(This is a re-post of a blog previously published on 8/28/2013, a special 50th anniversary.)

It was August 28, 1963 and the march on Washington. Where was I then? I don’t even remember hearing Martin Luther King’s speech when it was delivered. Did I miss the broadcast? Or was I too involved with preparations for my junior year of college to notice? I remember being intimidated by the course of study facing me in my chosen (undergraduate) major. The subsequent two years would be consumed with the Greek philosophers and their successors in modern times from Descartes and Kant to the existentialists. My brain would be tasked as well by the syllogisms of Thomas Aquinas and the theological contemplations of Thomas Merton, men truly mindful and lofty of soul. But was my mind grounded by exposure to ideas that seemed as expansive as galaxies flying apart? Upon my eventual graduation from college, I toured Europe with my favorite aunt, a beautiful woman only 14 years older than myself and far wiser. During that time together, she began the process of deconstructing everything I thought I had learned. After that jolting experience, I returned home less sure of the academic template I assumed would guide me in the world. And then I met a sweet and charming young black woman who slammed the last bolt in my coffin of lifeless ideas. She startled me with her half-playful remark, “what you lack is soul.”

Listening to Dr. King’s most famous speech today reminded me of what we have all gained in the last 50 years. At that time, he urged non-blacks to view his people differently, recognizing that “their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom” and “their destiny is part of our destiny.” Referring to his people, he called them “veterans of creative suffering” and the black man, “an exile in his own land.” He wasn’t Moses leading his tribe to the Promised Land somewhere else. Most blacks have more tenure on this continent than any other group, except for Native Americans. But they did not come here by choice, but in chains. Their suffering under those conditions could be called “creative” in the sense that it brought forth the dignity of their human spirit and its capability to rise above pain and oppression—what came to be called “soul.” Today, we now call black people African-Americans; for they did indeed bring something from Africa very integral to contemporary America. We have all benefited not only from their excellence in the arts and athletics, but also in the awakening they affected in the conscience of all Americans. The President (Obama, our first black President) referred to the “coalition of conscience,” and rightly so. With the slaves’ freedom came the beginning of freedom for the persecutor from the dehumanizing bondage to injustice. The march on Washington 50 years ago helped extend our moral boundaries along a new trajectory that would eventually include peoples of all colors, race, gender and sexual orientation. That trajectory is our new shared destiny. When Dr. King spoke of brotherhood and non-violent change, he was motivated by compassion and the spiritual impetus of an oppressed but soulful people. Like all suppressed groups through history, blacks could either unite around vindicated rage or pull together in goodwill to oppose injustice with courage and faith in the goodness of their fellow human beings. Truly, it wasn’t just “soul” music that African-Americans brought to all Americans, but a new collective consciousness.

Two women rescued me from the literate idiocy of purposeless ideas. The younger woman, a passionate African-American, touched my heart with her own and seeded it with compassion. What we have all gained from the “veterans of creative suffering” is a renewed awareness of the brotherhood and sisterhood we all share—our common soulfulness.

Yesterday, I was reading Charlotte Alter’s book while pondering its relevance to both the pandemic and leadership crisis of the moment. Then this thought-balloon burst. My attention was drawn to the unwelcome sight of rust on one of my patio chairs. It was gnawing away at one of the interlaced iron strips that supported the seat. As a result, the plastic casing that protected the metal from rust was breaking up and slowly exposing more of the seat to deterioration. The resulting corrosion would eventually make that chair unable to support me or any human—unless I repaired it. The irony I found in this predicament was in the title of Alter’s book, “The Ones We’ve been Waiting For.” In this case, I was the one. But she was writing about the prospect of a new generation’s ability to stop a slowly engulfing existential crisis: the insidious corrosion of our democratic republic. If the American experiment is to continue its back-and-forth progress through history, who can keep it on its path towards a more perfect union. Who are the ones we’ve been waiting for?

If you are among the thousands that read this blog, you are well aware of what I term a “leadership crisis.” But the spread of the Covid-19 virus has exacerbated this crisis by raising the stakes. We are not only witnessing an abdication of national leadership and a deterioration of a democratic republic but also the loss of lives and livelihoods of many Americans. A stealthy corrosion has crept into both our experiment in self-government and the security of our way of life.

