Where do morality and politics intersect? And why is the answer to that question important in any government?  

In autocratic states, the norms of governance are pre-established by the governing authority, to include laws that assure its power and that punish any threats or affronts to authority. By way of justification, dictators will claim autocratic governance more effective than the free-wheeling democratic societies, where laws allow free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, due process, and the right to defend oneself in a court of law before a jury of one’s peers. But those are the very freedoms that give voice to diversity within any society. Most of us Americans, by contrast, treasure these freedoms and learn to tolerate the creative conflicts they spawn as necessary steps to unifying compromises. Of course, our politics can be chaotic, even divisive at times, but the resultant compromises are guided by a governing body of law engendered by and reflective of a universally acknowledged Constitution. We elect politicians who may represent different policies and political parties, but who must swear an oath to the same Constitution. And that Constitution not only defines three branches of government in a check and balance system, but it also outlines the goals of that government in its Preamble and the subsequent Amendments that over time further clarified its goals. And those goals allow and protect diverse opinions, philosophies, and religions. Taken together, they guarantee the freedoms that benefit the well-being of every citizen, without regard to race, gender, or national origin. And those freedoms should form the framework for mutually supportive interaction between citizens and their government as well as the corresponding respect citizens should show each other. Without such interaction and mutual respect—which characteristically defines patriotism—there would surely be nothing but chaos. The act of being a patriot, therefore, is nothing less than respecting the rights of others and supporting mutually recognized democratic ideals—not unlike the familiar task of choosing good over evident evil. This is the same decision-making process that defines any moral code of behavior. Democracy is that moral basis for American patriotism. Conversely, how could democracy, or any system of governance, survive without patriotism? Therefore, we expect our democratically elected politicians to be patriots. As such, they must swear an oath to serve America’s Constitution, else be mis-aligned with America’s moral code and its ability to sustain its democracy. 

What is the intent of a democracy? What does it mean to live in a democracy? And why do democracies seem in constant flux? 

Obviously, America’s democracy depends upon citizens’ and their representatives’ support for the values expressed in its Constitution. And those values are defined in the Constitution’s Preamble by justice, domestic tranquility, a common defense, the general welfare, and the blessings of liberty for “ourselves and our posterity.” The intent of our founding fathers is thus made clear—as is the meaning of our democracy and of citizenship in that democracy. The word “meaning” here has connotations that reach deeply into what is undefinable in each one of us humans. It is derivative of the Old English verb maenan. The root sense of this verb is “to signify, to intend, or to make known.” ¹ Each of these slight variations in the root sense of the term reveals an aspect of meaning, but not a succinct definition. Just so, no one can define another human being. As individuals we reveal in word and deed the values or goals we seek or intend. But, as individuals, we remain as unknowable as is the definition of “meaning” ² itself. For, as individuals, and therefore as citizens, “who we are” can and will change, just as our democracy can change and evolve. Change is a function of our freedom which is derived from free will, the very cause of our unknowable selfhood. And that “unknowability” makes us unpredictable and our democracy at times chaotic. Even though democracy depends upon the consensus of a majority, that citizen majority will differ over time. Therefore, it can change its affiliation with specific parties and its support for differing policies and values over time. The success or failure of any democracy may be difficult to assess in a singular moment of time, though its self-identity can still be retained and persists through societal and even cultural changes. For example, key democratic principles may remain intact, such as a legal system supportive of Constitutional ideals, free elections, equal opportunities for all, peaceful transitions of elected candidates for office, and the awarding of citizenship either as a birthright or by a naturalization process. A democracy, then, must reflect the ideals of its Constitution, even as it adjusts to the will of their contemporary voting citizenship and to the exigent needs of judicial, legislative, and executive management at a particular moment in time. In other words, democracies must remain consistent with their founding ideals through changing times. And that consistency is the burden and responsibility of each generation of citizens. 

Why and how did democracies come into human history? 

Democracies can and have emerged from autocracies, sometimes won by revolution, but always spawned by free choice. Whereas autocratic states were usually born out of necessity, as if predetermined at the dawn of human societies. Initially, homo sapiens formed leader-led tribes and communities to defend themselves from and compete for nature’s bounty with other species, starting with other hominids over 200,000 years ago. Consequently, tribal hordes and then empires and kingdoms gradually became the norm, usually held together by a single governing authority and a code of behavior sometimes enhanced by and codified in religion. Unfortunately, this correspondence between religion and state became both a unifying principle and, ironically, the impetus for conflict within or between sovereign states. Amidst the clash of civilizations, empires, and monarchies that followed, the welfare of subordinate classes was relegated to an afterthought. Only the privileged—aristocrats, monarchs, and the like—could entertain the personal freedoms human nature required to create and manage the human potential in every individual. But then the Bill of Rights in England, Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, and the French Revolution occurred. As a result of these newly defined human rights and the declarations of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” or of “Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite,” a new order of self-government entered human history. Democracy was born, not as a brief experiment in an Athenian city-state, but as a governing principle that has since spread to many sovereign countries. These democratic states cling to their sovereignty not by autocratic force or a state-sponsored religion, but by the will of their citizens’ free franchise and their freely established system of laws and institutions—both anchored in a universally accepted constitution. Whereas empires and autocracies tend to last for exceptionally extended periods—half a millennium in the case of the Roman Empire ³ —they evolve slowly without significant intrinsic change but intent on preserving a central authority and pre-determined way of life. By contrast, democracies can and do change their leadership to suit their needs, serve their constitutional rights, and assure their security from threats within and beyond their borders. In modern times, democratic states have shown themselves to be less likely to engage in preemptive wars of conquest and more likely to have higher standards of living and guaranteed freedoms for their citizens than totalitarian or autocratic states. They defy/rebel against autocracy for its suppression of the human potential in its subjects. Democracies, by contrast, value the lives and wellbeing of all their citizens, not just those privileged by birth, wealth, or tribal conquest. They reflect the humanitarian values of the Enlightenment as their raison d’état. 

Is America, as the oldest democracy in history, the fullest realization of its founders’ intent? 

