohibiting the advance of communism and of nuclear proliferation. And they did not act alone. They may have been mistaken, but so were their Administrations and the state allies that joined them. History is filled with miscalculations that resulted in catastrophes and the deaths of innocents. But our current President acts without consultation, on a whim, and without support of NATO or any of our traditional allies. A late-night phone call with a self-styled dictator was his only justification for the ethnic cleansing of our Kurdish allies from the homeland they established astride the Turkish border. Could America and its European allies have intervened to assuage Erdogan’s concerns about Kurdish rebels in eastern Turkey? But our President gave no thought to any form of diplomatic intervention or to America’s alliance with the Syrian Kurds. Without aforethought, he unleashed the gates of hell upon the Kurds.

I seem to recall that Henry Kissinger once confessed that “sometimes statesmen have to choose among evils.” But he never conceded the moronic position that they undermine their country’s interests in the process. And yet Donald Trump continues to subvert America’s interests in favor of Vladimir Putin’s. In just the last two weeks his actions attempt to cede Eastern Ukraine and Syrian dominance to Russia. His extortion of President Zelensky has resulted in an agreement with Russia to hold another national referendum for Eastern Ukraine secession. This Putin-inspired gambit has been tried before. Previous votes have either not supported secession or been found illegal by the international community. And our President’s flash decision to abandon our alliance with the Kurds against ISIS has already encouraged Russia to take control of American bases in eastern Syria. As the Speaker of the House recently questioned the President, “why do all roads with you lead to Putin?”

Moreover, President Trump has positioned America as an international outlaw that not only violates the United Nations convention on asylum seekers² but also enables the genocide another UN convention roundly condemns³. He denies asylum seekers due process and further deters their request by interning their children. And he betrays our allies-in-arms to ethnic cleansing, while unleashing the very ISIS terrorists our alliance either vanquished or imprisoned. Whether it is at our border where he breaks up families escaping violence and devastation or abandons allies to brutalization and annihilation, he displays the same consistency in illogic and inhumanity. From whence does he arrive his so-called “unmatched wisdom?” It certainly does not come from our Constitution, international conventions, or any knowledge of history. And whose welfare does he seek? It most certainly cannot be asylum seekers, Kurdish allies, or the safety of Americans from the threat of terrorists.

President Trump conceals “love letters” with Kim Jung Un and many secret phone calls with Vladimir Putin and, more recently, with Erdogan. Does he want Kim Jung Un to respond to his vision of building a resort along the North Korean coast? Does he still harbor the ambition to build a Trump tower in Moscow? Or is he merely afraid of losing the Russian financial support no American institution would grant his real estate business? Do his many financial links to Turkey explain his obeisance to Erdogan’s phone request for American troops abandonment of the Syrian border to a Turkish invasion? In truth, nothing in his relations with these totalitarian leaders has benefited the United States in any way whatsoever. Plainly, as any American should ask, whose interest does President Trump serve?

Indeed, Donald Trump has not even served the interests of his aggrieved supporters. How has he made their lives better? Moreover, he never addresses the general welfare of all Americans. Take note of his policies governing healthcare, tax breaks for the wealthy, infrastructure repair, public education funding, climate change mitigation, tariff wars, and so on. Rather than benefit the general public, these “policies” disregard the general welfare of Americans. In fact, his actions most often only display self-interest: in protecting his Trump Towers in Turkey; in defending his Russian financial benefactors; and in providing real estate tax breaks for his business. And now, as the impeachment inquiry clearly demonstrates, he would rather use the powers of his office to align other state actors with his self-interest, rather than America’s.

Finally, the issue of impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors or for violation of the Constitution’s emoluments clauses may be secondary to more immediate concerns. Nearly every day we see his capacity for chaos and poor judgment. The urgency of the moment demands that Congress impeach and remove him from office as soon as possible. Remember his threat of “fire and fury,” his promise “to end Iran,” or the destruction of Afghanistan “in ten days.” Consider what he might do next, perhaps in a rage, or just as a whim. We can impeach him for what he has already done. But we must impeach him for what he can do.

His Presidency is an existential threat to our democracy and to world order. His abuse of the powers of his office serve no public purpose, but only his self-aggrandizement. And too often it seems in service of the enemy.

____________________________________________________________________________________________
¹ “A Culpable Innocence,” pp 58-59.
² These rights include the right of a state to grant asylum, the right of an individual to seek asylum, and the right of an individual to be granted asylum. The latter right presumes due process before a magistrate.
³ “The 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide settled on a definition of genocide as ‘any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group, as such:
A. Killing members of the group;
B. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
C. Deliberately inflicting on the group the conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
D. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
E. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.’” (as quoted by Samantha Powers in her book, “A Problem from Hell,” p. 57)

“Don’t believe what you see and hear,” exclaims our President. Specifically, he wants us to discredit all news media as “fake news,” excepting, of course, certain Fox news anchors. Also, he really wants us to discredit any criticism of him or his policies as mere partisan attacks. We should ignore such criticism as “deep state” or Democrats’ attempts to harass the President and defeat his agenda to help Americans. He wants us to believe that he fights for us and that those who are against him are against America. He alone stands for America. In fact, he argues that those who find fault with him are treasonous and should be punished.

If you are amongst the President’s supporters, then you must accept all his proclamations based on belief. He tells you that he is the “least racist person you know,” that he is “the greatest President in history,” that he is “protecting our borders from murderers and rapists,” that he hires “the best people” in his Administration, that he is a “great deal maker” who can resolve America’s and the world’s issues, and that he can restore manufacturing, steel production, coal mining, and the agricultural industry to its former greatness. After more than two years in office, you are now able to weigh what truth exists in the President’s claims. Or you can simply continue believing in him.

President Reagan used to say “trust but verify” when negotiating agreements with other countries. “Trust” is a form of belief; and “verify” is based on justifying evidence. You can readily apply President Reagan’s aphorism to the trust a voter places in a candidate for office. If you agree with my application of Reagan’s principle, then how do you justify the trust you attributed to the current President’s promises and to his character? Well, the answer is interwoven with the beliefs that support your trust.

Perhaps, like the President, you do not believe in humanity’s contribution to global warming. Nevertheless, global warming is not a question of belief. It is a fact attested by countless scientific studies and, increasingly, by the evidence of our eyes. But, if you believe the President, then you support his termination of America’s participation in the global commitment to reduce greenhouse gases. Therefore, you must also concur with his Administration’s actions to open the Antarctica and our natural parks to oil and gas exploration, to reduce miles/gallon standards for cars and eliminate the ability of any state to have higher standards, and to cancel the Clean Power Act, thereby removing restrictions on power plant emissions. Your concurrence not only presumes your disbelief in global warming, but your willingness to breathe polluted air. Is your trust in this President justified? Or is it founded on a lie?

