Since 1787, America has been a democratic republic with a capitalist economy. These political and economic characteristics define our national character in many ways. When in balance, they assure our freedom both in opportunity and in wealth creation. But when that balance is not regulated, as experienced in the last half of the 19th century, not only was there a rise in economic inequality, but also a disproportionate increase in the influence of wealth on the conduct of government and of the economy.
Today, we are witnessing the same imbalance. Does anybody seriously disagree? One of the candidates for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency is proposing “structural changes” in our economy and a wealth tax to address this imbalance. You may disagree with her proposals, but you cannot ignore the reality she attempts to address. It is the same reality previous Administrations attempted to address in the 20th century with anti-trust legislation, the New Deal, and progressive taxation. But for the last four decades, America has reversed its preoccupation with economic inequality by quashing unions, eliminating the estate tax, and gradually adopting a more regressive tax system. Today, the wealthy pay, on average, only half the percentage of their economic income than what the less wealthy pay.
Recently, several billionaires, both Republican and Democrat, have criticized the concept of a wealth tax˟. Perhaps it may be impractical to implement in our current environment. But we must get serious about reversing the course the President’s tax bill has only accelerated. That bill favors hedge funds, real estate developers—like the Trump family—and corporate income. The latter has reinvested much of the Trump tax windfall into stock buybacks instead of in real economic growth. While the President praises the resultant rise in the DOW indices, he brazenly ignores any increase in the minimum wage or investments in infrastructure, education, healthcare, a clean environment, and job training for the new tech economy. The President is leading his Republican constituency into a dead end where the country’s productivity will disproportionately benefit the privileged to the detriment of most Americans. Meanwhile he tells the country what he believes it wants to hear—that the economy is booming.
Recovery from the recent great recession has indeed continued during his Administration. But that recovery has slowed down. As of August, the unemployment rate had decreased by only .14% since the day he took office, compared to the 43% improvement during his predecessor’s time in office (see The Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics as quoted in “A Stable Genius”). Meanwhile, the President’s policies have reintroduced recession’s trillion-dollar deficits and has begun to isolate America from international markets and alliances. Taken altogether, they portend disaster, regardless what the President tells us.
Should we believe our President? Or should we characterize him as just another ubiquitous pitch person we find on every commercial TV channel? Advertising, broadly speaking, dominates nearly every phase of an average American’s life: TV commercials, road signs, store displays, “robo” calls, mailed ads and coupons, pop-up computer ads, tracking cookies, email ads, et cetera. All these marketing attempts serve up the same hodgepodge of what retailers believe we want to hear: cream to clear our faces, toothpaste for a brighter smile, pills for greater brain power or sexual potency, investment opportunities for a richer life, and so on. And, in the same vein, the President assumes responsibility for “the greatest economy in history.” But his pitch is not for your tax dollar. He already has that. No, he wants your vote or, at least, your complacency.
Of course, we expect our politicians to support a strong American economy. But we do not require them to mimic its retail nature in their campaigns. We expect them to impress us with policy positions and personal characteristics of leadership and integrity. We do not require them to sell their “goods” by telling us what we want to hear in a campaign advertising blitzkrieg. Its purpose is to influence minds, even if only subliminally. In other words, we are being told either what we consciously want to hear or, subtly, what we should want to hear. The latter is the basis for both reflex consumer purchases and tribal voting. How else can we explain our vote for a Party candidate who violates our Constitutional order and shows no respect for the general welfare of American citizens? Have we deliberated on what we want to hear or are we being told what we want to hear? The former implies personal judgment and free choice. The latter only requires obeisance and submission. There is more at risk here than the economic maxim of buyer beware.
Maybe, the barrage of mass advertising and ceaseless politicking has made us apathetic. Perhaps, as a society, we tend to accept the sales hype as background noise and become cynical of its promises. Our politicians tire us with their tribal skirmishes, their lying, their unkept promises, and, at times, the abuse of their office. Why engage? Why not just accept the Party line? It takes less effort to simply accept as fact whatever we want to hear.
