In June of last year, a certain writer who sometimes dabbles in fiction attempted to interview the Trump Whisperer (see “An Interview with the Trump Whisperer”). That interview had some difficulty focusing on the truth. Could a similar interview be conducted in another dimension of reality, specifically, a truth dimension? Some string theory physicists believe other dimensions exist. So, why not a truth dimension? Let’s test this hypothesis.

The following is an interview with the Speaker of the House, the President, and the Senate Majority Leader. (DISCLAIMER: the interviewer cannot be held accountable for the following statements of truth, nor for the intervention of the Trump Whisperer who often speaks for the President.)

_________________________________________________________________________________

Interviewer – Let me say how thankful I am for your participation in this interview. There are two current subjects I would like to cover today. The first concerns the month-long shutdown of the government. How would you characterize it and how would each of you resolve its political stalemate?

President – The Democrats clearly refuse to support border security. They won’t even support my extensions of DACA or TPS for a three-year period in which we could come together to reform our immigration policies.

Whisperer – Liberals bleed for minorities and government services. By shutting down the government, I hold the sword of Damocles at their throats. Their weakness is that they care. I don’t. And I will win.

Speaker – Have you ever heard of a Pyrrhic Victory? The President wants to win while losing. The problem here is that he doesn’t consider others’ loss as his own.

________________________________________________________________________________

Interviewer – Madam Speaker, could you be more specific?

Speaker – I’m referring to the 800,000 civil servants who are furloughed or working without pay and the millions of Americans affected by the lack of food inspections, of tax returns, of healthcare services, of border security by land, sea, and air, of maintenance of our national monuments and parks, and so much more. King Pyrrhus of Epirus sacrificed his army to win a war. What the President is doing is similar. In addition, that so-called sword of Damocles he swings will cut off his own head.

________________________________________________________________________________

Interviewer – In truth, Madam Speaker, is that the basis of your own strategy? In other words, do you believe the President’s intransigence in holding hostage the government will ultimately cost him his job?

Speaker – In truth, yes.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Interviewer – And what is the position of the Senate Majority Leader on the government shutdown?

Senate Majority Leader – I will not put any legislation on the floor of the Senate that will not be signed by the President.

________________________________________________________________________________

Interviewer – Yes, we know that you refused to send to the President a funding bill that had passed the Senate by an unanimous vote. You realize your action makes you complicit in this government shutdown. Don’t you consider your role in Congress to be independent of the President, to be a check on Presidential power, and to work with the House in funding the government?

Senate Majority Leader – The President decided he wanted to add 5.7 billion dollars to fund a border wall of some kind to be determined later or “as appropriate.” That is his prerogative. I told him that the Speaker would not remove her opposition to his wall and would not back down. She might even go so far as to allow the House to consider articles of impeachment against a President who effectively shuts down a democratic government by his personal fiat.

______________________________________________________________________________

Interviewer – In truth, Mr. Majority Leader, are you revealing here a strategy that would wait for the House to file articles of impeachment, thereby allowing the Republicans to divorce themselves from a Republican President that has gone rogue?

Senate Majority Leader – In truth, yes. As long as his base supports him, I cannot risk our Republican Senate seats in the next election. Only impeachment would move that base and untether my Party from his unpredictability and disregard for Republican ideals.

______________________________________________________________________________

Interviewer – It is reported that the Mueller investigation is nearing a conclusion. Do you believe it will give you, Mr. Majority Leader, the impeachment you secretly anticipate? What if that investigation continues for months? Would the President eventually back down? Do you really think the Speaker would risk her Party’s credibility and attempt to impeach a sitting President who has a staunchly supportive base? Remember what happened to the Republican Party and Newt Gingrich when they attempted to impeach a popular President? In truth, are you waiting for this President’s removal from office?

Senate Majority Leader – In truth, I have no other option than to wait for impeachment or resign myself to the destruction of the Republican Party and, consequently, control of the Senate.

Speaker – Don’t forget about the rule of law and our Constitution. We are a country that revolted against the whims of a monarch that held absolute power over us. The Declaration of Independence lists the grievances we had with this monarch. Compare those grievances with the acts of this President regarding the rights of asylum seekers, family separations, racial immigration policies, the well-being of our citizens in terms of clean air and water, and refusal to address problems in education, infrastructure, income inequality, and preparations for the impact of climate change.

________________________________________________________________________________

Interviewer – Mr. President, you don’t seem to have much support in Congress, even though it appears you have cowed the Senate Majority Leader. In fact, your only real support comes from those in your base who believe in you. In truth, what are you going to do?

President – As long as I’m President, I will preserve the national security of our country. The situation at our southern border is horrible. No President before me has attempted to stop the crime, drugs, and human trafficking that pours through. It’s a disgrace. The Democrats want open borders. I don’t. If I have to maintain the shutdown for months or even years, I will. I may even declare it a national emergency and order government resources including the military to building my wall . . . fence . . . barrier . . . or whatever. As long as I’m President, I will always protect our country. If we don’t secure our borders, we don’t have a country!

Whisperer – As long as these positions hold with my base, I will win. That is all that matters. I don’t believe in truth, just truthful hyperbole. Whatever I say is what I want people to believe because I want them to believe in me. My hyperbole reflects my most sincere conviction that I must be right, otherwise I’m a loser. And I’m never going to be a loser. Winning is what I’m about. That’s why I can speak with conviction and why people believe in me. I’m a winner! A great deal maker! And the greatest President in the history of our country!

___________________________________________________________________________________

Interviewer – Alright . . . maybe I should change the subject. Recently, the press has published two stories that may be an existential threat to this Presidency. In one report, Mr. President, it appears that the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation into the possibility that you were working for the interests of a foreign government. In another press release it was asserted that during the campaign you told your private attorney to lie to Congress about your attempts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. During the 2016 campaign you repeatedly denied having any business interests in Moscow and specifically any proposed deals to build a Trump tower in Moscow. Can you comment upon the truth of these stories?

President – The most shameful thing ever written about me! I’m not a spy for the Russians. Mueller admitted that story is a lie. It’s just fake news! And Mr. Cohen’s testimony has nothing to do with me. Besides, he’s a convicted liar. Whatever he did, he did on his own. I was only aware of the possibility of a deal with Russia. But nothing happened. And Cohen’s lies are his own. He’s a proven liar!