However wise America’s founding fathers were, they could not have foreseen how our Constitution would or could more fully realize Jefferson’s Declaration that “all men (sic) are created equal.” That clarification was in part left to their posterity. For example, women at the time were considered subordinate to, though supportive of, men; and Africans were seen by many as an inferior species and thereby unjustifiably treated as farm animals or house slaves. We cannot know how these men of that period might have conditioned their consciences to accept this anomaly between the ideals expressed in America’s founding documents and the prejudicial practices of their time. But we know many of them treated their wives with respect and love and abhorred the inhuman treatment of slaves. Jefferson, for example, was loved and respected by the slaves that worked the plantation he gained by marriage. And, as history has recorded, he obviously loved his wife’s half-sister who was technically a slave in his father-in-law’s plantation. We cannot know how he reconciled his life with his declaration that we are all equal by reason of our birth as fellow humans. We might assume that many men of the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries lived with conflicted consciences, just as many citizens of the late 19th and early 20th centuries welcomed the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments. Moral clarity can become a welcome relief to conscience. Why would anyone choose to live in a society where fundamental human rights were not recognized or were allotted only to the privileged? The obvious answer is that only the privileged would choose so—which explains how and why autocracies cling to power with so much treachery and violence. America’s Constitution was more than a clarion call for independence from totalitarian rule, but also a governing guideline for the development of a democratically free and equitable government. It delineates the moral code for a just society, though its implementation remains the responsibility of every American citizen who exercises his/her right to vote and supports democratic principles and norms.  

Given that America’s democratic republic is still a work in progress, what current threats does it now face? 

It would be presumptuous to say that America is more moral than all other nations, or that any democracy is more moral than any autocracy. But all democracies must aspire to be so. America has breached many moral obstacles in its aspiration to realize its fundamentally moral founding ideals. We fought a civil war to free our African hostages, granted them citizenship, and decades later granted them the civic and voting rights that every other American inherited at birth. But have we yet fully accepted our Black brothers and sisters, even though intermarriage and common legal rights have blurred our differences? Obviously, there still exist stereotypical perceptions of Black people—as there still are of women in the view of many men. Over a hundred years ago, women were finally allowed to vote. But, to this day, they still experience slights in the workplace, in positions of power, and in the governance of their own bodies (reference, “The Supreme Court: A Bulwark of Liberty”). American democracy, as stated above, is still a work in progress. And that work is a moral dilemma we Americans still must continue to unravel and accommodate to our founding ideals. 

Beyond our struggle to realize the import of our founding, the very nature of America’s democracy is now under attack. Foreign powers have sought to undermine our elections, distort, or disable our infrastructure, and intimidate our defenses by land, sea, and the outer-reaches of space. But the most threatening attack on our Republic has come from within. As referenced in previous blogs, we now face an existential threat from concentrated power in both politics and wealth.  

Regarding the political threat, we have witnessed the takeover of one of our major political parties by an anti-democratic minority. This insurgency took advantage of the Republican Party’s success in gerrymandering elections to secure electoral victories with only a minority of the votes cast. Although both political parties have used gerrymandering to steal election victories in the past, the Republicans have had unheralded success with this undemocratic scheme. In the past 30 years, only once has a Republican Presidential candidate won the popular vote, though they won the Presidency in three of the eight Presidential campaigns. In the state of Michigan, the Republican Party has won control of its legislature with every biannual election in this century until the most recent. But only once did the Party have a voting majority. This last election, which the Democratic Party won, was administered without gerrymandering because of a voter initiative that eliminated gerrymandering. With gerrymandering, the Republican Party assumed power it did not earn at the voting booth. As a result, the Party became a takeover target for anti-institutionalist and anti-democratic fringe groups that include opportunists, unhinged conspiracists, religious bigots, paramilitary groups, and the disaffected for whatever reason. As a result, long term Republicans have begun to change their Party affiliation. For how can Americans support a Party that has no documented policy platform? The Party’s former agenda to fight crime cannot be reconciled with its current support for the legal possession and open carry of military style weapons. Nor can the Party’s claim to manage public finances more discreetly be taken seriously when it consistently runs up the debt when in power. Moreover, it refuses to acknowledge the debt ceiling—that is, to pay for the expenditures already authorized by Congress—even at the risk of destroying the American economy and creating a worldwide recession. It balances this financial hostage taking of the American economy with its demands to reduce funding for the military, healthcare, and social security. What constituency does the Republican Party serve with these positions? How can the Party that once fought the totalitarian advance of communism for so many years, now choose to limit funding for Ukraine’s defense against the unprovoked invasion orchestrated by a Russian dictator—an opportunist who, as the former head of the FSB, rigged his initial election and now holds absolute authority for as long as he chooses? The Party of Reagan now supports the bogey of the Russian Bear. Furthermore, the Party of Lincoln now courts the support of white supremacists such as the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers. It has even questioned the indictments of these insurrectionists, impeded the investigation into Republican co-conspirators, and defended the former President’s role in inciting the “stop the steal” movement with his lies and false allegations. In conclusion, how can Americans relate to the current Republican Party as a democratic organization? It is more subversive than constructive towards our democracy. 

Regarding the threat emanating from wealth, many of my blogs have addressed how substantial amounts of money can ratchet up campaigns and secure legislation that benefits selected special interests rather than serve the general welfare. Further, corporate funded lobbyists not only influence legislation, but sometimes actually write portions of legislation that favor their interests. And then there is the law-skirting campaign funding from so-called “dark” money. On the other end of the money spectrum, there is the issue of a tax code riddled with deductions favoring high income tax returns and the self-interested influencers who argue against empowering the IRS to hold accountable the tax fraud too often committed by the rich and famous. Income and wealth inequality cannot be addressed when the most complicated and wealthy tax returns are not critiqued with the same vigor as the ordinary wage earner’s returns. †      

Can democratic ideals lead to a just society? 

Given that democracies can fall short of their moral and idealistic goals, how likely are they to become more moral than autocracies, especially those led by popular civil, political, or religious leaders? Well, that history is still being written. But the past has had many warring chieftains, kings, emperors, and dictators who have subjugated their people to autocratic rule. Even religion has been used to justify violent conflicts between sects and warring tribes. Just as the Huguenots suffered under Papal suppression, the current head of the Eastern Orthodox church can and has recently justified the slaughter of innocent Ukrainian citizens. Unfortunately, the common element in injustice is us humans, regardless of religion or form of government. Though we continue to evolve in myriad ways, we carry forward the same propensity to govern ourselves in ways far short of our human potential. And that evolution can be hampered in any system of government designed to serve the interest and belief system of a few–or even just one–at the expense of the many. By contrast, note the opening words to the Preamble of our American Constitution, “We the people of the United States in order to form a more perfect union.” With those words, the onus for nurturing and evolving a free democratic government is solely placed on each American. But self-rule alone does not guarantee every American will reap the benefit of the rights and freedoms specified in our Constitution unless each of us support and adhere to the ideals immortalized therein. Our laws must be construed to assure that adherence. In addition, every elected official and government employee must do so likewise—even to the extent of taking an oath before God to do so. Stated bluntly, every American—citizen, elected official, or public servant—carries the burden of supporting and evolving our democracy on his/her shoulders. And that burden is a moral imperative. 

