Amid the greatest existential threat to our nation, Abraham Lincoln explained why a nation conceived and dedicated to liberty and equality must engage in a “great civil war” to preserve its legacy for itself and “any nation so conceived and dedicated.” He exhorted Americans “to be dedicated to the great task remaining before us . . . that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom . . . that these dead (at Gettysburg) shall not have died in vain.” ¹ Speaking as the President who saved our Union, he resolved that our American government “shall not perish from this earth.” But why does his resolve still appear so imperative today?

First, he reminded us that we have a government “of the people.” In the middle of a divisive Civil War, that reminder was certainly pertinent, though never more tenuous. The 13th Amendment, ratified in December 1865, and the 14th Amendment, passed in July 1868, together freed the Negro slaves, and granted them full citizenship and equal protection under the law. But they were not addressed as African Americans until after the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts of the 1960’s, nearly a hundred years later. Moreover, from the Nineteenth century forward, America continued to expand its citizenship, opening its arms to migrants from war-torn and impoverished nations. America became a nation of people from every continent in the world—a melting pot where many were brewed into one. America was that “shining city on a hill” that President Reagan regaled: a beacon of hope for all who wanted liberty and equality before the law, regardless of race, religion, birthplace, or country of origin.

Eighty-seven years earlier, Thomas Jefferson had represented all Americans when he wrote that “we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all . . . are created equal . . . endowed with certain unalienable rights . . . (of) life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” These were the bedrock truths that justified American citizenship for slaves and migrants to this new world. Our current President has repeatedly reminded us that our Constitution holds us all responsible to these truths which are the very basis of our democracy. Neither race, religion, birthplace, or family origin, should restrict individual American citizens from the exercise of these rights. America must then be inclusive of all its people. As our President often says, “there is nothing America cannot do if we do it together.” He reminds us that America is one nation but only as long as we all agree to act as one people.

But how do we reconcile this core American value with white supremacy advocates, with suppression of black and brown voters, with curtailment of lawful immigrants, with denial of due process for asylum seekers, and with the actions of elected representatives who support eliminating some Americans from the census? If we assign the full rights of American citizenship only to those privileged by race, power, political affiliation, a/o money, we are denying one of the core principals of our democracy. As a result, Americans would become further differentiated between the haves and have-nots, between the privileged and the ostracized. Some Americans would be excluded not just from the census but even from participation in our democracy. How then can the concepts of “liberty and justice for all” and government “of the people” survive? Stated simply, our government would no longer be fully representative. It would cease to be the America envisioned by the founders or reestablished by Lincoln for it would not be “of the people.”

Secondly, Lincoln reminded us that, in America, governance is maintained by the people. The very definition of “democracy” is “rule by the people.” In our system of representative democracy, there are two irrevocable practices: every citizen has a right to vote; and those elected serve the will of the majority and vow to adhere to the principles and lawful governance outlined in our Constitution. This last point is critical. The founders feared that radical insurgents might attempt to overthrow the peoples’ democracy and therefore demanded all office holders swear allegiance to the Constitution. In a previous blog (ref. “Presidential Farewell Addresses”), I quoted Washington’s admonition of a “fatal tendency”: “to organize factions . . . to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of the party . . . to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.” The Constitutional remedy that addresses this fatal tendency is not just the oath of office but the provision of impeachment that holds office holders accountable to its provisions.

How would George Washington assess our contemporary governance in the light of the Republican Party’s reluctance to impeach a rogue President, to seek non-partisan counsel regarding an insurrection, and to find “common counsels. . . modified by mutual interests” or at minimum align with Democrats on those universal principles specified in the Preamble of our Constitution? The characterization of the current Republican Party as the “Party of no” is far too understated for a faction that refuses to find common ground between Parties and instead pursues political power for its own sake. That Party is simply obstructionist and reactionary. Some may even call it traitorous to a democracy. In a previous blog (ref. “Majority Pejoraty”), I outlined how the founders’ fear of a tyrannical majority has been deviously subverted into a tyranny of the minority. Our laws and institutions were created to prevent this eventuality. Unfortunately, both depend upon the goodwill of our elected officials. When a political party not only refuses to recognize the will of the majority but attempts to suppress any voter opposition to its hold on political power, it violates the primary purpose of a democracy. America then ceases to be America. And that political party no longer represents the American people. We witness that failure of representation in the Republican Party’s non-support for recent Administration initiatives.

Who supports these Administration’s Initiatives?
_____________________________Republicans_________Public___
Climate Threat Mitigation………..No……………………..Yes
COVID Relief Bill………………………No……………………..Yes
Proposed Infrastructure Bill…….No……………………..Yes
January 6 Commission…………….No………………………Yes
Voting Rights Bills……………………No……………………….Yes
Police Reform Bill……………………No……………………….Yes

The proposal for a non-partisan Commission to investigate the January 6 insurrection on our Capitol received only a few Republican votes, while the vast majority voted against the initiative. The COVID relief bill was passed, but without a single Republican vote. Of course, Republicans would never support climate legislation or the voting rights bills. For climate change denial and voter suppression are avowed policies of the Republican Party. The Administration’s infrastructure proposal has some limited support from Republicans, but only after eliminating people as part of the nation’s infrastructure—meaning only roads, bridges, the electric grid, perhaps broadband availability, and possibly water delivery systems are considered. And, finally, police reform is held back over the definition of “qualified immunity.” Apparently, Republicans do not want our uniformed police force to be held accountable for theft, sexual harassment, obstruction of justice, or excessive force—the current obstacles to Republican agreement. In other words, they want police immunity for crimes any other American citizen would face indictment and, if found guilty, incarceration. Opposition to these popular initiatives illustrates the people’s loss of governance to a political faction, the fatal tendency of which our first President warned us. The sole beneficiary in this usurpation of the people’s self-governance is the ability of one political Party to dictate in favor of minority factions. Opposition to two of these proposed initiatives—namely, denial of the January 6 insurrection against a lawful election and support for voter suppression—also abet the minority’s strangle hold on power in place of government “by the people.”

And, finally, Lincoln reminded us of the overriding benefit of a true democracy, that is, a government “for the people.” Given the Administration initiatives listed here, who are the beneficiaries of their enactment into law? Most Americans favored them. Our elected Republicans do not. They oppose the last three initiatives on the inverse grounds of their oft repeated “cancel culture”: insurrectionist were peaceful protestors; voter suppression eliminates fraudulent ballots; and police immunity from criminal activity enhances their ability to assure public safety. These are inverse examples of alleged “culture” that a majority of Americans would gladly cancel. Besides the illogic of these positions, they have no justification in the intellectual and moral origins of our American culture. Support for an insurrection against the seat of democracy, for suppression of the right to vote, and for immunity of police state violence and criminal behavior against its citizens in no way reflect the cultural values of a democracy. Contrary to these abhorrent positions, several of the initiatives listed above not only “promote the general welfare,” as demanded in our Constitution, but also preserve American lives. But, Republicans argue, these initiatives are too expensive and will add to the deficit. But, as proposed by the President, they are fully paid by tax increases for the wealthier among us. The Republican argument sounds hollow in the light of the budget breaking tax break they passed in 2017, which favored their donor community, that is, the richest 10%, at the expense of our national budget deficit. Wealthy Americans, however, have no need for a tax windfall. Recently, it was reported that three of the wealthiest men in America—multi-billionaires all—paid no taxes in 2020. Unfortunately, America already matches Russia’s oligarchy in its income disparity. ² And, clearly, that disparity does not benefit a majority of Americans nor promote a government “for the people.”

How did America arrive at this impasse in its history? We seem at odds with ourselves, even at the costs of our own best interests. Should we place the blame at the feet of the Republican Party? But the struggle between political factions in America has a long history. Usually, that struggle mirrored debates over issues of national concern, like Hamilton’s bank, Jacksonian popularism, slavery, “robber barons,” American participation in World Wars, Depression era social programs, civil rights, nuclear proliferation, foreign military interventions, and terrorism. Now we seem unable to recognize or apply our well-established democratic norms to the problems at hand. But problems ignored will persist. They become like a low-level virus that slowly envelopes its host. If we fail to apply the appropriate vaccine, this virus will kill our American democracy. And that vaccine is simply the normal activities of a democracy within the parameters of its Constitution. Under our previous President, nearly all the democratic institutions of our government were either distorted or diverted from public service to self-serving political interests. During his Presidency, the Republican Party reached a nadir point where a thirty-year drift away from bi-partisan compromise became an uncompromising, self-serving belligerence. The Party of Lincoln and Reagan is no longer recognizable as such. Its only purpose now is to hold onto power at any costs, rather than to serve a nation whose majority wants its current issues addressed. Stated bluntly, Americans want their elected officials to apply our democratic ideals to the problems of our time. Like our American forebears, we want our Democracy to evolve. Why does the Republican Party block our path?