Perhaps, like the President, you believe in his interpretation of a Republican doctrine against unnecessary regulations. The crux of this belief centers on the “unnecessary.” The President’s executive orders and Administration have removed restrictions on unsafe mercury levels and coal mining detritus in our clean water sources. Likewise, his Administration has removed restrictions on the use of dangerous herbicides and pesticides that reduce the safety of our food and endanger our health. If your support for the President’s war on regulations is so indiscriminate, you display a willingness to drink dangerously polluted water and to consume poisonous food. ¹ Is your trust in this President without any reservations? Or is it without regard for the health of yourself and those you love?

Perhaps, like the President, you believe the Affordable Care Act must be repealed and replaced. Probably, you support his promise to reduce costs for pharmaceutical drugs and to introduce a better health care plan. Well, if so, you are still waiting for these Presidential initiatives. The only action the President has taken on healthcare is to undercut and diminish the effectiveness of the previous Administration’s healthcare plan. Instead, he has authorized costly and limited healthcare plans available only to clients without pre-existing conditions. He has strongly supported the Republican Party’s remnant opposition to Obamacare (aka, The Affordable Care Act) without proposing any viable replacement. And he has not led the Republican Party toward any meaningful healthcare reform. Maybe you are not concerned that America pays substantially more for healthcare than any other western developed nation while being rated last in healthcare service and treatment outcomes. ² Is your trust in this President supported solely by his words rather than his actions? Or is it simply unaware or, worse, deliberately blind to the incongruity between what he says and what he does?

Perhaps, like the President, you looked forward to a new Administration managed by his “best people.” Well, a few of the President’s “best” still remain: the man who wanted to eliminate the Department of Energy is still its Secretary; the person married to the Senate Majority Leader still manages the Department of Transportation despite questions about its impact on her family’s business; the man who declared himself unqualified to manage the Department of Housing and Urban Development is still doing so; the woman who has displayed an amazing lack of knowledge about the mission or operation of the Department of Education is its Secretary; and the man who made his mark during the last recession as a leading foreclosure banker now heads Treasury. All other Cabinet positions have been replaced, too often by “acting” administrators. Among the departed are those caught in scandals, such as criminal behavior or ethical malfeasance. Whether it is incompetence, self-interestedness, criminality, or unethical behavior, these appointments are ill-equipped to meet the Constitutional requirement to serve the general welfare. Why do these nominees not exemplify civil servants dedicated to public service? Well, the President prefers to hire loyal sycophants and former lobbyists who will do his bidding by actively deconstructing the organizations they are tasked to manage—that is, what he terms the “deep state.” Because he prefers not to go through Congress for these appointees, he feels he can more easily demand loyalty by assigning them to tenuous “acting” positions. If you agree with the President’s preference for personal loyalty over competence, integrity, and patriotism, then you now have the government you chose with your vote. Is your trust in this President justified by the character and competence of his Administration? Or is it fixated on “the Donald” without any regard for his lackeys or their inadequacies?

Perhaps, like the President, you feel the American republic is a runaway wild stallion that needs to be subdued at all costs and permanently corralled. The wild stallion in this metaphor is the “deep state.” And only “the Donald” can tame and contain it. He is the mythological rodeo rider that can force this out-of-control “deep state” into submission. Though harassed and investigated relentlessly, he is your champion who fights in your place. You can identify with his performance: his name-calling, his extravagant lies, his comedic pantomiming, his bullying threats, and his belittling of the “not-like-us.” It is all riveting and entertaining theatre. But nothing more. He can ride that American horse into the ground. But what is left for us after President Trump leaves the stage? How does a Department of Justice that serves the President rather than the American people benefit us? Do we really want a Department of Homeland Security that violates international law? How about a Health and Human Services Department that works to reduce open enrollment in healthcare service? Or an Interior Department that wants to privatize natural parks? The President promised that he would bring so much “winning that you won’t believe it.” If you agree with him, then you should ask what have we won? The deconstruction of American institutions cannot be the foundation of an American government. Is your trust in this President reflective of your beliefs in the value and purpose of American institutions? Or is it the opposite—your disbelief in American values and the institutions that embody them?

Ask yourself how we are better off today than before Donald Trump was elected to the Presidency? Let’s review the path he has taken for America:

➣ The agricultural industry is decimated due to the tariff wars with China.

➣ The manufacturing industry after successive quarterly declines is now officially in recession.

➣ The renewable energy sector is no longer the fastest growing segment of the energy market.

➣ The President’s revival of coal mining has floundered before more competitive alternatives in the marketplace.

➣ The imbalance between his tax policies and budgets have resulted in trillion-dollar deficits. And this imbalance occurs during a period of economic expansion—which he inherited. How are his economic policies preparing us for the next recession? As mentioned before in these blogs, this President has lit the fuse for an economic timebomb.

➣ Healthcare has become less available and more costly under the Trump Administration. The advances of the previous Administration—reducing double digit healthcare inflation to 3.9% and expanding coverage to over 24 million people—have both been reversed.

➣ The tariff wars have added hundreds of dollars to average family budgets. Meanwhile the President passes a budget busting tax relief bill that disproportionately benefits the top .1% of the population, while inexplicitly taxing low income (<$18,000 per year) families who were previously exempt from Federal taxes. He introduces these economic measures at a time when actual wealth creation has become more heavily concentrated at the top than at any time in recent history.

➣ America’s foreign policy agenda is in shambles. Our President is more aligned with dictators than the leaders of western democracies. His emphasis on nationalism over globalism effectively isolates America on the world stage. Meanwhile, the “war on terrorism” has been replaced with a dissonant policy with no apparent strategic direction. We send troops to defend the Saudi oil fields, while withdrawing troops supporting our Kurdish allies fighting ISIS. Our President withdraws from the nuclear non-proliferation agreement with Iran and then administers new sanctions on Iran to bring them back to the negotiating table. He authorizes peace talks with the Taliban, without including either the NATO forces or the Afghanistan government. He demands more military investment from our NATO allies, while withdrawing our forces from frontline positions and holding back 750 million dollars from NATO funding.

➣ Instead of a constructive immigration policy, he creates a zero-tolerance plan that ignores constitutional due process and commits America to the worse human rights violations since World War II. But this policy is just one brick in his racial wall of bigotry (see, “Bons Mots or Deceits”).

