Does it seem normal that politicians too often say they support something their actions disavow? Well, your answer reveals one of two things or both. You either agree the implied contradiction is normal as a statement of fact. Or you might disagree that this type of contradiction should be considered normal. And, finally, you might accept both answers as true in the sense that both the act and the implied contradiction are simply a commonplace reality. The first answer reveals that you are a realist: “things are what they are.” The second, reveals you as a moralist: “things are not what they should be.” And the third, identifies you as an agnostic who can only represent his/herself as a cynic: “so what.” To put it bluntly, immorality often seems unavoidable in politics. Or, as my East-Philly uncle would say, “what ӓr yӓ gonna do.” Herein is the basic case for apathy.

Why do I find the title of this blog relevant? Janus was a mythological figure with two heads joined back-to-back, therefore seeing both the receding present or past and the future at once. In modern parlance, Janus is also that two-faced anomaly that presents contradictory facades: not just the past/future of mythology, but right/wrong, good/bad, amicable/hostile, and so on. Our current President, for example, presents us with this type of Janus façade. He will often appear to take two sides of an issue. For example, he declares himself as a “law and order President,” while ordering a violent attack on peaceful protestors exercising their First Amendment rights. He claims to be the best friend of black Americans while equivocating the violent clash between Klu Klux Clan and American citizens as a principled disagreement between good people. He claims success on many issues that have challenged his Presidency, like nuclear non-proliferation issues with Russia, North Korea and Iran, Covid-19 mitigation, unfair bilateral trade with China, continued US economic expansion, and the “greatest stock market in history.” In fact, these “successes” are either boldfaced lies or, arguably, distortions of reality. Some, nevertheless, believe the President. While admitting he is a boldfaced liar, they just shrug their shoulders, equating the President’s claims as “par for the course” in politics. They accept his contradictory personae as the modern version of a successful politician, that is, a two-faced Janus or, simply, “Trump being Trump.”

Throughout history, there have been men who have sought absolute power, which demands their every word or action be accepted as true, lawful, and normal. For centuries, they subjugated their people under the auspices of the “divine right of kings.” And, within the lifetime of many of us, they committed heinous crimes against the peoples they governed and started wars to subjugate others under their command. Lord Acton of England understood these actions as “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Was Lord Acton stating a law of nature or divine mandate? Or was he defining a predictable and unavoidable aberration of human nature? Perhaps so. Nevertheless, his statement does not and cannot deny our ability to withhold the exercise of such power—what President Trump terms as his “total authority.” Our Constitution and form of government does not empower any President to exercise such authority. Nor should we as American citizens. Such an abuse of power would dehumanize the body politic by denying the exercise of free will and self-government according to laws and norms acceptable to our society and individual consciences. The exercise of absolute power is the greatest danger to any society that values liberty and justice for all.

Notably, on the same day that the President was both establishing his credentials as a “law and order” President and ordering his motley crew of enforcers to attack peaceful protesters, he had previously received a call from President Putin. Of course, we have no knowledge of the substance of that call. But the timing is ironic, in the sense of my Janus analogy. Both men appear Janus-like in their Presidency: savior/prosecutor, restorer/destroyer. They promise greatness or empire while delivering death, destruction, and chaos that extends beyond their sovereign borders.

More specifically, President Putin is a master of multiple faces – many of which are self-contradictory. I mean, we know that he has many more significant roles than that of a hockey player, a pilot, a shirtless horseback rider, a conservationist, or a biker. He is possibly the richest and most powerful man in the world. While he serves as a dedicated representative of his people, he is also a ruthless and vindictive adversary to his enemies. He can be admired and feared at the same time. He may well be President Trump’s model, but they have little in common besides their Janus-like self-image. President Putin is both a student of Russian history and an historical figure in the continuing evolution of modern Russia. While his American Janus has only one purpose—to win or obtain enough votes to stay in power, President Putin assumes absolute power for a more patriotic purpose, the restoral of Russia’s greatness. His many faces are designed to identify himself with the people he governs—not to win votes. He dominates by consensus of the governed, not via an electoral college. Unlike Trump, he has risen through the ranks of power and has a firm knowledge of Russian history, governing principles, and its people (narodnost). Russians generally like and support him. The American President’s following is not based upon any substantive contribution he has made to American institutions or history. He is either admired as a cult figure or hated for the same reason. While Americans can disagree with the Russian President’s excesses, they must take him seriously as a Russian patriot and elected leader. His American mimic, however, hides behind a façade of power and bleak bluster a fragile ego. In place of substance or character, he presents the many contradictory faces that comedians worldwide ridicule.