Though voted out of office, Donald Trump still seems the catalyst for his Party’s reactionism. His supporters continue to control the Republican Party. Apparently, riled and dupped by a demagogue, they will follow him to their grave. They are Trump’s foot soldiers in his quest for power. Though an electoral minority, they continue to fight for his return to power, even to the extent of mounting an insurrection against our Congress. Remember, Adolph Hitler eventually overruled Germany’s elected parliament, the Reichstag, while never attaining more than 37% of the vote. But his opponents came to fear his Nazis brownshirts, allowing him to establish the Third Reich. The month after he connived to become Chancellor, Goebel, one of his chief lieutenants, had the Reichstag burned to the ground. In like fashion, Trump’s January 6 insurrection attempted to disable Congress and assure the “continuation” of his Presidency. Even now, he continues to foment insurrection with planned rallies urging his followers to fight for his reinstatement to the Presidency. Like any prospective autocrat, he objectifies his enemies and declares himself as the hero who can save us all from these common foes or, more accurately, his scapegoats. Whereas Hitler blamed the communists, his main political enemies at the time, Trump blamed far left activists, his self-proclaimed political enemies. Likewise, both made defenseless civilians the object of universal scorn, whether Jews, Slavs, or Catholics under Hitler’s jurisdiction, or Muslims, minorities, or migrants during Trump’s Administration. He declared that “only I can” clear what he termed the political “swamp” of our existing government and make his MAGA dream a reality. While Hitler considered himself one of Hegel’s “world-historical individuals,” Trump declared himself “the greatest President in history” and a “stable genius.” Like Hitler, once he attained power, he was viscerally unable ever to concede it.³

Two years ago, I wrote about Trump’s attack on our democracy and its institutions (reference “Only I Can”). Frankly, I did not believe his Party would follow him down that rabbit hole. But it did. And now we Americans can understand why the Republican Party no longer represents us. Its sole purpose is to suppress the popular will and cling to power by any means. Moreover, it bears no resemblance to its alleged standard bearer, and is unrecognizable as the so-called “Party of Lincoln.” Unless distraught Republicans, like those who formed the Lincoln Project, can pull Congressional Republicans back from the brink, the Party may succeed in dragging America into that dark pit of autocracy—wherein Donald Trump still lurks.

As I write this blog, President Biden just concluded a series of meetings with our allied democratic states and finally with Vladimir Putin, the Russian President. Putin has been a central character in the rise of Trumpism and its attack on our democratic institutions. Not only has he meddled in our elections but has had a major influence on our former President (ref. “Post Inauguration Thoughts on Power and Government”). He is a leading advocate for replacing democracies with autocracies. He believes in strong central governments and views “rule by the people” as unruly and unmanageable. He also considers any democracy a threat to Mother Russia. Biden understands Putin’s position, and assures him our two countries can still attain strategic stability, if not diplomatic comity. But whether Putin ceases meddling in our elections and allowing/promoting cyber-attacks on our institutions and businesses or not, the Trumpian virus he has helped spread may still fulfill its mission. It has invaded our politics and even the broadcast media. Trumpism has befouled our system of government, threatening its very existence as a democracy.

Like President Lincoln, President Biden assumes his office at a time when his nation faces an existential crisis. While Biden attempts to preserve Reagan’s “shining city on a hill,” Trump and Republican leaders want to drag him into a political fighting pit. Trump will hold rallies and spur insurrectionist fervor. The Senate Minority Leader will attempt to water down or block all Biden initiatives. Both antagonists hope to sway the midterm primaries and elections with supporters they can control. For gaining power is their only objective. Can President Biden do what President Lincoln did at that pivot point in the Civil War? Like President Lincoln, he has apprised Americans of what danger lies before our democracy. And he is orchestrating a new birth of freedom by restoring our democratic institutions and attempting to induce some acquiescence from Republicans. But he cannot succeed unless American patriots force their will on Republicans in the streets, in the halls of Congress, and at the voting booths. Hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers died to preserve America’s legacy. Now we will need millions of Americans to stand up for democracy over a threatened autocracy and demand that this unique experiment in democracy “shall not perish from the earth.”

__________________________________________________
¹ Abraham Lincoln, “The Gettysburg Address.”
² According to the World Inequality Database, the share of America’s income going to the richest 10% is 45.4% compared to Russia’s 46.1%, as quoted in Fortune, April/May 2021 edition.
³ These references to Hitler’s rise to power are taken from William Shirer’s “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” Book One, Chapter 4, “The Mind of Hitler and The Roots of the Third Reich.”

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? (Yes! Same footnote dating back to 2015.)

About two months after his inauguration, President Biden conducted his first press conference. On every subject upon which he was questioned a central theme of his Presidency emerged. Given the questions by reporters, it would be easy to lose that theme in the “beltway” metronome of political wrangling, sensationalism, and/or feigned outrage. But his answers sprung from the same wellspring of personal conviction. They reveal his commitments to bipartisanship, to America’s alliances with democratic state partners, to free and fair elections, to America’s vigilant/cautious relations with autocratic governments, to his central theme of unity, to his many references to “the soul of America,” and even to the transparent manner with which he answered the journalists’ questions. His central theme was and is about the exercise of democracy. But why, at this time, would we expect any other theme from an American President?

At the core of “democracy” is the principal of rule by the people, that is, of a universal franchise where every citizen gets a vote. Democracy cannot exist when citizens’ voting is suppressed. But the Governor of Georgia claims his government is assuring fair elections by his actions that limit the opportunity to vote. And many Republican-controlled states are attempting to follow his lead, like Arizona that is conducting an unofficial and unwarranted recount of last year’s ballots. The pretext for these acts of voter suppression or bias inspired recounts is the assumption that the recent Presidential election was rigged against the Republican incumbent. The election of a Democratic President was thereby deemed a fraud. And fraud demands stringent measures to control how, when, and where votes are counted in the future. But these measures are mis-directions. Over 60 court challenges, multiple recounts, and universally certified State election results testify to the fairest and most verified election in modern history. The real problem some Republican state legislatures are addressing is one of demographics. A few decades ago, white people accounted for more than 90% of the electorate. Today, they only amount to 59% of the electorate. Since a slim majority of white women now vote democratic, even a vast majority of white men cannot overrule the electorate, unless non-white voters are not counted or are denied access to the vote. Voter suppression not only silences American voices but their current and future expectations for America, as I previously referenced in “Majority Pejoraty.”

Although pluralism can and will expose disagreements, it can still avoid chaos and defy authoritarianism. Diversity may engender tribalism but can also inspire tolerance. The challenge for Americans is to find that point of coherence where a pluralistic and diverse society can unite and form a community. The pivot point in this delicate balance is the individual. Can each of us express his/her opinions while welcoming the opinions of those who disagree with us? Can the ideals expressed in our founding documents form a basis for a common set of beliefs? Those beliefs are the hinge that can open the door to compromise and are the only path to universal freedom. Our founding fathers (and the women who supported them) believed in the principles upon which they built this democratic republic – even though they disagreed upon many things. Do we still believe in those principles? If not, then the American experiment in democracy cannot and will not form a more perfect union. Instead, it will sink into the morass of endless wrangling amongst factions, as our first President warned us. And, worse, it will fall prey to the autocracy of oligarchs or tyrants who promise to save Americans from themselves.

Rovelli, a quantum physicist, saw a parallel between the social and political structures born of the Enlightenment and the profusion of scientific thought that so empowered the American experiment. The point of convergence between democracy and science, in his words, is “the idea that public criticism of ideas is useful for determining the best one, the idea that it is possible to debate and come to conclusions together.” ¹

But does Rovelli’s parallel between political and social processes sidestep one critical obstacle to uniform agreement in the political debate? Whereas science reaches agreement on the verifiable results proven by experiment and observable fact, political debate can rage forever between contending belief systems based upon unsupported, distorted, corelated (versus causal), theoretically dubious, or imagined facts. Whereas science evolves our understanding of the world, politics can grossly distort reality. If you agree, then how can Americans transform the principle of “rule by the people” into a reality that benefits all? Or how do we make our democracy alive and vibrant?