“Corrosion” does not need to be defined. We all know that it is a slow process of degradation that can go undetected until it is too late to reverse. For example, what is the cost of incompetence in government? Well, the world’s response to this global pandemic offers us an answer. The South Korean government, for example, reacted quickly and responsibly to the health crisis this Covid-19 virus presented. It incurred its first Covid-19 case on the same day as America in January of this year. Immediately, they shut down their economy and commenced extensive testing and contact tracing. By the beginning of May, South Korea had reduced their previous 255 cases/day to zero with only 2 deaths. Recently, after opening their economy, a second outbreak occurred. But the Koreans were prepared to test, trace and quarantine. They understood how to mitigate and control a virus for which humans have no immunity. Unlike the American disaster, they recognized the need to act quickly to a highly contagious virus. Their government proved itself competent to protect its people. It is true, of course, that South Korea has only about 15.2% of the population of America. How then can one compare its numbers with the American experience of more than one and a half million cases and over ninety-one thousand deaths (as of 5/19/2020)?

Our President, of course, abhors this comparison, exclaiming that America tested more cases in eight days than South Korea tested in eight weeks. The problem, of course, is that he made this comparison in March, not in January when testing would have been both strategic and appropriate. Considering the difference in the South Korean population (50.8 million versus 335 million), America’s eight days of testing should be multiplied by a factor of 6.6, which amounts to nearly 8 weeks (paradoxically). How many more tests per capita should have America performed to match South Korea’s effort? How about 6.6 times! But the real difference in this comparison is not the amount of testing. It is the fact that America started almost 2 months later than Korea. And now, four months since its first case, America has still not ramped up its testing to the per capita level of South Korea or even begun contact tracing at a national level. What competency has this American Administration shown during this health crisis?

Amongst all the nations of the world, only America has chosen not to address this pandemic with a national strategy or even adhered to its self-proclaimed tactical goals. By definition, a pandemic does not have a cure, otherwise every nation would be vaccinating its citizens to prevent contagion. So, the only defense is mitigation, which includes home isolation, safe hygiene practices, testing, and contact tracing. Without a cure, contagion will spread, and people will die. Any sane government would attempt to mitigate as much as possible while supporting the development of a vaccine. But President Donald Trump chose a different course. The goals and strategies offered by the CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) he ignored. The pandemic response plans of previous Administrations, he ignored. The role of FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) in maintaining emergency supplies and a logistics supply network, he chose to undermine. Initially, his Administration failed to restore its emergency supply and replace expired equipment—even after three years in office and after being warned of the pandemic in January. Subsequently, the President chose to circumvent FEMA’s disaster response network by appointing his son-in-law to source and distribute protective equipment and testing supplies. And he put his Vice President in charge of the medical team responsible to develop a strategy to address this national health crisis. Both initiatives were started late, as mentioned above. And they failed to accomplish their missions. Why?

The President’s son-in-law established an “air bridge” distribution system that sidelined the pre-established logistic capability of FEMA. In support of this system, he allowed government agents to high jack medical supplies ordered by individual States to address crisis situations in hospitals and care facilities. He claimed these supplies belonged to the Federal stockpile, not to the States. Perhaps he meant that these supplies were stockpiled for distribution to the States. But his team was less responsive to State Governors’ requests than to the VIPs he listed as friendly or beholden to the Administration. His distribution system was not strategic in addressing needs and not efficient in managing the usability of expired equipment. No one has praised his performance, other than the President. What is the price paid for this incompetency?

Meanwhile, the Vice President’s only contribution to the coronavirus team seems to be sourcing some ventilators the States’ Governors were unable to obtain. He also obtained testing devices, but without the required reagents and apparatus to perform actual testing—a pyric victory of numbers over substance. It is not clear what, if any, contribution he made to the health crisis team he allegedly managed, other than spouting meaningless statistics of supply acquisitions to cloud the absence of any strategic progress in delivering them where needed. But his work was consistent with the President’s plan of holding the Governors responsible for mitigating the virus, to include obtaining equipment where needed and dealing with the surge of patients and deaths. As the President sheepishly stated, “I take no responsibility at all.” He abdicated personal responsibility even for his Administration’s policies. But, at the same time, he claimed success for his Administration. Combined with the medically harmful advice he volunteered from the podium, his self-serving re-characterization of abject failure as success added confusion to the chaos he created. How many Americans have suffered at the hands of the highest elected officials in our government?