Perhaps, like the President, you believe his Administration is unfairly harassed by Democrats and the media. The Mueller investigation, he claims, was a Democratic “witch hunt” that proved no collusion or obstruction of justice. If you believe this characterization of the Mueller Report, then you obviously did not read the document. If you did, you would know that no Democrat is named anywhere in the report. The story that is unraveled therein is told by Trump campaign personnel and their contacts. Also, it outlines innumerable instances of collusion with foreign agents, while stipulating its inability to prosecute a criminal conspiracy. Because of witness lies, coverups, and unavailability for being out of the country, Mueller’s team was unable to determine whether there was tacit or expressed agreement with the actions of these foreign agents. However, with respect to obstruction of justice, buried in much legalize is an extremely strong case that shows ample precedence for a successful prosecution. As Mueller explained, he was unable to indict a sitting President because of a Department of Justice policy set by the Office of Legal Counsel. Deferring prosecution to the Legislature, he concluded that he could not exonerate the President. In other words, if Donald Trump were not the President, he would likely be sitting in a jail cell today, convicted of several felonies.

Whether you are a supporter of President Trump or not, you must weigh the import of a recent whistleblower’s letter to the IGIC (Inspector General of the Intelligence Community). While the ensuing months will determine the validity, import, and appropriate response, the letters opening paragraph states the issue rather succinctly:

“In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals. The President’s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort. Attorney General Barr appears to be involved as well.”

As I read the whistleblower’s statement and the notes from the President’s phone call with President Zelensky of Ukraine, I learned two things: our President is willing to trade American sovereignty to win an election; and he is attempting to execute a rather brilliant scheme, at least in concept, if not in reality. First, he attempts to force Ukraine to do his bidding by holding the release of Congressionally authorized military aid. Apropos to this extortion, he itemizes the “favors” he demands in exchange, to include joint US/Ukraine investigations into an alleged Ukrainian source for the DNC hacking during the 2016 campaign, and Joe Biden’s alleged attempt “to quash a purported criminal probe” into a Ukrainian gas company upon whose board sat Biden’s son. Second, implied in this gambit is a multifaceted scheme: Ukraine becomes the source for foreign intervention in the 2016 campaign; Joe Biden, President Obama’s former Vice President and a possible contender for President Trump’s reelection, is smeared by his alleged involvement in a corruption scandal; and Ukraine’s ability to defend itself with US Javelin anti-tank weapons is put in jeopardy before a feared Russian tank assault. So, Ukraine becomes the villain in the 2016 campaign intervention, as well as the source for a future intervention in the 2020 campaign, and its preparations against a Russian-staged attack is either delayed or severely weakened.

The “brilliance” of this scheme rests not with Donald Trump, but with Vladimir Putin for, as its sole beneficiary, he may well be its author. As a result, Russia is exonerated from interference in US elections; Putin’s chosen Presidential candidate is reelected for a second term; and Ukraine is pushed further into Russia’s orbit. Imagine what happens if Ukraine is seen as the foreign meddler in U.S. elections and if Zelensky is forced to accept Russian control and influence over eastern Ukraine. President Putin could then justifiably argue that all sanctions against Russia must be lifted. As a corollary benefit, Putin makes Donald Trump complicit in his strategy. For the American President, not Putin, held back military aid in an extortion scheme, committed the US Attorney General and investigative resources into a bogus investigation, violated campaign financing laws, and exercised an extraordinary abuse of Presidential powers. Of course, the official impeachment inquiry will ferret out many more issues. For instance, how does Giuliani, a private citizen, become involved in statecraft or, more accurately, spy craft? And who else is involved in this crime? Or its coverup?

The irony of the President’s role is his willing participation. On live television, he shamelessly encourages Zelensky to meet with Putin to resolve the “situation.” This newly elected President of Ukraine finds himself and his country between a rock and a hard place, that is, between the Presidents of the United States and Russia. Our President is effectively pushing Ukraine into the arms of Russia rather than supporting its desire to become part of the European Union. Of course, I know Ukraine’s history is tied more closely with Russia than Europe. But America has always supported the right of a people to determine the course of their country. If we did not believe so, we would not embody our founding principles.

How did America arrive at this juncture in history where it effectively supports the first invasion of a European country since World War II by aligning with the invading country’s conspiracies? And how can President Trump remain in office when he violates the trust of his voters by his flagrant abuse of power and disregard of his oath of office and Constitutional duty to “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” In my previous blog, I exhorted Americans to live up to the spirit of our democracy as expressed in the second paragraph of our Declaration of Independence. As a corollary to that spirit, we are also required to adhere to our Constitution and the rule of law. In order to preserve this democracy, all of us must live by the core principles and legal framework of our founding documents. None of us is above the law, including our President.

President Trump promised to “drain the swamp” of corruption in Washington. Instead, he has normalized it. From the Oval Office, it leaks down into the very fabric of America—its government and every aspect of our lives. While corruption exists to some degree in every government, the Trump “swamp” captures the largest slice of breaking news and reaches into our homes, our schools, and our workplace. It has become a depressive cloud that hangs over our nation. And it is an existential threat to America and to its “new world” promise.

__________________________________________________________
¹ Previous Republican Presidents have not been against regulations, just those they deemed too costly, better adjudicated by the States, or too restrictive of personal liberties. Just a few significant examples make this point: Theodore Roosevelt sponsored the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to address monopolies, created the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate interstate railroad rates, and signed the Pure Food and Drug and Meat Inspection Acts to reduce food caused disease and infection; Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OHSA), and the first Clean Water Act. Ronald Reagan signed the first Immigration and Reform Act that both made it illegal to hire/recruit illegal immigrants but also granted amnesty and a path to citizenship for over 3 million illegals who had entered the United States before January 1, 1982.

² You can find more details on America’s healthcare quagmire in my July 2017 blog entitled “The Republican Path to Healthcare.”

General Reference: The Whistleblower Complaint: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/26/us/politics/whistle-blower-complaint.html

We just passed a significant date in U.S. history: August 7, 1964, the beginning of the Vietnam War. On that date, Congress enacted the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, authorizing the President to conduct military action against North Vietnam. Congress acted quickly in response to the now infamous Gulf of Tonkin incident that allegedly occurred on August 4. Just two days before, there had been an exchange of fire between the USS Maddox and North Vietnamese patrol torpedo boats. On that occasion, the Maddox determined that the approaching patrol boats were threatening and unintentionally initiated the battle with warning shots across the bow. That warning, regrettably, was misinterpreted. The patrol boats launched torpedoes and were summarily destroyed or damaged. But the stage was set for the phantom attack on August 4, its erroneous report, and the resulting Congressional authorization to begin the Vietnam War.