Whisperer – I have to misstate things to redirect public attention. Mueller’s statement that the press report was “inaccurate” must be called out as a “lie.” And Cohen’s testimony, whether in the past or in the future, has to be characterized as a “lie” told by a proven liar. Notice how often I use the word “lie” and look for any chance to call out the press as “fake news.” When the public hears it often enough, they accept that it must be true. Brilliant, no?

Speaker – May I comment? The public has a right to know the truth. We must maintain the integrity of the Mueller investigation and interpret his outcome on the evidence uncovered. Calling the press “fake news” and refuting sworn testimony before it’s even presented are statements that fail to recognize Constitutional guarantees of a free press and due process before the law. It may be true that part or all of this recent press report is “inaccurate,” and it is true that Mr. Cohen has admitted to lying to Congress, but we cannot draw the conclusion that all press reports are fake or that everything Mr. Cohen says is a lie.

Whisperer – Madame Speaker, you are so naïve! Only losers parse words. I’m a fighter. Your base is not as strong as mine. You sound “politically correct.” But I’m President. I won in a landslide. I even overcame the Democrats’ massive voter fraud. Maybe I’m not politically correct, but I’m a winner. You lose!

_________________________________________________________________________________

Interviewer – OK, you’ve both made your points. What is the Senate Majority Leader’s position on this topic? Do you, sir, have anything to say about this reported counterintelligence investigation or Mr. Cohen’s past or future testimony before Congress? (Pause) Mr. Majority Leader, in truth, what is your position on these matters?

Senate Majority Leader – In truth, these are not legislative matters. I’m busy preparing legislation that will put the President’s proposals on border security before the Senate. I want to broker a compromise that will open the government and address the President’s priorities.

Speaker – Please, Mitch, you can’t possibly . . .. Really? The President is going to grant a 3-year extension to DACA, after he cancelled the program? Likewise, he’s going to do the same for the Temporary Protected status of thousands of victims of catastrophic conditions or natural disasters in Honduras, San Salvador, Haiti, and Nepal. Again, he’s going to extend the life of a program he has terminated. You realize that DACA and TPS together affect nearly a million Americans in addition to their families.  These people have lived here their whole lives, raised families, gone to college, or, in some cases, served in our military. Even this shutdown is the result of his stipulation that he would veto a government funding bill that he had previously supported. Put bluntly, he wants to fix what he has broken. The President’s proposals are not so subtlety covering up his disastrous decisions while at the same time pretending to justify his equally disastrous decision to shutdown the government. Mitch, if you give him what he wants, he will shutdown the government whenever he feels the urge to overrule the Congress. That is what is meant by a Constitutional crisis! We in Congress have a duty to check a rogue President!

_________________________________________________________________________________

Interviewer – Alright . . . ok, I think we now know what it’s like to be in the truth dimension. The truth carries no less passion there than in the political arena. I see the Trump’s Whisperer has removed his black hood and has a likely rebuttal.

Whisperer – She’s a left-wing extremist. The Democrats want open borders. If they have their way, we’ll have murderers and rapists in our neighborhoods! They refuse to negotiate an end to the shutdown even when I give them what they have always wanted. They are obstructionists. Even their radical left supporters will tire of the Speaker’s empty promises for free education, healthcare, and hand-outs. She would bankrupt the government just to foil my efforts to make America great again. It’s so sad.

________________________________________________________________________________

Interviewer – Please, Madam Speaker, I see you want to respond. But this back-and-forth volley can go on forever while no meaningful solutions will ever be considered. Obviously, it is difficult to stay in the truth dimension. This interview has just fallen on its own sword.

.

.

 In conclusion: this journey into a truth dimension makes a poor writer of fiction wonder whether truth is stranger than fiction. Perhaps we are all mesmerized and living in an alternate reality. As a representative political figure of antiquity questioned, “what is truth?”

(SECOND DISCLAIMER: If my readers are wondering how America fell into this alternate reality, they can review one opinion on this fall from grace and truth in “The Manchurian Party.”)

America has proven it can do a lot of things. It threw off the yoke of despotism to become a representative democracy. It suffered and overcame the existential threat of a civil war to realize more fully the promise of freedom and equality for all its citizens. When that promise still proved unfulfilled, the American government legislated amendments to its Constitution guaranteeing due process under the law for everyone and voting rights for all regardless of race or gender. In its roots then, America never donned the cloak of perfection, as a fully realized ideal, but instead saw itself, according to our second President, as an “experiment” in democracy. More than a century later, when Churchill became frustrated with American foreign policy, he correctly caught the zeitgeist of the young nation when he said, “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.” In my own words, I would say we are a nation that proceeds by trial and – sometimes tragically – by error.

At times, trying “everything else” has been painful. Subsequent to the World Wars of the 20th century, our young nation emerged as a world leader and established itself as a military power. But, after assuming military preeminence, we stumbled into many conflicts that may befuddle historians. Does the average American know why we fought the Korean War or the Vietnam War? Or what we gained from those wars? We still do not have a peace treaty with North Korea. And all we gained from the Vietnam fiasco was several hundred thousand dead or wounded soldiers and a “victorious” body count of over a million Vietnamese. In recent times America has been militarily involved in various campaigns such as Iran (1980, 1987-88), Libya (1981, 1986, 1989, 2011), Lebanon (1983), Kuwait (1991), Iraq/Il Qaeda/ISIS (1991-2011, 2014-2016), Somalia (1992-93, 2007-present), Bosnia (1995), Saudi Arabia (1991, 1996), Afghanistan/Il Qaeda/ISIS (1998, 2001-present), Sudan (1998), Kosovo (1999), Yemen (2000, 2002-present), Pakistan/Il Qaeda/ISIS (2004-present), Syria/ISIS (2014-present) and many other post World War II military interventions within our own hemisphere. America’s “can-do” attitude sometimes preempts a “must-do” justification.

Fortunately, America can “do the right thing” as well. American ideals have driven diplomatic efforts to establish an international order that promotes commerce, resolves trade issues, establishes banking practices, resolves border disputes, and in general defines relationships among nations. Amongst the benefits of this international order are an absence of world wars, a global interdependent economy, and the meteoric rise of new developing nations. These successes have established America as a leader in world diplomacy and shown the world what America can do when it is aligned with its own ideals.

