The title of this blog may cause my readers some consternation. For the cynic, an “honest politician” is an oxymoron. But, for others, it presents a moral conundrum. The difference in these perspectives may provide us with some insight into the political morass we Americans are now experiencing. Let me explain.

If you believe that all politicians are dishonest and, therefore, blatantly hypocritical, then you might be tempted to elect somebody who can use the same character flaws in a no-holds-bar battle against these dishonest politicians. In other words, you may need a swamp dweller to drain the swamp. In fact, Donald Trump presented himself in 2016 as that swamp dweller for, as he bragged, he bought politicians to do his bidding. In other words, he was able to compel them to do his will. It should not be surprising that the cynics among us wanted to believe he would do so in office but in support of their interests. Those interests merely needed to be defined to unite his followers behind his MAGA banner. Of course, he did so by promising to rehabilitate the coal industry, make great economic deals with other countries that would provide new markets for farmers and revitalize blue collar jobs in manufacturing, reform immigration practices that, he claimed, resulted in job losses and increased crime in our communities, eliminate foreign engagements that waste our resources and cost the lives of our soldiers, and restore an undefined American greatness that, according to him, had been lost by the poor management of previous Presidents.

After three years in office, we find the President’s achievements mixed. The coal industry has continued its decline. Agricultural tariffs have bankrupted a record number of independent farmers. The manufacturing industry is now officially considered in recession. His Administration has increased the number of soldiers now stationed in the Middle East while, at the same time, alienated our Iraqi and Kurdish combat allies. But, despite these failures, he has succeeded in two areas by reducing immigration and subduing the Republican Party to his will. This immigration “success,” however, comes with the worst humanitarian crisis since the Japanese internment camps of World War II. Most Americans, I believe, would question any benefit derived from breaking up families and abusing children. And the subjugation of the GOP is an embarrassment that could yet destroy our democracy. What the President now claims as his greatest success is something he did mention during his campaign: the continued expansion of our economy after the Great Recession. But he did not dwell on this claim, for his predecessor was responsible for this recovery and candidate Trump’s promise of 5 or 6 percent growth in GDP drew universal ridicule. Nevertheless, his tax cut legislation has indeed benefited corporations, the wealthy, and the stock market but at the expense of the Federal debt and of overall income/wealth inequality. Its success, then, is in the eye of the beholder. Or, as my ethics professor once cautioned his students, “ask whose ox is being gored.”

Perhaps the greatest achievement of our cynic-in-chief is his border wall. More myth than reality, it nevertheless serves as a symbol of the President’s quest to disrupt Washington with its dishonest politicians. They are, in his terms, evil democrats who, with support of “deep state” phantoms, lie and thwart his quest to build his wall and make America great again. Donald Trump, we are to believe, is a self-proclaimed hero. But his quest against invading hordes at our southern border resembles a more appealing faux hero, namely, Don Quixote tilting at metaphorical windmills. How else can we explain his fixation on border fencing? Ronald Reagan, by comparison, also supported the financing and building of a border wall, as did several of his successors. But he also gave amnesty to illegal immigrants. For Reagan and his successors, the wall was just a wall—or one part of an immigration policy. For Trump, it is much more. It is a symbol of his heroic stance against “caravans” of foreign invaders. His zero-tolerance immigration policy, he claims, will save America from drug addiction and violent crime. In his own words, “otherwise, we have no country.” His wall then would save America from an existential crisis. One might ask whether families fleeing death and violence are equivalent to the barbaric hordes that descended upon the Roman Empire. The President, however, operates in the world of demagoguery where fiction replaces reality. More significantly, the myth of a “great, beautiful” border wall—rather than just steel or concrete fencing—has become a rallying cry for all things Trumpian. The selling of this myth may be the President’s greatest achievement . . . and the best justification for cynicism.