I believe the quest of any and every democracy must be for a just society where an informed electorate and strictly administered free elections result in representative government where elected officials and public institutions serve the “general welfare” of all citizens. Given the vagaries of history and human shortfalls, democracies can and must evolve—sometimes, ad hoc, but usually intent on realizing their founding principles in a changing environment. Herein do we find once again the intersection of politics and morality. Democracy cannot survive unless it is founded upon core principles that are representative of and supported by its citizens, elected officials and the governing laws and institutions established by those officials. The founding principles of a democracy, therefore, define its goals, its evolution, and the beneficial interests—or the general welfare—of its citizens. Democracy is still humanity’s best hope for a just society. 

____________________________________________ 

¹ Reference the Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. 

² This statement derives from Kant’s das Ding in Sich, “the thing in itself.” Reference Immanuel Kant, “Philosophical Writings,” Ernst Berhler (Ed.), New York: Continuum, 1986. 

³ The Roman Republic existed for six centuries before the Roman Empire was founded. Roman principles and jurisprudence, therefore, influenced over a millennium of human history. 

† Over several decades, I have been audited three times. Only once did I have to reimburse the IRS for a small Turbo Tax error. The issue: my return seems to have received more attention than an alleged billionaire and grifter like Donald Trump who has bragged about not paying taxes. Recent analyses by the press indicate my experience is the norm. So why does the GOP want to reduce spending on the IRS’ ability to analyze the more complicated returns of the wealthy? What constituency is the GOP serving? 

My previous blogs, some might surmise, seemed to tread on a closely held conservative tradition often attributed to Thomas Jefferson concerning states’ rights. But Jefferson espoused much more than the states’ rights heralded by contemporary Republicans. His Declaration of Independence espoused the rationale for separating the colonies from Britain. But it also established the foundational principle for a new government based upon “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.” The grievances listed in his Declaration did more than merely subjugate Americans “under absolute despotism.” For they invariably violated this natural order wherein we humans are “created equal . . . (and) endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” With these words, the Declaration set the ground rules for the American Constitution. Before its creation, no other document in history attempted to create a democratically inspired government founded on the very nature of humanity. Therefore, if all of us humans are to be treated as equal, then every executive or legislative action must assure that equality. Consequently, the American Constitution also created a judiciary as its third and equal branch of government and the final arbiter of our individual liberties. As Hamilton stated in Federalist 78, “the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments.” ¹ In fact, all instruments of governmental power—executive and legislative, whether federal or state—fall under judicial review, with the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of justice in our American government–literally, a bulwark of our liberty. 

Before delving into Constitutional Amendments and Court precedents, let me acknowledge that I am not a lawyer. Jurisprudence presumes an extensive knowledge of the law and its myriad applications. But I do have a perspective less encumbered by legal precedent. Partly, my comments are inspired by (now) former Justice Breyer. “The Court’s power,” he explains, “like that of any tribunal, must depend upon the public’s willingness to respect its decisions—even those with which they disagree, and even when they believe a decision seriously mistaken.” ² 

 Although the American Constitution is the bedrock of our legal system, its very existence was preordained by the Declaration of Independence that grounded it in the birthright of every human being, male or female. Jefferson’s Declaration, though not a legal document, is the inspiration for the Constitution wherein was crystallized America’s cultural heritage from the Age of Enlightenment. After years of internecine wars and the clash of empires, a few philosophers and statesmen argued for the “rights of man” over the privileged class of monarchs, aristocrats, and government officials. Of course, the Enlightenment had many tentacles into science, politics, culture, and human behavior. But my focus here is on Jefferson’s contribution to the founding principles of our American system of government. Clearly, he represented the ideals of the social contract and “natural rights” espoused by Locke, Rousseau, and others. His counterpart during the creation of the American Constitution was Benjamin Franklin, truly a renaissance man and the acknowledged final arbiter on practically every dispute during the Constitutional Convention. These men espoused ideals that focused the American government on the general welfare of every man, woman, and child, as opposed to any groups, class, dignitaries, moguls, or politicians, regardless of popularity or fan support. Given the founding ideals espoused in Jefferson’s Declaration and immortalized in our Constitution by Franklin and its other cosignatories, how should we adjudge recent Supreme Court rulings on abortion? 

First, let us review Justice Alito’s argument to amend what he terms the “egregious error” committed by his predecessors on the Supreme Court. Of course, he was referring to the Roe V. Wade Supreme Court opinion of nearly fifty years ago. All subsequent challenges, he states, were rebuffed not on their merits but on the legal theory of “stare decisis, which calls for prior decisions to be followed in most instances, (and) required adherence to what it called Roe’s ‘central holding—that a State may not protect fetal life before viability.’” ³ Like any good lawyer, his argument is buttressed by references to previous summations and legal precedents regarding the constitutionality of a woman’s right to end a pregnancy, as previously asserted by the Supreme Court. First, he assumes a woman does not have that right. Secondly, he assumes that rights must be placed in legislative bodies duly elected and representative of the voting public. And, thirdly, since “opinion” on the matter differs from State to State, the Federal government cannot assume any authority to decide the matter for the country. In fact, he opines, there is no historical precedence that might or could justify a Supreme Court determination of abortion rights. Indeed, many state laws have defined abortion as a crime, punishable by law. So, Justice Alioto must conclude, the “unalienable” right here cannot reside with the mother to decide the course of her pregnancy, but with the unborn child-fetus-zygote. And since the developing embryo is not yet a cognizant human being, the State legislators must assume that right even though diverse legislatures and their supporting public may differ and change over time. Finally, he concludes that history affirms a uniform consensus on the rights of the unborn since abortion has been previously ruled a crime in 37 states and 12 territories.     

In the words of the Mississippi advocate before the Supreme Court, “Court’s decisions have held that the Due Process Clause protects two categories of substantive rights—those rights guaranteed by the first eight Amendments to the Constitution and those rights deemed fundamental that are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. In deciding whether a right falls into either of these categories, the question is whether the right is ‘deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition’ and whether it is essential to this Nation’s ‘scheme of ordered liberty.’ (reference Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U. S.).” Should the issue then depend on whether abortion is rooted in history or in its nature as a fundamental right?  

According to Justice Alito, Roe v. Wade either ignored or misstated this history, and Casey declined to reconsider Roe’s faulty historical analysis. He does not consider the argument that a pregnant woman has a fundamental right to decide the term of her pregnancy based on the viability of the unborn and her ability to support the future welfare of a newborn. Any corollary risks to her health and life are not even considered by Justice Alito, since he considers the matter subject to the whim of state legislators governed by dissident or variant public opinion in individual states. In fact, Alito can find no justification for Roe v. Wade other than it being a precedent, which he once supported during his confirmation hearing, but now disavows as an “egregious error.”  