At this point in time, we are inundated with stories of political corruption. Our President, for example, has surrounded himself with sycophants and incompetents who have violated both ethical norms and legal restraints. Some have been convicted of actual felonies. Even the President has been implicated in various crimes. By reason of his office, he is considered unindictable. Nevertheless, he could not be exonerated from numerous instances of obstruction of justice. And now he is the alleged kingpin of an international bribery and extortion plot involving Ukraine. But he claims there was no “quid pro quo,” just a “perfect” phone call between heads of state wherein promised aid and a Presidential meeting were conditioned upon specific deliverables, termed a “favor.” Should we believe the President when he says, “I want nothing?” But the evidence belies his words. Instead, we now know that he attempted to bribe and extort Ukraine’s President Zelensky to announce rogue investigations into both the 2016 election and his supposed political opponent in the 2020 election. He wanted to elicit Ukraine interference in the upcoming election while invalidating the intelligence community’s findings regarding Russian interference in the past 2016 election. But he wants us to believe his only interest is in exposing corruption—not in exonerating Russia for its election meddling in 2016 or in benefiting his potential reelection in 2020.
Even as I am writing these words, he is mustering his only possible defense—that is, a full presentation of his conspiracy propaganda in a “made for TV” exposé. Will Americans take note of the fact that neither President Zelensky’s government nor any established investigative body such as the FBI will have participated in this bogus conspiracy investigation? Or will they simply believe either what they want to hear or what they are told on a special TV infomercial? Our “reality star” President continues to bet on our gullibility. Even in the face of Articles of Impeachment, he pitches a baseless defense, that is, his ongoing taglines/pitches, such as “no quid pro quo,” “I want nothing,” “a perfect call,” or “no obstruction of justice.” He wants us to believe he did not do what he did, did not say what he said, did not deny every Congressional request for documents, and did not order his staff to disregard legitimate subpoenas. There is no abuse of power or obstruction of Congressional oversight here—nor is there a Constitutional prerogative for Congress to hold an impeachment inquiry. No, he obscures facts with fiction.
Underlying this whole impeachment process is an unanswered question. Why is he so single-minded in his pursuit of Russia’s interests? Perhaps he truly believes that defending Russia’s role in the 2016 election and promoting its interests in all matters effecting NATO, Syria, Ukraine, and Russian sanctions is really the only way to improve relations with Russia. He has been telling us as much for nearly four years. It is what he wants us to believe or, at least, what he wants us to hear repeatedly and relentlessly until we all submit to his lie. As he once said, “don’t believe in what you see or hear.” Instead, as if in a Star War fantasy, he tells us his lie is the truth and what we should want to hear. But is it really what only Vladimir Putin wants us to hear?
In criminal cases, often the most difficult thing to uncover is intent. How can we assess the President’s intent behind his attempts at bribery and extortion? He wants us to believe he is that disinterested executive who fights corruption in countries receiving American foreign aid. Well, there is one aspect of his character that provides us a clue into his actual intent: he is irrevocably and incessantly involved in self-promotion. Ironically, that is the bases of his so-called “authenticity.” He is a self-serving chameleon who presents whatever façade suits him in the moment. Consequently, he becomes an unapologetic liar who finds it impossible to admit any blunder or incompetency. He may not be the only politician with these traits. But he appears alone in his ability to normalize this behavior and even win public support for its abnormality. He is, as members of his staff have proclaimed, just “Trump being Trump.” And Donald Trump is unequivocal about his public persona: his lie must be your truth. He demands that perversion of integrity in his followers. Fraud, then, is the basis of his authenticity. When he says, “don’t believe what you see and hear,” he is stating his case for believing only him, the “stable genius” with a “great mind” and “the best words.” Whatever he says or does is what he wants Americans to hear and accept.
“Tell me what I want to hear” without regard for any personal judgment is not the basis for an informed electorate in a democratic republic. From the public forum in ancient Athens to the American voting booth the same prerogative faces every citizen: free choice. Citizens in a democracy must be free to use their best judgment and to choose the best course for their country. They either define the state’s sovereignty or abrogate it to rulers instead of elected representatives. In other words, it cannot be about “Trump being Trump.” America must be about Americans being Americans.
So, does our economy need regulative intervention—perhaps some form of “structural change”—or is it simply “booming” as the “best economy in history?” Is climate-change a hoax? Are immigrants from the depressed northern triangle really a security threat to America? Is abandoning our Kurdish allies to possible genocide a reasonable option in our fight against ISIS terrorists? In what world does repealing the Affordable Care Act through the courts improve healthcare for Americans? And why should we exonerate a President for “bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors” and reelect him as “the greatest President in history?” Remember when he told the United Nation’s assembly that he had “done more in two years than all the Presidents in American history.” The UN Assembly laughed at him. If we, instead, believe his shtick—specifically, what he wants us to hear and accept—then the joke is on us.
_________________________________________________________________________
˟ Some of these billionaires, it should be noted, are currently campaigning to be elected or reelected President in 2020.
My postscript 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?