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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still the question of the day: is it possible to reform our economy and our government without serious campaign reform that honors voting rights and replaces unlimited fund raising with equitably disbursed public funding? Or is there another way to return sovereignty to the American people?

Our first Republican President did not campaign to end slavery, but to end its expansion to the new territories. His personal moral position revealed itself later when, as President, he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation and deposited it into a desk drawer. He decided not to reveal this document to Americans until his Union Army began to turn the tide of the Civil War in its favor. Instead, he berated his General for failing to advance the Union cause more aggressively. Contemporary politicians may interpret Abraham Lincoln’s reticence to support the abolition of slavery during his campaign and the withholding of his Proclamation for a more acceptable time as “good politics.” But they would mischaracterize Lincoln’s action by perceiving it through the lens of 21st century politics. When a majority in Congress overturned the Missouri Compromise to allow a potential majority in these territories to vote their admission into the Union as slave states, Abraham Lincoln broke with the concept of majority rule. He understood that a nation divided among slave and non-slave states could not stand united. Moreover, it would break with the promise of its Constitution “to form a more perfect union.” He became resolute to preserve what the founders created, “a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” ¹ Always mindful of public opinion, he chose not to follow it slavishly, but to lead it to “a new birth (italics mine) of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.” ¹ He was—above all else—dedicated to the nation’s core values. And, as President, Abraham Lincoln exercised moral leadership.

There is no doubt that President Lincoln and our nation faced an existential crisis in the 19th century. Although slavery had existed in the colonies since 1619, the prevailing influence of its economic value had persistently cloaked its moral character—even during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. But when a majority in Congress created the possibility of extending it to the new territories, one man staked his political career against that initiative. Then, as President, he led a young nation through the most catastrophic phase of its existence to a “new birth” of its founding ideals. Why, you might ask, do I bring this history into focus now? Perhaps I see a symmetry in what followed Lincoln’s Presidency, that is, Andrew Johnson’s impeachment. While our 16th President defined Republicanism, his successor is an analogue for our current President. After Lincoln’s assassination, Andrew Johnson, a former anti-abolitionist and southern Democrat from Tennessee, fought with the liberal—then considered radical—Republican majority in Congress over elements of the Reconstruction Act and opposed its oversight of his executive actions to reinstate former Confederate politicians. As a Democrat, he was the only southern Governor to support the Union. By restoring these Confederate politicians to office, he hoped to both strengthen his power and diversify the nation’s representation in government. But these same politicians could also threaten passage of the 14th Amendment which, among other civil rights, would grant citizenship to anybody born in America, including former slaves. Eventually, the Republican majority in the House passed 11 articles of impeachment pursuant to Johnson’s failure to support both a law passed by Congress (The Tenure of Office Act) and the legitimacy of Congress’ opposition to his executive initiatives. He was subsequently acquitted by the Senate on all counts by only one vote. Although his tenure as President was marred by chaos and furious dissension—both within his administration and Congress—his acquittal has been attributed less to his presumed innocence than to a political consideration. ² In “The Federalist, No. 65,” Alexander Hamilton writes, “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision (in a Senate trial) will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” Do you see the parallel between Johnson’s impeachment and Trump’s?

Besides this similarity, there is an even more instructive difference between these impeachments. While President Andrew Johnson was intent on shoring up his power by assuaging former Confederates, the Republicans in Congress were committed to follow Lincoln’s moral leadership. Beyond freeing the slaves, they were intent on granting them citizenship and civil rights. While President Trump’s trial may replicate President Johnson’s politically inspired acquittal, the differences will be not only in the nature of their respective abuses of power and obstruction of Congress but also in the moral stance of the respective Republican Parties. In the 19th century, Republicans stood with Lincoln in support of the Constitution, the Union, post war reconstruction, and the extension of voting and civil rights to all citizens. Our 21st century Republican Party, by contrast, intends to exonerate a President accused of abusing his power and obstructing justice by attempting to extort a foreign country to help him rig his own reelection and blocking Congress’ lawful oversight of his illegal actions. This version of Republicanism is the adverse of moral leadership, intent on exonerating crimes against democratic elections and the Constitution, rather than holding parties accountable, most especially, the chief architect of these crimes, the President. The Senate Majority Leader has even vowed to subvert a Senate trial by excluding witnesses who might impugn President Trump. The question for Americans is whether any President should be more concerned with his/her political power than with the moral leadership his constituents entrust in and expect of any President. The question for the Republican Party is whether they choose to hold onto their seats in primaries over the more appropriate moral stance of conducting a fair trial. So far, the current Republican Party has not shown itself to be the Party of Lincoln.