Cynicism harbors little space for honesty, neither in politics nor in life. Without honesty, however, how can the American Republic survive. Any representative democracy must be based upon the trust the electorate places in its elected officials. Without honesty, there can be little or no trust. So, what happens when citizens lose trust in their leadership?

Well, the history of political suppression and revolutions, including our own, has answered that question. It should now impel us to question how we define an honest politician and what we can or should expect from him/her. The founders of our American Republic defined in the Constitution and exemplified in their public service what we should expect from our representatives. My previous blog provided some insight into how Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, and our first four Presidents carried out their public service within our Constitutional framework. They differed in their political policies but came together in their dedication to our form of government—separation of powers, checks and balances, rule of law, and absolute commitment to the Constitutional framework defined in its Articles and designed to meet the challenges of its Preamble. Like Honest Abe, they all showed integrity in their public service. The question we now face is whether our contemporary politicians reflect their example. Are they honest politicians?

Pollsters consistently inform us that Congress has dismal approval ratings, usually in the teens. Our current President has never received majority support neither in an election nor in polling. Currently, he is the subject of an impeachment trial in the Senate. But, paradoxically, the Constitution appears to be more on trial than any alleged Presidential misdeed. The President’s legal defense team not only questions the House’s process in developing its case, but also the substantive relevance of the Constitution. They argue against the Constitution’s empowerment of the House to define and execute its impeachment process, against its limits on Presidential power, and even against its establishment of a system of separation of powers. But underlying these arguments is something other than the Constitution. They are not based upon accepted interpretation of the Constitution or the substance of the House’s impeachment case. Instead, these arguments reflect an ongoing struggle between political parties to secure power. The current impeachment trial reminds me of George Washington’s Farewell Address in which he warned against factions that “are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion” (as quoted in “Presidential Farewell Addresses,” ¹ published 3-6-2017).

The question of the moment is how can elected Senators ignore the trust their constituents placed in them to support the Constitution and execute justice in an impeachment trial. They took oaths both to serve the Constitution and to be just jurors. These Senators are men and women of character and learning. But they are conflicted by a moral conundrum. They are not only committed to their oaths of office, but also to their constituents and to Party. In ethics, one of the more difficult moral challenges is the determination of the greater good. Most objective observers would find no difficulty in balancing these seemingly conflicting commitments. An oath would seem to take precedence, whether it is in a marriage ceremony, military service, or public service. Among the least benign exceptions would be any action taken to harm or violate a principle of natural law, like the Bill of Rights. The Constitution includes those rights within the very structure of our government. Our society, at its foundation, agreed on the values by which it would be governed. All public office holders show their commitment to our government’s structure and values by taking an oath to the Constitution. A Senator’s constituents should view that commitment as justification for their trust a/o vote, like a quid pro quo. Otherwise, its betrayal may well replicate the mythical image of an ouroboros, where a democratic Republic consumes itself.

But constituents not only vote for their chosen candidate, they also fund that candidacy with the expectation of support for promised legislative deliverables. They trust their chosen candidate to deliver on these campaign promises as well as on his/her oath of office. Besides this oath and the public trust, Senators also owe some measure of allegiance to their political Party. And that allegiance comes with significant sanctions, specifically, withdrawal of Party support and/or campaign funds. In our current system, no prospective office holder can succeed without promising to meet the expectations of voters and raising enough funds to win a campaign for office. But the Senate Majority Party Leader controls both the campaign funding apparatus and the legislative agenda. Party leadership then holds the sword of Damocles over the heads of every Senator. Can any erstwhile Senator guarantee his/her commitment to the oath of office, constituents, and Party priorities? The same conditions, of course, apply in the House of Representatives. There is no problem when these objectives are aligned. And alignment should be the intent, born of informative debate and compromise. But what happens when they are not aligned? Or, in other words, whose ox is going to get gored—the Constitution, the voter, or the Party?