In this context, my use of the classical Janus allegory is a simplistic derivative of its core message. The Romans, for example, used the Janus figure as a generalized symbol of transitions at doorways, gates, or the beginning of a new year. Here, I am applying it to two world leaders who stand as pivot points in modern history. One of these leaders reinterprets an historical past in his strategy to build a new future for his country. The other boasts about self-perceived attributes he demands his country validate. The first is a Russian patriot who dearly wants to incorporate Russia’s past governance into a future Russia, founded on law-based order, strong central government, and reflective of all ethnic and civil elements of the Russian people. The second is an imposter whose only interest in leadership is self-aggrandizement rather than the future advancement of his country or its people.

Henry Adams, writing at the beginning of the 20th century, foresaw Russia’s empire history as a premonition of a future threat to Europe. In part, his prognosis was realized, at least until the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics of Russia collapsed at the end of the century. Vladimir Putin is the leader who wants to restore that union and Russia’s influence on the world stage of the 21st century. Donald Trump, however, has no historical precedent and no strategic imperative for the nation other than cannibalizing its resources and power for his personal gain. His Presidency is out of sync with well established norms for the office he holds. It functions in violation of the American Constitution, in repudiation of Congressional oversight, and in constant conflict with the rulings of judicial courts. Trump’s knowledge of his country’s history seems so vacuous that it remains questionable whether he has even read the American Constitution. While Putin exercises the power of a tsar with both electoral and constitutional legitimacy, Trump assumes powers neither the electorate nor the American Constitution grant him. While Putin exercises near absolute power, Trump salivates for acolytes to bend a knee before his Resolute Desk. Both men are dangerous, but for different reasons. President Putin, though a careful strategist, could overplay his hand. The result might be Russia’s economic collapse or the onset of an unstoppable war. President Trump, however, has already accomplished the feat of establishing a corrupt and incompetent Administration and of single-handedly destroying America’s influence in maintaining global cooperation on all matters of health, peace, and justice.

While Putin is the prime agent of an ascending world power, Trump is the catalyst for a descending world power. Both men present Janus-like transitions to a new world order, neither of whom preclude the machinations of Xi Jinping to build a dominant world power.

It is time for Americans to face facts, not false façades. When Donald Trump touts his message of “make America great again,” he is referring to the America that emerged as the lone super power after a world war and as a pluralist society still deeply entrenched in the Jim Crow era. That America existed in his teens. His adolescence then appears to have informed his predominant policy tendencies: “America first” in foreign diplomacy and white privilege in domestic politics. Trump’s vision of America ignores the second half of the 20th century. It is recidivistic. It lends itself to myriad contradictory interpretations. And it ill-prepares him to address the real problems of our time.

Both Trump and Putin want to recapture their country’s “greatness.” Putin, mindful of the two catastrophic collapses of the Russian empire during the previous century, wants to reimagine a new Russia for the 21st century. He is attempting to build a more modern economy and provide the strategic reserves that future setbacks may require. Russia’s emergence from the 2008 Great Recession is evidence of his success. By contrast, Trump was oblivious of his responsibility to refurbish FEMA’s stockpiles after two natural disasters during his Administration. Moreover, he has tragically reversed the economic expansion he inherited by failing to address its most serious threat, a world pandemic. America is now in the grip of the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression as a result. His only plan for the foreseeable future is to win reelection. The price for ignoring his responsibility to address a national crisis is a huge increase in the national debt, massive unemployment, an unchecked viral contagion that has infected millions, and American deaths that number in six figures. There is a maxim that states “any leader ignorant of history is doomed to repeat it.” Putin, to his credit, understands this lesson of history. Trump, however, follows a different dictum, which I would characterize as “any leader ignorant of history and grossly incompetent can create a disaster unparalleled in history.”