What Lincoln endeavored to preserve was the revolutionary ideals expressed by Thomas Jefferson in 1776 and realized in the democratic republic constituted shortly thereafter by our founding fathers. In his response to James Madison’s summary of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Jefferson wrote from Paris how much he liked “the general idea of framing a government” ³ apart from state legislatures, organized into legislative, judiciary and executive branches, and designed to counterbalance their separate powers. He had only two significant objections. First, he decried “the omission of a bill of rights.”³ And, second, he “strongly dislike(d) . . . the abandonment . . . of the principle of rotation in office, and most particularly in the case of the President.” ³ The newly established Congress addressed Jefferson’s first objection on March 4, 1789 when it passed the first ten Amendments, otherwise known as our Bill of Rights. The state conventions desired these amendments “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers.” Jefferson’s second concern had to wait until after Franklin Roosevelt was elected for the fourth time. The 22nd Amendment limits a President to two terms, heeding Jefferson’s fear of an “officer for life.”⁴

It should not be surprising that the author of the Declaration of Independence would make these objections. A full reading of Jefferson’s Declaration (reference the version approved by Congress on July 4, 1776) includes a list of “abuses and injuries” whereby the King of Great Britain tried to establish an “absolute Tyranny.” If you read Jefferson’s grievances, you will undoubtedly note some similarities to the Trump Administration in terms of suppressing laws serving the public good (e.g., regarding the environment, consumer protection, worker safety, et al), representation of large groups of people via voting laws and census changes, naturalization of foreigners (reference DACA and immigration quotas), the role of civil authorities—like Congress—in military affairs, the jurisdiction of military tribunals in murder cases (via pardons), free trade with foreign nations (e.g., tariff wars), and fundamental institutions of our government such as HHS, EPA, USDA, HUD, and so on. Jefferson’s was the declarative voice condemning monarchical rule and suppression of representative government—the very “high crimes” specified in Trump’s Articles of Impeachment. His words heralded a revolution. Trump’s impeachment trial could spawn the rebirth of a pluralist democracy. His acquittal, on the other hand, would abet the suppression of a free people and their democratic institutions. And it would make Republican Senators complicit.

In “The Federalist, No. 65,” quoted above, the author specifies that impeachment is a political act regarding “the abuse or violation of some public trust.” That trust is established initially by the oath of office every public servant takes. An oath requires a special kind of humility, born of a conscientious submission of the self to an ideal. The proudest among us can find difficulty with oath-taking or, at least, adhering to it. Our greatest Presidents have often combined humility with their allegiance to the demands of office. Many Americans consider George Washington the epitome of a dedicated public servant. When John Adams, the key organizer of the colonists’ rebellion, nominated Washington to lead the revolutionary army, Washington immediately left the room, apparently not wanting to appear in support of his nomination. He then told his aid he did not seek command and did not feel qualified for the commission. But after his unanimous selection, Washington accepted the call to service though not the offered compensation. He declined what was then a considerable compensation of $500 per month. ⁵ Nonetheless, he became America’s first commander-in-chief, leading his outgunned and volunteer army to victory over a professional British military. Naturally, he was elected to become America’s first President. But, after his second term, he declined to continue in office. His decision was consistent with his character. He was ever committed to the service of his country, but not to office, title, enrichment, or the exercise of power. His example sets the standard for any public service, but most especially for the Presidency. Should we not apply this standard to any President, including President Trump? If so, Republicans should find it difficult to support a President who shows such disdain for Congress, for the Constitution, and for the trust the American people bestow in him. That trust requires him to serve our interest rather than his own.

In the foregoing paragraphs I have referenced Abraham Lincoln and the first four Presidents of these United States. The latter not only introduced the revolutionary ideals that formed America. They also demonstrated their commitment to those ideals in their service to a young country. The former preserved what they bequeathed: The United States of America and its Constitution. Each of these Presidents had unique talents and personal foibles. Madison and Jefferson were lifelong friends. But a growing rift developed between Adams and Jefferson. It would be somewhat of an understatement to admit that they were not always politically aligned. But each of these Presidents built upon the contributions of their predecessors. Jefferson, for example, continued Adams’ work on foreign treaties to enhance American security. Each of them sacrificed to meet the call to service. In Jefferson’s case, for example, he hated the idea of becoming Washington’s Secretary of State. But, when cornered by Washington, he accepted the call to service. Adams’ term as Washington’s Vice President forced him to separate from his beloved Abigail for lengthy periods. And, though devoted to his President, he detested aspects of his job, most especially, his duties as President of the Senate. And Lincoln grieved extensively over the suffering the Civil War brought upon his young nation. But this melancholia he kept private and absent from his public duties. What these Presidents shared was an unremitting dedication to public service, specifically, to “my flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Our Pledge of Allegiance mirrors the sentiments expressed in the Preamble of the Constitution. And those sentiments form the basis for America’s liberal tradition, for a republican form of government, and also for the “Grand ole Party.”