I was caught up in that war. For many years, I suppressed its memory until I finally decided to confront the shadow that lurked deep in my soul. The novel that resulted from that decision— “A Culpable Innocence”—was a work of historical fiction, researched from many historical accounts and declassified documents. My research uncovered two startling facts. The first I just recounted: the incident that started the war never occurred. The second was the 1952 Geneva Treaty that called for an end to the Vietnamese-French conflict and a national election to presage a peaceful transfer of power to a reunified Vietnam. Although America negotiated this treaty, at the last minute the Eisenhower Administration pulled out of the agreement. The American government betrayed its own diplomatic effort to unify Vietnam and effectively laid the groundwork for the war that ensued.

Today, America just won a resounding diplomatic victory in the United Nations Security Council where all 15 participants voted to impose severe sanctions on North Korea for its continuing development of nuclear weapons and their ICBM delivery system. But instead of supporting this diplomatic breakthrough, the President seems intent on sabotaging it by inciting the North Korean leader into a war of threats and bluster: in the President’s own words, “fire and fury, the likes of which the world has never seen.” As a result, Kim Jong-un has responded by putting cruise missiles on patrol boats and by announcing an August 15 missile launch aimed in the direction of Guam. If he does so, how will America respond to a missile landing at or near one of its military bases. Even if the missile landed 300 miles away from Guam, how would the American military determine its intended target after traveling nearly 3,000 miles? Or how would America respond to a cruise missile shot across the bow of an American destroyer? What could possibly go wrong?

We lost more than 58,000 soldiers and over 250,000 wounded veterans in Vietnam. We killed over a million enemy soldiers of the North Vietnamese Army (NVA). (Casualty figures for the NVA are not available since American combatants left only the dead behind.) If we now shortcut our diplomatic efforts with threats of “fire and fury” and stumble into a war over a chance or mistaken encounter, the result would make the Vietnam casualty figures appear miniscule. We have some 20,000+ American troops on the border facing a million-man army. There are ten times that number of American civilians living in South Korea, mostly in Seoul, only 60 miles from about a thousand enemy howitzers. Within 14 minutes, those howitzers would begin to rain shells on Seoul. Hundreds of thousand could die under that bombardment. If Kim Jong-un decided to use his nuclear arsenal, millions could die. Of course, North Korea would be devastated. There are some 70 trident missiles lurking offshore in American submarines. The President just ordered B1 bombers to Guam and already has authorized their flights offshore of North Korea. Even if these flights remain over international waters, they will challenge North Korea to shoot down an American military plane–as they have done in the past.

Listen, America, the President is not just threatening a nuclear holocaust, he is readying for a nuclear war.

Confronted with this possibility, the President just said, “it’s better we fight them over there, than here (a paraphrase).” How do you think our South Korean and Japanese allies feel about his priorities? If his real intent is just to distract Americans from the Russian collusion investigation or win public support for defending America from an insane dictator, then Congress should begin impeachment proceedings as soon as possible. If, instead, he believes North Korea presents an immediate and serious threat to the homeland, then he needs to present facts and figures to Congress and the American people to support his bellicosity. I am no military expert, but cruise missiles on patrol boats do not seem like much of a threat to the counter measures built into our Navy ships. And long-range missiles with no fins seem unlikely to hit any intended target thousands of miles away – except by accident.

Simply put, are we overreacting to ridiculous provocations? And to what purpose is the President rallying Americans with his war cry? If he undercuts his Administration’s attempts at diplomacy and blunders into a war, he will likely become the first wartime President in history to be impeached. But even his impeachment could never undo the shadow he would cast over future American generations.

World leaders are beginning to criticize our President for his language and warlike posture. Perhaps his supporters will applaud the emotions he elicits with his hyperbolic rhetoric. On whatever stage he occupies, he is ever the entertainer. But as a President on the international stage, he casts a very dark shadow. What happens when the curtain comes down on his circus act? He may be ludicrous and the gist of satire. But the flipside of the dark humor he inspires is a sickening feeling in the pit of the stomach. That feeling is repulsion—a mixture of anxiety, disgust, and moral outrage.

America desperately needs a real President, not a showman. Let’s remove this showman from the world stage before he brings the curtain down on an apocalyptic climax.

A new President Elect comes to Washington as an outsider, riding a wave of support from the common people of rural America. The Administration he will replace is aghast and, in the words of its Secretary of State, his supporters are “like the inundation of northern barbarians into Rome.”* That Secretary of State was Daniel Webster. And the President Elect was Andrew Jackson. Although “Old Hickory,” as he was famously called, had sought the White House for the previous six years, he had little background in politics and even less patience with the duplicity of politicians. He was, however, determined to alleviate the plight of the common laborer at the hands of a burgeoning industrialism. Like our current President Elect, that determination had to contend with his natural reluctance to leave a well-established home—in his case, a Tennessee plantation. And both men abhorred the hordes of office seekers and publicity hounds that awaited them in Washington. Jackson went so far as to sneak undetected into DC and, on the day of his inauguration, to scale the wall behind the Capitol to make his entrance as clandestine as possible. Mr. Trump’s secretive “comings and goings” between New York and Washington and his use of a private rear entrance into Trump Tower is reminiscent of Jackson’s natural recoil from public exposure of his movements. On the surface, there does seem to be some similarity between these two President Elects. Beneath the surface, we find a very different story.

Although our President Elect only has to fill 4,000 office vacancies compared to Jackson’s 11,000, his transition period is made more problematic by a barrage of media criticism both at home and abroad. Unlike Jackson who had been a Superior Court judge in Tennessee and a United States Senator, he has no public service experience upon which to draw. Moreover, Jackson was the much heralded hero from the Battle of New Orleans, as the general who defeated Wellington, Napoleon’s nemesis at Waterloo, and who effectively won the War of 1812. As a result, he came to Washington with a nearly universal mandate. Our new President Elect does not even have the majority support of the electorate and has no such reputation or public service history with which to leverage acceptance of his policies. Winning a/o maintaining public support may be a challenge for President Trump.