This year, Americans face an historical pivot point. That point is Janus-like in that it demands we reprise history to guide our future. The history I reference here is our founding ideals and the purpose of our tripartite government. We must reject a rogue President, his corrupted Administration, and all Republicans complicit in his misconduct. We may well have to reinvent America, demand the next Administration right the ship of state, and undo the damage Donald Trump has unleashed on our democratic institutions, our foreign policy, and our national security. We must renew our quest for a more perfect union. America must have a renaissance or face an unheralded demise.
_______________________________________________

< For more thoughts on specific threats to our democracy, refer to a year-old blog entitled “All Problems Solved.”
< For more thoughts on the impact of American democracy on the world, refer to a blog written in April of 2016, “American Democracy in a Dangerous World.”

Most of us would agree, American cities must do a better job of securing public safety, especially regarding systemic racism and the use of excessive force by our local police. We hear the chant from demonstrators across the nation for defunding police departments. But I doubt they want criminals taking over their streets. Instead, they want their local constabulary to address criminal behavior in their community, rather than deliver the social services that social workers and community health professionals are better trained to provide. And, most especially, they want actual police work done humanely by better trained, closely monitored, and fully accountable officers. Unleashing tear gas and brutalizing peaceful protestors cannot be the actions of any police force trained and dedicated to public safety. Legal loopholes, like qualified immunity or complicit relationships with politicians or State attorneys must be legally and structurally eliminated. Otherwise, how can we restore/maintain integrity in our local police departments and trusts in the communities they support.

Changing policing in America will fall mainly upon local governments, though the Federal Government can be more supportive. Consent decrees and Federally sponsored data collection efforts can aid the States in their efforts to address issues like excessive force and racial profiling. But the current Administration ended these efforts immediately upon taking office in January of 2017. And the President’s Attorney General shows no interest in police reform. Currently, Congress is proposing legislation that would, among other things, outlaw choking as an appropriate means of police restraint and restrict the use of force in “no-knock” entries. But the Administration and the Republican-controlled Senate have so far refused to consider these proposals. Instead, the President has advocated for harsher policing. Recently, he ordered an odd mixture of prison riot police, ICE officers, park police, and the National Guard to attack a peaceful demonstration so that he could stage an unimpeded political stunt, aka, photo op.

Unbelievably, he even ordered combat troops to Washington D.C. to “control” demonstrations. And, yes, if you are wondering, this action is an abuse of power and a violation of Americans’ First Amendment rights. Thankfully, many military officers, including the past four Generals of the Joint Chiefs of Staff expressed alarm at the President’s actions. These troops, fortunately, were not used and were quietly ordered back to their bases. As one four star general and former Secretary of Defense in the current Administration stated, the President was using the Nazis’ playbook of “divide and conquer.” Many other military leaders agreed, stating that the President would not be justified in invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807 to engage the US military in the suppression of overwhelmingly peaceful and lawful protests. Such action violates the concept of the bill of rights as outlined in the US Constitution. Donald Trump, however, characterizes himself as “the law and order” President opposed to criminal arsonists, looters, and miscreants. Ironically, he associates hundreds of thousands of peaceful protestors with a few bad actors and provocateurs. In his own words, he correlates “looting and shooting” thereby justifying an indiscriminate response to all protestors in lieu of the actual instigators. He even tweets a Russian propaganda conspiracy that implicates the “left” which he identifies with his political opponents. With this phony conspiracy, he attempts to justify his Administration’s suppression of peaceful protests. But, contrary to his purpose, his actions merely establish him as an instigator of violence.

Today, George Floyd was laid to rest, next to his departed mother—the woman he called out in his last moments of life. Besides the protest marches in all our 50 States, there is one image I cannot remove from my mind. It is the expression on the face of Floyd’s murderer as he slowly crushed the life out of his victim’s body. He could not have appeared more nonchalant—as if he were casually stomping out a roach. I have seen that face before. And it chills my blood still.