Today, the panoply of “liberalism” seems only to dress the modern Democratic Party. But, from a traditional Republican perspective, Democrats tend to extend liberty and justice beyond the intent of the founders—to the governance of social norms and to unconstitutional limitations on the individual pursuit of happiness. To my mind, the political differences between these interpretations of liberalism is more a reflection of the different perspectives and ambitions in a truly pluralistic, democratic society. As a nation, we are more heterogeneous that we were at are founding. No longer an Anglican nation of farmers, we are a mix of people from every corner of the world. It is far too easy for contention to overrule the peace and order of a democratic polity when tribal, race, political, or religious differences collide in competition for power and influence. As Jefferson noted, maintaining an orderly democracy requires a government less concerned with its power to enforce change than with informing its citizens. He wrote, “educate and inform the whole mass of people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order . . . They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.” ⁶ Majority rule cannot work in a society ill-informed and not uniformly committed to the ideals of liberty and justice—that is, to the natural rights of all humans. When we go astray of these ideals, we sometimes need that moral leadership that founded our nation and sacrificed to preserve it.

But Jefferson also sounded a prescient warning that are reliance on majority rule can only succeed “as long as we remain virtuous (italics my own): and I think we shall be so, as long as agriculture is our principal object, which will be the case, while there remain vacant lands in any part of America. When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become corrupt as in Europe, and go to eating one another as they do there.” ⁶

Jefferson wrote these words to Madison during the many uprisings Europe was experiencing, including those presaging the French revolution. He foresaw the conflict America would face as its rural character might change and its diversity became more conspicuous and, possibly, more contentious in crowded cities. Today, America has realized the nightmare Jefferson, perhaps reluctantly, foretold. We have more hate groups than at any time in our history. Within the last two decades, our nation has spawned wars that draw contending forces into a whirlwind of destruction and death. Our population has indeed become “piled upon” into massive cities that require huge investments while rural areas go largely unattended by government largesse. And our political leaders seem to follow a spinning compass leading in every direction except true north, that is, where our founding fathers blazed a path for us. We still have the government structure they built and a Constitution to guide our way. But we at times lack both the moral leadership from those we elect to represent us and their dedication to telling us the truth. Americans are not being enabled by propaganda and demagoguery to vote their conscience. Instead, we are wittingly and unwittingly following a path that could terminate this experiment in a free and just democratic republic.

The title of this blog might imply America’s current Constitutional impasse is solely in the hands of the Republican Party. But that implication would not be correct. We have all participated in the decline of America’s founding ideals. In Jefferson’s terms, we have become less virtuous. But the Republican Party, in particular, has brought us to a pivotal point in our history. Remember that period in the 1960’s when the Republican Party momentarily awakened to a rebirth of America’s classical liberal tradition. Besides recognizing what Lincoln did to preserve this tradition, it emphasized the roles of our founders in establishing classical liberalism as the bedrock of American politics. That liberalism was considered radical at its birth, but it was mother’s milk to an infant democracy. Through many generations it has born many offspring, some extending liberty and justice and some unintentionally inhibiting the same. But we can never fall prey to right-wing theories and conspiracies that promise to replace our people’s sovereignty with a more effective monarchical or dictatorial leadership. That leadership would spell the end of our democratic system. And we should not identify those theories with the sensibilities of a true conservative. The only excuse the Republican Party has for calling itself “conservative” is its dedication to conserving the classical liberal tradition that gave birth to this nation. Absent that dedication, the Party loses its identity, its birthright, and its purpose in a democratic republic. Without that dedication, Republicans will have killed Republicanism when America needs it most.