President Biden often states, “there’s nothing we cannot do if we do it together, (for) this is the United States of America.” Is he ignoring the naysayers? The Senate Minority Leader says “no Republican will vote” for a specific piece of legislation supported by the President. And his is not the only adverse voice in Congress. Many believe that the filibuster is preferrable to debate and that bipartisanship is fundamentally unattainable. This type of political dissension has become endemic throughout America. For example, mask wearing during a pandemic is termed “unamerican” and a violation of personal freedom. Further, insurrection against the seat of America’s democracy and voter suppression of the democratic right to vote have become arguable as justified acts of personal freedom in America’s democracy. Such acts are not just averse to the very concept of democracy but truly Orwellian in nature.

In Rovelli’s world science progresses by use of the scientific method where theory is freely proposed, tested, then retested by the scientific community until consensus is reached on the theory’s explanation of observable phenomena. The scientific method is the guiding principle. And the scientific community is the arbiter of acceptance. But this occurrence of principled acceptance is only possible if the scientific community believes in the scientific method. Would quantum physics exist without the concurrence of Maxwell, Heisenberg, Einstein, and Neals Bohr? Would gene editing exist if CRISPR was not verified in labs around the world after being patented by Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier. These scientific breakthroughs were nearly hundred years apart. And yet they both are based on the scientific method as an unchanging principle.

So, what is the unchanging principle of American democracy? Is it States rights? Personal freedom? Liberty and justice for all? Well, like science, there are many principles and their application to a changing world requires an evolution in their understanding and application. The one significant difference is that concurrence is less arbitrary in science than in politics. Newton’s laws were universally accepted until quantum physics revealed a deeper, underlying explanation of the same reality. But both Newton and Einstein adhered to the scientific method—as did Doudna and Charpentier. What basic principle or principles support the evolution of our democracy?

It should not be surprising that the principles that define the American Democracy are defined in the Preamble of our Constitution: “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union . . .
(1) establish Justice,
(2) insure domestic Tranquility,
(3) provide for the common defence (sic),
(4) promote the general Welfare,
(5) and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity . . .

In Rovelli’s world, the disagreements between scientists are the necessary means of accelerating the search for truth or the laws of nature. The guiding principle is the scientific method. In American politics, disagreements amongst politicians and citizens are equally necessary to uncover how best to realize these democratic ideals in a changing world. The Constitution is our guide. If we cannot agree on its principles and the structure of the government it outlines, then we will no longer have a democracy. We Americans are free to have many different ideas about law, government, religion and so on. What brings us together as one nation is the Constitution—our social pact—that demands our individual perspectives and opinions have free expression but only within the confines of its principled dictates.

Somehow, within the turmoil of rabid politicking, it seems easy to lose the perspective of those common principles that should bind us together as Americans. Within our families, it is much less likely that we would not pursue the best interest of each family member. In fact, parents often sacrifice their personal pursuits, interests, and opinions in service to the general welfare of their children. Just as love binds a family together, the social pact outlined in our Constitution should bind Americans together.

Walter Isaacson presents an interesting analysis of the competing moral perspectives that emphasize the role of the individual or the community. “One emphasizes individual rights, personal liberty, and a deference to personal choice . . . (the others) view justice and morality through the lens of what is best for the society and perhaps even (in case of bioengineering and climate policy) the species.” ² Isaacson, in the context of his book, argues for “the right balance.” Within the broader context of this blog, I would also argue that both perspectives can coexist—but only if we Americans accept the underlying principles of our democracy. In other words, our politicians can compromise, and citizens can respect different beliefs if they give primary allegiance to our core social pact, that is, the Constitution. And that allegiance is exactly what our President is asking of us when he repeatedly states, “there is nothing we cannot do if we do it together.” When he speaks of the “the soul of America,” he is referring to the patriotism of its citizens.

Some years ago, I wrote a novel entitled “In Search of Fate.” The storyline depicts an individual’s journey through the vagaries of chance and competing initiatives. What my protagonist discovers is that a fate he could never have imagined became a consequence of his own choices. I believe America at this moment in its history is at a pivot point. The choices we citizens make now will determine its fate. As our President predicted, future generations may well acknowledge that this was the time “we won the future.” We just need to keep our faith in ourselves and in our founding principles. The fate of our democracy demands no less from each of us.

________________________________________________________
¹ Carlo Rovelli, “Anaximander,” p. 96.
² Walter Isaacson, “The Code Breaker: Jennifer Doudna, Gene Editing, and the Future of the Human Race,” pp. 356-357.

“Till truth were freed, and equity restored”

Democracy depends upon an electorate that is both informed and free to exercise their judgment in fair elections. But the exercise of the human ability to choose rationally and freely does not guarantee the best, or even intended, result. Both as individuals and as a society, we either learn from our mistakes or doom ourselves to repeat them. We have aphorisms and myths that remind us “to err is human.” The Bible’s origin story explains this human propensity.

The Garden of Eden, we are told, is a mythological representation of a nascent paradise into which humans were introduced. Obviously, Adam and Eve had no need to hunt or raise crops for food. But after their “fall” from grace, they were expelled from Paradise and from the tree of life. They not only were damned to toil for their sustenance but to face death itself. The knowledge of good and evil apparently comes with a heavy price.

When Eve plucked that apple from the forbidden tree and took that first bite, she chose a future she could not predict and discovered the full gravity of free will. Adam, of course, trusted Eve and took the second bite that also set his fate in motion. Every human being faces their predicament, if not a mythological fall from grace, some other form of failure. There are unforeseen consequences to the exercise of free will. But without it, humanity would have lost its most self-defining characteristic. Eve, named after the Hebrew verb “to live,” was not only “the mother of all the living” ¹ but the archetype for the exercise of free will—the forerunner of integrity or shame. She is both our progenitor and precursor. As such, she embodies both the capabilities and limitations of her posterity, encompassing our life experiences, to include both our achievements and failures.

Amongst the many interpretations of this origin story, I have selected the very human problem we all face, that is, the risk inherent in the exercise of free will without the omnipotent ability to foresee all possible consequences. Eden, then, is a cautionary tale that must compel us to gauge the consequences of our choices, as individuals and as citizens of the world and of America. As Americans, we combine these citizenships in both our private and public lives. Specifically, we are free to live our democratic values and choose who may serve our best interests and represent our values to the world. Have those chosen representatives always served our best interests and our democratic values? Have we?

Americans have had to cope with profoundly severe consequences for many of its most pregnant choices. For example, during the Constitutional Convention on one hot summer in Philadelphia, our founding fathers argued about how the lower house should be represented. John Rutledge of South Carolina opined that representation should be determined by the “quotas of contribution,” that is, the amount contributed to the national treasury. Elbridge Gerry immediately brought up the issue of slaves, declaring “blacks are property and are used to the southward as horses and cattle to the northward.” ² Gerry, later elected as Vice President in the Madison Administration, was implying that the North would then have the right to count horses and cattle as part of its representation quota—an absurd equivalency. The issue was eventually resolved by James Wilson who would be nominated by Washington to the Supreme Court in 1789. He advocated the “three-fifths” rule adopted by the Confederation Congress of 1783. According to the Convention’s records, he stated that representation should be the “whole number of white and other free citizens and three-fifths of all other persons except Indians not paying taxes . . .”² The final text of the Constitution, Article I, Section 2, refers to “free persons” instead of “white and other free citizens,” includes indentured servants as free citizens, but keeps the exclusion of “three-fifths of all other persons.” Hidden behind the metaphorical loin cloth here is the word “white” and “slaves.” Is it too bold to assume that our founding fathers were ashamed of these omissions? Well, they should have been embarrassed. For their decision made the aspiring democracy they chose to create much less exceptional at its outset and more tenuous in its future. They took that first bite out of the apple.