In this manner, the long-held doctrine of stare decisis (“to stand by things decided”) is abandoned, even though the fundamental rights affirmed in Roe v. Wade have been accepted law for nearly fifty years. But Justice Alito not only finds Roe v. Wade an egregious error, but the long held legal doctrine of stare decisis no longer relevant. Perhaps, Justice Alito’s summation is not a legal opinion, but a political opinion. Given his arguments, how would he assess the fundamental rights of slaves or of women to own property. The history of the New World did not acknowledge any human rights for slaves in the 17th, 18th, or even most of the 19th century. And women’s rights to own property, to vote, or even to be paid commensurate with men in like positions were not acknowledged until the 20th century. History, Justice Alito fails to notice, can be an unreliable arbiter of fundamental rights. Does he not know that lynching was once legal? Or that women were burned at the stake for exercising supposed magical powers? Though Justice Alito admits that “stare dicisis restrains judicial hubris,” he seems unable to restrain himself from recognizing its relevance to his own hubris. 

For my readers, there is no need for me to repeat my distinction between intelligence and reasoning. Justice Alito’s jurist opinion of Roe v. Wade is an impressive legal document with many references that support a well-reasoned argument. Unfortunately, it can become myopic when it excludes a wider view of reality. For example, anybody can quote biblical references from the Old Testament that seem to negate the New Testament—like that uniquely Christian dictum of “love thy neighbor as thyself.” Therein is a uniquely fundamental truth that would have or could have forsworn years of warring tribes not only in ancient Judea but even in our modern world. In a perverse reversal, Justice Alito’s resurrection of mostly 19th century laws criminalizing abortion ignores the more enlightened jurisprudence of the last 50 years. For example, our society has grown to recognize the gross subjugation of women, even in our enlightened democratic republic. America, unfortunately, still struggles with the issue of equality as even Jefferson’s idiom revealed when he wrote “all men” instead of all human beings “are created equal.” But women are not just endowed with the same unalienable rights as men, they are also the caretakers of our regeneration. Justice Alito’s assessment of abortion is so shrouded in legalese that he loses sight of the bigger picture—the human dimension. Namely, he seems insensitive to the roles our wives, sisters, and mothers share in securing the future of our posterity. They are not just a “mechanism” for nurturing fetuses in the womb. Pregnant women must also weigh the viability of their newborn’s future. First, they must consider whether they are mentally and physically able to be a mother. Will they be able to provide for their child’s needs? And can they secure the medical care required to deliver and support the health of a newborn? These are amongst the decisions every pregnant woman must consider. And she must be given the support she needs to make those decisions as well as obtain the medical care to assure a safe pregnancy. Roe v. Wade recognized her right to decide the term of her pregnancy before the fetus became viable, that is, able to live outside of her womb. Her freedom to make these decisions should be protected by the Supreme Court as the bulwark of that liberty it must preserve. Roe v. Wade did so.  

According to Alito, Casey abandoned the privacy right scheme (from Roe) in favor of the 14th Amendment’s due process justification. Therefore, he argues, it never justified Roe with new arguments, other than resting on precedent. But “precedent” implies no new arguments are needed. Even the Mississippi opinion admits that “Roe and Casey each struck a particular balance between the interests of a woman who wants an abortion and the interests of what they termed ‘potential life.’”  Justice Alito, however, believes the term “potential life” is a misnomer that he would replace with an “unborn human being.” And this so-called misnomer is at the crux of what he terms the “moral question” neither Roe nor Casey address. The reason his alleged “moral question” is not addressed is because its premise is irrelevant. Neither Roe nor Casey assumes an aborted fetus is human until it can survive outside of the womb. Science tells us that a zygote or fetus with less than 22 weeks in the womb is not able to live outside of the womb. They are not yet what Alito terms “unborn human beings.” They are potential human beings in the same sense as an unfertilized egg subsists in a woman’s womb with the potential to become a human being after fertilization and development in the womb. The mother’s womb nurtures the fertilized egg as it develops into a fetus and eventually reaches term or the ability to live outside of the womb as a human being. Normally, a fetus reaches term after 26 or more weeks in the womb, though some of us emerge as fully human a bit sooner. But medical science has long established that no embryo less than 22 weeks in the womb can survive birth. They are considered “unviable.” And we do not consider these unviable fetuses to be unborn human beings. If we did, then Justice Alito’s term de jure “unborn human being” would make abortion criminal homicide. Is it his intent, then, to allow some States to re-criminalize abortion while others are permitted to authorize safe abortions as a normal medical procedure? If so, his opinion will ignore twenty-first century science and create a jurisprudence hodgepodge across myriad states. And the ultimate victims will not be aborted fetuses but the lives of many pregnant women who may be victims of rape, incest, or the inability to support a child due to age, joblessness, or extreme poverty. Compelling these women to endure pregnancies in such circumstances cannot be ethical nor should it be legal in a just society. Justice Alito’s opinion not only denies them their liberty but effectively casts them as characters in Margaret Atwood’s Handmaid’s Tale.    

An interesting facet of Justice Alito’s reasoning is its singular focus on some legal precedents to the exclusion of others or of any other perspective. He agrees with the Mississippi case that “the arbitrary viability line, which Casey termed Roe’s central rule, has not found much support among philosophers and ethicists who have attempted to justify a right to abortion.” The most obvious problem, according to Justice Alito, is that “medical advances and the availability of medical care have nothing to do with the characteristics of a fetus.” The only problem with this logic is that it misrepresents reality. For a large majority of Americans accept the fetus viability standard as both ethical and in concert with medical science. Only the strongly held religious beliefs of a minority believe otherwise. And that belief is protected by our Constitution. Consequently, nobody so believing can be forced to have an abortion against their will—even if their life is at stake. But Justice Alito would take away the rights of those who believe otherwise, even though philosophers, ethicians, ministers, scientists, and medical professionals support them—as did the precedents established in Roe and Casey. Given the disparity in opinions/beliefs on abortion, why does Justice Alito feel it necessary to rule in favor of anti-abortionists without regard for the opposing view which is shared by most Americans? He favors legal precedent from the 19th century over legal precedent of the 20th and 21st centuries. Is this a viable legal decision, or just a reflection of his own bias? If the devil can quote the bible (and he does, check out Mathew ch.4: v.5), then I suppose Justice Alito can quote whatever legal precedent suits his purpose, however inappropriate to the time or circumstances.  