___________________________________

Footnotes:
¹ Abraham Lincoln, “The Gettysburg Address.” (The rest of this paragraph reflects various sources recalled from memory and reminiscent of the same civics education shared by most, if not all, Americans.
² Andrew Johnson’s potential successor was considered too radical because of his support for women’s suffrage. The references to Johnson in this paragraph was found in Wikipedia and attributed to Annette Gorden-Reed, the Pulitzer awarded author of “Andrew Johnson: The American Presidents Series—The 17th President 1865-1869” (Times Book/Henry Holt), p. 139.
³ Thomas Jefferson, “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,” selected and edited by Saul K. Padover, Easton Press, Norwalk, Connecticut, P. 311.
⁴ Thomas Jefferson, in loc cit., p. 312.
⁵ This summary of events was condensed from “George Washington,” an abridgement by Richard Harwell of the seven volume “George Washington,” by Douglass Southall Freeman, pp 219-220.
⁶ Thomas Jefferson, in loc cit., pp. 314-315.
⁶ Ibid., p. 315.

Since 1787, America has been a democratic republic with a capitalist economy. These political and economic characteristics define our national character in many ways. When in balance, they assure our freedom both in opportunity and in wealth creation. But when that balance is not regulated, as experienced in the last half of the 19th century, not only was there a rise in economic inequality, but also a disproportionate increase in the influence of wealth on the conduct of government and of the economy.

Today, we are witnessing the same imbalance. Does anybody seriously disagree? One of the candidates for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency is proposing “structural changes” in our economy and a wealth tax to address this imbalance. You may disagree with her proposals, but you cannot ignore the reality she attempts to address. It is the same reality previous Administrations attempted to address in the 20th century with anti-trust legislation, the New Deal, and progressive taxation. But for the last four decades, America has reversed its preoccupation with economic inequality by quashing unions, eliminating the estate tax, and gradually adopting a more regressive tax system. Today, the wealthy pay, on average, only half the percentage of their economic income than what the less wealthy pay.

Recently, several billionaires, both Republican and Democrat, have criticized the concept of a wealth tax˟. Perhaps it may be impractical to implement in our current environment. But we must get serious about reversing the course the President’s tax bill has only accelerated. That bill favors hedge funds, real estate developers—like the Trump family—and corporate income. The latter has reinvested much of the Trump tax windfall into stock buybacks instead of in real economic growth. While the President praises the resultant rise in the DOW indices, he brazenly ignores any increase in the minimum wage or investments in infrastructure, education, healthcare, a clean environment, and job training for the new tech economy. The President is leading his Republican constituency into a dead end where the country’s productivity will disproportionately benefit the privileged to the detriment of most Americans. Meanwhile he tells the country what he believes it wants to hear—that the economy is booming.

Recovery from the recent great recession has indeed continued during his Administration. But that recovery has slowed down. As of August, the unemployment rate had decreased by only .14% since the day he took office, compared to the 43% improvement during his predecessor’s time in office (see The Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics as quoted in “A Stable Genius”). Meanwhile, the President’s policies have reintroduced recession’s trillion-dollar deficits and has begun to isolate America from international markets and alliances. Taken altogether, they portend disaster, regardless what the President tells us.

Should we believe our President? Or should we characterize him as just another ubiquitous pitch person we find on every commercial TV channel? Advertising, broadly speaking, dominates nearly every phase of an average American’s life: TV commercials, road signs, store displays, “robo” calls, mailed ads and coupons, pop-up computer ads, tracking cookies, email ads, et cetera. All these marketing attempts serve up the same hodgepodge of what retailers believe we want to hear: cream to clear our faces, toothpaste for a brighter smile, pills for greater brain power or sexual potency, investment opportunities for a richer life, and so on. And, in the same vein, the President assumes responsibility for “the greatest economy in history.” But his pitch is not for your tax dollar. He already has that. No, he wants your vote or, at least, your complacency.

Of course, we expect our politicians to support a strong American economy. But we do not require them to mimic its retail nature in their campaigns. We expect them to impress us with policy positions and personal characteristics of leadership and integrity. We do not require them to sell their “goods” by telling us what we want to hear in a campaign advertising blitzkrieg. Its purpose is to influence minds, even if only subliminally. In other words, we are being told either what we consciously want to hear or, subtly, what we should want to hear. The latter is the basis for both reflex consumer purchases and tribal voting. How else can we explain our vote for a Party candidate who violates our Constitutional order and shows no respect for the general welfare of American citizens? Have we deliberated on what we want to hear or are we being told what we want to hear? The former implies personal judgment and free choice. The latter only requires obeisance and submission. There is more at risk here than the economic maxim of buyer beware.