Any American civics class will typically cover the history that led to the Civil War. Though the founding fathers had tried to navigate around the issue, slavery was too ingrained in the South’s economy and lifestyle to be ignored. It was a frequent cause of debate in Congress, especially as the country expanded into the new territories. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 limited the expansion of slave states beyond Missouri. But, in 1854, Congress reversed itself, invalidating the Missouri Act and replacing it with the Nebraska Kansas Act which allowed slavery by a popular vote in the new territories. So divisive was this 1854 Act that it eventually broke up the Whig Party into a southern Democratic Party and a northern Republican Party. The famous Douglas-Lincoln debates of 1858 contributed to this break-up. Though Stephan Douglas beat Abraham Lincoln in the Illinois Senate race that year, Lincoln won the Presidency over Douglas in 1860. One month after Lincoln assumed the Presidency in 1861, Jefferson Davis, the newly declared President of the Confederacy, declared war on America and ordered a siege of Fort Sumpter. His declaration was an act of insurrection against the Constitution and a democratically elected President. The failure of Congressional compromise, divisive politics, and this incited insurrection were all linked in America’s fall from grace, from its hard-won union, and from its historic promise of exceptionalism. The Civil War that ensued was the result of this second bite out of the apple.

After President Lincoln’s assassination, his successor, Andrew Johnson, a former Southern governor, attempted to undo Lincoln’s plan for reconstruction of the South. Twice Congress overruled President Johnson’s vetoes. His successor, Ulysses S. Grant, did implement Lincoln’s reconstruction plans. He ordered Union soldiers to suppress the Klu Klux Clan and protect the newly freed slaves. But the Republican Party did not have the votes to elect Grant’s proposed successor, Rutherford B. Hayes. They needed support from the South, so they bargained away Lincoln’s reconstruction plans. As a result, the Klu Klux Clan not only restored its suppression of the former slaves, but began a period of pogroms, lynching, and systemic subjugation of Blacks. This period is known as the Jim Crow era. It began in 1877 and persisted until the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of the mid-1960’s. And Jim Crow marks the third bite of the apple.

From the first slave ship that anchored in American waters in 1619 until the 13th Amendment of 1865, African slaves were treated as work and farm animals—that is, for nearly a quarter of a millennium, generation after generation. Another hundred years passed before American Blacks were awarded the civil and voting rights that the American Constitution promised for all Americans. And it was only last summer that we saw Martin Luther King’s call for the coalition of conscience finally encompass a wide swath of white people. “Black Lives Matter” protests rose spontaneously across the country, and most of the protesters were white. The violence and suppression advocated by white supremacists finally awakened the public conscience, as did systemic racism. Perhaps, America has at last reached a tipping point where racism—its original sin—can emerge from the shadows. Finally, we can begin to realize the ideals of the Enlightenment that so inspired our founding fathers.

The word “enlightenment” implies a prior darkness. Why did it take so long for Americans to come into the light? In Isabel Wilkerson’s book, “Caste: The Lies That Divide Us,” she quotes a holocaust survivor’s disbelief in finding another caste system in America that mirrored the one he had just barely escaped. He described the treatment of Blacks as the “worst disease.” “Everyone who freshly learns of this state of affairs,” he concluded, “feels not only the injustice, but the scorn of the principle of the Fathers who founded the United States that ‘all men are created equal.’” ³ That holocaust survivor was Albert Einstein. Maybe, the light of conscience showed brighter for him as one who had just emerged from darkness. Let us hope last summer’s protests are also signs of such an emergence. What we Americans choose to do in this newfound light will determine our future, that is, whether we regain the promise of liberty and justice for all.

Recently, senators of the modern Republican Party took another bite out of that apple. They acquitted an impeached President who, like Jefferson Davis, incited an insurrection and attempted to undo a democratic election. The Senate Majority Leader, while admitting that the accused was “morally and practically” guilty and deserving to be held accountable, voted to acquit him on the very technicality the Senate had just voted invalid—that is, that the Senate did not have jurisdiction to remove a President proven guilty of inciting an insurrection and invalidating a democratic election. But America had fought a Civil War to preserve its Union, its Constitution, and the democratic election of Abraham Lincoln. Further, it indicted and imprisoned Jefferson Davis as a traitor who longed to do what Donald Trump did, which is to incite white supremacist to storm the capital and “stop the steal” or overturn a Presidential election. The only difference between Davis and Trump is that Davis lived and represented a way of life that justified white privilege over oppressed Black slaves whereas Trump identified with and catered to white supremacists only to gain followers for his own purposes—that is, his “continuation” in office. He may have agreed with them, but his objective was not to restore the glory of the Confederacy. He just wanted to use them in his quest to retain his hold on executive power. Davis’ supporters considered him a patriot and a hero of the Confederacy. But Trump is merely a traitor to his office, to the Constitution, and to the American people—including his followers. He used America’s original sin to serve his lust for power. As the Senate Majority Leader implied, Donald Trump should be held accountable, just as any alleged criminal tried in America’s judicial system.

How have we Americans delt with the unforeseen consequences of the January 6 insurrection and the aftermath of the Trump Presidency? As the Republican Party cowers under the threats of Trump’s “base” supporters and white supremacists, Congressional gridlock continues to kill bipartisanship. Lies and conspiracy theories abound in the face of truth and honesty. Brinkmanship is applauded, while reasonable debate is ridiculed. Donald Trump has awakened the same darkness the Constitutional fathers tried to circumvent, the Confederacy fought to preserve, the Jim Crow era justified by mob rule, the 60’s violent protests fought, and the more recent peaceful protests attempted to bring to light.

Regardless of the Senate’s failure to convict Trump for inciting his white supremacist followers, we Americans are still left with a decision—one that will determine the future of America. When will we decide to act in the best interest of all Americans? And that decision has weighed on America from its very inception. It has never ceased to challenge us, our ideals, and the very purpose of our democracy, as stated in the Constitution: “in order to form a more perfect union.” When those words were first penned to paper during the Constitutional Convention in 1787, there was some doubt that the proposed government would survive. Benjamin Franklin, when asked what form of government was agreed upon, answered “a republic, if you can keep it.” Later, John Adams termed our budding republic “an experiment.” Hamilton, Madison, and Jay wrote extensively in the Federalist Papers, explaining why and how this newly formed democracy was the best hope for self-government and better than anything that had proceeded it. But in this moment and at this time in American history, can we keep it?

Our founding fathers were not unaware of human nature. Wary of our weaknesses and limitations in judgment, they created a system of checks and balances, allowed for impeachment and removal from office, and assured us the ability to choose our path forward via free democratic elections. But they bequeathed to us an original sin from which only we can redeem ourselves. Democracy remains a work in progress. Only by guaranteeing the rights of all Americans can America regain its promise and redeem what was lost at its creation.

The idea of loss and redemption consumed the poet John Milton. Most know him as the author of his epic “Paradise Lost” in which he characterized our fall from grace. Later, he wrote a shorter epic poem entitled “Paradise Regained.” The following excerpt can and should inspire us to overcome our original sin, to put aside the lust for power and threats of violence, to persuade the better angels of our nature, and to hold the misled to account. To secure our country’s future, we must teach each generation of Americans to advance the cause of liberty and justice for all. Otherwise, the promise of American exceptionalism will never be realized.

An excerpt from “Paradise Regained” by John Milton:

Then to subdue and quell, o’er all the earth,
Brute violence and proud tyrannic power,
Till truth were freed, and equity restored:
Yet held it more humane, more heavenly, first
By winning words to conquer willing hearts,
And make persuasion do the work of fear;
At least to try, and teach the erring soul,
Not wilfully misdoing, but unware
Misled; the stubborn only to subdue . . . (sic)
__________________________________________________________________
¹ Chapter 2, “The Old Testament,” The Catholic Book Publishing Company, c. 1957.
² as quoted by Catherine Drinker Bowen, “Miracle at Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention 1787,” p. 95.
³ as quoted by Isabel Wilkerson, “Caste: The Lies that Divide Us,” p. 378.

Footnote: For those who want to dig deeper into American systemic racism, I highly recommend Wilkerson’s book. My humble blog barely touches the surface of her historical analysis of caste systems, to include Indian, German, and American racism. She is an excellent writer, scholar, and human being. But my recommendation is dwarfed by her many awards and commendations to include a Pulitzer Prize, the National Humanities Medal, the National Book Critics Circle Award for Nonfiction, The New York Times’s list of the Best Nonfiction of All Time. Yes! She is that good.

Footnote #2: I should note the irony of the “three-fifths” rule. The Southern Democrats may have cut their financial contribution to the Federal Government by reducing their representation in Congress. But less representation weakened their ability to block the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments that gave Negroes freedom, citizenship, and the right to vote, respectively. The irony: the 3/5th rule not only intimated white supremacy, but the beginning of its demise. (Of course, America is still working towards that demise.)