In combat, soldiers face death in a kill or be killed situation. For even the most battle-tested warrior, the killing field presents an intense and emotional experience that persists in memory or nightmares for the rest of his/her life. For any person of conscience, the experience of taking another person’s life—however justified as self-defense or the preservation of life and liberty for others—leaves one with feelings of remorse. But this experience may not be shared by a soldier who napalms a village of defenseless civilians or who mistreats a helpless prisoner of war. That soldier may not consider the “gook” a fellow human. He has no conscience! For he cannot recognize humanity in the enemy. We have seen his like in every war—whether it is “japs,” “ragheads,” or “gooks” he dehumanizes—he justifies his superiority by subjugating, even killing others “not like him.” From the story of the Good Samaritan to the history of tribal warfare between and within nations and civilizations, we have witnessed “man’s inhumanity to man.” Thankfully, there are few times we confront this dark image of our species in the face of a soulless individual. I described such a person in my first novel (“A Culpable Innocence” ˟). His face still haunts me. I saw his likeness in Floyd’s murderer. And it still chills my blood.

There are many reasons why soldiers and police volunteer to “serve and protect.” Killing the innocent or helpless cannot and must not be one of those reasons.

Many thousand protestors have reacted as I have. They see the common humanity we all share trampled not just by a few bad cops, but by systemic racism. The Africans that were kidnapped and sold into slavery 401 years ago became a millstone around the neck of America’s conscience, strangling the life out of our founding ideals. “All men are created equal,” if not born into slavery. We all have “inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” if not descended from slaves or share their skin color. But the protestors are not merely demanding justice for Floyd’s murders, but for themselves. They are speaking for the conscience of America. In the most diverse nation in history, Americans must realize our common purpose “to form a more perfect union,” else lose the promise of our founding. And that promise is America’s soul.

_______________________________________________________________

˟In case of interest, my first novel is still available in paperback. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1618563246/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vamf_taft_p1_i0

In the past, Memorial Day celebrations included parades, air force flyovers, military gun salutes, outdoor picnics, and concerts, and lots of retail sales. Well, this Memorial Day is different, not because there are no Persian rug clearance sales, but because of the Covid-19 pandemic. So how do we “celebrate?”

As a Vet, I hung an American flag on my balcony railing. But I am beginning to question what it represents to many Americans. Have we lost the spirit of Memorial Day because we cannot celebrate as we had in the past? Or is there something about Memorial Day that we should still celebrate, even if confined to our homes or if restricted to self-distancing gatherings?

For those of us who have never visited Arlington, a video scan of this iconic cemetery will leave you breathless. Endless rows of tombstones remind us of how many Americans died in our foreign wars—so many lifeless stones in a field of living trees and grass. The names engraved there remain known only by the few who grieved and mourned their deaths. Apart from those mourners, what should the rest of us memorialize? Why should we feel grateful for the sacrifice of those who accepted the call to military service and the risk of injury or death in that service?

Whether a draftee from the past or a volunteer in the present, each soldier accepts a call to duty, specifically, to serve the most vital interests of the United States. But a soldier is not asked to accept the foreign policy initiatives of a specific Administration. No, instead a soldier pledges allegiance to America as “one nation under God with liberty and justice for all.” That pledge used to be made daily in every school in America. Its final words mirror the Preamble to our Constitution and reflect the values that inspired its authors.

Memorial Day provides us the opportunity to question and restore that fundamental allegiance that differentiates America from the history that preceded it. Not even a pandemic should interfere with our reflection upon and renewal of that basic allegiance. For it is the very definition of patriotism.

In our current reality, political divisions within our population and our government can test the strength of our patriotism. But it should not deter us from our allegiance to America. We can critique our elected representatives and still honor the offices they hold in our name. We can disagree on political matters, but still serve the greater good implied by our patriotism. There is an ebb and flow to politics—remember once there was slavery and the absence of women’s suffrage—but Americans have shown an ability to redirect their country towards a greater realization of its grand purpose. Memorial Day should remind us to renew our allegiance to America’s founding principles and hold accountable our elected representatives to their oaths of allegiance as well.