Although there may be similarities in the transition phases of these two President Elects, it is patently unfair to compare an American hero with the controversial character of Donald Trump. Something other than character was operative in Trump’s victory. And therein is a problem both for our President Elect and for our country. Besides lacking a popular mandate, a recent exit poll reported a fourth of those who voted for him believed him unfit for office. In other words, it may be assumed that at least some of those Trump votes were not actually for him, but were simply protest votes. In addition, many of his true believers admitted they bought into the native flamboyance of his character and his generic promises for change. They voted for him in spite of his lack of specificity and his more outlandish rants and hyperbole. Naturally the enthusiasm he generated amongst his supporters attracted an inordinate amount of media attention. But the same media that was so enthralled with his enthusiastic rallies and with the extravagance of his lies and conspiracy theories will now be prepared to criticize his every word and action—just as they did with his predecessor. Even as President Obama is preparing to leave office, the often liberal leaning MSNBC asked its viewers whether Obama was responsible for Trump’s victory. As preposterous as this question may seem, it is emblematic of a media obsession with finding fault in whoever holds the office. President Trump faces an unremitting adversary in the commercially supported media which tends to cater to the public’s eager consumption of “lies, sex, and videotape.” Mr. Trump has already wet this appetite. The press will be unrelenting in their attempt to feed this hunger. Securing press support for his administration, even from the conservative leaning FOX network, may prove to be a daunting challenge for President Trump.

I am not, as you may have already surmised, totally buying this comparison of Trump to Jackson. It was initially made by a political commentator in one of those 10-20 second soundbites. Besides the similarities I have noted, this commentator also proposed a similarity in character. He felt both men were similar in their ability to fight for their beliefs and personal honor and to inspire a movement. Regarding their respective pugnacity, Andrew Jackson was certainly a man of integrity who never backed down from a fight and, in tune with the honor code of his time, even took a bullet in the chest to defend the reputation of his wife. And Trump may be, as he explained, a “counter puncher.” But he seems to defend his ego more than any principle or respect for another. Regarding their respective movements, Jackson’s social cause was about the application of Jeffersonian ideals to the labor dislocation of the 1820’s nascent industrialization. His politics were nuanced to the times, on the one hand fighting Hamilton’s American system and at the same time welcoming Federalist support from the Supreme Court. In other words, his politics were anchored in the Constitution and our founding principles. Trump, by contrast, would appear to trample on the inalienable rights outlined in that document as I argued elsewhere in “Politics and the Illogic of the Heart.” His business acumen may have served him well in private enterprise, but its self-serving nature offers no platform for launching a selfless public service regime. His company is already engaged in a string of civil lawsuits. In fact, his post-election affiliation with his business enterprises, as currently planned, presents serious conflicts of interest that will likely run aground of the law. President Trump may well face Federal indictment as a result. Unless he establishes a blind trust, his ongoing business ties will present a serious legal challenge for President Trump.

Our President Elect’s avowed policy “leanings” may be well served by appointing to the position of Attorney General a former civil rights antagonist and supporter of torture, to National Security Advisor a Turkey lobbyist and outspoken advocate for Islamophobia, to Chief Political Strategist an alt-right activist supported by white supremacists, to Director of the Central Intelligence Agency an advocate for resumption of torture and unrestrained surveillance, and to Director of the Environmental Protection Agency a person who thinks climate change is merely a hoax. Currently, among the possible choices for Secretary of State, he is considering a Russian lobbyist. Considering his previous statements in support of Vladimir Putin and his complementary remarks about Putin on RT’s (Russia Today’s) telecast, it is not unlikely that our President Elect will choose somebody that mirrors his tendency to seek some kind of rapprochement with Russia. By allowing the stated policy preferences of these appointments, he would be undermining fundamental American values and any constructive role in foreign affairs. Earlier in “There are Five Stages,” I stated my hope that the President Elect would impugn his campaign positions; instead he appears to be doubling down on them. These appointments could spell disaster for America and may already be one of the greatest challenges to his Presidency.

Prior to any consultation with the State Department, he has already had a conversation with Mr. Putin. Perhaps in the future they might work out a “compromise” where Russia would agree to join the United States in fighting Daesh and limit its annexation of sovereign territory to Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in exchange for joint acceptance of Assad as President of Syria and of unfettered Russian interference in the Baltic States which it considers its historical sphere of influence. Although hypothetical, this type of “rapprochement” is well suited to our President Elect’s stated positions with respect to Russia. It is also antithetical to America’s current foreign policy, to NATO’s charter, and to the international coalitions America has formed with western democracies. President Trump would face backlash from many nations with whom we have partnered for the last 70 years. But he may count as a positive that not only Russia, but even North Korea has expressed support for his Presidency. If his foreign policy continues in its current direction, America would face increased isolation in world affairs and may well facilitate the dissolution of the Pax Americana.

But perhaps our new President Elect will find a threat to his tenure in office of greater concern than the challenges enumerated here. Paradoxically, the most severe threat that may face President Trump is from his own Party. As many have stated, he is more pragmatic than ideological. His Republican “conservatism” is suspect on many issues, as shown during his primary debates. Also, he violated the Reagan oath to never criticize fellow Republicans. In fact, during his campaign, he alienated many Republican leaders, including the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader. The latter are the very people who would prosecute an impeachment if Trump failed the challenges put forth here, most especially any domestic legal charges or serious foreign policy mishaps like a conflict of interest or collusion with a foreign power. Having won the election, he appears to have regained support of nearly all Republican officeholders. But that support is opportunistic, not organic. Beneath the surface, there still lurks a smoldering distrust of his Republicanism.

Now you might think a Constitutional confrontation between the branches of government would be remote. But it was only eighteen years ago when a Republican Congress attempted to impeach a President for perjury and obstruction of justice because he lied under oath about a consensual affair he had while in office. Remember “I never had sex with that woman.” His only defense was what he thought sex “is,” thereby incriminating a defenseless intransitive verb. Compared to President Clinton’s failure with his personal challenge to marital fidelity, President Trump’s potential to fail before much greater challenges elicits risks both to the general welfare of all Americans and to America’s status in the world. If he should fail here, impeachment might not only be justified, but it would be politically desirable for the Republican Party. The current Vice President Elect is a very conservative Republican who served for twelve years in Congress and considers the Speaker a personal friend. Republicans would readily welcome him in place of an impeached President Trump.

Remember General Othello was undone by his trusted ensign. In the house of cards Donald Trump is building, there are many possible Iagos.

*As quoted by Marquis James, in “Andrew Jackson: Portrait of a President,” p. 181.

Fear is a potent and persuasive force in the rhetoric of a political operative. It is also an effective way to capture an audience’s attention. But, in life, we have to choose our fears carefully. Attacking windmills is no alternative for having the discernment, the tenacity, and courage to address real problems. Fear is our early warning system that can either inhibit us or spur us to action in the face of a real problem. If the problem is not real, then the elicited fear is not real, but an artificial ploy. Recognizing the difference is personal and liberating. And that recognition is true for both the individual and the nation.