Any plan implies a “method for achieving an end,” according to Webster’s Ninth Collegiate Dictionary. Of course, a plan to plant azaleas in a garden is quite simplistic compared to a plan to vaccinate enough Americans to reach “herd” immunity—that is, between 230 and 265 million Americans—before the Fall of 2021. The method required to accomplish that plan demands a very comprehensive design, in fact, a complicated system replete with contingency plans and feedback loops that can either address anticipated shortcomings or allow appropriate intervention for the unanticipated. This system begins with supply of the necessary vaccine, but proceeds to shipping, distributing to vaccination centers, staffing—and likely training—healthcare vaccinators, scheduling required follow-up vaccinations, and ongoing monitoring, coordination, and control of the entire process. Development of this system would necessarily have begun as soon as the earliest availability date for a viable vaccine was announced. And that date was early September 2020, when the FDA projected one or more vaccines would be available by mid-December. As of January 2021, no such system existed. Dumping vaccine supplies on hospitals throughout the country is not a plan. It does not account for delivery to remote populations, match vaccine supplies to vaccination scheduling, or assure appropriately trained immunizers where needed. Nor does it coordinate vaccine shipments with initial and follow-up immunizations. Without a system to coordinate and track these immunizations, there is no control or assurance of success—just the promise of ongoing chaos.

Development of this system should have begun with the assembly of a team representative of every state and with a compilation of demographics. That team would have been made responsible for locating facilities in reasonably sized population centers. Staffing and training requirements, as well as coordinated immunization and vaccine shipments, could have been forecasted and therefore planed well in advance of December. Moreover, the team’s advanced planning also would have allowed for the development of a tracking mechanism to assure that every bottle of vaccine was delivered were needed without undersupply or oversupply and that follow-up vaccinations were administered on schedule. That tracking mechanism would necessarily be a computer system with similar screens for recording vaccinations and patient data (like name, contact info., and scheduling data), but with networking of its recorded data to central hubs. Of course, those hubs would then have accurate data to assure overall coordination of vaccine delivery with Federal supply centers and of immunization progress within the communities they serve. If planning would have begun in September, the Trump Administration would have been prepared with a systematic approach to deliver vaccines where needed, on time for scheduled immunizations, and with trained staff ready to immunize in communities of appropriately sized density. Overall coordination and tracking would have allowed for immediate recognition of problems—such as over or under supply—and quick recovery.

America has begun to ship vaccines but without a plan for success. Within just a couple of weeks, we have already received reports of seniors waiting in long lines at central vaccination hubs. Only 25-35% of the vaccines shipped have been administered. Manufacturers are producing more vaccines than are being used. And we find vaccine shipments placed in temporary storage, at the risk of expiration of their effectiveness. Meanwhile, there appears to be no assured scheduling of the follow-up dosage. Unfortunately, incompetence always has a price. In this case, that price is chaos, waste, and, potentially, many avoidable deaths.

When President Trump announced his “warp speed” approach to vaccine development, he effectively gave this scientific endeavor a political brand name and, at the same time, took credit for its scientific achievement. His announcement reminded me of one Senator’s recent statement describing the difference between politics and the law. The former, he stated, is often unfair. The latter is how a democratic republic assures justice and fairness. Applying his distinction to governing, it is imperative that an elected President not play politics in administering his/her responsibilities. Whereas those in Congress must compromise their politics to assure their constituents are served fairly and justly, a President “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed” (Section 3, Article II, the Constitution). A President may be the leader of his political Party. But his actions must subordinate his political well-being to the public he serves. The Constitution and his oath of office require as much and have the force of law. But President Trump has been running a political campaign from his very first day in office. Of course, his Administration deserves credit for paying in advance for vaccine production while still in its trial phase. But politicizing the speed of vaccine production in this manner made many question—unfairly—whether the vaccines developed were thoroughly tested and not rushed to market. When he disclaimed “Covid, Covid, Covid” as a fake news obsession, he was playing politics with Americans’ health and safety—what the Constitution framed as “the general welfare.” Perhaps, his discrediting of the pandemic’s threat, his blaming the States for its unrestrained spread, and his dumping vaccines on the States without a plan to assure timely and effective vaccinations are all emblematic of a basic ineptitude. Nevertheless, his response to Covid-19 remains a dereliction of duty. We have been treated unfairly, and he has violated his oath to the Constitution. “Warp speed” implies some manner of efficiency where none was ever evident. There was never a plan.

National disasters, like raging fires or violent hurricanes, occur on their own timeline. They pass over us, then leave us to plan our recovery. But pandemics pass through us. It can only be mitigated by personal safeguard measures. And vaccines can further mitigate its deadliness, reducing its effect to something akin to a common cold. But those mitigation efforts coexist with the virus’ rampant contagion through our population. Have we Americans fought back effectively? Has our government supported mitigation efforts consistently and insistently? Our President, instead, chose a destructive path, downplaying the virus’ threats and required mitigation efforts. In his personal conduct and at his rallies, he managed to model and encourage reckless behavior, leading us into a national disaster. No general fights a war without a plan to end it. But this lame duck Presidency has done so for nearly a year while hospitals were overrun and morgues, overwhelmed with corpses.

The second paragraph above is just a commonsense outline of what could have started a planning effort months ago. While it only required a few minutes to compose, it could have been the start of multiple projects to build a vaccination delivery system. At a minimum any plan would have required (1) identification of delivery hubs in variable sized communities, (2) the assignment of local coordinators in these hubs, (3) the training of suitable personal—like medical students, national guard, senior caretakers, and others to deliver the vaccines, (4) creation of tracking and scheduling software, (5) identification of the networking mechanism required to implement and track the overall vaccination program, (6) and an ongoing collaborative planning effort with the States to resolve problems as they arise.

Given these planning deficits, the new Administration will be left with the task to vaccinate millions “on the fly” with no pre-existing plan but with the need to recover from the ensuing chaos. Vaccine shipments have not been delivered as promised. Vaccination schedules have not been met or coordinated with shipments. As a result, many have waited in lines for vaccines that have not been delivered. And, on the reverse side of this equation, a large quantity of vaccines has been stored in remote locations awaiting vaccinations. Those delivered and unused vaccines are at risk of expiration. Meanwhile, the pandemic that initially went undeterred is now raging forward at a pace wherein hundreds of thousands are being infected every day and the death count is rising well past any previous catastrophe. This one-year Covid death count will shortly surpass America’s death count for all of World War II. Every day we lose as many Americans to Covid as we lost in the 911 tragedy. If President Trump was not impeached for criminally inciting insurrection, he should have been removed from office for gross incompetence. In either case, he is guilty of dereliction of duty.

Recently, President-Elect Biden admitted this reality. But he also proposed a remedy. His plan is comprehensive, requires hundreds of newly hired personnel, collaboration with the States, expert and decisive leadership, transparency, and a large financial investment. The management requirement will be akin to fighting an invasion with day-by-day adjustments to the unexpected. His plan will have to recover from the deficits left by the previous Administration and evolve its implementation in concert with a system and network that can only be built in stages—not before availability of vaccines, but as vaccines become available. No systems developer would choose to solve a problem before it is sufficiently analyzed. But, often, he/she must begin to act before the path ahead is definitively known. When so confronted, the emphasis must be on the expertise of the players, their collaboration, and their leadership.

Our nation has faced many challenges. President-Elect Biden has not only noted as much but reminded us that we have proven our ability to overcome them. One hundred years ago we fought a pandemic without the science and resources we have today. Regardless of our planning deficit, we now can begin to take the informed and diligent steps necessary to defeat this pandemic. And, unlike other threats, such as insurrection, global unrest, the dismantling of our institutions, systemic racisms, elected reprobates—like a rogue President, and a dysfunctional Congress, every American can participate and effectively mitigate the horrors of this pandemic. We just need to act in each other’s interests and care as much as our new President for our collective well-being. Or we can heed the words of our new Vice President, spoken just moments ago before the Lincoln memorial: “Tonight, we grieve and begin healing together. Though we may be physically separated, we the American people are united in spirit.”

Let us call this one small step for patriotism and a leap forward for our health and well-being.

This blog marks the third day before the inauguration of the 46th President of the United States. Its topic concerns a human deficiency that is both universal and historically omnipresent in our species. From the ancient Egyptians to the democratically inspired Athenians, our race has often demonized others as less human and therefore deserving of less privileges. For example, both the Egyptians and Athenians had slaves. In other words, it appears to be a natural human tendency to demean classes of individuals and even to enslave or systematically ostracize them from social acceptance.