Today, America accounts for about 29% of the world’s cases of Covid-19 with only 4% of the world’s population. That statistical imbalance does not speak well of this Administration’s leadership. In fact, it highlights the corrosive nature of incompetence in government.

But incompetence is not even this government’s worst problem. Corruption is. There are so many examples of corruption that they surpass the total of all such incidents throughout American history. We have no precedent for a presidential political campaign inviting foreign interference in an election, for obstructing a counter-espionage investigation, and for punishing the investigators by questioning their procedures and firing or demoting them for doing their job. As if this type of corruption was not enough, the President even trumped the Russian GRU by bribing a foreign nation to adhere to a baseless conspiracy theory that undermines a political adversary and attempts to subvert another national election. But these transgressions are just prologue to current examples of corruption—from appointing surrogates complicit in corruption to eliminating whistleblowers and inspector generals who investigate/report on instances of corruption. Since the beginning of April, the President has fired or demoted four inspector generals and two CDC truth tellers. Moreover, he has effectively made his Attorney General his consiglieri, tasked with keeping convicted felons like Manafort, Stone, and Flynn out of jail while building a case against political opponents. The American public will now be bombarded with baseless accusations of Ukraine conspiracies and of a newly hatched “Obamagate” conspiracy. Investigations—like the ongoing one into the Special Prosecutor’s successful prosecutions—will continue through the Fall elections. The President has turned our government into a weapon to serve his political interests. Have we ever witnessed this level of abuse of power in American history? An incompetent Presidency is subject to the will of the electorate. But a corrupt Presidency must be subject to the law and the Constitution. If not, what price must we all pay?

The Enlightenment inspired our forefathers with the values expressed in our founding documents. But those documents only expressed the will of about 3 million colonists who rebelled against tyranny. Today, America has more than 100 times the population of the 18th Century. We have made many changes in our government, as witnessed in Amendments to our Constitution and the various laws that have addressed the social safety net, institutional racism, voting rights, corporate and government malfeasance, and so on. At this point in our history, we are confronted with challenges created by the technology revolution, the unequal distribution of wealth and income, climate change, international issues involving respect for borders, safety of refugees, and security from terrorists, and the President’s attempt to dissolve/undermine an interdependent world economy previously governed by rules and free trade ideology. There is no possibility that America can return to the nascent context of 1776. We have evolved in concert with the world. The political battles of the moment that attempt to shift the balance of power to the Presidency or to demonize socialism are a clear and present danger to our government and our way of life. Clearly, the President’s and his lawyers’ claim that his Presidency is above the law is fiction—really a distraction, albeit a dangerous one. And the fear of socialism is ridiculous in a nation that has laws authorizing labor unions, social security, Medicare/Medicaid, comprehensive public education, job safety, food, air, and water regulations, and so much more. Socialism is not communism. But fear of socialism is just another distraction. It drowns out any constructive discussion on real issues like climate change preparedness, the diminished opportunities of the working class, infrastructure investment, campaign reform, exorbitant college tuition costs, and so much more. Relevant to this blog, the President’s claims of “total authority” and warnings against socialism draw our attention away from our Federal Government’s pervasive incompetence and corruption at the highest levels. We cannot even begin to have constructive discussions on the pressing issues of our time until we address the corrosion of our government from within.

The arguments about Presidential incompetence and corruption have always lurked in our political landscape, perhaps more so since Watergate. And the aura of Jefferson’s vision of a liberal state composed of freedom-loving landowners did not even last “four score and 7 years,” when Lincoln endeavored to redefine American society and the Constitution’s “more perfect union.” Each generation of Americans have dealt with permutations in our vision of a liberal democracy and of a society where all are equal before the law. Now it may well fall to millennials to clarify that vision for the 21st Century. If they adhere to the values expressed by our founders, they will act to correct an aberrant definition of Presidential power and the restoral of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” for all. That restoration is not possible where incompetence and corruption persists in our government.

Above I stated that the word “corrosion” does not need to be defined. It is well understood. But many of our words are built on metaphors which suggests a deeper meaning at their roots. For example, “corrosive” shares the same Latin root as “rodent” (rodere, to gnaw). The rusts that is slowly eating the metal seat of my patio chair is like the rats that gnawed their way through the dry wall in my pantry some years ago. You see, the metaphor suggests a more aggressive response to corrosion than just a paint over. For example, I put mouse traps in my pantry to stop rats from destroying my food store. What do voters do with rats gnawing away at their government?