Among Justice Alito’s Justifications for overruling Roe v. Wade—and all subsequent affirmations, including Casey—is his proposition that it is not workable. Specifically, he states, “continued adherence to Casey’s unworkable ‘undue burden’ test would undermine, not advance, the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles.” I wonder how he would reconcile this statement with the workability of denying prospective parents the medical service of invitro fertilization. Are there “unborn human beings” in lab test tubes or petri dishes waiting to find surrogate wombs? If so, what legal penalties will be necessary to punish egg/sperm donors, doctors, and lab technicians for the hideous crime of imprisoning humans in test tubes or worse, freezing them until surrogate wombs become available. Does Justice Alito have a workable solution for this legal and human conundrum his decision creates? I wonder what “evenhanded, predictable . . . legal principles” he would develop to deal with denying prospective parents the use of IVF technology. 

Justice Alito explains why he ignores precedent in overturning Roe. First, he sidesteps stare decisis: “adherence to principle is the norm but not an inexorable demand.” Then he rationalizes his justification for overturning what the Supreme Court had determined as a fundamental Constitutional right by referencing an opinion at variance with Roe, namely, Ferguson v. Skrupa, which supports his opinion that a “rational-basis review is the appropriate standard to apply when state abortion regulations undergo constitutional challenge. Given that procuring an abortion is not a fundamental constitutional right, it follows that the States may regulate and when such regulations are challenged under the Constitution, ‘courts do not substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies’ (Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726, 729-730P).” But these beliefs are as much a part of cultural history as the judgment of legislatures that can be and often are reversed in an ongoing evolution. Also note that the premise, namely, that “an abortion is not a fundamental constitutional right,” is self-justifying, that is, the premise justifies the conclusion without an argument. And Justice Alito adds “that (the Ferguson opinion) applies even when the laws at issue concern matters of great social significance and moral substance.” If I read this statement literally, Justice Alito just disqualified his own judgment as well as Roe and Casey in favor of duly legislated laws/regulations. Certainly, it is true that the courts do not legislate. As Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, “the power to redress that evil (the suppression of black voting) must be in the hands of the legislature and the executive.” ⁴ Justice Alito reiterates Holmes’ judgement by arguing that abortion of unviable fetuses cannot be a fundamental right unless it is made so by a law duly legislated. Well, Scott v. Sanford was overruled by the 13th Amendment. And Justice Alito seems to be inviting Congress to do likewise with his opinion which, I might add, has the force of law.  

So, what have we learned from Justice Alito’s opinion? He believes that the Roe v. Wade opinion was an overreach by the Supreme Court; that it should never have been codified as a fundamental Constitutional right grounded on “social and economic beliefs;” and that State legislators can and should determine how they regulate and/or abolish abortion in their respective States. Consequently, the Supreme Court erred in its Roe verdict by overriding the power of State legislatures. Given the limitations of the Supreme Court’s ability to make or enforce laws, Justice Alito’s opinion does have an historical justification. Despite his myopic legalese and torturous reasoning, his arguments decidedly fail on social and moral grounds, which he would argue is beyond the Court’s purview. His timing is regrettable, for his opinion is fifty years too late. I could have spared my analysis by simply quoting Tom Nichols, a contributing writer to The Atlantic, who wrote, “this is reasoning in a vacuum as if nothing happened over the course of 50 years.”  

The real problem here is that Americans do not accept Justice Alito’s opinion. As a result, trust in the Supreme Court has sunk to a new low. Why? I believe this Court is out of sync with America. And, to quote Oliver Wendell Holmes again, “I strongly believe that my agreement or disagreement has nothing to do with the right of a majority to embody their opinions in law . . ..  I think the word liberty in the 14th amendment is perverted when it is held to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant opinion . . ..” In present day America, the dominant opinion is in support of Roe v. Wade. And a woman’s ability to decide on the “when, what, and how” of her pregnancy should not only be protected but supported as a natural right. If childbirth and progenerating humanity were not part of our unalienable rights, then nothing is. The problem, of course, is with a very vocal minority that believes abortion kills babies. When that belief is fortified by religion, there is no middle ground for any form of reasoned compromise. Belief can trump opinion, science, or even commonly accepted facts. Although the First Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion, it prohibits Congress from establishing a religion. (For example, it can create religious holidays, but it cannot legislate church attendance.) Since we are a pluralist society, our differences are settled by a majority vote that each citizen must accept as the first rule of our democracy, as Holmes alludes in his “dominant opinion.”  

The Supreme Court has officially withdrawn itself from the abortion issue. State legislatures now have the authority to resurrect trigger laws from the 19th century or to legislate new laws that will regulate pregnancies and abortions differently from State to State. Given the divisiveness already inflicting America, this issue will continue to create animosity and even violence until we accept the first rule of our democracy. Most Americans appear to want Roe v. Wade codified into Federal law. Regardless of our personal beliefs, however, every American needs to vote his/her conscience. Given the state of our democracy and its governing majority, the only stakes higher than abortion rights are those of democracy itself. (Reference “Majority Pejoraty”) 

  ____________________________________________________________

¹ Alexander Hamilton, “The Federalist or The New Constitution,” The Easton Press, Number 78, p. 524. 

² Stephen Breyer, “The Authority of the Court and the Peril of Politics,” p. 1 (Preface)  

³ All the quotes attributed to the Supreme Court are taken from DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION ET AL. and the Supreme Court decision No. 19-1392, The Opinion of the Court written and delivered on June 24, 2022, by Justice Alito. 

⁴ Breyer, Ibid., p.15. 

The title of this blog has come to haunt me. Its application in the investigation of the violent death of Louisville’s Breonna Taylor is curiously inappropriate. And yet it so captures the state of America at this time in its history.

First, how did our justice system handle this heinous crime in Louisville? The killing of Breonna Taylor, we are told, was not “wanton endangerment.” Nor was it classified as murder, manslaughter, or wrongful death. But the bullets that passed so innocently through her apartment were found guilty of wanton endangerment when they entered a neighbor’s apartment. Louisville authorities have thereby exonerated the barrage of bullets fired into her apartment, including the five or six that entered her body. Those bullets were justified as return fire—like “freebies”. Breonna’s boyfriend, it was determined, did fire a single shot to defend himself, his girlfriend, and their home against violent intruders who broke through their front door. What other possible motive could he have had for firing his weapon, other than self-defense? He did not know the intruders were police. And if he had been forewarned—which only one unnamed witness claimed out of the several so interviewed—he would have had no reason to fire his gun. For he had done nothing to merit arrest. In fact, the no-knock warrant had been issued in error.

Here is the most instructive irony: the policeman indicted for wanton endangerment would not have been so charged if his stray bullet had entered Breonna’s body—even if it was the fatal shot.