During war times, it is common for soldiers to refer to the enemy in dehumanizing terms. If you are asked to kill people, it is easier to consider them less human. Hence, you hear soldiers demeaning the enemy as Krauts, Japs, gooks, or ragheads. In recent wars, this disregard for the humanity of others has made Hannibal’s sacking of Rome or the 100 year’s war seem relatively minor in comparison to the carnage of the 20th Century. Consider the holocaust, the carpet bombing of Berlin, the atomic bombs on non-military targets in Japan, the more than a million civilians lost to bombing raids in Haiphong, Hanoi, Laos, and Cambodia. But soldiers who fought in these recent wars often suffer not only from the nightmares of modern weaponry but also from remorse for the human carnage left in war’s wake. That remorse can arise from any real contact with the enemy—that is, from the experience of a common humanity. Even during war, it is possible to “love thy enemy.”

(The following is a slightly fictionalized account of a true story.)
Ron laid in his bunk, waiting for the nightly shelling—boots and flak jacket on, mosquito net flung open, rifle and loaded cartridges within reach. His thoughts, however, were elsewhere. He was thinking of Chui’s frown when he teased her with his playful take on her name. She wasn’t at all remote like the other mama-sans. Somehow, not even a language barrier could prevent them from having fun or sharing their feelings. Her brother, a Vietcong, would have beaten her for merely talking with a GI. And if he found out that she had feelings for an enemy soldier, he probably would have tried to kill them both. She knew how difficult it was for him to accept her job. But it was what she had to do for her family. She was their sole support. And she didn’t think it beneath her to polish the enemy’s shoes, wash his clothes, and clean his barracks. She did what was necessary . . . though Ron knew their relationship did not make it easier for her. In fact, it put them both at risk. While the thought of her warmed his heart, their future together also made him anxious and tense. They lived in different worlds. And neither the Army would allow, nor her family approve the bond between them. Forces beyond his control would drive them apart. He would eventually return to college and his life in the States. But her life would be different: her prospects limited. She would be one of the millions relegated to the poverty and suffering of a war-torn country. The thought of their disparate futures made him feel depressed. Often, the urge to be with her, to share the moment, would become overpowering. For fate had already predetermined their future apart.

He would not even take his rifle. He didn’t want to fight this war against her people. The CQ was a friend who would try to dissuade him. He would promise to return the Detachment’s jeep before the usual midnight artillery barrage. If he encountered a white mice roadblock, he would claim to be looking for an AWOL GI and agree to whatever limitations they required of him. He had to see her, even though he knew she would disapprove of his visit. He was prepared for her reprimand and insistence that he return to his detachment. Probably she would retort with feigned anger, “GI dinky dou.” But then she would welcome his embrace. And they would rescue each other from a world that saw their union as unnatural and even punishable. (End of story)

The soldier I named “Ron” was a real person. His story illustrates a breakthrough many of his fellow soldiers never experienced. They failed to see Vietnamese as equals. They were called “gooks,” somehow less human, certainly by birth and, possibly, by divine intervention. They worked the rice fields and the lowly crafts upon which the former French colony depended. But they were believed inferior and better suited to the dirt-poor existence and menial labor into which they were born. Their women might serve men’s needs, but never as an equal consort for the European or American Caucasian. They were as soiled as the dirt floors in many of their homes. Therefore, it was somehow easier to drop chemical weapons and two-thousand-pound bombs on their land, killing indiscriminately, in the name of defending America from the spread of communism into Indochina. (As a Vietnam vet, I must admit that this blatant oxymoron still provokes my personal rage.)

To some degree, all wars involve some level of self-deceit where only two things must be real: a well-publicized, perhaps fabricated, justification for going to war and the dehumanization of an enemy that must be annihilated. Hitler certainly understood how to justify his reign of terror, as did the American settlers who engaged in Indian genocide and in the atrocities of African slavery for a quarter of a millennium. Both Hitler and our American forebears, however, carried racial prejudice beyond the dehumanizing nature of war. Both showed it as a part of our humanity and thereby admissible in our social structures.

Historians and anthropologists have written extensively about the stratification of classes in human societies. But the story of Ron and Chui illustrates something more insidious than social class or differences in education, language, or even race. Social status or differences can be used to stigmatize people as less worthy and, therefore, less human. Prejudicial judgments of this type are common in human culture. And they also justify measures that prevent those deemed less worthy from equal access to the benefits and status they might otherwise merit or earn. Chui, for example, would never qualify for immigration to America unless Ron married her. Even then, there would be many obstacles to overcome before she would be accepted as a fellow American. She was, nonetheless, an intelligent and capable person who quickly learned enough English to communicate with Ron. She could speak and read both Chinese and Vietnamese, including the alphabetized French version. But, as Ron’s wife, she would find it difficult to be accepted in a society that would denote only her differences, including her accent and her skin color. The failure to recognize the humanity of others seems to be innate in our nature. But it remains murderous in human relations and debilitating to the development of personal character.

Today is the national holiday in which we honor Martin Luther King. His influence in passing the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts was a victory for all Americans. Those legislative achievements not only ended the Jim Crow era, but enabled America to begin the realization of “Justice . . . and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” (from the Preamble of The Constitution). But those achievements did not end racial biases or systemic racism in America. This past summer of “Black Lives Matter” protests has once again lighted the path before us. We are reminded of our ability to overcome the weakness of our nature, to lock arms with our brother and sister Americans, and make real the promise of America. As Reverend King reminded us, “we do not lack the resources, just the will.”

Our new President and Vice President are offering us a new vision of what America can be.

Since 2015, this blog site has been warning America of this day, January 6, 2021. More recently, in a recent blog (reference “The Emergence of a New Majority”) published on November 22nd, you will find the following statement:
“More than seventy million citizens just voted for insurrection against the American system—perhaps unwittingly. They succumbed to the belief that our democratic voting system was a fraud. . .”

Their belief was based upon the President’s accusations. Our conspiracy-minded, alternative reality President inspired and instigated their march to the Nation’s Capital. What transpired as a result was sadly predictable: looting and violence, and the endangerment of both members of Congress and those tasked with their security.

In 1812, British soldiers occupied our Capitol and attempted to overthrow our government. Nearly three decades later, President Jackson threatened Congress with his Tennessee Volunteers but withdrew his threat without further incident. Today, however, American citizens attempted to do what neither a foreign power could do, nor an angry President Jackson would dare to do.

If this attempt at insurrection is not addressed, then future unlawful attempts to void a democratic election will be unavoidable. In other words, America’s democracy would be in jeopardy. Those responsible should be punished to the full extent of the law. We Americans believe in free speech and the right to petition our government. But we do not approve or tolerate sedition.

The Republican Congressional “gang of sedition” must be discredited for violating their oath of office. Unless they bury their politically subversive harangues, they must be voted out of office. And President Trump should be impeached—again! But this time the Senate should find him guilty, remove him from office, and assure he can never again run for any public office. Why? Because he is a threat to our democracy and the very structure of our government institutions.

Democracy is difficult. It abides dissent and more than a little of politically inspired nonsense. But it subsists to insure “liberty and justice for all.” Each generation moves America closer to its ideals by institutionalizing them into laws and into the fabric of our society. If we live those ideals, we will resist those who pervert them and draw others into our circle of responsibility. Yes, we are all responsible for securing and advancing the democratic republic our ancestors fought to create and preserve. Remember our pledge of allegiance!

A previous blog (ref. “Majority Pejoraty”) addressed how America’s political system has not always served the interest of the majority. This disfunction has had an especially harsh impact on a subset of that majority, specifically, the less privileged among us. While our republic’s politics has too often muted the will of many—including some of the privileged, it has systemically silenced the voice of others.