Maybe, the barrage of mass advertising and ceaseless politicking has made us apathetic. Perhaps, as a society, we tend to accept the sales hype as background noise and become cynical of its promises. Our politicians tire us with their tribal skirmishes, their lying, their unkept promises, and, at times, the abuse of their office. Why engage? Why not just accept the Party line? It takes less effort to simply accept as fact whatever we want to hear.

At this point in time, we are inundated with stories of political corruption. Our President, for example, has surrounded himself with sycophants and incompetents who have violated both ethical norms and legal restraints. Some have been convicted of actual felonies. Even the President has been implicated in various crimes. By reason of his office, he is considered unindictable. Nevertheless, he could not be exonerated from numerous instances of obstruction of justice. And now he is the alleged kingpin of an international bribery and extortion plot involving Ukraine. But he claims there was no “quid pro quo,” just a “perfect” phone call between heads of state wherein promised aid and a Presidential meeting were conditioned upon specific deliverables, termed a “favor.” Should we believe the President when he says, “I want nothing?” But the evidence belies his words. Instead, we now know that he attempted to bribe and extort Ukraine’s President Zelensky to announce rogue investigations into both the 2016 election and his supposed political opponent in the 2020 election. He wanted to elicit Ukraine interference in the upcoming election while invalidating the intelligence community’s findings regarding Russian interference in the past 2016 election. But he wants us to believe his only interest is in exposing corruption—not in exonerating Russia for its election meddling in 2016 or in benefiting his potential reelection in 2020.

Even as I am writing these words, he is mustering his only possible defense—that is, a full presentation of his conspiracy propaganda in a “made for TV” exposé. Will Americans take note of the fact that neither President Zelensky’s government nor any established investigative body such as the FBI will have participated in this bogus conspiracy investigation? Or will they simply believe either what they want to hear or what they are told on a special TV infomercial? Our “reality star” President continues to bet on our gullibility. Even in the face of Articles of Impeachment, he pitches a baseless defense, that is, his ongoing taglines/pitches, such as “no quid pro quo,” “I want nothing,” “a perfect call,” or “no obstruction of justice.” He wants us to believe he did not do what he did, did not say what he said, did not deny every Congressional request for documents, and did not order his staff to disregard legitimate subpoenas. There is no abuse of power or obstruction of Congressional oversight here—nor is there a Constitutional prerogative for Congress to hold an impeachment inquiry. No, he obscures facts with fiction.

Underlying this whole impeachment process is an unanswered question. Why is he so single-minded in his pursuit of Russia’s interests? Perhaps he truly believes that defending Russia’s role in the 2016 election and promoting its interests in all matters effecting NATO, Syria, Ukraine, and Russian sanctions is really the only way to improve relations with Russia. He has been telling us as much for nearly four years. It is what he wants us to believe or, at least, what he wants us to hear repeatedly and relentlessly until we all submit to his lie. As he once said, “don’t believe in what you see or hear.” Instead, as if in a Star War fantasy, he tells us his lie is the truth and what we should want to hear. But is it really what only Vladimir Putin wants us to hear?

In criminal cases, often the most difficult thing to uncover is intent. How can we assess the President’s intent behind his attempts at bribery and extortion? He wants us to believe he is that disinterested executive who fights corruption in countries receiving American foreign aid. Well, there is one aspect of his character that provides us a clue into his actual intent: he is irrevocably and incessantly involved in self-promotion. Ironically, that is the bases of his so-called “authenticity.” He is a self-serving chameleon who presents whatever façade suits him in the moment. Consequently, he becomes an unapologetic liar who finds it impossible to admit any blunder or incompetency. He may not be the only politician with these traits. But he appears alone in his ability to normalize this behavior and even win public support for its abnormality. He is, as members of his staff have proclaimed, just “Trump being Trump.” And Donald Trump is unequivocal about his public persona: his lie must be your truth. He demands that perversion of integrity in his followers. Fraud, then, is the basis of his authenticity. When he says, “don’t believe what you see and hear,” he is stating his case for believing only him, the “stable genius” with a “great mind” and “the best words.” Whatever he says or does is what he wants Americans to hear and accept.

“Tell me what I want to hear” without regard for any personal judgment is not the basis for an informed electorate in a democratic republic. From the public forum in ancient Athens to the American voting booth the same prerogative faces every citizen: free choice. Citizens in a democracy must be free to use their best judgment and to choose the best course for their country. They either define the state’s sovereignty or abrogate it to rulers instead of elected representatives. In other words, it cannot be about “Trump being Trump.” America must be about Americans being Americans.