When I was a little boy, my father and I would wrestle on the floor of our small living room. Besides the intimacy that I always had with my father, I remember how he did not always feign defeat in these matches. Sometimes, he would pin me to the floor. My mother would hear my complaints and attempt to intervene. But my father would say, “He needs to learn how to recover from defeat. He won’t always win in life.” Later, when he discovered that I was being bullied at school, he confronted me with the question, “Do you like being bullied?” Of course, I said “no.” His response was to buy me a punching bag and teach me how to defend myself, even against a bully older and bigger than myself.

It would be easy to draw the wrong lesson from my father’s actions. It was not about aggression, but about resilience. Eventually, I came to understand his intent as I learned the context of his life. As a teenager during the Depression, he and his older brother carried 100 lb. sacks of coal they stole from abandoned mines in Pennsylvania in order to keep their family warm during the harsh winter months. With the death of his step father, the family struggled to clothe and feed themselves. They depended upon the meagre income he earned from the streets and a local bakery. When he graduated from High School, he was offered a college scholarship. He refused. Instead, he went to New York where he could earn more money to support his widowed mother and younger siblings and pay for his sister’s college tuition. After Pearl Harbor, he wanted to enlist. But he was still the sole support of his family and his new wife. As it turned out, his desire to enlist was preempted by the draft. But before he was sent into combat, the army found him medically unfit and honorably discharged him. The soldiers in his Platoon went on to fight at Normandy and, according to reports, were all killed on D Day. Were it not for the ear infections that partially deafened him for life, I would not have been born.

During my development years, my father was the family breadwinner. He worked as a blue collar worker all his life and somehow managed to pay my undergraduate tuition and, after I left home, invested in my mother’s late blooming career. One of his best friends as a young man went on to earn a doctorate at UC Berkeley. That friend said of my father that he was the most intelligent man he had ever known. On the occasion of my father’s funeral, he wrote, “he was the best of us.” What my father’s life taught me was to always choose the “high road” and never give up or give in.

My previous blog closed with a reference to the sacrifices made by my father’s generation—“The Great Generation,” as chronicled in Tom Brokaw’s book. My father was not alone. Many men, women and children persevered through the challenges of Depression and World War. The Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt witnessed the soup lines, massive unemployment, Pearl Harbor, the sinking of commercial ocean freighters, and, of course, World War II in which over 400 thousand American soldiers died. Roosevelt’s “fireside chats” were designed to bolster the American population during those times of stress. He assured his listeners that America would eventually win the peace and secure our country. So why did he caution against fear?

I think the answer relates to my father’s question, “Do you like being bullied?” Both men knew that fear can immobilize an individual or a people. Roosevelt, for example, recognized that a nation gripped with fear risked defeat or a response stultified by panic. He chose for America the “high road,” demanding sacrifice, courage, and persistence. The lesson of my father was really the same for his entire generation. Together, they suppressed their fears and persisted to win that peace and build a platform for future prosperity. The lesson was one of resilience. And their fear was real.

Today, America is secure and prosperous. But it still harbors fears. During the Presidential campaign, the fears that seem to dominate the news cycle come from issues of terrorism, a Syrian refugee crisis, Muslim or undocumented immigrants, and the possible ill health or incompetency of the Presidential candidates. Do these issues justify the fear they engender? And is the fear real? Perhaps a closer look is warranted.

➣ Today we recognize the fifteenth anniversary of the World Trade Center disaster. Since 9/11/2001, there have been no successful attacks on American soil from foreign terrorists. Instead, we have experienced mass killings by Americans who claimed to be inspired by Daesh.
➣ Actual immigration and refugee statistics for the last year have not yet been released. But, in 2014, America gave slightly over one million immigrants permanent residency status. Only 96 thousand of these immigrants were refugees. None of them came from Syria. Some were undoubtedly Muslim, though I could not find an immigration statistic for this population. Their religious affiliation, of course, is not material to their immigration status. This year America has admitted ten thousand Syrian refugees; and several hundred thousand of the 11 million Syrian refugees have so far made their way to Europe. America has agreed to vet another 65 thousand Syrian refugees for residency in 2017.
➣ In 2014, 133 thousand Mexican nationals were awarded residency status. Currently, the influx of undocumented immigrants now matches the exodus of Mexican nationals. Since a large portion of those now crossing the borders without visas are from other Central American countries, the actual number of undocumented arrivals from Mexico is actually decreasing. Of course, the Hispanic population in this country is increasing because of the number of births within that community. Somewhere between a third and half of the estimated 11 million undocumented Hispanics currently in America were born in America. In other words, in accordance with our Constitution, they are actually fellow Americans. Nevertheless, this Administration has extradited more undocumented immigrants than any previous Administration. Among the factors accounting for more extraditions are two changes made during this Administration: the border control force has been augmented and is now larger than all Federal law agencies combined; and the Administration has emphasized the priority of extraditing all undocumented residents with criminal records whether recorded here or in their country of origin. Having stated these factors, I have not dismissed the number of law-abiding undocumented immigrants that have been exported to their native countries. I just do not have their numbers, but can only guess at the anguish of their families.
➣ The issues of health and competency of our Presidential candidates seem to be a matter for the electorate to decide. Both candidates have letters from medical doctors testifying they are fit for office. Both candidates will be the oldest nominees for office since President Reagan. Their medical condition is a matter for consideration in their respective eligibility for office.

These issues are not the only things discussed and argued during this campaign season. But they seem to get the most attention. Apart from the nominees’ respective health or competency, why should we fear foreign terrorist, Syrian refugees, undocumented Mexican nationals, or Muslims? Obviously, terrorists do not present an existential threat to America at this time. The focus should be—and already is—on corralling and defeating Daesh in Syria, limiting their ability to resupply and support their fighters, and counter their internet recruitment efforts. Regarding the Syrian immigrant crisis, it has hardly touched the United States homeland. At this time, America is already the largest contributor to refugee camps overseas. But it is true that America’s one to two year vetting process does slow down the flow of refugees. This vetting process could be expedited if Congress chose to exempt certain classes of refugees, as they did at the conclusion of the Vietnam War. Given the large number of immigrants already seeking residency in America, there seems to be little incentive for Congress to exempt or reduce the vetting of Syrian refugees. The concern about large numbers of criminals entering via our southern border or of terrorists entering with visas from Muslim countries like Syria is not supported by facts. With respect to Muslim immigrants, our Constitution would prohibit their exclusion on the basis of their religion. And Muslims have been immigrating to America since 1880; and nearly all of the three million or so Muslims currently living in America were born here. Never in the intervening 136 years have American Muslims presented any reason for other Americans to fear them. So, given these considerations, why do these issues consume so much consideration?