Of course, I recognize that Breonna’s death will be adjudicated under existing laws. But it is well past the time for Americans to admit that laws do not always define justice. Remember when slavery was legal—along with Jim Crow laws, red-lining, school segregation, and so on. Although Lady Justice holds up a beacon of hope, she can only light the way to the justice we must create. For justice is not a fait accompli. Our Lady Justice may well look askance at the term “wanton endangerment.” There are many synonyms for “wanton,” but they derive from the Old English wan, “deficient,” and towen, “drawn,” “trained,” “disciplined.” Regardless of how the law is interpreted, the clear meaning here implies some officers endangered others “wantonly,” that is, because of a deficiency in act, training, and/or discipline. How can the death of Breonna not be considered a result of the wanton endangerment perpetrated by the officers who obliterated her apartment with a barrage of gunfire? Well, welcome to the concept of systemic racism.

I am not a lawyer. And the actual evidence in this case has not yet been made public. So, my assessment can only be preliminary, based upon what has been reported. But I do have some experience under fire. As a Vietnam vet, I served contemporaneously with the infamous My Lai Massacre for which Lt. Calley was convicted in military court of the premeditated killing of 22 unarmed civilians. Of course, the Calley case differs from Breonna’s murder. The latter was not premeditated. But it was predetermined by an unlawful arrest warrant and an undisciplined, poorly trained officer corp. Also, it was not totally defenseless, though effectively made so by an overwhelming onslaught of police return-fire. The pictures of the murder scene recall the mob style obliterations of rival gangs’ hideouts. One officer alone is reported to have unloaded 16 bullets into Breonna’s bedroom. Frankly, a well-trained soldier would never have unloaded a full clip in the direction of a single shot fired in his/her direction. He/she would have first determined where to aim return-fire most effectively while simultaneously seeking cover. Any kneejerk response of overwhelming return fire would be indiscriminate and could potentially endanger innocents—like Breonna. A more sensible response was available. Just four words could have precluded the assault altogether and prevented the loss of Breonna’s life. Why did not the lead detective call out “Police, hold your fire?” A single shot from a 9mm. Glock would not have scared a soldier in a real combat situation. And it would not have unnerved a well-trained police unit into a massive response of gun fire. Even in war, soldiers are prohibited from endangering the lives of civilians and have been held accountable for the loss of innocent lives.

Of course, police deaths are tragic too. Fortunately, the officer shot by Breonna’s boyfriend is recovering from a near fatal wound. But he was shot in apparent self-defense. Until the result of a thorough, unbiased investigation is made public, we cannot be certain of the guilt or innocence of those involved. But those found guilty should face prosecution. And police practices must be subject to the same laws and face the same sanctions that apply to all Americans.

Like soldiers in war, police face the risks of death or injury, though not as frequently. But they should not succumb to fear and panic or show disrespect and/or loathing towards the community they are meant to protect and serve. Soldiers can walk through actual minefields and amongst enemy noncombatants without killing indiscriminately. The reason they can do so is training, discipline, and mindfulness of why they wear the uniform. There was a time, some six decades ago, when some black communities felt besieged and police felt at war with them. I would like to think that past is ancient history. But systemic racism endangers us with the reliving of that history. We must repair this rent in the fabric of our society.

No civilian police force deserves protection of the law when it fails to “protect and serve.” And, perhaps regrettably, individual police need to be held accountable whenever found failing in his/her mission of public service. Fortunately, the vast number of police are upright public servants. Therefore, who would argue against hiring men/women of character, training them adequately for public service, instilling the discipline required in dangerous situations, and making them well-versed in the restraints required in difficult circumstances? And finally, why not review and strengthen those federal laws that protect the civil rights of all citizens and that define how policing should assure those rights are respected.

Secondly, how else should Breonna Taylor’s death resonant with Americans? There is a strange coincidence arising from this Louisville incidence of wanton endangerment. We Americans are not only being introduced to the term but to its reality in our day-to-day lives. Because of an incompetent and compassionless President, we are all victims of wanton endangerment. As the Covid-19 pandemic threatens our health and lives, the consequent economic depression risks the security of our jobs and the prospects for our future. President Trump not only failed to develop a national plan to address the pandemic, he repeatedly, in his own words, “downplayed” it, claiming “it will just disappear.” Further, he now endangers a free election and the very democracy America has evolved over the past 244 years. Again, in his own words, “Get rid of the ballots and you will have a very peaceful – there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation.” With those words, he sets the stage for a possible Constitutional crisis. No democracy can exist without a peaceful transfer of power after a national election.

All Americans can now identify with Ms. Taylor, as unwitting victims of indiscriminate and reckless behavior. Like the Louisville police claim of self-defense, Donald Trump says he is protecting his presidency against a rigged election—a blatant projection of his own attempts to rigg his reelection. And, just as Breonna Taylor was wantonly endangered, he is putting Americans in wanton endangerment of losing their democracy, as he has endangered lives and fortune with his reckless response to Covid-19. Whereas Breonna Taylor’s death is just one more cautionary tale of racial injustice, Donald Trump would detour America’s forward progress in history. Not only would our progress towards racial justice end, but the death knell of our Constitutional Democracy would begin.

Although President Trump has not specifically addressed Breonna Taylor’s death, he has commented extensively about the countrywide protests over systemic racism. Rather than focusing on the issue, he has resurrected the “law and order” bromide of racist provocateurs like George Wallace. He threatens peaceful protesters, attacks mayors and governors for failing to escalate their response, and even threatens to defund cities and states of their lawfully mandated Federal remuneration should they fail to follow his “no-holds-barred” dictum (as he instructed, “you must dominate the space”). His constant roiling of elected state and city officials is also an act of wanton endangerment for it stirs up divisiveness, even the possible insurrection of his white supremacist followers. He is breaking down the doors of our democracy to bend the nation to serve only his interests. No altruistic restraint or adherence to laws and social norms will stop his assault . . . unless he is held accountable.

I do not know whether our justice system will adjudicate Breonna Taylor’s murder fairly. But I do know that in the era of John Lewis and Ruth Bader Ginsberg, America does have the wherewithal to correct its course towards liberty and justice for all. Regarding the criminal attempt to rigg an election, I know Americans have the power to hold President Trump accountable. Once again, we are faced with Lincoln’s challenge that “this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.”

We cannot fall victim to wanton endangerment and to its destructive consequences. America has been and can be more resilient than its failings. We can rid America of systemic racism and restore the moral power of our founding ideals. November 3rd is both a reckoning and a promise. It is time to vote our future.

_____________________________________________
Still my question of the day: is it possible to reform our economy and our government without serious campaign reform that honors voting rights and replaces unlimited fund raising with equitably disbursed public funding? Or is there another way to return sovereignty to the American people?