The term “majority” can refer to two distinct but somewhat overlapping groups: a voting polity or the whole population. For too long, “majority” has often been used to define that voting bloc gifted by birth or circumstances as white or wealthy. But that bogus definition has long been a misnomer for it favors a selective part of the body politic over the whole. The descendants of white colonists and white immigrants still retain privileged status. But an ever-expanding plurality of them have joined Martin Luther King’s coalition of conscience and now identify with a new population majority that also includes racial, ethnic, LGBTQ, and recently naturalized citizens. While white privilege and inherited wealth may still define social class and can bias who gains access to education and chosen careers and who receives fair treatment in the courts and before law enforcement, they no longer define this new and growing population majority. Instead, they are representative of a political subset of our population—a diminishing voting polity. And, to the extent they demand political influence as a self-perceived right of birth or circumstance, they favor policies that serve their interest over concern for a free pluralist society’s failure to provide equal opportunity and equal justice for all. By contrast, the new emerging majority is growing and holds a new vision for America’s future—or rather, a reclaiming of Lincoln’s “new birth of freedom.” His vision outlined a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” That government cannot be controlled by the power exercised by the privileged or monied class, but by an electorate comprised of all citizens in a democratic republic. On November 19th, 1863, exactly 157 years ago at this writing, an ailing Abraham Lincoln climbed a podium at Gettysburg and urged America to rise from war and divisiveness and be reborn into universal freedom. On that day, he was defining a new electorate and a new vision for America.

And a new electorate has recently gained traction in this 2020 election cycle—though just barely. In the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections, the difference between the old and new majorities appears to be between three or six million voters, respectfully. But the growing disparity between the old and new political agendas is much greater. The old majority tended to vote “center-right” and often for a Republican Party that favored the more privileged. To that purpose, its Republican candidates pretended to adhere to a traditional Reaganite conservatism agenda, advocating for free trade, state’s rights or federalism, corporate wealth (frequently explained as “trickle down” economy), and balanced budgets. But, in recent times, the Republican Party prioritized one agenda above all else: hold onto office and dominate the Federal apparatus of power. Of course, both political parties have competed for power, but over the last three decades, the Republican Party has gradually abandoned its previous justifications for this competition. While pretending to war against a mythical socialist totalitarian state, it has undermined legislative compromise and now supports a totalitarian executive. At his whim, Republicans have ignored their previous agenda while endorsing isolationist trade policies, interfering with the states’ rights to conduct free and fair elections, and reducing taxes levied on the wealthier amongst us at the expense of an exploding Federal deficit. Any member of the new majority might question the Republicans’ commitment to the general welfare. More specifically, were they supporting or voting –
➣ for a national public health plan to control a pandemic or
➣ for an extension of affordable healthcare and the preexisting condition insurance ban or
➣ for equal opportunity to gain wealth/income via tax reform, training, and education programs or
➣ for mitigation of climate change or
➣ for renovation of America’s infrastructure or
➣ against foreign interference in our elections or
➣ against the criminal use of government institutions for private gain or
➣ against immigrant internment camps or
➣ against flagrant child abuse of migrant children separated from their parents or
➣ against racial/ethnic/gender discrimination, such as systemic racism in our justice system or
➣ against abandonment of America’s global leadership in maintaining peace and justice throughout the world?

The simple answer is “no.” This more recent version of the Republican Party has abandoned long held American values. In fact, it supported little or no policies that could benefit most Americans, including many of its own Party members. Instead, it supported a so-called “populist” demagogue who promised to make an apocryphally great America by fiat in the very manner of a would-be tyrant. And that support has denigrated many of our democratic institutions. Its final coup de eta was the failure of Republican Senators to remove Trump from office after reviewing substantive evidence supporting his impeachment. Thereby, they tilted the arc of our democracy towards the reemergence of mid-twentieth century fascism—that is, when more than 400,000 American soldiers sacrificed their lives to defeat fascism. This version of the Republican Party presents a radical threat to the very soul of America.

By contrast, when this new majority demands access to healthcare and effective public health policies during a pandemic, it is clearly exercising its inalienable right to life and to that Constitutional provision for its general welfare. If the new majority risks arrest for protesting systemic racism in civic commerce, the criminal justice system, or policing, then it is clearly exercising its rights of redress and due process as outlined in the Constitution’s initial amendments. If the new majority decides to vote out of office a President found guilty of abuse of power and conspiring with a foreign power to undermine a free election, then it is merely enforcing Article II provisions that Republican Senators failed to exercise. If the new majority decides to vote out of office those Senators who disgraced their oath of office by exonerating a President proven guilty of bribery, extortion, and flagrant abuse of power, then it is merely exercising its Constitutional right and demonstrating its allegiance to a democratic republic. None of these actions characterize a socialist totalitarian initiative—as President Trump paradoxically exclaims—but demonstrate the will of a free electorate in a duly formed democratic republic.

The new majority also seeks full representation and opposes any attempts to suppress the vote or stop the vote count. Clearly, the right to vote defines a democracy. The XV, XIX, XXIV, and XXVI Amendments further extend or modify this right. Though States administer their voting systems, they must honor the right to vote as a basic precept of our democracy and abide by these Constitutional amendments. After all, Federalism is defined in our Constitution as an integral component of our American democracy, not its enemy.

Ironically, President Trump has blamed the States—especially Democratic States—for the proliferation of the pandemic. Who believes that President Trump’s abdication of any responsibility for fighting the pandemic is an exercise of federalism? His aide de camp, Jared Kushner, claimed that the FEMA stockpile of personnel protective equipment (PPE) belonged to the Federal Government and not to the states. Really? Then what is the purpose of PPE or who benefits from its use and why do Americans pay Federal taxes for FEMA’s purchase of it? In truth, this Administration has abandoned its responsibilities to the states and to its citizens. It operates as if the President is the sole power to which all citizens, states, and institutions owe absolute obeisance and loyalty. Even after losing a national election, it continues to operate like a directorate within the former socialist/communist state of the Soviet Union, exercising its power in its own interest rather than that of American citizens. And, of course, that interest can only be the President’s personal interest. Perhaps, this lame duck American directorate explains why the only major world leader who has not congratulated the President Elect is Vladimir Putin. The Russian President must be alarmed that his acolyte’s actions to dismantle democratic institutions and disrupt a free election have been repudiated. Let us hope this reversal of Putin’s 2016 victory has made it a pyrrhic one.

Having stated the case for this emerging and growing majority, what should be said of the old guard, now the new minority? Some of its wealthy component may fear losing influence over government policy. And it seems likely that the wealthy will be asked to pay more taxes—although the only tax increases currently proposed are simply a rollback to the previous Administration, i.e., the status pro ante. Is a tax increase for a small minority of the wealthiest among us a fair price to pay for policies that serve the general welfare of the majority?

Our real concern is not for the rich, their wealth secures their future. But we should be concerned for the cult-like followers of President Trump. They are now part of this new minority in an expanding population. Their grievances are mostly real and based upon the degradation of democratic policies/norms and the deceit of elected representatives of both parties. Why did they cheer their chosen leader as he fought the “deep state,” the press, and his democratic rivals? They adopted his grievances as their own. Most likely, they felt disconnected to their government, for their elected officials acted more as delegates than representatives. Did they not hold office more in the manner of a Roman Consul, serving only the interest of an imperial party? Politicians who pretend to serve the public interest while acting in their own or Party interest are hypocrites. Certainly, they are guilty of abandoning the electorate’s trust and their oath of allegiance to the Constitution. Office holders of both Parties have often failed in this regard.

Since 1992, one Party has reacted more aggressively to hold onto power as it witnessed a comparative decline in its plurality of registered voters. As a result, it has crossed both legal and ethical lines to suppress votes, to use Congressional investigations as political weapons, to gerrymander districts, to quell census taking, to bend laws in service of wealthy campaign donors, to purge voter records, to stymy a free election or stop vote counts with spurious legal actions, and, unbelievably, to allow a rogue President to abandon Federalism and every other canon of the Republican Party in exchange for his support. And, of course, his support has no value without the unquestioned support of his followers. They see themselves in him, their grievances represented in his, and their reprisal against a government that has failed them in his battle with an alleged “deep state.” Thereby, the Republican Party has entered into a quid pro quo relation with its President, as he has with his followers. As a result, the Grand Old Party no longer exists as such. It has evolved into the Party of Trumpism. And that fact should raise concern for Trump’s followers. For it was never their interest or welfare that he served, but only his own. And, sadly, the same must be said of the Party he now owns.

There is hope that the past will not be prologue to the future. After a lengthy campaign, the victorious President Elect wants to bring the country’s factions together. Presumably, he would address the needs of all Americans, including Trump’s followers. Perhaps, the Republican Party will be inspired to join in this effort. But how does that Party change from uncompromising legislative naysayer to the loyal opposition. Well, it must reorient itself to its former premises as the Party of Lincoln and to a Reaganite dedication to the Constitution. That reorientation could be the key to viable compromise around the basic Constitutional prerequisite “to promote the general welfare” over the vitriol and divisiveness of the Trump Administration. But that reorientation seems unlikely in the foreshadowing of 70+ million Trumpian votes. To quote Shakespeare’s Ophelia after losing her mind, “we know what we are, but know not what we may be.”