So, does our economy need regulative intervention—perhaps some form of “structural change”—or is it simply “booming” as the “best economy in history?” Is climate-change a hoax? Are immigrants from the depressed northern triangle really a security threat to America? Is abandoning our Kurdish allies to possible genocide a reasonable option in our fight against ISIS terrorists? In what world does repealing the Affordable Care Act through the courts improve healthcare for Americans? And why should we exonerate a President for “bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors” and reelect him as “the greatest President in history?” Remember when he told the United Nation’s assembly that he had “done more in two years than all the Presidents in American history.” The UN Assembly laughed at him. If we, instead, believe his shtick—specifically, what he wants us to hear and accept—then the joke is on us.
_________________________________________________________________________

˟ Some of these billionaires, it should be noted, are currently campaigning to be elected or reelected President in 2020.
My postscript question of the day: is it possible to reform our economy and our government without serious campaign reform that honors voting rights and replaces unlimited fund raising with equitably disbursed public funding? Or is there another way to return sovereignty to the American people?

The term quid pro quo has a meaning embellished by legal precedent and opinion. Some of our media has tried to translate the term in the most simplistic manner as meaning “this for that.” But the Latin implies more. Quid is an interrogative that explicitly asks for something. Quo refers to something else. And the pro means “for,” sharing the same derivative as our English “prior.” In plain English, this Latin phrase means that something requested cannot/will not be granted before something else is provided.

Why do I risk boring you with my meagre linguistic skills? In this case, I am trying to point out that the underlying meaning of quid pro quo implies a question or request. But if a positive response is deliberately withheld as an inducement for something else, then this deal becomes the very definition of a bribe. Interestingly, a “bribe” in Middle English refers to something stolen. Again, in plain English, our President offered a bribe—using tax funded money authorized by Congress for foreign aid—in order to induce a favor from the Ukrainian President. Now you may argue that the $400 million was already authorized by Congress and therefore cannot be characterized as stolen. The President, however, employed taxpayer money as if it were his to employ for banal political purposes. Moreover, he usurped Congress’ intent for his own criminal benefit. And he attempted to make the Ukrainian President a co-conspirator in bribery. The analogy here would be the wayward offspring who steals money from his mother’s purse to buy candy. In this case, it is America’s budget rather than the family budget that is ransacked.

Finally, the President further pressured the Ukrainian President through a variety of means, by phone, in person, and via surrogates. When an official engages in this kind of coercion, it is called extortion. Naturally, I cannot restrain from providing you with the Latin root for the word, “extortion,” namely ex, “out of” and torquere, “to twist.” The latter is also the root for the word “torture.” If you watched the joint press conference between the two Presidents, you may have noticed the tortured look on Zelensky’s face when the President urged him to settle with Vladimir Putin.

While Ukraine is facing an existential threat and burying soldiers and civilians on the field of battle, our President is victimizing it by his strategy of bribery and extortion for political purposes. Whereas two American Presidents have been impeached in the past 231 years, neither were prosecuted in a court of law. This impeachment inquiry is different in substance and without historical precedent. Without the shield of the Presidency, Donald Trump may face prosecution not only for bribery and extortion but also for obstruction of justice as outlined in the Mueller report.

The next phase in the House’s impeachment inquiry involves open hearings. Keep in mind the core issues. You will hear various political arguments about whether there was an “abuse of power” or “an impeachable offence.” But the operative issue is the Constitutional directive that a President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (quoted from the Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 4). Bribery is clearly stated therein, and extortion can be implied as a “high” crime.

Why did Martin Luther King use the words in this title? Like any potent expression, they recall meanings latent in language, that is, deeply embedded in their root meanings. “Urgency” derives from Latin (urgere, to drive on) and implies “insistence” or an “impulse that impels.” But why did Rev. King use the word “fierce” as a modifier? It evokes the Old High German derivative of urgere, that is, rehhan, to “avenge.” Of course, Rev. King was not inciting his followers to wreak havoc on white overlords. But, subliminally, his words touched an emotional chord that resonates with African Americans. And that chord, when struck by a gifted orator, impels a very loud call to action.