The question my blogs often address is whether we remain aligned with those ideals. One of my college buddies recently questioned whether I was too partisan in my criticism of Donald Trump. But I do not believe in partisanship. Instead, I put my faith in our founding ideals and in their promise of further elucidation in changing times. Party loyalty should never trump the will of the people to realize those ideals. President John Adams, whom I quoted above, warned us about the divisiveness of political parties. And President George Washington identified a “fatal tendency . . . to organize factions . . . to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of the party.” Our founding fathers may not have been perfect or totally non-partisan; but they believed in reasoned debate and compromise—neither of which are prevalent in our political campaigns or legislature. Today, the political leaders of our major Parties tend to focus less on reason than on emotions, like fear and hate. The Parties rant and rave as if in tribal warfare rather than policy debates. They scapegoat opponents and sometimes those less able to defend themselves – like the undocumented, the immigrant or racial minorities – with conspiracy theories, unsupported evidence, made-up facts, and imagined threats to our jobs, our personal safety, and national security. Now, under Trump’s leadership, there is even an attempt to defend America against these scapegoated minions who allegedly threaten our way of life. He orders the military to secure our border from the impoverished and victimized, many of whom are merely seeking asylum. His Attorney General maximizes penalties for non-violent crimes, effectively putting minorities in the crosshairs of the law. He uses the internment of children as a detriment to asylum seekers. He says he speaks for his supporters and for a nationalist agenda that will “make America great again.” But how does “nationalism” and his agenda align with American ideals?

First, how does Trump define “nationalism?” Is it love of country? Well, that love is called patriotism. Anybody can love his/her country without being a nationalist. I think every one of our Presidents loved America without calling themselves “nationalist.” If what is meant is a belief in the special identity of America in world history and the loyalty owed to that identity, then nationalism can align with patriotism. But, in contemporary parlance, nationalism means something more specific. For example, Trump claims that he believes in “America first” and its need to follow its own interest without regard to international alliances, multilateral trade agreements, or any norms or laws that might restrict it from “winning.” In other words, for Trump “nationalism” means that America must be the preeminent power in the world and all others must succumb to it. Therefore, his supporters owe the nation—and Donald Trump—unwavering loyalty as a result. His “nationalism” is a system of belief that demands almost absolute adherence without regard to truth or reason. It is the very definition of radicalism. And it aligns more with the leaders of the Axis Powers of the 20th century than with our Constitution or Declaration of Independence.

Second, what is the Trump agenda? I have outlined it in previous blogs: it includes the appointments of unqualified sycophants who often oppose the very institutions they manage; and it often disregards the Constitution. For example, he opposes the Constitutional provisions of citizenship by birthright, of due process, of freedom of the press, and of the Senate’s authority to approve his nomination of a cabinet level official. He wants to deport the children of immigrants, not only the DACA dreamers, but even those born here. He denies due process to asylum seekers and to their children whom he places in internment camps. He calls the press “the enemy of the people,” even restricting media access to public information and denying reporters access to formal press briefings. He has appointed an Attorney General without seeking the Constitutional authority relegated to the Senate for approval of his nominee. Further, his Executive Orders have failed to pass enumerable Constitutional and legal challenges in the courts. California alone has won 29 of those cases with no defeats. He defies the emoluments clause of the Constitution. And he threatens to use military force to defend Americans against immigrant “invaders,” even though the use of the military for domestic law enforcement violates the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act. No American President has ever run afoul of the law as much as Donald Trump. His actions defy the Constitution and the rule of law whenever they present obstacles to his authority and power. Again, his agenda resurrects 20th century history neither Americans nor global citizens would choose to repeat.

How does one justify the actions of a President who is at odds with the very structure of the American government? I believe there is no justification for his actions. But his Presidency is justified by his election. Then how do we explain this anomaly? Or why did we elect him? I believe the answer to that question lies in public opinion and belief, or more specifically, in the ability of propaganda to influence public opinion and belief. There is a quote in Yuval Noah Harari’s recent bestseller (“21 Lessons for the 21st Century”) that implanted itself in my mind: “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly—it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.” When Hitler wrote those words in Mein Kampf, he presaged the likes of “fake news,” “enemy of the people,” “make America great again,” “America first,” “crooked Hillary,” “immigrant invaders,” and so on. Only a talented demagogue can dupe a nation and manufacture facts and evidence to support the con. Donald Trump has that talent and is making history. But when will his supporters realize the costs?

President Trump has attempted to address many real issues, such as North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, China’s unfair trade policies, NATO countries participation in their own defense, regulatory reform, and tax/deficit adjustments. History will decide the outcome of his policies, however intentioned or effective. But how will the Presidency be changed in the process? Or America’s Constitution and the rule of law survive? Is the price worth the admission to the greatest reality show of the 21st Century? Should we allow this performance to continue? My answer: NO, WE CANNOT!

“America seems more divided today than at any time in the past.”

This statement seems to be the mantra of our politicians, our press, our private conversations, social media, and even our personal self-talk. Like many of us, I find myself constantly weighing the scales of truth versus fiction, of right versus wrong, and of liberal versus conservative. But there are two obvious misconceptions here. First, the comparison of our current divisiveness to our nation’s past is patently false. From its outset, America has always been divided in almost every conceivable way—ethnically, racially, morally, theologically, and, of course, politically. It had to become a democracy. Otherwise it would have had to become a nation of citizen mimes marching in lock-step to a single authority, the very condition that spawned the American Revolution. Secondly, the division between liberalism and conservatism should not be substantive in a country founded on basic principles, unless either political philosophy divorces itself from those principles. To disagree is human, but to deny the basic assumptions upon which a family, community, or nation are founded is to negate what unites us. Such denial, whether explicit or implicit, fractures the only bonds that can bring us together. Remember America fought a civil war over the fracturing of our union. Perhaps, what we are experiencing today is a different kind of fracturing, or divisiveness.

Is our divisiveness mainly political? Our political parties, for example, define themselves as either liberal or conservative. So-called “moderates” exists somewhere in-between. Democrats are characterized as the Party of “big government” or of the idea that the Federal Government should provide for the “general welfare” of all its citizens. Republicans are characterized as the Party that believes in States rights and in an individual’s right to exercise personal and family values without the interference of government. Both Locke and Rousseau would term both positions as liberal. The Preamble to our Constitution and the first ten Amendments affirm these beliefs. While Democrats often propose regulations that prohibit corporations from infringing on the general welfare, Republicans argue for policies that free corporations to compete and prosper, increasing the wealth of their stockholders, promoting productivity in their workforce, and growing the nation’s fiscal economy. But, taken together, the Parties’ positions define economic liberalism, both as it was understood in the nineteen century and in the twentieth century global market. Capitalism itself is a liberal construct. Adam Smith clearly envisioned capital markets as a liberal adjunct to free enterprise and a free society that guaranteed equal opportunity. Perhaps what distinguishes liberal and conservative social and economic policies is a difference in emphasis rather than a presupposed antagonism between opposing political philosophies.