Certainly, being a patriot can be challenging when our government strays from its core principles or basic human rights. During such times, we must look past present circumstances and aim our efforts towards a future that builds upon our progress. There are times when we must rise above divisive issues, listen to all voices, and then choose a path forward that aligns with the long-held promise of America. We cannot be a country defined by ill-conceived wars, short-sighted foreign policy, caged children, and a government riddled with corruption and incompetence. We cannot allow ourselves to be sorted by race, economic status, gender, country of origin, or political party. We are Americans! And we define our future rather than have it defined for us.

Vote! And honor the patriots who went before us and who now stand by our side.

Unanswered questions can breed presumptuous answers or theories. We humans abhor the chaos of unanswered or, worse, unanswerable questions. Like gas in a vacuum, chaos fills a closed space without shape or purpose. But our science explains how gas enclosed in a vacuum adheres to predictable laws. There is an explanation. It turns out that even chaos can be understood in nature. Unfortunately, it works differently in politics. A political leader can create chaos for no other reason than to fabricate an explanation that suits his/her political fortunes. The most effective fabrications are often conspiracy theories. They suit our need for explanations, without taxing our ability to understand—that is, to discriminate fact from fiction, truth from falsehood, a scientific hypothesis from a tested theory, or a theory from an established law of science. Conspiracy theories have no need to replicate science. They are just assertions, willful and likely biased. Often, they do not even pass the test of common sense. But they do provide answers that can satisfy our unquenchable need to explain what escapes our knowledge. And they excuse our responsibility to search for the truth. Consequently, they are effective tools in manipulating public opinion without the need to prove their predicates.

Let us review a few of the more prevalent conspiracy theories perpetrated against the American public during this time of chaos and confusion.
(1) The FBI investigation of foreign influence in the 2016 election was a hoax created by the Democratic Party to unseat a duly elected President. But no Democrats were involved. There was prima facie evidence that the ongoing foreign interference investigation was warranted. The known foreign contacts with Republican campaign operatives in the 2016 election gave the appearance of collusion. And the firing of a lifelong Republican FBI Director appeared to co-op any potential investigation into campaign collusion. The acting FBI Director then made the reasonable decision to include the Trump campaign into the ongoing Russian investigation. His job required as much. No hoax or bias appeared to be operative in his decision. He had no Party affiliation, having never registered as either a Democrat or a Republican. (Note: The Chris Steel report, funded by Republicans initially, then by Democrats, had no impact on the foreign interference investigation that had been started months earlier.)
(2) The Special Prosecutor appointed to investigate foreign interference in the 2016 election was a stooge of the Democratic Party. But former Attorney General Robert Mueller was a lifelong Republican who served under both Republican and Democratic Presidencies.
(3) The final Mueller Report was a complete exoneration of President Trump: there was no collusion and no obstruction of justice. But over a thousand prosecutors signed a letter stating that Donald Trump, were he not protected by the office of the Presidency, would have been found guilty of obstruction of justice on several counts (at least six and potentially as many as 10). Or, in Mueller’s conclusion, “this report . . . does not exonerate him.” Regarding the matter of collusion, Mueller concluded that the Special Prosecutor’s “Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on” the investigation. That “unavailable information” included encrypted or deleted communications, documents stored in other countries or destroyed, witnesses living abroad, and proven lies committed by many Trump associates (some of whom were imprisoned for lying to authorities).
(4) The Mueller Report is based upon fabrications created by Democrats. But the Report only records the testimonies of foreign agents and Trump campaign operatives. No Democrat is quoted or referenced anywhere in the document. (Note: the Steele report is not referenced to support any finding in the Mueller Report.)
(5) The transcript of President Trump’s conversation with President Zelensky was a perfect call. Really? The House impeachment team proved otherwise, as even Republican Senators admitted. But they also argued that the President’s transgressions did not merit his removal from office. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65 would not agree, for he defines an impeachable offense as “an abuse or violation of some public trust.” Nor would signers of the Constitution who concurred with the arguments of Gerry, Madison, Mason, and Franklin. The President was guilty of what the Constitution defines as “bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors.” Over a thousand Constitutional scholars, judges, and lawyers signed a letter to that affect. Even as early as November of last year, the details of the President’s violation of the public trust was obvious (reference “Q for Q or Bribery and Extortion”).
(6) The President saved millions of lives with his Chinese travel ban . . . if only this were true. We cannot know whether the President believes it was so at the time or not. But the fact that he still advances this belief now qualifies as another conspiracy theory because he uses it to blame the Chinese. We now know that COVID-19 had been community spread in Santa Clara County, California, before the travel ban was enacted. And we now know that thousands of lives would have been saved if the President had listened to his advisors and declared a national emergency at the same time as the World Health Organization alerted the world of a global pandemic.
These conspiracy theories are just a few highlights. There are many more created by Donald Trump, like “birtherism,” the Kurds’ culpable absence at Dunkirk, NATO’s lack of support for American interests (disregarding NATO’s involvement in Afghanistan after 911), Ukraine’s interference in the 2016 election, the allegedly baseless prosecutions of Trump allies—like Manafort, Cohen, and Stone, all of whom were provided due process in a court of law, found guilty, and sentenced to multiple years in prison—and so on. What is noteworthy about all these conspiracy theories is not their substance, but their purpose. That purpose is to dupe the public and vindicate bad or harmful behavior. The President uses Twitter and his “bully pulpit” to assure a wide audience for his conspiracy theories. And there are always people inclined to believe a good story that supports a specific bias, prejudice, or point of view.