As I have prayed for my son’s healing, physically, emotionally, and spiritually, I also have been praying, even before this, for the healing of our country. We are the United States. Have we been united? Do you understand what’s going to happen when we fall? Because a house that is against each other cannot stand. To all of the police officers, I’m praying for you and your families. To all of the citizens, my black and brown sisters and brothers, I’m praying for you. I believe that you are an intelligent being just like the rest of us. Everybody, let’s use our hearts, our love, and our intelligence to work together to show the rest of the world how humans are supposed to treat each other. America is great when we behave greatly.

—-Julia Jackson (mother of Jacob Blake) —-

A grieving mother tells her fellow Americans they must use their hearts, their love, and their intelligence to pull together or risk losing this great union. Her words express the only wisdom that can bring America back from the brink of its own demise. They unlock both the meaning of our founding ideals and their underlying values. In just a few words, she outlined the path forward for our stricken nation.

(Allow me to expand on her eloquence. The following is a partial reprint of a blog I wrote over a year ago, before impeachment and the pandemic.)

The underlying values expressed in our nation’s founding reach beyond the structure of government or the term of any President. They speak directly to our souls and demand our full-throated response. Their antecedents from the Age of Enlightenment were just historical steppingstones to an unforeseeable future beyond the revolutions they inspired. And that future was placed in the American voting booth and in the will of its people. “We the people of the United States” established our government “in order to form a more perfect Union” and, implicitly, to transform a revolution into an evolution. That evolution implies a constant state of becoming. As President Lincoln reminded us at Gettysburg “this nation . . . shall have a new birth of freedom . . . (a) government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Or, as President Obama stated more succinctly, “we are the change we seek.”

When President Elect Trump claimed “only I can” make America great again, he offered to take the burden off the shoulders of Americans. Millions of voters rose to support him, mistaking his opportunism for leadership. But by bequeathing to him the power to act on their behalf, they unwittingly empowered him to act in his own behalf. He identified with their grievances about an unresponsive government and “politically correct” double-speaking politicians. But instead of policy solutions, he offered slogans. Nevertheless, he seemed authentic, even entertaining. They saw in his brutish, pugilistic manner the promise of a fighter, a champion for their cause. But he has proven not to be anybody’s champion or even “a man of the people.” His Administration has only benefited the wealthy and the corporate bottom line. He measures his success by the stock market and the full employment of a two-job economy (i.e., wage earners working multiple jobs). Without a doubt, under his Administration the nation has continued to grow in wealth. But, at the same time, it has fallen precipitously in both public and private debt. The growth in wealth belongs mainly to the one percent with which he identifies; the debt issues unfortunately remain with the rest of us, including his supporters. Those issues portend an economic time bomb. And they are the result of the President’s myopic focus on the affluent rather than the general welfare of all. But the fault here lies mainly with us, the voting public. We Americans put our trust in a man rather than find the change we seek within ourselves. Why?

The simple answer is we have lost faith either in our form of government, in the values upon which it is founded, in ourselves as informed responsible citizens of a democratic republic, or in all the above. We could have taken back control of our government, perhaps along the lines I advocated in August 2015 (reference, “American Revolution 2016”). But, instead, we abdicated our government to a man who prefers despotism to democracy. He discredits a free press, rejects Congressional oversight (which he terms, “Presidential harassment”), attempts to commandeer the Department of Justice to “protect” his interests (by “draining the swamp” of all opposition and fighting his enemies in an alleged “deep state”), and denigrates the Judicial Branch of Government for checking his lawlessness (or, as he states, “they don’t like me”). He will not be content until he has dominated not just the “fourth estate,” but every branch of government.

Within his Administration, he considers his word to be law (“everyone obeys me”) and fires anyone he suspects does or might disagree with him. As a result, he finds it necessary to suppress any disobedient competency or integrity within his Administration by appointing sycophants, job-beholden “acting” officials, and the ethically compromised. Amid the chaos he creates around himself, “only . . . (he) can” stand at its center as the sole decision maker. There he decides whatever serves his public image and his insatiable need for self-aggrandizement. Clearly, this President does not serve the general welfare. He shows no understanding of what it means to be a public servant or of what is required to uphold the public trust in government. If we Americans are responsible for putting this man in office, then how do we right the ship of state? Removing him from office might not solve our problem. In other words, that simple answer is simply too simplistic. There is a more deep-rooted and insidious source that explains the 2016 election.

In my blogs, you may have noticed more than a few references to the Enlightenment, that 17th-18th century revolutionary worldview that affected art, philosophy, and politics. That period is also identified as the Age of Reason, incorporating such luminaries as Bacon, Newton, and Kant. You may have suspected that I write from a philosophical bias carried over from my undergraduate days. In truth, I believe the rebirth of reason was an important break in world history, but not the only breakthrough needed. Europe needed a rebirth of reason to break with the tyranny that spurred religious, ethnic, and monarchical wars. The American revolution was part of that rebirth. But what I now observe in American politics is an excessive dependence on reasoning at the expense of actual intelligence—that same intelligence referenced by Julia Jackson. Let me explain.

Socrates used logic—sometimes imperfectly—to refute the sophists by illustrating the faulty consequences of their arguments. While reasoning is a legitimate tool for understanding, it can be used, as Socrates did, merely to refute an opponent. Whereas his intent was to expose misconceptions or untruths, American lawyers and politicians often use the same tool simply to win a case or a political dispute without regard for the truth. The latter, as it happens, can prove elusive. There are reasoned arguments that seem to support opposing positions: democracy versus socialism, real citizen versus usurped citizenship (like naturalized immigrants or “not like us” citizens of not-white race or heritage), climate change versus weather, or equality versus opportunity. The reasoned differences in these arguments can easily lose the significance of how we experience reality. For example, democracies include social welfare programs; citizenship does not differentiate by class, gender, race, or ethnic origin—though discrimination does; climate change is a global phenomenon, though experienced as local weather; equality assumes equal opportunity—not survival of the fittest. In America, we have heard many reasoned arguments that socialism is the enemy of democracy, that some people “not like us” should not be treated as citizens, that climate change is nothing more than normal weather fluctuations, and that some class of people are inherently less capable or worthy. These arguments may be reasoned, but they defy our intellect and our experience of reality.