One hears the bromide that “America is an idea.” More accurately, it is an ideal. And therein is the difficulty, for ideals have no value as mental constructs unless lived. As individuals, we may struggle through a whole lifetime to clarify our ideals and to learn how to live them. How much more difficult is it for a diverse country like America to evolve into a full realization of its founding principles? Even our founding fathers (and the women who motivated them, like Abigail Adams) compromised with those principles in order to win the southern colonies into the proposed union. But the Civil War and the Woman’s Suffrage Movement enabled America to realize the promise that “all men are created equal,” where the definition of “men” was effectively redefined as “human.” Consider the circumstances that gave birth to the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments. For over six decades America struggled to make the changes these Amendments signified. But, while our better angels inspired these changes in law, many of us still struggle to live up to their underlying ideals.

America’s current problems are not racial, ethnic, religious, or gender differences. We have always had a diverse society. But maybe we have stopped addressing these differences and ceased our 242-year struggle to realize the promise of our American ideals, specifically, to “form a more perfect union.” Our problem today could be defined as a failure to evolve the very ideals of a liberal democracy. Instead, we allow political divisions based less on democratic policies than on spoils, that is, financial benefits or incumbent re-elections. A winner-take-all mentality displays a total obeisance to power rather than a commitment to our democracy. Of course, we decry our elected representatives’ failure to compromise. But the real problem too often is with the nature of the compromise being considered. Will compromise strengthen our Constitutional commitments to the justice, security, welfare, and civil rights of all our citizens? Or will it serve the interests of well-paid lobbyists, campaign contributors, and political leaders who control Party campaign coffers?

Although the American Revolution was against monarchy, our Constitutional framers recognized the need for a strong executive in our tri-partite system of checks and balances. They recognized the need for a man of high moral character and outstanding leadership ability. Of course, the general who led our insurrection and won our freedom, George Washington, quite naturally fit that profile. President Trump most certainly does not.

Although it is unseemly for any person to judge the moral character of another, I think it is fair to say that our current President does not inspire our better traits or appear to support the democratic ideals of our country. His concept of a “more perfect union” includes a zero tolerance immigration policy, travel bans, elimination of universal healthcare benefits, privatized education, pollution of our air, water and land, and an unequal share of our countries’ wealth. The “general welfare” are not words in his hyperbolic lexicon of personal achievements which embrace his self-diagnosis as a “stable genius,” who “in two years, has accomplished more than any President in the history of our country.” He has hired a Secretary of Housing and Urban Development who initially turned down the job because he considered himself unqualified. He hired a man who acted as a shill for the Koch brothers as the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency. Then, after repeated legal and ethical scandals, he replaced him with a former lobbyist for the energy sector. He hired a Secretary of Education who diverts money from public education because she favors “for-profit” institutions over public education. His Secretary of the Interior is breaking up national parks and opening them to drilling and mining. His Secretary of Energy had formerly campaigned for the Presidency on a platform that promised the elimination of the Department of Energy. The man who ran his campaign is now in jail, along with one of his foreign affairs advisors. Others have pleaded guilty to various charges, including conspiracy against the United States. To put it bluntly, this President is anathema to a democratic state. He rules by executive orders. He surrounds himself with sycophants or incompetents who appear to serve the President’s interests as long as they serve their own. Others have written more comprehensive summaries of this Administration. But I think it is fair to assess it as undemocratic. For it shows little competence in managing our institutions to serve the general welfare or advance justice and liberty.

The only branch of government that has so far resisted the influence of these undemocratic initiatives is the Judicial Branch. But the President has waged a continuous battle with the Department of Justice, where he has succeeded in removing personnel he deems a threat to his power. Meanwhile, he has teamed with Republican Congressional leaders to pack the courts with prospective political operatives. Hopefully, these so-called “conservative” judges will be more aligned with the law than with the political objectives of their sponsors. Nevertheless, these initiatives have the same goal as the President’s executive orders and legislative agenda. And that goal undermines our centuries-old progress to fulfill the promise of our democracy.

America can be characterized by its diversity, both in its land and in its people. But it is defined by its ideals. They unite us as a nation. Their realization, however, is a continuous battle against self-interests that supersede the general welfare, that seek unchecked power, that suborn the institutions of government to criminal ends, and that subvert the national economy for the benefit of the few at the expense of the majority. If we fail to vote for those who support the ideals of a democracy, then America will lose its place in history as a beacon of liberty and justice. It will become an illiberal democracy, where corruption, influence peddlers, and power brokers rule. Some of us may have believed that the 2016 election provided the change we needed. But electing a disruptor who does not share our ideals is a prescription for chaos and, as we have witnessed, for the attempted subordination or dismantlement of our democratic institutions.

Democracy presumes diversity. With diversity comes debate and divisiveness. Our challenge is to resolve our differences within the framework of our American ideals and of our democratic institutions. Democracy is hard. Believing in it will accomplish nothing if we fail to preserve it.

A mother gives birth to a child. And a family is born. Within that family is bred a feeling of concern not only for the child, but for every member of the family. The child both consummates the love between the parents and solidifies their ongoing relationship. Most of us feel an obligation to nurture this familial relationship born of mutual concern, though, sadly, some abandon it. For the nurturers, however, it is easy to extend concern to other families, to a paternalistic or maternalistic concern for communities, and even for a nation state. Roman law and organization, for example, were built upon the concept of paterfamilias (“father of the family”), though before 3500 B.C. it was the Mother Goddess who reigned supreme. In either tradition, family was at the center of society and the focus of concern. Sociologists have long related that familial concern to the humanistic values of every known culture and civilization.

But perhaps human concern for others runs deeper and mirrors our relation to the physical world. We can look at the world in its most basic stance, as it exists in se (in itself). Philosophers used to call this metaphysics, or the study of being. Eastern belief systems offer an experiential awareness of this abstract concept through such practices as transcendental meditation. Our modern physics explains it through quantum mechanics, wherein the basic components of all being are particle/waves. Every atom of our human body is composed of these tiny elements, as is everything else in nature. The waves they produce have frequencies, literally a chaotic chorus quite unlike the Pythagorean “harmony of the spheres.” Nevertheless, each of us is part of this chorus that exists within and resonates without. Our science can explain the physical nature of being, but each of us experiences it uniquely. And that personal experience connects us both to our most basic sense of existence in the natural world and to each other. If you share that experience, then you will likely feel connected to the human family and to a physical environment to which we are all intrinsically connected at the very core of our being. And, therefore, you probably already accept the obvious conclusion: we have every reason to be concerned for each other and the world we inhabit.