In fact, anybody can create a conspiracy theory that might go viral on the internet. Suppose we imagined that Donald Trump wanted to be part of an alliance of strong male leaders who could dominate the world. Then we could explain his actions to that purpose. It would become obvious why he would allow Erdogan to invade Syria, satisfy Kim Jung Un’s wish to eliminate allied military exercises near North Korea, agree with Putin’s long held desire to eliminate the short range nuclear missile ban, leverage Ukraine to exonerate Putin for interfering in the 2016 election, and support Putin’s proposed treaty that would concede Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine to Russia. His “summit” meetings with the North Korean leader and his frequent secret phone calls with Putin and Erdogan would imply a hidden diplomacy apart from the State Department and absent any national agenda. Also, his distain for globalism and international organizations would be seen in a new light as justification for weakening any efforts to respect borders, to defuse potential conflicts, and to discourage universal adherence to human rights. Effectively, his actions would be understood as attempts to use America’s influence worldwide in favor of a few like-minded dictators. After all, Dictators generally resent any strictures on their power. Would not this construct make a doozy of a conspiracy theory?

And, as President of the United States, he would be able to remove the one obstacle to this grand conspiracy—that is, American democracy. He could persuade the American electorate to view his policies in a new light, as merely an exercise of his executive power. His constant and persistent message to his constituents would be that he was the state, the very embodiment of America. Therefore, Americans should accept his defiance of congressional oversight and desire to pack the courts with judges he hoped would support his interests. As President, his claim of total power should therefore be unquestioned when he crippled democratic institutions by defunding, by appointing incompetents and sycophants, and by aligning them with the interests of corporate and powerful interests made solely beholden to him. In this manner, he would have consolidated his power and assured his spoken word was the law of the land. His Republican majority in the Senate would be compelled to become complicit in his stranglehold on power or face a campaign funding drought and Presidential belittling in Republican primaries. Within his Administration his punitive actions against subordinates would be readily accepted as consistent with the absolute authority of his Presidency. Specifically, those truly dedicated to public service he would either fire, remove from positions where they could not hinder execution of his orders, or be silenced by his political appointees. Donald Trump, then, would be intent on just one goal, that is, becoming the most powerful President since Franklin Roosevelt. The difference, of course, is that Roosevelt was ceded power by Congress (not so much by the courts) in order to save the country from the Great Depression and to win a world war. President Trump, according to this conspiracy theory, demands power not to serve his country, but to bolster his self-image as one of the most powerful men in the world.