__________________________________________________________

Reference: “We Become the Future We Seek.”

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?

“People talking without speaking, People hearing without listening . . . And no one dared Disturb the sound of silence.” (lyrics by Simon and Garfunkel)

Many years ago, I laid down on the sand in Harbor Cove, Redondo Beach, dressed only in my cut-off fatigues and a jungle hat. I found peace there in that moment from a recurring nightmare of body parts strewn across a field of death. Nobody but another war vet could possibly understand the ambivalence I felt before this regrettably human condition, that is, the juxtaposition of peace and violence.

Today, as I walked along the Bay, that same ambivalence stirred in my heart, awakened by the brilliance of a clear blue sky, the return of sea birds, and the wild ducks’ raucous mating rituals. The only difference between now and then was our mostly unseen contemporary field of death which remains hidden behind hospital walls and refrigerated trucks. But today’s unexpectedly intense blue sky had its own secret, born of closed businesses and permanently parked cars. It is the result of both home sequestering and nature’s heralding a possible future we may never see: a prophetic interlude before a future crisis not caused by a virus but by a more dominant species. Our current field of death is a precursor of what humanity may bring upon itself, without the agency of a novel virus. Of course, we could choose to survive any global threat by taking mitigative actions. But will self-distancing during a pandemic inspire us to replace environmentally destructive human systems? If we can mitigate a pandemic, then we could mitigate the effects of global warming. That threat endangers not only our posterity, but all life on this planet.

I had this dark vision of our human condition after listening to the Administration’s daily press briefings. They are an analogue of this human condition. While the scientist and medical authorities prepare us for COVID-19’s progress, and instruct us on how to mitigate its threat, the Administration focuses us on an alternative reality rather than what is being experienced in hospital emergency rooms and intensive care units across the country. That faux reality serves a different purpose than merely informing the public. It serves as political spin—a campaign pitch, as it were–that proudly proclaims the heroic work of our President and of his direct reports in fighting the pandemic. This political propaganda presents statistics on masks, gowns, and ventilators delivered to States, with little or passing reference to what those States need or when. Notably, these staged news briefings ignore the fact that no other infected nation matches America’s failure to respond timely or effectively to this contagion. Besides misrepresenting the Administration’s actions, they audaciously take credit for what others are doing to confront this threat. For example, most State Governors have ordered statewide lockdowns, in lieu of a national lockdown requiring home sequestering of all Americans. Meanwhile, local responders and healthcare workers are scrambling to rescue and treat a growing tide of patients without the equipment required and specified by the Federal Government’s documented plans and studies. Although it is true that those plans did not foresee the role diagnostic testing equipment might play in addressing a novel virus, there was ample time to address this commonsense requirement in America’s preparations for the COVID-19 onslaught. The President ignored warnings from his own staff in January. Further, he lied to the nation—downplaying the threat—even as late as the beginning of March. The Administration, regrettably and culpably, allowed this viral contagion to advance unchecked and exponentially through our population. As a result, it has placed a heavy burden on first responders, doctors, and nurses, too many of whom have died heroically. Even at this writing, America is still playing catchup in its attempt to defeat this pandemic.

While these press briefings address the Administration’s efforts to catchup to an accelerating contagion, they divert attention away from the Administration’s failings. Instead, the President blames his oft-repeated fall guys for hindering the Administration’s “heroic” undertakings. For example, he accuses the previous Administration for depleting FEMA’s stockpile of healthcare equipment, the governors for also failing to stockpile needed medical equipment, the press for reporting facts that highlight the Administration’s failings, and Democrats for falsely criticizing the Administration after its initial attempts to minimize the threat, after its slow response at the outset of contagion, and after its denial of any responsibility to develop or execute a national strategy in response. When confronted with these criticisms, the President boldly attested, “I take no responsibility at all.” Instead, he diverted any personal criticism to his grievances with a few governors, that is, usually Democratic governors. He blamed them for not sufficiently thanking him or crediting him for any success they may have had. He has laid at the feet of the governors his initial failure to divert the resources of the Federal Government or to take charge of the disbursement of medical equipment where needed. His grievance with the governors raises a long-standing political argument concerning federalism where States’ sovereignty is weighed against a strong central government. But he ignores the fact that only the Federal Government can enact the emergency powers needed to address a national crisis. His political argument is not relevant to this pandemic crisis. His accusations are no more than a puerile, though no less culpable, distraction. They do, however, give credence to Party loyalists who refuse to hear the truth and blindly accept this reality distortion. And therein is my dark vision of a human condition where only an ominous sound of silence is present.