The birth image with which this blog began has a broader connotation. It reflects a creativity in humans that extends beyond a mother’s conceiving of a child. The word “conceive” comes from the Latin concipere, “to take in” or “conceive.” When we “take in” the natural world, we “conceive” images in our mind and represent them in words. We may share our words, but they do not always mirror the images we create individually. Too often what we mean, or the image in our mind, bears only partial relevance to the reality we share. In a sense, we can create an “alternate reality.” That “reality” may reveal more about our limited perspective than what is real. We are even capable of conceiving a still born, that is, words that distort reality. Worse, we may nurture this false reality as if it lives in the real world and defend it with all the vehemence of a mother protecting her child. We can term this type of conception and its verbal expression as a “conceit.” It may be no more than a fanciful opinion or a strained metaphor. It can also appear as an arrogant expression of a personal belief based upon nothing other than a bloated assessment of self-worth or virtue. Such a conceit pretends to need no justification. Facts or evidence are irrelevant. Its words convey conclusions without premises and persuade solely on a narcissistic superiority divorced from reality. This type of conceit is unable to show concern for others or for the world they inhabit. A psychologist might disagree with my use of the word “narcissistic.” It literally implies a self-love for one’s personal appearance, or metaphorically, for one’s ego. In my use of the term, it is not just ego that is favored, but the id.

If conceits can control a person’s behavior, how does that person manage in the real world? Advice from others has no weight against them. Facts or evidence simply do not register in an inflated ego’s alternate reality. A truly conceited person can survive in the real world only by establishing personal superiority and by exercising control over everybody and everything. Therefore, such a person will be unwavering in craving and/or holding onto a position of absolute authority as if it was his/her right. It is the same claim made by monarchs and dictators. Conceit drives one to control without concern for anybody or anything other than the preservation of a personally conceived reality. Moreover, to the extent the id is involved, such a conceit may prefer the baser instincts of the human psyche over any more altruistic interests benefiting either society or even the individuals that compose it.

Though no psychologist, I do have an opinion about how the foregoing is relevant to America’s President. It may help us understand why he considers himself a “stable genius” who is his own expert on foreign affairs, criminal justice, trade management, immigration policy, environmental hazards, and anything that crosses his desk. His inaugural address cemented the promise of his campaign. He stated that “only he” could save the American dream which “is dead” and stop “the American carnage” which resulted in part from enriching and defending our allies. The “American first” agenda he then announced more than justifies the foreign policy he now conducts as a zero-sum game. America, after all, must win, and every foreign relation must be a contest. While he pretends to embrace our adversaries and distance America from its longtime allies, his trade policies tend to isolate America from international markets. He even threatens withdrawal from the World Trade Organization that America championed. His zero-tolerance immigration policies violate the Constitution (the 5th and 14th Amendments) and international law. And he lacks any concern for the physical environment that supports us all, as evidenced by his overturning the suspension of flood building standards, of the proposed ban on potentially harmful pesticides, of the freeze on new coal leases on public lands, of the anti-dumping rule for coal companies, of the offshore drilling ban in the Atlantic and Arctic, of the inclusion of greenhouse gas emissions in environmental reviews, and of so much more. Perhaps most indicative of his disregard for the world in which we all co-exist is his withdrawal of America from the international climate change accord.

His agenda for America reflects the alternate reality he has created for himself and demands the world to accept. For the last 70+ years, millions of Americans have participated in building a more inclusive America and an international system based upon cooperation and a growing set of international norms and laws. President Trump’s conceit would instead make America reflect him: a bully who suffers no critique and demands obeisance to his will or every whim. Further, this conceit isolates him from any concern for individuals or families. How else can we explain his willful policies to separate children from their parents at the border or his total disregard for nearly three thousand Puerto Rican hurricane victims.

Who believes there is no need to reference history or the institutional wisdom of career civil servants in the conduct of foreign affairs? Who thinks that maximizing penalties for non-violent crimes and contracting more for-profit prisons will reduce violence in our cities and reduce the costs for crime prevention? Who claims that isolating America from international trade agreements will enhance America’s export capabilities or magically benefit American consumers by eliminating low cost imports? Who denies that a zero-tolerance immigration policy is inconsistent with a nation born of immigrants and increasingly dependent upon their labor to offset the impact of declining birthrates? Who accepts the reality of mercury in our drinking water, dangerous pesticides in our food, poisonous air in our cities, and the defilement of our most precious national parks? The answer to all these questions is the same: a man driven by a conceit born of a fractured psyche and a debilitating delusion but, nonetheless, empowered to enforce his conceit upon us.

In defense of President Trump, I should add two points: he is a father whom his children apparently love; and not anyone of us is devoid of conceits. In fact, any person who seeks the Presidency must have a certain amount of arrogance. The position is replete with moral hazards. A President may feel impelled to start a preemptive war to defend against terrorists or conduct drone attacks within the borders of sovereign nations where civilian casualties cannot always be eliminated. Likewise, a President may extend healthcare to millions while offending the religious beliefs of an anti-abortion constituency. The principle of the “greater good” is not easily enacted in governmental policy or practice. Any attempt to “do no harm” can be very difficult to attain, especially in complex legislation or broad administrative application of the law. Except for the opposition Party, the general electorate tends to give our Presidents a bit of leeway in the general conduct of their office. Nevertheless, some of our former Presidents have fallen short of the electorate’s expectations. Two have been impeached; and one was forced to resign. Only the latter left office before the end of his term. But each of these men (yes, they, like all our Presidents, were men) failed to reflect the high moral character erroneously attributed to them by the electorate. Further, amongst our last eight presidents, only President Carter and President Obama avoided the cloud of a special prosecutor’s investigation. For their part, none of these Presidents represented himself as a person of low moral character. President Trump is the first to do so.

The President’s supporters, both foreign and domestic, seem less concerned about his morals and integrity than what he promised to deliver to them. Except for the 150 multi-billionaires at the top of the food chain, most Americans are waiting to see whether the President’s policies will benefit them. How will the Presidents tax and trade policies affect wages and the living standards for most Americans? How will his regulatory reform and healthcare initiatives effect safer environmental conditions and better medical treatment outcomes? Will the nearly ten-year economic recovery end abruptly because of wage stagnation, the cost of imports, debt infused high interest rates, or the effect of the Administration policies on the fastest growing segments of the American economy, namely, healthcare and energy?