The answer involves motivation. The Republican nominee fans unwarranted fears of a denigrated portion of the electorate, while demonizing his opponent. The Democratic nominee uses these misdirected fears to draw attention to her counterpart’s incompetence, while likewise demonizing him. The press is content to cover any contest that entertains its audience or readers with the back-and-forth of accusations, conspiracy theories, alleged scandals, and personal insults. In other words, both campaigns and the press want to shape the narrative to either sell a candidate or hold an audience’s attention, respectively. But what is being missed in this campaign charade? What issues are real causes for concern? Let’s review a few hard problems that are being overlooked.

➣ Our contest with Russia has been on a slow burn for over a decade now and threatens to overheat to that point of no return. The press laughed at the 2012 Republican Presidential nominee for drawing attention to this concern. But is another Cold War imminent? Or are we already so engaged? This contest with Russia did not start with the Georgia invasion nor culminate with the invasions of Crimea and eastern Ukraine. It is ongoing and has precedents. President Bush encouraged the expansion of NATO to the Russian border and withdrew the United States from the ABM treaty. Under President Obama, the United States activated a missile defense site in Romania, broke ground on another missile defense site in Poland, and punished Russia for its actions in Ukraine with stringent economic sanctions. Meanwhile, Putin has been planning how to neutralize the supposed threats posed by these missile defense sites in Eastern Europe. While Congress is proposing a one trillion dollar allocation over ten years to modernize the nuclear triad, including new cruise missiles, nuclear submarines, ICBMs, and bombers, Putin has announced he will bring five new strategic nuclear missile regiments into service. It is naive to call Putin a bully who merely needs to be confronted. He is acting out of the context of recent history and his own predilections regarding America’s allegedly devious intentions. Our next President has to find a way to deal with Putin before either side continues this escalation into a tense standoff in Eastern Europe—something reminiscent of the Cuban missile crisis.
➣ North Korea and Iran are both developing ICBMs which normally are built to deliver nuclear warheads. Meanwhile, President Obama has decided to deliver a missile defense system to South Korea. Israel, of course, already has the American supplied Iron Dome Missile Shield. With respect to Iran, The President’ pursuit of the Iran nuclear deal was intended to immediately set back Iran’s nuclear program and establish an inspection protocol that would permanently remove the threat of a weaponized nuclear program. (Whether his intent is successful will depend upon the verification protocol being maintained and Iran’s behavior after the initial ten year reductions in their atomic energy program are “normalized.”) North Korea’s recent underground nuclear test definitely raises the stakes there. Kim Jong Un’s intent to develop intercontinental missiles weaponized with nuclear warheads is transparent. Perhaps I am alone in wondering whether the missile defense systems the United States is installing in Eastern Europe and South Korea might also have a dual role. Besides protecting our allies, they could also serve as an early warning system for a possible nuclear attack on the homeland. Maybe my imagination is running away with me. But, last I checked, our nuclear defense is still based upon mutual mass destruction. In this context, early warning is critical. And the intent of a nuclear armed North Korea becomes critical in raising America’s alert level and response preparedness.
➣ China now boasts that its nuclear submarine fleet is larger than the U. S. fleet. It has extended its reach from the South China Sea to the Western Pacific. Meanwhile, the U. S. has ramped up its naval presence in the Eastern Pacific and promoted alliances across Asia as a counterweight to Chinese influence in the region. American ships and reconnaissance flights in the South China Sea have instigated Chinese intercepts which have been termed provocative and dangerous by the Pentagon. Meanwhile the Chinese are proposing their own RECEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) agreement to counter the Obama Administration’s TPP (The Pacific Partnership) agreement that both Presidential candidates have criticized. China fears that the TPP will cement America’s influence in their region where possibly 40% of the world’s commerce may reside.
➣ The Middle East is in the midst of a medieval clash of civilizations where modernity is being weighed against the rigid security of oppressive regimes and the comforting customs of religious practice. Will some form of democracy emerge or, in the absence of democratic institutions, just mob violence? How can traditional religious practice meld with the secularism of modern states? The West could stand back and watch the Middle East burn. Or, perhaps under American leadership, the West could find a way to act constructively and respectfully in the region. The fighting in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and the spillover into terrorist acts of violence in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, and Jordan now overshadow the long standing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian territory. There is only one unifying theme in the region’s amalgam of dissident sects, tribal rivalries, and foreign engagement in proxy wars, specifically, distrust for the West. Although America was never part of the colonial regimes, it is still seen as the chief representative of the West and is called the Great Satan. Since the Carter Administration, every President has taken a turn at solving the Middle East conundrum. It may be unsolvable for anybody from the West. Nevertheless, no President can completely ignore the region for, as we have seen in Syria and the recent wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya , this region’s dysfunction cannot be contained within its borders.
➣ On the home front, there are far too many issues that loom large; but none can be addressed because of gridlock in Washington. Party politics have made it impossible to address any issue in a united and coordinated fashion, including the national debt (13-14 trillion plus another 6 trillion owed to the Social Security Trust Fund), deficit spending (forecasted to average 500 billion per year through 2021), infra structure investments (roads bridges, airports, the electrical grid, internet access, etc.), other related tactics in support for job creation (like an infra structure bank, inner city economic zones, renewable energy subsidies, and so on), measures to address income inequality (like a minimum wage increase, extension of the earned income credit, tuition subsidies, vocational training in high school, additional support for community colleges, etc.), tax reform (leveling the corporate field for competition by eliminating loopholes and lowering corporate taxes uniformly, lowering the tax burden for working middle class families, eliminating tax havens overseas, etc.), health care (cost reductions in pharmaceuticals, shoring up the insurance loss counter-provisions now prohibited by the courts, possibly some compromise on a public option), and entitlement reforms to bolster the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. The reason there are so many unaddressed issues is the fact that they have been accumulating for years without even appearing on the Congressional agenda. Meanwhile, 50-60 repeals of “Obamacare” have passed the House; and the government’s budget is juggled like a hot potato until the legislators run for the exit at the midnight deadline. Whatever happened to the “service” in public service?

Both wittingly and unwittingly, the media shapes the narratives of this campaign season to focus on the less significant issues while the candidates in turn attempt to disqualify each other as unfit for office. My readers can decide on who is or is not fit for office. But I am free to question this misplaced focus for trivializing a Presidential election campaign. My last bullet captures perhaps the most critical issue before us. Americans are looking for a change election because they are fed up with the way the institutions of government are being managed. They have been hijacked by special interest and political stratagems that show little regard for the general welfare of Americans. (A specific example of the latter I addressed in my blog, “Perverted Politics.”)