When I differentiate “intellect” from “reason,” you might be wondering about my intent. I can explain by way of an interview with the chief of the Pueblo Indians as recounted by Carl Jung. ** That interview revealed the chief’s appraisal of the white man. He “thought that the whites were crazy since they maintained that they thought with their heads, whereas it was well-known that only crazy people did that.” He explained further “that he naturally thought with his heart.” Jung immediately added, “that is how the ancient Greeks also thought.” In fact, Socrates would agree. He would initially question the logic of putting children in cages to deter immigration, whether the Administration’s immigration policies were a logical way to deter immigrants seeking refuge or asylum. The likely consequences of such action, he would point out, indicate otherwise. They would discredit America as a champion of human rights, as a nation governed by rule of law, as a people without feelings for the tired, the poor, or the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Besides these consequential inconsistencies, these policies have proved ineffective: the immigration surge continues while the processing backlog becomes increasingly insurmountable. As a result, many now die just beyond our border fences in Mexican internment camps as well as in American internment camps. Reality bites.

The reasoning behind the Administration’s zero tolerance policy is a tight syllogism: restrictive border admittance of immigrants maintains America’s identity; Trump’s zero tolerance immigration policy is restrictive border admittance of immigrants; therefore, Trump’s zero tolerance immigration policy maintains America’s identity. Or in Trump’s words, “we have no country” unless we turn back migrants at our southern border. Many a logician can counter Trump’s premise which ignores America’s identity as a pluralist society. But therein is America’s problem. We keep running down that rabbit hole of reasoned debate. Talking heads on cable news and political tribes in Congress and in bars continue the debate ad nauseum. And all this reasoned debating misses the obvious reality. Both Socrates and the Pueblo Indian chief would question our intelligence in a different way: we are not thinking from the heart. In modern terms, we are thinking with our left brain without any input from the right brain. But reason is not the same as intellect or a more integral understanding of the world upon which depends our cultural traditions born of metaphor, myth, and symbolism. It can too easily exclude feelings, the emotional element that embellishes thought with felt experience, brings passion and relevance to human lives, facilitates connection with others, and stirs compassion for all who share this common humanity. Compassion (from the Latin cum, “with,” and pati, “to suffer or bear”) is a feeling we share with others and learn initially from family life. Without it, no person can pretend to understand, love, or—God forbid—govern others. Can human intelligence exist without compassion? I think not! But we can engage in “reasoned” debate ad infinitum.

The President explains his use of the military and federal marshals/officers as an appropriate exercise of his “law and order” policy. Is it not reasonable to protect citizens from rioters and public buildings from looters? Likewise, his support for police departments has a reasonable pretext, that is, the need to protect and serve the general population. But this rationale is suspect when he deploys federal marshals and officers, untrained in crowd control, against peaceful protesters. And, likewise, his support for policing is inexplicable in the circumstances of George Floyd’s or Jacob Blake’s deaths. His policy positions may appear reasonable under the banner of “law and order.” But they are unconscionable, immoral, and inhuman. Would anyone with even a modicum of intelligence or compassion think otherwise?

Reasoning breaks things down into abstractions we can analyze and then reconstruct into a static, though understandable, coherence. But we experience the world as a dynamic phantasmagoric landscape forever slipping away with the arrow of time. What remains is stamped in memory as an experience colored and charged with feelings. It is from this storehouse of memories and feelings that we evolve. And it is from our love and compassion that we raise families, unite into communities, develop culture, and, ultimately, evolve civilizations. America, consequently, reflects who we Americans are at any moment in our history. And, in this moment, we are being challenged to define who we are as a people. What we agree is real or factual and what we value will determine who we will be. And what we value is colored brightly by our feelings. The allegedly rational policies of this Administration often defy reason. But, more importantly, they are totally devoid of human feeling or compassion. It is therefore fair to state that they denigrate “our hearts, our love, and our intelligence,” as Julia Jackson stated so simply and eloquently.

The President does stir up emotions in his supporters. At his rallies, they cheer him as their champion or, in his words, “the greatest President in history . . . nobody has achieved what I have achieved.” His crowd response reminds me of a story I heard or read many years ago. It begins with a Jewish man who dared to slip into one of Hitler’s rallies, perhaps out of curiosity. Before long, he found himself caught up in the emotions of the crowd, forgot his initial foreboding, and began saluting the Fuhrer. Hitler, despite his megalomania, was an effective demagogue. When he once said, “I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few,” he was explaining how a demagogue stirs the masses to gain power and controls his lieutenants with reason. Of course, his reasoning was filled with lies and racism. He accused his political opposition to be unpatriotic and said Jews should be feared and banished as non-Aryan. Unbelievably, his demagoguery, lies, and racial animosity gained him absolute power over the German people – even though he never achieved more than 37% support of the German electorate. When our President says, “don’t believe what you see or hear . . . it’s all fake news,” he not only attributes to himself the sole ability to distinguish fact from fiction but also the ex-cathedra ability of an absolute ruler whose word is law. We have seen this playbook before. The male “warrior king” has dominated Western mythologies for centuries.

A few millennia ago, when the Goddess myth dominated human culture and communities, human feelings had a preeminent role in determining human relations with nature and with each other. Perhaps it is time for the industrial and technology era, both progenies of the Age of Reason, to reengage with the Goddess. She has a role to play in capitalism that would reorient the profit driven mantra to embrace the needs of humans—specifically, employees and customers—and of the natural environment. She would restore the balance between the female and male archetypes in the human psyche to reintegrate care for others in leadership roles and restore respectful dialogue in place of discordant discourse or combative harangues. As Carl Jung reminded us, neither of these archetypes can be suppressed without damage to the human psyche. Further, contemporary societies exist within interdependent systems of local and state governments, of assorted technologies, and of diverse social structures. And these systems cannot survive without feedback loops responsive to human needs and ambitions. There is a human dimension to society that is ignored only at our peril.

Do the needs and ambitions of Americans align with the ideals and values expressed in our founding documents? If so, then our love of country would be heartfelt, and our patriotism would be displayed in the intelligent exercise of our right to vote. Our belief in equality and human rights would stir love and compassion in our hearts? And we would indeed be one nation (E Pluribus Unum, Out of Many One). If, however, we no longer believe the inscription on The Great Seal of America (Novus Ordo Seclorum, a New Order of the Ages), then we would have lost faith in America’s ability to endure, that is, to succeed with its experiment in self-government. And that loss would be the harbinger of its end—unless we heed Julia Jackson’s admonition.

Everybody, let’s use our hearts, our love, and our intelligence to work together to show the rest of the world how humans are supposed to treat each other. America is great when we behave greatly.

________________________________________________________________
** This interview and quotes are taken from Allan Combs book, “The Radiance of Being,” p.134.

Still my question of the day: is it possible to reform our economy and our government without serious campaign reform that honors voting rights and replaces unlimited fund raising with equitably disbursed public funding? Or is there another way to return sovereignty to the American people?