The other part of this imagined conspiracy theory is its portent for the future. Obviously, any plan for Trump to join the club of dictatorial leaders must require that he hold power indefinitely. But first, he must win reelection. Since he has never won the majority in any national poll or even in his initial election, it behooves him to suppress a free election. In the middle of a pandemic, he could veto any legislation that might fund enhanced mail-in voting. He could urge Republican controlled State legislators to reduce early voting, to limit voter registration, to cull official voter records, to limit voting locations, and to block registered voters without selectively issued voter ID cards. And, perhaps somewhat perversely, he could continue to limit the development of a national COVID-19 testing strategy that could make voting safer. Who would want to risk infection at crowded polling locations? Even more perverse would be a limited national pandemic response that proliferated contagion to reduce the African American and Hispanic population who are 2 to 3 times more likely to succumb to the virus. That objective would be met simply by the President urging Governors to remove home isolation orders without reference to the CDC guidelines. He could say “I’m deferring to the Governors” or “we have to open our economy.” This apocryphal scenario would be a bizarre enactment of a possible conspiracy theory. But some people might believe it.

This imagined conspiracy theory is only convincing to those already inclined to believe its truth . . . unless it is supported by facts. Then, it becomes America’s worst nightmare.

In America, only a few States still have the death penalty. Once the prosecuting attorneys deliver the case in chief, a jury of its citizens determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. If found guilty, the accused faces a judge who follows strict legal guidelines in determining an appropriate sentence or verdict. Only in the most heinous crimes is that verdict death.

Some view death as a verdict we all suffer. But death is not a penalty for our crimes. It is simply nature. All living things die and are replaced by other living things. Some living organisms kill other living organisms in order to survive longer than others. Killing is one mode of survival, both as individual organisms and as a species. Killing within a species is usually a form of competition for power, territorial hegemony, or sustaining resources like food or shelter. But our species grew to recognize that internecine extermination was counterproductive, and that communal cooperation and/or collaboration made us dominant over all other lifeforms. Humans came to recognize that killing each other can violate norms that assure our survival and benefit human society. In other words, our conception of justice is born of a concern for the general welfare. Murder, therefore, is defined as a crime against humanity and is punishable in a court of law. Within civilized societies, only a conviction by a jury of peers can subject an accused murderer to a sentence of death. And that death is the verdict of a judge acting in accordance with the law and the will of the court’s jurors.

So, when is death not a verdict? Obviously, people die in wars, often by chance and unjustly. (I wrote a novel about the injustice and inhumanity of war.) And people die of natural causes. As my high school Latin teacher taught us, leges natura non cognoscit (“nature knows no laws” for it is above human laws). But only in a court of law can death be a verdict rendered by a judge. At least, that verdict is authorized by the consensus of all civilized human societies. However, when this civilized consensus is ignored and death is dealt without trial, jury, or a non-partial verdict, then a wholly other form of crime is committed. That form of crime is lawless and likely political. It is usually committed by those who grasps absolute power without regard for the norms and/or laws of any civilized human society.

Genocide and the war crimes of national pariahs often draw little attention in main street America. But how can we ignore crimes committed by our own government? For the last three years we have witnessed an unfettered attack on the lives of fellow human beings at the hands of our own government. Our President ordered a zero tolerance immigration policy that resulted in family separations, the interment of children under inhuman conditions, and the return of migrants to violence and possible death in the northern triangle countries of Central America—often to countries other than those from which they matriculated. This policy resulted in many unaccounted deaths among the deported, including the deaths of at least seven children held in US custody. Our Department of Health and Human Services still cannot account for over 1500 of those children separated from their parents and lost under its jurisdiction. There has yet to be any accounting of how many died as a result of being interred and/or deported. Who delivered the verdict of death to these immigrants and their children?

On the day after a call from the Turkish leader, our President ordered an American troop withdrawal from the Syrian/Turkish border. Immediately, Turkish troops spilled over the border and engaged in a genocidal attack on the homes and families of our Kurdish allies in order to kill or vacate all Kurds within 20 miles of the border. Families fled with nothing other than the clothes on their backs. Initially, an estimated 300,000 Kurds, including 70,00 children, escaped to neighboring countries. Many died in the artillery bombardment preceding the Turkish troops. Others died and/or were raped in their homes before they could escape or find refuge. We do not know how many died in makeshift refugee camps after the Turkish invasion. Who delivered this verdict of death to these Kurdish families and their children?