What is America’s reality in this moment? Well, it is a five hour wait for admittance to a hospital. It is an 80 hour wait for a bed in an intensive care unit. It is refrigerated trucks packed with more bodies than mortuaries can handle. It is doctors, nurses, and first responders—our frontline troops in this assault—working non-stop 12 hour shifts without a break and dying in the line of duty. It is patients who are promised COVID-19 testing that is mostly unavailable. Further, it is the claim that testing will be free, neglecting the corollary fact that treatment expenses range from $2,000 copays to uninsured costs of $34,000 or more. It is dying alone, without any physical contact with family or friends. It is a field of death no less horrific that witnessed by a soldier in battle. This is the truth we would rather not face. And the Administration is readily complicit in maintaining silence on this reality.

I can remember a time when an American Administration claimed we were winning a war that was unwinnable. It was not speaking the truth but talking without meaning. Also, I lived during periods when Americans so wanted to believe a President that they could ignore the inconsistencies in his policies. They heard his speeches but seemed unable or unwilling to decipher the erroneous content. These are the conditions of a deathlike silence where fact and truth hide behind a façade of willfully complicit ignorance. There are almost always unwelcome consequences when the public provides unquestioned acceptance of any leader’s bold initiative. Trusts may be a cornerstone of the relationship between a republic’s citizens and its elected representatives. But blind trust is also a precursor of a republic’s demise. Our founders recognized this truth and, as a result, passed the 1st Amendment which among other rights guaranteed a free press. In our current crisis, we are witnessing an Administration’s attempt to manipulate the press or, worse, to convince the public that its reporting is partisan diatribe and prejudicial against the President. Therefore, the President is justified in silencing the press with accusations of hoax, bad reporting, “horrid” or “hateful” reporters. “They don’t like me” is a refrain he uses to persuade his listeners they should only believe him. But it is not the press he wants to silence, but the truth. And, yes, his supporters are complicit in this sound of silence.

We know that Donald Trump abhors criticism and demands absolute loyalty from members of his Administration. We also know that he fires any public servant who shows more allegiance to the Constitution or the public he/she vows to serve rather than to Trump. He also belittles or diminishes anyone who offends him by any means available to him, even if he must use the powers of his office to do so. He has stated that his exercise of power is through fear. That admittance places this President outside of the self-government of wisdom and compassion. Some consider it an example of his authenticity, but rather it is a narcissistic self-justification for anti-social and unethical behavior. He follows in the footsteps of a certain class of powerful men (sad to say, overwhelmingly men), whose example reminds us that power can corrupt and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. And how does this exercise of corrupt power display itself? Well, it bends truth to support its self-aggrandizement, demands obeisance to its statements rather than what can be readily seen or heard, and strikes fear in any resistance to its dictum. In other words, it creates a vacuum of silence that no one dare disturb.

But we cannot wait for some future historian to diagnose the shroud of silence that attempts to oppress this generation of Americans. We must speak the truth now. Yes, the President lies. Yes, he covers up his incompetence by blaming others. Yes, he has mishandled the Federal response to this pandemic. And, yes, he has mismanaged an economy by favoring wealth creation in corporate America at the expense of average working folks not invested in stocks. Moreover, trickle-down economics can ignore the fact that productivity is a bottoms-up phenomenon. Tariff wars are paid by purchasers just like taxes. And healthcare costs fall more heavily on low income wage earners than on the wealthy—a fact, bankruptcy records clearly support. The President effectively silences these facts in a verbal blitzkrieg on national news outlets and on twitter in a non-stop barrage of misdirection and falsehoods designed to foment chaos and division. In this manner, he takes airtime away from truth tellers. But, in the face of a pandemic, his chaotic and divisive act is a detriment to the health and welfare of all Americans. We must not allow ourselves to be silenced. If our future is not based upon science, fact, truth, and compassion for each other, then what future will we attain? The history we create now could be what our posterity will be forced to overcome. Beyond the human misery of this pandemic, how will we have prepared future generations for a warming planet and prevent America’s decline into an illiberal democracy run by oligarchs?