The current political discourse hypes bogus fears that misdirect the public into unrealistic and simplistic solutions: build walls to “protect” the nation from “illegal aliens”; prohibit Muslim a/o Syrian immigrants to “protect” Americans from terrorists. Obviously, there are and have been people who live in America without proper visas. Not all of them are Mexicans. And their offense is legally termed a misdemeanor for which they can be deported. Looking out my window, I see several of them working on a construction project. I know they are not unionized and are underpaid for their work. This is a problem for them, their families, and for America. But it is not a cause for fear. Likewise, apart from the “shoe bomber” and “underwear bomber,” who were both unsuccessful, we have had no Muslim foreign infiltrators terrorizing America since the 9/11 attack 15 years ago. We have more homegrown terrorists with whom to reckon than foreigners. And they are not “Muslim extremists.” When I studied comparative religion, a religious extremist of any denomination was an advocate for a literal interpretation of sacred scriptures, not a terrorist. So use of the term “radical Muslim extremist” is more a derogatory comment on a person’s religious affiliation than a means to defeat Daesh. It is a mislabeling intended to induce fear and loathing for a religion—an easy scapegoat for the deluded souls who adopt various justifications—religious and otherwise—for their murderous rampage.

When Roosevelt attempted to quell fear, his purpose was to give hope and instill courage in the American people. He wanted to elicit their resolve in the face of fear. A leader inspires; a politician persuades. But the citizen must distinguish the difference between inspiration and demagoguery, between persuasion and manipulation. Fear is the artifice of choice for the manipulator and the demagogue. Just remember, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

(More on this topic can be found in “America’s Broken System” and with a touch of satire, in “Compromise, An Unfulfilled Promise.”)

Early in the primary season, Putin spoke out in favor of Donald Trump. He seemed to be responding to Trump’s stated remarks praising Putin. But it still struck me as odd that the Russian President would bother to remark on the American presidential campaign before the Parties had even selected their candidates. During the Cold War, a Russian President’s endorsement would have been the kiss of death for a candidate. So why would Putin speak out in favor of Trump? Was he seriously impressed with Trump’s credentials, as he indicated? Or did he have a subversive or other ulterior motive? Well, I did a little research and have discovered a few correlations that may hint at his motives. Of course, I have no way of knowing what is in Putin’s mind. But, still, I thought it useful to share the following:

➣ Maybe Putin sees Trump as somebody he can understand. Both are nationalist and use populist rhetoric to gain support of their followers. They both seem caught up in nostalgia for the past whether in Putin’s commitment to restoring the Soviet empire or in Trump’s avowed dedication to “making America great again.”
➣Putin might also infer some like mindedness between him and Trump in their professional associates and in their reaction to demonstrators. Paul Manafort, Trump’s political strategist, performed the same role a little more than two years ago for Viktor Yanukovych, the Ukrainian president that Putin controlled and protected. Although I have no reason to impugn Manafort’s involvement in the political repression of Ukrainians, his political involvement with both Yanukovych and Trump could be interpreted by Putin in Trump’s favor. Putin also shares Trump’s distaste for political opposition. His government threatened to withdraw financial aid to Yanukovych unless he suppressed protests. In February of 2014, Yanukovych ordered the mass shooting of protesters, thereby spurring a revolution, his own exile in Russia, and Putin’s invasion of Crimea. Trump certainly shares Putin’s distain for protesters and likewise disregards the possibility of any violent consequences.
➣Putin’s desire to form a Eurasian alternative to the European Union would be abetted by Trump’s stated intent to withdraw from NATO. The only entity in Europe that is committed to protecting state borders since World War II is NATO. Russia under Putin is provocatively testing those borders in his quest to form a counterweight to the EU. Trump’s interest in freeing America from European “free-loaders” goes far beyond President Obama’s insistence that NATO countries devote two percent of their state budgets to mutual defense. Trump is threatening to remove the American safety net altogether—a policy proposal that has already shaken our allies but that must warm the heart of Putin.
➣Trump’s perspective that America has failed, that the government is led by “losers” and “incompetents,” fits nicely into Putin’s view that the West is corrupt and a foil for his type of authoritarianism. Although Putin might like Trump’s analysis of America’s state of the union, he likely is more interested in what a Trump presidency would mean for Russia. In fact, the Kremlin seems to believe Trump’s erratic foreign policy initiatives might benefit Russia. According to the television producer and writer Peter Pomerantsev, the Russian elite are convinced that Trump will destroy US power (reference “Nothing is True and Everything Is Possible: The Surreal Heart of the New Russia,” Public Affairs, p. 241).
➣ Besides, Putin really does not like Hillary Clinton. He accused her during her last state visit as Secretary of State of stirring up trouble amongst Muscovites and his opposition in Parliament over alleged rigged elections. After she left Moscow, he had the opposition leaders arrested.

So why does Putin favor Trump? Why does he insert himself in American politics? What has emboldened him to do so?

If we know anything at all about Putin, we must recognize that he is reliving, even recklessly reviving, the Cold War. Diplomacy for him is a zero sum game that he feels Russia must play against the West and specifically against the United States. When President Obama pulled Putin aside at the G20 Summit and told him “that if he forced Assad to get rid of the chemical weapons, that that would eliminate the need for us taking a military strike” (reference, Jeffrey Goldberg, “The Obama Doctrine,” The Atlantic, April 2016 issue), Putin agreed with the President’s proposal, but not out of any conciliatory or humanitarian initiative. It is likely he saw his own interests served. Perhaps he wanted to forestall the possibility of chemical weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. Many Islamic Chechens who violently oppose Moscow are fighting with Daesh in Syria. But it would be naïve to overlook his likely intent to undercut our President in his ongoing tryst with political opponents at home. Republicans immediately highlighted the President’s weakness vis-à-vis Assad and Putin. The appearance of being upstaged by Putin played very well in the Kremlin, in the US media, and in Europe. This is the result, I believe, that Putin sought, especially in its effect on American allies whose trust in the American President’s “redline” was shaken.

There was a time in American politics when political adversaries in America always agreed on supporting the Presidency against any form of foreign aggression, including diplomatic. That time has passed. Some Republicans in Congress have unwittingly, or perhaps unconscientiously, aligned themselves with our diplomatic foes. It would have been unimaginable for any Republican to align with Khrushchev during the Kennedy administration or with Brezhnev or Andropov during the Reagan administration. Yet we hear the President’s political opponents praising Putin as a statesman who outwits the Administration’s foreign policy at every turn. What was unimaginable is now reality: the Kremlin is now emboldened to insert itself into American politics. A former KGB operative, a Cold War antagonist, can now openly favor a candidate for the American Presidency.

Whatever interest the Kremlin has in Trump and whatever Putin hopes to accomplish by publically commending him, we can be sure of one thing—his interests are not ours.