First, let’s flip the greater good aphorism to consideration of the greater harm. For example, if an impeachment trial is conducted without any attempt at due process, then Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution and the oath therein enumerated are violated. But that same reference, a cynic might object, does not define due process or the requirements for a fair trial. True. But Americans do have common sense. We know what is entailed in a fair trial—starting with the Declaration of Independence where amongst the grievances listed are mock trials and the deprivation of trial by jury to the experience of millions of Americans who have served on jury duty. Moreover, President Trump’s impeachment raises very real Constitutional ramifications regarding the balance of powers and the rule of law. President Nixon resigned rather than face impeachment for far less. And the impeachment managers used the same references I raised in previous blogs. If the founding fathers and the Federalist Papers cannot convince a Republican majority in the Senate, then what does influence them to adhere to their oaths both to the Constitution and to the execution of impartial justice? Where Nixon believed he was above the law, Trump now expects to be enthroned above the law.

The Senate’s vote on admitting witnesses and relevant evidence occurred while I was writing the previous paragraph. And that vote questions the proposition that the Republican Senators should or would consider their oaths before other considerations. But what other considerations should interfere with these oaths of office? What is absent in these overarching oaths to ensure domestic tranquility in the face of divisiveness, to provide a reasoned and farsighted foreign policy agenda for our security and common defense, to promote the general welfare, and to secure liberty and justice for all Americans? These goals were intended to form a more perfect Union and the very template for the structure and operation of our government. They also should resolve the moral conundrum of any honest politician, for they give guidance to the demands of constituents and of Party. They highlight the path to alignment of conflicting objectives around the ideals and values of a democratically formed Republic. What is absent is allegiance to our Constitution, to sworn oaths, and to our Republic. The relevant question is why?

So, what greater good are these Senators serving in President Trump’s impeachment trial? I would posit that no greater good is served, but rather fear. Specifically, fear of reprisals in Republican primaries and fear of losing campaign funding. This moral conundrum is then entangled in the web of Party politics and campaign funding. A Senator cannot serve the interest of his/her constituents if denied the ability to put legislation on the floor of the Senate for debate and a vote. And a Senator will never serve the interest of his/her constituents or of the nation if denied campaign funding. So, his/her moral conundrum is not a matter of choosing the greater good. Instead, our erstwhile Senator is left with an existential choice between adherence to the directives of Party leadership or to obsolescence. Not the oath of office, not the public trust, but the Party dictum is served. Consequently, who or what is served? Remember Washington’s warning quoted above “that unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

Follow the through-line here from voter and Party support to the legislative agenda in Congress. That line is monetary in nature. Politicians cannot run campaigns, represent their constituents, or uphold the oaths of office or of conduct without the funding and support of their Party. These are the constraints placed upon whatever honesty politicians bring to office. Somewhere it is written that money is the source of all evil. In our system, money is power as well. While the President’s impeachment trial is about the abuse of power, underlying this abuse is the influence of money. Money and power are covalent entities that, unchecked, can destroy our system of government. Bob Woodward in his recent book titled “Fear,” quotes President Trump’s definition of power, “Real power is . . . fear.” ²

Of course, fear can make cowards of us all. It can also suborn otherwise honest Senators to give credence to a public lie. Both the Republic’s elected representatives and its citizens bear the smear of this dishonesty. We are all injured.

____________________________________________
Footnotes:
¹ The quoted 4.7% unemployment rate stated in that blog was an unadjusted number from the last quarter of 2016. It was the only number available to me when I wrote this blog at the beginning of 2017. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has long since provided updated numbers. As mentioned in more recent blogs, the unemployment number in January of 2017, when President Trump assumed office, was 3.7%.
² This quote is taken from the book’s preface. The last quote in the book is also its last words. John Dowd, the President’s lawyer, explains what he could not tell the President about why he should not provide public sworn testimony in his own behalf: “You’re a fucking liar.” These bookend quotes encapsulate the program of a despot: strike fear in subordinates and lie to the general public.

Still the 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?