The final stanza of Simon and Garfunkel’s lyrics warns us that “the words of the prophets are written on the subway walls and tenement halls. And whisper’d in the sounds of silence.” These words mirror a fatalism that crept into the protest movement against the Vietnam war. But the protests of that era were eventually heard. And the country recovered from its depressive mood. We can overcome this pandemic and this Presidency. We can shout over the sounds of silence. But we must stand for the truth and assure history records us so.

________________________________________________________________________

Autobiographical Note: Five years ago, I wrote a blog partially inspired by this same lyric. In it, I also explained who gave me the impetus to write. His name was Father Louis Franz, a man whose life fulfilled the promise of a life well lived. He is now with the angels. But his wisdom and compassion have begot many who have humbly attempted to follow his example. I still remember his reaction to my late submission of my thesis on Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “Scarlet Letter.” With a twinkle in his eye, he said, “I have no sympathy for you . . . but I’ve already submitted your grade.” He had graded me for what he knew I had learned, not for the results of my humble handiwork. By acknowledging my priority of substance over grade, he reaffirmed me and my chosen path in life. For that lesson, I am eternally grateful. And, of course, I will continue to disrupt the deafening sound of silence that encompasses America at this pivotal time in our history. Veritas sola sustinet.

“While we talk, jealous time will fly by. Seize the day, with rather less belief in the future.” ** Forgive my literal translation of the well known “carpe diem” phrase from the “Odes of Horace.” But the underlying concept seems to me to have a contemporary relevance.

Carpe diem can mean different things to different people. In the sixties, with the prospect of the draft and Vietnam, many young men seized the moment to live life to the fullest. The future felt out of their control and even life threatening. Fear of death can be a strong motivator. Some sought solace in drugs, sex, or a pervasive agnosticism. Whereas the sixth century B.C. poet reminded us of our immortality, his dictum carpe diem can have a broader significance: it may encourage us to act in the moment without regard for the future or any reference to death. Is this not the strategy of a consumer whose purchases risk bankruptcy or an unfunded retirement? Is this not like the thinking of a person who might seek solace outside of marriage rather than attempt to mend a spousal relationship? Is this not the very strategy of an elected representative who does whatever maintains his/her power in office and the esteem of supporters rather than what serves the enduring welfare of the electorate? Maybe thIs is the real significance of the mantra to “make America great again” by fueling the capital markets at the expense of basic government services and the long-term viability of the American economy.

Living in a democracy bestows many personal freedoms: freedom of speech, free press, equality under the law, freely elected representatives, a liberal economy with unrestricted opportunity, and so on. But a liberal capitalist economy also promotes the accumulation of wealth and consumerism. Is it not obvious that unbridled capitalism and unrestrained consumerism jeopardize the personal freedoms of a democracy? If only the wealthy should gain control of the instruments of power, then most citizens will have less leverage to insure their freedoms and the welfare of their posterity. If the less wealthy are more concerned with present comforts than their future security or that of their children, then excessive consumerism will guarantee a bleak future for both. Perhaps many of us simply feel justified in living for the moment because we feel powerless to define our future. Certainly, that justification motivated many in the sixties. But not all and not now.

As in the sixties, a new citizens’ movement has emerged. That movement is not beholden to special interests, the tribal chieftains of political power, or personal rapacity. It wants to seize the day to reform the future. But nobody can assure the future or promise to make America great without some measure of sacrifice. Children do not raise themselves. Societies cannot educate its youth, provide healthcare for the infirmed, secure its citizens from harm, or provide prospects for a better future without the investments made by its members.

My fellow Americans, if we accept the bromides of political promises rather than grassroots efforts to change policies, then we will forego our only chance to determine a better future for ourselves and our children. Abigail Adams could not have foreseen Harriet Tubman. Likewise, neither could have imagined Susan B. Anthony. But the woman’s march toward equality benefited from each of these women and their sacrifices. And it continues today with the election of more women to Federal offices than at any time in American history. This outcome is the result of changes in our society—changes that promise a new political horizon.