The answer to these questions seems almost irrelevant in the context of the Trump Administration. The President’s interest lies elsewhere, specifically, in extending his influence and control. When he rails against his intelligence institutions, the FBI, and the DOJ, his criticism focuses on his lack of control. He wants to bend them to his will, rather than their defined missions to serve the Constitution and the American people. When he decries “fake news,” “witch hunt,” “dishonest” or “hateful” reporters, he not only discredits the free press but the First Amendment. His animosity towards the press is two-faced in the sense that he is gleeful about his dominance of the news cycle while at the same time advocating jail time for reporters whom he terms “the enemy of the people.” He not only wants to control the news cycle, but the substance of the news as well. He has cowed fellow republicans in Congress to either do his will or slither in silence away from reporters. Do you recognize an Orwellian reference in this behavior?

On the international front, he conducts foreign affairs as a zero-sum game where even our allies must submit to his positions without reference to historical alliances or negative outcomes. He has specifically targeted two of our closest allies from previous Administrations, that is, Canada and Germany. These two countries have played a key role in supporting America’s economic interests and its foreign wars. But the President prefers to bully them into submission rather than to maintain our partnership with them.

And, of course, he condemns the special prosecutor as “conflicted” and his team of attorneys as “democrats,” which is his pseudonym for enemy partisans. If he is unable to discredit Bob Mueller and his team, he will endeavor to castrate them by removing their security clearances or by terminating their civil service careers (as he has already done or promised to do with his growing enemies list of DOJ and FBI employees). He fears they are a threat to his control over the ship of state and to the image he presents to his supporters. If the special prosecutor’s office drafts articles of impeachment, will there be enough support from this base to forestall the President’s removal from office? Or will he be able to convince his supporters that the “deep state” is engaged in a conspiracy to stop his efforts to protect them from immigrant intruders and terrorists? In his deluded mind, these immigrants on our southern border are “aliens” who threaten to change our American ethnicity while all Muslims are “terrorists” who want us dead. In truth, there has never been a singular American ethnicity, just white privilege—which is a derivative of our cultural heritage and racism. And his Muslim ban was an anachronistic ploy to remind Americans of the horror and fear engendered by the 911 attacks 17 years ago. Meanwhile, we continue to wage wars abroad against foreign terrorists alongside Muslim allies who resist the perverted ideology of ISIS and al-Qaida.

While the President continues to wage a personal vendetta against his own intelligence community, the so-called “deep state,” the press, the democrats, our international allies, the special prosecutor, and his alleged scapegoats—Hispanics and Muslims, he has completely ignored any real threats to America. The most obvious of such threats is Vladimir Putin and his staged attack on the American election in 2016. That attack was an exceptional example of a well-developed Russian strategy of Kompromat. Our intelligence community terms this strategy an “advanced persistent threat.” Please note the adjective “persistent” in this context. The Russians will no more relinquish the use of this strategy than America or its allies would forego counter espionage. Their success in 2016 should assure a repeat in the coming election. In fact, if recent press reports are accurate, it has already begun. The question remains: what is the Administration doing to counter this impending attack on our democracy? In fact, the President fired his White House coordinator in charge of cyber security. Not only does the President see no evil, hear no evil, or think no evil here. But he even considered President Putin’s offer to assist the American investigation as a “generous” proposal.

(Message to President Putin: you are a brilliant strategist, but you should be wary of the man you wanted to win the American Presidency. He is destroying the economy of President Erdogan, a man he previously admired and a prospective ally on your border. He reportedly ordered the assassination of President Assad, whose authority he promised to acknowledge and an ally you have supported with arms and resources. While he has never criticized your annexation of Crimea or support for the upheaval in eastern Ukraine, he has authorized the arming of your opponents with advanced defensive weapons. Although he proposed to lift sanctions— “wouldn’t it be nice to have better relations with Russia”—he eventually caved to the will of Congress by increasing those sanctions. He will befriend you only so long as you protect or serve his interests. Be mindful that when a scorpion feels threatened, he reactively takes an offensive position. The American President is currently under siege, both at home and abroad. His natural tendency is to lash out at his enemies or to create a diversion. You could be that diversion. No American President has ever been challenged by his electorate during a time of war or the threat of military confrontation. Neither Americans nor Russians want a dangerous escalation in this ongoing contest for power and influence. Perhaps you feel in control of the situation, but the American President cannot control his basic instincts or his need for public approval.)

President Trump is not only a threat to the international world order but also to our American democracy. While most conceits have an ideological basis. His is bounded solely by his narcissism. He screams his tweets when discomforted in any way. He shows no understanding of our Constitution or the balance of powers within our tripartite system of government. He has little concern for Americans, their healthcare, environmental safety, or the security of their electoral process. His motivation, instead, comes from highly ego-centric conceits about his self-proclaimed superiority. Remember he promised that “only he” could correct the “carnage” of America and reverse his diagnosis that “the American dream is dead.” His conceit is not bounded by any ideology other than self-promotion. And it self-justifies and empowers his attempts to quash all resistance to his will and his concomitant desire to attain near tyrannical control over the institutions of government and public opinion. While Russia may be the enemy without, he is the enemy within. He is more than a hollering tweet. He is a baby with a gun.

While he golfs on most weekends and expends hours watching cable news, his government reels in chaos and reeks of corruption. While some recoil either in fear of his bogus threats from immigrants or Muslim terrorists, others are dismayed by his dismemberment of our institutions and the cowering of his own political Party. His actions trump the Flavian metaphor for the unraveling of Augustan norms and rules, that is, specifically, the image of Nero fiddling while Rome burns. But Donald Trump is no metaphor, for he holds the match.

Like many Americans, I enjoy team sports. My interest was spawned when I was very young. In middle school, I played football, baseball, and basketball. Those three team sports earned me the coveted letterman sweater which I wore every day to school, regardless of the weather. It hung in my bedroom closet for years, well past the time I had outgrown it. It was a symbol of the love I had for team sports—a love I share with many Americans. In fact, being part of a team is attractive to nearly everybody. But one must be careful in choosing a team. Let me illustrate why care is required.