Currently, during the worst pandemic in over a hundred years, our President has convened a team to orchestrate a partial end to home isolation by the end of April. He wants to reopen America to business and put some of us back to work. Many of us “white collar workers” are working at home and could continue doing so until our country reaches some level of control over this viral contagion. But the “blue collar workers” who harvest our crops, drive our public transportation systems, stock our grocery shelves, cook and serve us food in our restaurants, care for our children, our elderly, and our sick should put their lives at risk? Their contribution to American society is crucial to our society and essential to the American economy. The need to protect them then is equally essential to any recovery from this pandemic. Who wants to deliver a verdict of death to this vital community?

It is the consensus of both healthcare professionals and economists that the best strategy for reviving the American economy is a robust attempt to control this dangerous virus by mitigating its spread. That strategy involves home sequestering and public self-distancing. Though mitigation would be significantly enhanced if it could target populations already infected, the test kits required to scope the extent of contagion are not available in sufficient quantity. It is impossible, therefore, to know how many Americans are already infected. Testing is mainly occurring when those infected show up sick in the Emergency Room of hospitals. As a result, less than one percent of our population has been tested for COVID-19. And our healthcare professionals have no idea how many more Americans are already infected. Meanwhile, the virus is now migrating from population centers to rural America.

Our healthcare professionals are overwhelmed wherever the contagion flourishes. Further, protective equipment shortages put our frontline care workers in jeopardy. Many have already died. Since the intelligence community warned the President of this impending pandemic over three months ago, there is no excuse for ignoring the preparations required by documented pandemic plans prepared by previous Administrations. But those plans were ignored by this President. In fact, he fired officials in the NSC, FEMA, and his Bio-defense team, thereby sidelining the very experts who could have enacted a strategic response to this impending threat. He made himself the sole authority left to address a national emergency. But even then, he failed to recognize his responsibility to declare a national emergency. After belatedly executing the act that gave him emergency powers, he insisted on deferring to the governors his responsibility to develop a national strategy. As a result, different States competed for resources like ventilators and protective equipment with different levels of success or failure. The life/death results of this diverse and chaotic effort were left to beleaguered healthcare professionals to address, even while under-equipped with the necessary protective equipment and overwhelmed with the sick and dying. So, who can we hold responsible for the deaths of these healthcare professionals? How many have been infected and died as a result of the Administration’s delayed response to this pandemic?

Of course, a pandemic is a natural occurrence. But the President’s unwillingness to exercise his executive authority or to act in a timely manner to a national emergency is irresponsible. His failure to act has resulted in a death sentence for many innocent Americans. Although it is difficult to ascribe intent to somebody who acts on a whim, a “hunch,” or a “very strong feeling,” he does provide political justifications for his actions— “I want to open the economy.” For three years he has taken credit for a booming economy and made the economy his main justification for reelection. Is he now willing to risk the lives of more Americans to assure a political victory? Are we all now subject to his death verdict?

My questions may appear too harsh. Many presidential decisions can have life or death consequences. But few draw a clear moral imperative without any downside. For example, how can the mistreatment of immigrant families be justified? They are not the rapist and murderers the President claimed are victimizing Americans. In fact, there is not and never was any evidence to support his claim. His zero-tolerance policy was a death verdict for innocents. In a similar vein, what did the Kurds do to deserve his betrayal of them to a Turkish invasion? They fought as proxies in America’s war against terrorists, losing thousands of their own soldiers in the process. His withdrawal of American troops from the Turkish border was a death verdict for innocents. Now he threatens to deliver this same verdict to Americans still untested for COVID-19. We can only hope that his team develops a balanced strategy that highlights viral hotspots for extensive testing and surveillance screening. We should, however, fear his peevish reaction to wise advice where he defends a whim and exercises judgment without concern for consequences—specifically, human “life-or-death” consequences. He values his image more than the general welfare of those he vowed to serve. And his reelection is more about tightening his hold on the power of his office to quash all his self-perceived political enemies. We should not be surprised when he issues a death verdict without any remorse.

The answer to the question in my title should be obvious. If, however, a death verdict is rendered outside of a court of law, then, whether executed directly or indirectly, it could represent a crime against humanity. If done for crass political gain, then it is indeed a crime. In a constitutionally framed democratic republic, it is also a violation of the oath of office, of the trusts of the American electorate, and of common human decency.