Our Constitution is only a roadmap. Our self-proclaimed goals do not create a future we can guarantee. But we can act now to make meaningful change, to right a wrong, even to prepare for known dangers and contingencies. What we may become depends upon who we are now. And that identity is defined by what we do now. As a recent President remarked, “we are the change we seek.”

If you will permit me to redefine Horace’s “carpe diem,” I would first state that it is not possible to live in the moment. Our senses perceive reality about a tenth of a second after it happens. Even with the extended present Einstein explained in his theory of special relativity, we live for only Nano seconds in the present, well below the threshold of our sense perception. Perhaps the only time we come even close to living in the present is that moment in transcendental meditation when one may recede into an awareness of basic bodily functions, like the beating heart and breathing lungs. So, what did Horace mean? Well, the Latin word “carpe” literally means “pluck.” His reference then was more epicurean than transcendental, suggesting we should pluck the fruits of life before our time runs out. But he is intimating something much deeper—a pervasive fear we all share. We do not own our future. Our every action merely defines our history and prepares us for an undetermined future, except for that one certainty that our life’s hourglass will eventually expend its last grain of sand. As individuals then we can only assure the past we create. As Michelle Obama states in her recent book, we should own our own story. It is our personal creation. As members of society and a nation, we are also creating the American story. And the history we create right now can prepare us for a better future—or not. When former President Obama decried the moral failings of our political class with respect to gun laws, he often said, “that’s not who we are.” He was exhorting us to write a new chapter in American history by following our better instincts as morally responsible individuals. “Who we are” is defined by what we do.

If we are honest about the American history we are currently creating, we must admit that our institutions are becoming less effective at meeting our social needs, that our political leaders  are more interested in maintaining their offices than serving the general welfare, and that America’s status in the world has become less a beacon of the Enlightenment than a rapacious hegemon bent on hording wealth and power exclusively for itself with less regard for its allies and the world in general.

Yes, we are still the change we seek. But that statement begs the question: what do we seek? If we pluck the rotten apple, then we rewrite the history of the Fall and assign America to a footnote in history. I believe we can do better: discard the rottenness that has pervaded our politics and act on the ideals that have defined the American spirit. Let’s seize this moment to write a new chapter in our personal history. If each of us create a better personal history and own our story, then we will become the beacon of hope for others. They too will join in recreating the American story and help prepare a more fertile ground for whatever America will yet become. Belief in a better future depends upon what we do now. How else would you define the audacity of hope?

** Dum loquimir, fugerit invida aetas: carpe diem, quam minimum credula postero. (“The Odes of Horace,” The Folio Society, London, 1987, p. 42) c

Bons mots are simply clever remarks. The following are cleverly enunciated policies that belie their stated purpose and raise serious questions:

(1) Sanctuary cities are unlawful and must be punished.
(but “sanctuary” defines a place safe and protected from persecution and violence)
The question: Who are sanctuary cities protecting and why?

(2) A travel or Muslim ban is necessary for national security.
(but an immigration ban is a no-admittance policy or, by definition, a discrimination policy)
The question: Who is being discriminated and why?

(3) Zero tolerance for illegal border crossing keeps America safe.
(but zero tolerance deports lawful asylum seekers without due process)
The question: Who is being denied lawful access to our country and why?

(4) Criminal justice demands maximum sentencing.
(but justice demands fair treatment under the law where the punishment fits the crime.)
The question: Who is denied fair treatment by maximum sentencing guidelines and why?

(5) Temporary Protected Status (TPS) of 309,000 people is no longer needed and will be revoked by 2020.
(but TPS has provided haven for people escaping catastrophic conditions in their home countries, including 50,000 Hondurans, 200,000 Salvadorans, 50,000 Haitians, and 9,000 Nepalese.)
The question: Who will suffer from this loss of temporary status and why?

(6) Obama-era guidelines for supporting diversity in college admissions are not needed and are redacted.
(but the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that race should be one factor amidst many to be considered in college admissions.)
The question: Who suffers from eliminating affirmative action guidelines in college admissions and why?

The “who” in all these instances is the same: black or brown people. The problem with these policy initiatives is their obvious intent to suppress the less privileged minorities in our country. And the targeted minorities are explicitly people of color. In other words, the common denominator is racial discrimination.