While Rev. King was inspiring hope, he was also urging peaceful protests. But his time was fraught with emotion and discord. It was a boiling point in American history. What surfaced were riots and fires engulfing many American cities. Though some politicians blamed the good reverend for inciting unrest, he could not be held accountable for the latent angst that had boiled beneath the surface for generations. Its source was an incident that occurred more than 400 years before Rev. King’s call to action, specifically, when that first slave ship docked on an African shore. Not the 13th 14th and 15th Amendments, nor the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts could totally wash away the sludge of slavery. But Martin Luther King had come to hold the American experiment in democracy accountable. His legacy is twofold: he helped America more fully realize its promise; and he showed us how to continue along the same path.

Another famous quote from Rev. King was “the arc of history bends toward justice.” But, as witnessed by the abolition of slavery, that arc bends very slowly. Also, consider the status of women in America. Though very instrumental in the abolition movement, women were not allowed to vote until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920. I doubt Abigail Adams ever envisioned it would take 133 years before women would be allowed to vote. Perhaps the gestation for democratic self-correction is shortening. The Inequality Amendment passed by Congress in 1972 may finally be ratified by the last State on the docket—Virginia—which just voted in a Democratic majority favorable to that amendment. Perhaps, Rev. king’s “fierce urgency” can impel change sooner than in the past. Let’s hope so, for I believe that moment of urgency has once again arrived.

What should impel change now? Well, you might consider climate change, corruption in government, and an economy disproportionately favoring the wealthy. With respect to climate change, we will reach the point of no return within the lifetime of millennials, unless we reverse course now. But we no longer have a government that cares about that impending crisis. Our President has formally withdrawn America’s support from the global climate change initiative. That withdrawal becomes effective upon the inauguration of our next elected President. Meanwhile, he is embroiled in impeachment proceedings that address alleged crimes. But, even if personally exonerated of bribery, extortion, and treason, neither he nor his White House appear capable of governing. Ethical and legal transgressions have derailed many of his appointees to public service. Nevertheless, the President holds the support of an aggrieved plurality that can find no fault in his conduct or in his Administration. And he commands a huge campaign war chest to fund his reelection. Although some of these funds has come from foreign sources (which violates campaign finance laws), the vast majority appears to come from well-healed donors. Likely his tax bill has earned him their support. During his first term, income and wealth inequality have increased. While this Administration is consumed with court cases and with amassing wealth for its members and its supporters, there appears little interest in governance “of, by, (and) for the people.” And any concern for climate change will have taken a four-year hiatus. In fact, practically all Federal government measures to abate climate change have been aborted by this Administration.

Do you see the urgency? Faced with the increasing frequency of climate disasters and a growing majority of Americans living paycheck-to-paycheck, how can Americans rely on a government riddled with corruption and inefficiency? We are running out of time to act. In truth, we must confront the “fierce urgency of now.”

If you do not agree, then consider the following three objectives emanating from our founding ideals. First, every American should have an equal opportunity to secure his/her happiness. Second, every American should have the ability to think, speak, and act freely within the scope of the law. And, thirdly, every American, by virtue of these principles, must respect the sanctity of every human life. Certainly, Rev. King exemplified these objectives and the ideals that inspired them. Moreover, he showed us how to attain them in moments of divisiveness and conflict. He negotiated with politicians and others who did not agree with his methods, principles, or both. He sat down with Presidents, Senators, and Congressional Representatives. The major legislation he sought was eventually supported by both sides of the aisle in Congress.

In our system of government, debating both sides of any issue is required in order to reach the most comprehensive solution to any issue of public concern. But even the best solution is reflective of time and place, which often guarantees future amendments. In other words, our American republic must evolve, else it will become stagnant. And stagnation defines this moment in our history: gridlock in Washington, tribal voting blocks, “alternative” facts, bias media, and a directionless Administration. Moreover, impeachment proceedings guarantee a halt in any forward process while our elected representatives decide the fate of our Commander-in-Chief. For sure, they must recognize the “urgency of now.”

If you still do not agree, then I offer one final consideration. And that concerns the inalienable right to life. That right is not just one of the objectives of our system of government. It is a core value that defines us as Americans. It drives philanthropy, foreign aid, immigration policy, healthcare policies, regulations assuring safe air, water, and food, and so much more. Our politicians often appeal to this core value in order to win support for legislation and/or reelection. Ask yourself whether you have heard that appeal during the current Administration. Instead, you have witnessed the defunding of endowments and foreign aid, a zero-tolerance immigration policy, an attack on our healthcare system, and the death of public welfare regulations by executive order.