Teams pull together to win games. We Americans root for teams and love to be part of a winning team. Maybe that love explains how some of us become lifelong Republicans or Democrats. There is security in the support we receive from—presumably—likeminded people. And, if all Party members pull together, we win. Remember our current President tapped into this psyche when he promised all who joined him that they would win: “there’ll be so much winning you won’t believe it.”

Long before Trump, the Republican Party was dedicated to winning. Even though there are more registered Democrats than Republicans in America, the Party had a plan to win the seats of power. First, deny a Democratic President any victories and excoriate his “liberal” initiatives, even those that represent former Republican policies. Second, win as many State legislatures as possible before the ten-year census, so that Republicans could redraw districts to their advantage. (In all fairness, the Democrats had also practiced gerrymandering for four decades after World War II.) And, finally, use their hard-won legislative advantage to suppress voter turnout of traditionally Democratic voter groups. This strategy allowed them to win control of the House in 2010 while losing the popular vote. Once Republicans took control of the Senate as well, they focused on a legislative agenda that would defeat any Democratic opposition. Their plan worked because they were disciplined, hung together, and won as a team.

But their time in control of Congress suffered the lowest approval rating since such ratings were calculated. Where did the Republican plan go wrong? Given their non-compromising naysaying, they became the “Party of no.” Even though they ran successful propaganda campaigns against Obamacare and other Democratic initiatives, they were unable or unwilling to develop better solutions for healthcare or to support previously Republican proposals on balanced budgets, infrastructure spending, or trade agreements. Their opposition to a Democratic President became an opposition to governing. Winning control of Congress and blocking the nomination of a swing vote on the Supreme Court were victories over the Democrats. But those victories did not immediately translate into constructive legislation. While Republicans were busy winning elections, they were losing credibility with the electorate. And they left their right flank open for Trump. In 2015, Donald Trump started a populist revolution against the elites in Washington. But it was initially a revolution against the Republican Party. When he promised to “drain the swamp,” he meant all of the Washington establishment, which included the governing Republican Party. The lesson here is that politics is not football, which is to say winning can be losing. The 2016 election was a victory for Trump, but a loss for Republicanism.

Donald Trump is the chameleon who once was the color of blue, then turned red, and is only now showing his true color. There was a time when he seemed to support some Democratic positions. He was for a woman’s right to choose and against the Iraq war. But sometime in the last decade, he became a Republican. We can only guess why he made this switch. Perhaps he was motivated by his animus toward Barack Obama or by a growing ambition to stage a Presidential campaign. For whatever reason, he knew the Republican Party had lost the patronage of its supporters. They had become a team with neither a leader nor a positive agenda. All he had to do was cloak himself in the mantle of Ronald Reagan. If he became captain of the team—a team only concerned with winning—then, he could call the plays. Traditional Republican policies could be touted, but they would be played for different purposes—to unite the team, win elections, and cement control of political power. No agenda or policy was an end in itself. Repeal and replace Obamacare, for example, was just a ploy. There was never a viable replacement plan. Victory was never measured in health outcomes or the number of insured Americans but in elections won. Even the financial argument against Obamacare was a bust. The legislation that created the Affordable Care Act (ACA), aka Obamacare, not only paid for itself, but extended the solvency of Medicare. Trump opportunistically picked up the banner against his predecessor’s healthcare law without a second thought to the effects of its repeal. He never tried to get into the weeds, for his gambit was his brand as the successful billionaire businessman with a Reaganesque flair for policies.

Playing Reagan, however, is not the same as being Reagan. Our 40th President has been the keystone of Republicanism for nearly four decades. When you consider his positions on free trade, immigration, NATO, and Russia’s strategic interests, the current Republican President would seem to be an anomalous Republican. Reagan was not only a free trader, but he would have cringed at the very concept of “zero-tolerance,” tariff wars, or obsequious rapport with a Russian kleptomaniac. (I apologize to my Russian readers, but Putin’s vast wealth far exceeds his government income.) But on other issues, Trump does tow the party line, conforming at least in theory to Reagan’s positions by mirroring his policies on lowering taxes, on restricting the government bureaucracy, on proposing the elimination of the Department of Education, on opposing universal healthcare proposals, on fighting the proliferation of drugs, on advocating tougher penalties on crimes including capital punishment, on denying abortion as a woman’s right, and on dismissing any environmental concerns, which in Reagan’s day was just for acid rain. On these Reaganite initiatives, Trump’s only “successes” would be in hamstringing the Environmental Protection Agency, in eliminating or watering-down both EPA and financial regulations, and in lowering taxes.

Many would add to his Reaganesque successes his ongoing fight to repeal Obamacare, aka the Affordable Care Act (ACA). But reducing subsidies, hampering the risk pool, limiting support for ACA registration, repealing the mandate, and eliminating funding for key HHS support services have not reduced subscriptions. Instead, it has resulted in significant increases in healthcare insurance costs for everyone. And the President’s tax plan risks the nation’s fiscal stability and misses one of the key lessons-learned of the Reagan years. After Reagan initiated a large reduction in the top tax rate in his first year from 70% to 28%, he was forced to raise taxes on eleven occasions to fund the arms race and pay down a growing national debt that mushroomed from 1.1 trillion to over 2.7 trillion. His greatest regret on leaving the Presidency was the effect his tax policy had on the national debt. Except for Bush 41, Trump seems to follow in the footsteps of a long line of Republican Presidents who talk of fiscal conservatism but produce huge national debts for future Administrations to remedy or suffer.

The current version of Republicanism shows none of the Reagan sympathies for immigrants. It fails to learn from the one major failure of the Reagan Presidency, that is, the impact of his tax policy on the national debt. Moreover, the current Republican President has only paid lip service to the other Reaganite policies mentioned above. The point of this iteration is to illustrate the nature of the Republican Party’s fall from grace and the basis for its subjugation to Trump. Many grassroot Republicans revolted against the failures of the “Party of no” and voted for a change agent who seemed to embody the mantle of Reagan. But that red chameleon turned purple—which is, incidentally, the color of royalty. The Republican Party is now the Party of Trump. But Trump is not quarterbacking the team to run up the score for the benefit of the fans or even for the reelection of his Republican teammates. No, Trump wants to secure his position in the political hall of fame and, further, to enhance his power and self-proclaimed stature as a “stable genius” and the “greatest President in history.” His game is not politics, but despotism. In that game, only he can be the winner.