Further, in all but the last enumerated instance, families are terrorized, potentially torn apart by deportations, maybe separated from their children—who might even be incarcerated, possibly excluded from lawful visas, and often subjected to excessively punitive sentencing for non-violent crimes. Thousands of children have recently been separated from their parents seeking asylum in America. Tens of thousands of children face separation from parents who will be deported after TPS is revoked. By any definition, these actions display not only explicit racism but a total disregard for families. In simpler words, they are patently inhuman.

Explicit racism is an objective statement. But the experience of racism is subjective, both for the victim and the perpetrator. The victim feels judged and determined somehow unworthy of fair or equal treatment of which others are entitled. But the perpetrator may or may not believe he/she is racist. Racists may feel justified in their belief that certain classes of people are inferior and should be treated as such. Racism can, after all, reflect biases that are not recognized or even felt. Sometimes racism is not seen for what it is until its worst effects are manifested, like gas chambers, death marches, internment camps, and forced separation of family members.

Perhaps many of us feel not affected by President Trump’s war on the less privileged amongst us. And we resent being cast as racists or biased against families. There are many communities in America where their uniformity in ethnicity and values precludes any visible signs of prejudice. Family values may well be extolled in these communities. While Trump offers these communities a nation that reflects them, he ignores the reality of the nation of which they are a part. On the back of the one-dollar bill, we read the seal of the United States of America: E Pluribus Unum (out of many one). From the outset, America is and always has been a nation defined by its very diversity. It is true that various majorities have risen to prominence—whether comprised by white protestants at the outset, later outnumbered by white western Europeans of mixed religious affiliations, and then further enumerated by white eastern Europeans. By 2030 or shortly thereafter, the majority of Americans may well be a mixture of black and brown people—the latter will include some second and third generations of the Central America migrants currently crossing our southern border. But America will still be America. In fact, we depend upon every new majority to treat all inhabitants equally. Otherwise, there is dissent, protest, or even violence.

We are a country founded on ideals. But we have always struggled to realize those ideals. Those struggles were hard fought and on significant occasions resulted in Amendments to our Constitution: the 13th abolished slavery; the 14th defined the civil rights of all citizens and the rights of any person to due process and the equal protection of the laws; the 15th provided the right to vote to all citizens without regard to “race, color, or previous condition of servitude”; the 19th gave women the right to vote; and the 26th reduced the voting age to 18, equaling the draft age. Many people died to win these testaments to a free and civil society—hundreds of thousands in the Civil War, tens of thousands in Vietnam, most under the age of 21. But none of these amendments became law without the protests of Americans. They marched in the streets with signs, they petitioned their representatives, and they voted their conscience. Sometimes their protests turned violent, but they eventually won their citizenship and their civil rights, including the right to vote. Women in the Suffrage Movement blew up mail boxes. Draft age students were shot by National Guardsmen, but they continued their demands for Congress to give them the right to vote and to eliminate the draft.

Of course, there are many biases that go unnoticed. Unless you are a transgender person, the proposed military transgender ban may not have caught your attention. Unless you are a woman of limited means, you may not feel affected by legal attempts to suppress abortions or limit access to women’s preventative care. Most of us believe we live in a self-perceived bias free zone. Given that self-perception, we ought not to judge others who appear guilty of bias or prejudice. But we cannot excuse the objectively obvious results of racism. It is possible that our President, for example, feels entirely justified in enacting the policies listed above. But those policies, nevertheless, are demonstrably heinous and racist in their effects.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans protested last weekend. They did not fall for the cleverly worded phrase “zero-tolerance” or for its stated purpose to protect Americans from rapists and murderers. Since January of 2017, millions of Americans have protested Administration policies and positions that allegedly protected Americans by banning Muslims without cause, that left gun violence unaddressed, and that ignored various women’s issues from their right to preventive care, to decisions affecting their body and child birth, and to an insensitivity on issues of sexual harassment and assault. Why are the Administration’s stated policies and positions meeting such resistance? Well, perhaps the problem is with the shade intention casts on the semantics of phrases like “zero-tolerance,” “Muslim ban,” or “maximum sentencing.”

Words can characterize or even embellish reality. The clever use of words is a skill when it serves the truth with honest intent. But it is deceitful when it departs from the truth and demeans the good. The good, in this instance, is what Jefferson intended when he wrote “all men are created equal.” With the gift of our shared human nature comes “certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Racist and inhuman policies have never lived up to this intent. But, somehow, each generation of Americans must find a way to do so.