What then can change an electorate that no longer believes its government serves its interests? Instead, it believes in a deep state that undermines those interests. It no longer trusts Washington elites who pretend to represent its interest while hypocritically serving their own. Whether that interest is money or influence, the result is the same: a fractional government divorced from its primary purpose, which is public service. This outcome for America is unsupportable for it deviates from the democratic ideals upon which this Republic was founded. Unless our publicly elected representatives of both Parties come together and serve the interests of the electorate rather than their careers or financial prospects, that electorate will not be represented or their interests, served. In other words, the disfunction introduced by Party leadership must cease, else our democracy will. (Is this indictment an attempt to cast shade on the Senate Majority Leader? Well, not exactly. Mitch McConnell is just one symptom, not the sole cause.)

A functioning government that professionally addresses the interests and needs of its democratic electorate is a healing remedy for what ails America. Founded on principles of honesty and service, such a government wins the trust of those it serves. It can then unify a people around a common cause. But it cannot succeed in concert with the divisiveness President Trump has so surgically opened within the body politic. At the very heart of the American experience is an ideal that perhaps no nation has ever attempted to adopt: “all men are created equal . . . are endowed . . . with certain unalienable rights.” America then aspires to be a country “with liberty and justice for all.” Though it no longer has slaves, it still struggles with systemic racism. Although for the past hundred years women have had the right to vote, they still earn less than men in the same occupation. Europeans and millions from nearly every country in the world have migrated to this country “yearning to breathe free.” And yet America has adopted a xenophobic and racist migration policy, closed its borders to people seeking asylum, separated children from their families, and imprisoned them in internment camps. Can we repudiate these missteps and regain our journey to a more perfect union?

Both Americans and migrants to America want to believe in America as the land of opportunity. And most Americans harbor no ill will to the rich. Instead, they revere the story of those who attained wealth and/or position through their own efforts. More than half our tech companies were founded by immigrants. And immigrants hold about 60% of the “essential” jobs—the nurses, caretakers, farm workers, truckers, programmers, grocery clerks, and so on. But many still feel the promise of America is a ring beyond their grasp. They find themselves riding a merry-go-round that returns endlessly to the same starting place without the promised reward. They might live on a reservation with little infrastructure or in a community with ill-equipped schools and little or no employment opportunities. Under President Trump the phrase “land of opportunity” is an illusory scam like a degree from Trump University. He uses it, like other faux patriotic bromides, to gain political power for himself, not for the benefit of others. “Opportunity” then becomes a pseudonym for the foulest scam. Can we restore opportunity in this land of promise? This new majority is demanding it.

Perhaps we Americans need to reacquaint ourselves with the concept of “all men are created equal” and its derived axiom, “liberty and justice for all.” The “all” in these axioms necessarily excludes the concept of privilege. So how does one define “privilege”? (For the many thousands who follow this blog, you will not be surprised if I revert to etymology.) It is derived from privus, “private,” and lex, “law.” And it is “granted as a particular benefit, favor or advantage” (ref. Webster’s dictionary). The Constitution, especially the first ten Amendments, define our rights as Americans. But no reading of these rights includes white privilege or a special dispensation for the wealthy. In fact, our founding documents condemn the very concept of privilege unless it is redefined as liberty and justice for all. In that context, the only privilege an American has is the freedom to pursue and have a fair chance to attain any education, job, career, or lifestyle he or she desires. But there is no “private law” that guarantees the outcome of his/her pursuit. America, then, is about opportunity, not privilege.

When the Preamble dedicates the American people to “ensure domestic tranquility” and “promote the general welfare,” that dedication preemptively excludes rampant divisiveness and the suppression of the less privileged. Therefore, America cannot be America when it fails to conciliate factions or to support equal opportunity. The inability to compromise between diverse political persuasions, to resolve disputes without vitriol and riots is a failure of the American ideal. You may argue that “to fail is human.” True, but to strive for the ideal is American!

America cannot be the “land of opportunity” if it excludes specific minorities from equal justice, the right to vote, an education, a chosen career, or any socially acceptable lifestyle. To understand the concept “opportunity,” one must recognize the power of potential. Every human being has potential at birth. And that power is activated by individual effort and by social circumstances. Society has the power to unleash that human potential, or at least to remove obstacles from its path. When this social power is misused to the detriment of the less privileged, America becomes a nation of the “haves” and “have nots.” It becomes hostage to the privileged class. Systemic racism, economic or civil injustice, and prejudice of all stripes derive from this anti-democratic perversion of power. Since a democratic government is derived from the sovereign power of its people, this potential perversion can and will result in an illiberal democracy. The new majority seeks to avoid that catastrophe.

This blog has readers from around the world, including Russia. Many of them have witnessed the rise of totalitarianism and recognize how a society can unwittingly regress into its clutches. Many Trump supporters seem unaware of his threat to our democracy. Nevertheless, it behooves all who believe in America’s promise to reach out to those bewitched by Trump and to address their grievances. Most especially, we must demand that the people we choose to represent us begin to address the rights and grievances of all Americans. If, instead, they blindly follow political leadership or the dictates of lobbyists, they will hide their true intent and construe their words accordingly. Then they become hypocrites and cowards—more specifically, abject failures in adhering to their oaths of office and to the Constitution. These are the failures that breed not only discontent in the electorate but the very spirit of insurrection.

More than seventy million citizens just voted for insurrection against the American system—perhaps unwittingly. They succumbed to the belief that our democratic voting system was a fraud, that a strongman would erase the hypocrisy of elected officials (the euphemistically designated as “politically correct”) and would punish the institutions of government that failed to address their righteous grievances. To the extent their grievances enshrine the beliefs of white supremacy and of a privileged or controlling class, they represent a cancer on our democracy that harkens back to slavery and the robber barons. Those grievances would demand every opportunity bequeathed by government and society to the systematic exclusion of blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, Native Americans, asylum seekers, the queer, the tired, poor, and “huddled masses yearning to be free.” More even than Trumpism and a recalcitrant Republican Party, these grievances or beliefs are a cancer in our body politic. They ignore truth and reality in exchange for being emotionally and morally supported by a political tribe. Leaders like Donald Trump thrive on bending the disaffection and victimhood of erstwhile supporters into a force that allows them to wield the power of office. Only when they attain absolute power is it obvious that the power they seek is not for the sake of their aggrieved followers. They seek absolute power, unaccountable to others, and solely for their own aggrandizement. They create a self-serving fiction and suppress all who contend with the truth. They lie incessantly to create an incoherent web so formidable as to overwhelm any attempt at deconstruction.

Democracy, as Churchill intimated, may not be much better than any other form of governance, unless we make it so. It does not exist by itself, but by the effort and dedication of its citizens. We are accountable for our democracy. And we must hold accountable the representatives we elect to preserve its institutions. The power of the vote is one expression of citizen accountability, as witnessed in the recent election. Equally important is Roosevelt’s declaration that we should not be governed by fear. We must never allow an elected leader to stir panic and fear of others as the means by which such a leader might assume absolute power as the ultimate fixer of all our problems (“only I can”). No society can address internal or external conflicts without mobilizing its members to respond together and without fear. Americans have come together in the past to fight foreign adversaries, to liberate those unjustly treated, and to protest civil injustice, like systemic racism. America succeeds when its citizens act together to preserve the ideals and principles upon which it was founded.

We Americans can never again assume our democratic institutions will stand alone without our support. They can be corrupted or made impotent by a demagogue and his political allies. As the historian of tyranny, Timothy Snyder wrote “virtues are inseparable from the institutions they inspire and nourish.”˟ So much of our government then depends upon norms and practices exercised by people of good will. Its institutions and tripartite structure cannot function to serve our interests or general welfare if allowed to benefit a few privileged or just one wanton dictator grasping for absolute power. What can be said of the White House also applies to all our government institutions: it is the people’s house and the people’s government. As such, Americans must unite as a people whether Democrat or Republican, privileged by fate or not, but equally committed to the land of opportunity and to its egalitarian promise.

___________________________________________________________
˟Timothy Snyder, “The Road to Unfreedom,” p. 13.