Republicans are afraid of Trump supporters because they may hold the key to the Republican primaries and their possible reelection. But they need to break with their quarterback, for he is not playing in their behalf. He does not follow the norms and rules of American politics or government. Instead, he uses campaign-style rallies and propagandized tweets to rally his supporters. For his aim is not to govern well, but to maintain a cult-like following. If permitted, he would disenfranchise Democratic voters with his proposed voter fraud commission. What he really wants is power to deconstruct our government’s institutions and reorient them to serve his personal whims and interests. If he holds onto his position, he will continue to disengage America from its leadership in international affairs. And, if he ever does “make a deal” on the world stage, it will not be in the service of America’s national interests but in the aggrandizement of his prestige, power, and/or personal wealth. His Republican teammates will simply become complicit in the devolution of America unless they overthrow his leadership and save the Republican Party from infamy.

The American people are the referees in this game. They know a foul has been committed. While reporters and political sages point to the quarterback, what are ordinary people saying? Do they say, “I don’t see any reason why it would be” Trump? Or do they say, “I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be” Trump? The first question implies there is no evidence of or intent to commit a foul. The second question implies there is no evidence to exonerate him of the foul. In the first instant, the referees review the video replay. The video evidence indicts the quarterback as guilty. In the second instant, common sense indicts the quarterback as the only one who could have committed the foul precisely because he was the quarterback, not an innocent bystander. If you left your dog in the kitchen to answer the phone in the next room, upon your return who do you think ate the steak on the kitchen counter?

Trump has fouled a lot of things in his brief time in the Presidency. But Team Republican has made his foulness possible. Trump cannot change who he is. The question remains, however, whether Republicans will continue to be complicit. Will they support America first or their Party leader? Where is their loyalty???

Many of us Americans live busy lives, caught up in the helter-skelter of accelerated change and an unceasing information blitz. Maybe we hear in passing about the collateral damage caused by drones. Or we read about another American corporation’s exploitation of a third world nation’s natural resources. Perhaps we shake our heads disapprovingly and admit America is not perfect. What happens in foreign lands seems so remote and less relevant to our daily lives. But we cannot ignore what is happening in our name and in our country. We have an Administration that is terrorizing asylum seekers. And that crime is happening at our doorstep.

Men in uniform are taking children from the grasp of their parents and incarcerating them in temporary internment camps. Please stop and visualize that moment of separation. The parents are told they have only two choices: either agree to deportation with their children or deportation without them. In either case, our Government succeeds in forcing them to forego their request for asylum. Meanwhile, their children are lost in our bureaucratic maze as they are relocated to all four corners of the continental United States. How do we feel about children being used as leverage against their parents and as deterrents for future refugees? How can we accept the now evident fact that the Administration had no plan to reunite them with their parents? But, if there was no plan, then there was either no intent to return these children or a total disregard for their welfare.

The Administration has blatantly violated the 5th and 14th Amendments of our Constitution. Asylum seekers are being held without due process. Their children are seized and held in some unknown location. And they are not even able to comfort their children by phone. Our government, by order of our duly elected President, is criminalizing our Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In addition, America is now guilty of a form of terrorism by violating our international obligations to respect the rights of asylum seekers. These rights include the right of a state to grant asylum, the right of an individual to seek asylum, and the right of an individual to be granted asylum. Are we Americans prepared to don the cloak of an international pariah? I think not!

As a famous historian once said, “Americans are better than their leaders.”* We must challenge our government to undo the misery and pain it is inflicting on these innocents. It must obey the court order to reunite these children with their parents. And it must cease its attempts to make the situation worse. Examples of the latter include forcing parents to forego their asylum request to win return of their children, continuing deportations without hearings on asylum cases, forcing under age children to appear before an administrative judge without legal representation, and adjudicating misdemeanor border crossings in mass, sometimes as many as 40 defendants at a time. Are we a country that disregards human rights? Are we a country that subjugates law to the whim of a dictatorial Administration? And are we a country of “kangaroo courts?”

This Administration’s inability to return these children to their parents is totally unacceptable. It now admits to having about a hundred children under 5 years old and maybe as many as 3 thousand older children in a hundred or so locations throughout America. Now we hear there may be as many as a thousand additional children surreptitiously taken under a pilot program in advance of the zero-tolerance policy’s enactment. These estimates not only expose ineptitude, but crass indifference. A small country like Thailand can pull together its resources in a matter of days to rescue children trapped in mountain caves, but America cannot return children already in their custody at government operated locations. Does anybody believe this level of obtuseness? Or worse, is it deceit?

Private citizens and local elected officials are volunteering their assistance. Lawyers from across the nation are offering their services pro bono. But our government not only does not welcome outside assistance but at times has shown itself uncooperative. There must be enumerable suggestions on how to overcome the bureaucratic maze in which these parents and children are trapped. I am no expert, but even I can suggest one. Why not photograph all the children held in custody, put those photos with captions provided by the children on a secured web site, and give parents access to that site for the purpose of identifying their children? Whatever information the children can provide—like their name or the name(s) of their parent(s), their age, or where they came from—could be used to corroborate any claim by a parent. The search algorithms could be arranged by name, age range, and country of origin. If insufficient web access devices are readily available, it would not be difficult to provide rented or donated devices. Parents would easily recognize their own children. In the suspicious, though remote, circumstance of multiple claims for the same child, then normal investigative procedures should be used to resolve the case, perhaps even time-consuming genetic testing. Instead of being hamstrung by the necessity to resolve individual cases without any reference points, the process of reuniting families would then be using the only references that matter, that is, the children and their parents.

Maybe someone amongst my 10,000 subscribers can improve on my suggestion. Yesterday the Administration told the court that it could only identify 59 of the 100 toddlers it was ordered to reunite with their parents. These children are lost in our bureaucracy and may not be able to provide much identifying information about themselves or their parents. But their mothers could still identify them in a photo. If after 2 weeks the Administration could only identify 59 of the 100 children under the age of six years, how long will it take to identify the thousands still held hostage? There has to be a better way forward.

Can we live with what has been done in our name? If I know my American readers, you will agree with me that we must right this wrong. For my readers from other countries, I must ask your forbearance. We are not unlike you. We do care for children and respect families. But, like people from many lands, we do not always agree with our leaders—even though they are our elected leaders. Democracy can run afoul of itself but, thankfully, allows for course correction. It just requires a responsible electorate . . . and the next election.

*Footnote: I am quoting Alexis de Tocqueville from memory. Though I do not have a page reference, you can find many interesting insights from this 19th century historian in his book, “Democracy in America.”