Perhaps there is no greater devaluation of life in the current Administration than its war against children. Consider the 5,000+ children separated from their parents at our southern border, more than 1500 of whom may never be reunited with their parents. Consider the more than 70,000 Kurdish children fleeing the destruction of their home with just the clothes on their backs. Consider the cancellation of deferred medical visas for children undergoing life saving treatment only available in American hospitals. It may be too late to address these inhumane policies, even though they affect the most innocent among us. But we must stop their proliferation. They belie our ideals. And they redefine who we are as a people.

How can any American not see the “fierce urgency of now?”

_______________________________________________________
* If you found this blog of interest, you may find “All Problems Solved” worth reading as well.

Cattle ranchers brand their cattle. They have good reason to do so. When a wayward steer is found, the rancher can reclaim it. If stolen, the authorities can return it to the rancher’s herd. Maintaining the herd is what keeps the rancher solvent: it is the sole foundation for the ranch’s existence. For the cattle, the ranch is no more than a place to feed. But for the rancher, it is everything. You cannot have a cattle ranch without cattle. And a marginally depleted herd may not allow the ranch to remain solvent. So, branding is important for the survival of the ranch, not so much for the cattle.

Many in my father’s generation felt delivered from the Great Depression and a world war by a democratic President. Understandably, my father identified himself as a lifelong democrat. To rile him, his mischievous son gave him a framed picture of President Ronald Reagan. That picture never found wall space. But it did occasion a lot of arguments between us. The root of those disagreements was my father’s allegiance to the Democratic Party. He carried the Democratic brand proudly. The Party was his herd, and he would never consider wandering off the range.

It may seem obvious where this metaphor is leading. But bear with me. There is more here than the very observable fact that politicians take their brand too seriously—that is, weighing it more important than their oath of office. There is also more to this political branding than its justification for blind adherence to Party positions—that is, feeding exclusively on Party taglines and position statements. While the steer has no individual loyalty to the herd, the Party loyalist must consciously identify with the Party. And there is the rub. The brand becomes you.

Before we elected our current President, he was very successful at one endeavor: branding. Despite multiple bankruptcies, he called himself a successful businessman. He made his name, “Trump,” a brand that signified a self-proclaimed success. He quickly learned that his many failures with Trump steaks, Trump wine, Trump University, Trump Foundation, and his investments in many real estate ventures, including his infamous casino, were not as important to his financial status as his brand. That brand was his sole claim to success: it heralded, like a clarion exclamation from the top of Trump Tower in New York, Donald Trump was a winner. But it was—and still is—a lie. But truthfulness has nothing to do with a brand. And that is the genius of Donald Trump.

Currently, I am reading George Will’s book, “The Conservative Sensibility,” and Samantha Power’s book, “A Problem from Hell.” George Will, while erudite, is not a close-minded right-wing radical unable to communicate to a more liberal society. He is, in fact, a learned student of our Constitution, the most liberal document of its kind. And Samantha Power is more than a “bleeding liberal” completely divorced from the practicality of 21st century life. She is, in fact, our former UN Ambassador who fought to bring our founding principles into our foreign policy and into the framework of international relations. Both Will and Power represent what is best about America. Ironically, their last names imply the source of America’s power—and that is, in our free will.

So, what is your brand? The only acceptable answer is “I don’t have a brand, for I am a liberated American.” No Party can claim you. You are not cattle, gathered into a political herd. You are free to choose your political positions and biases. But that freedom depends upon your ability to distinguish truth from lie, to expose the truth that branding hides, and to weigh the difference between adherence to Party and support for the American Constitution and the principles that created it.

Cattle branding is a claim of ownership. And it separates herds, one from another. In a political context, branding breeds the divisiveness we currently witness in the media, in rallies, and in our elected representatives. But the individual freedom we cherish demands we place American ideals before Party affiliation. Is the red MAGA hat a symbol of American ideals or of branding?

Don’t be branded a Party patriot. Instead, be a free American patriot.

_______________________________________________________________________
For a more extensive discussion on divisiveness, read “A Divisive Democracy or What?”

“In America the people appoint both those who make the laws and those who execute them; the people form the jury which punishes breaches of the law. The institutions are democratic not only in principle but also in all their developments; thus, the people directly nominate their representatives . . . So direction really comes from the people, and though the form of government is representative, it is clear that the opinions, prejudices, interests, and even passions of the people can find no lasting obstacles preventing them from being manifest in the daily conduct of society. . . the majority rules in the name of the people . . . (and) is chiefly composed of peaceful citizens who by taste or interest sincerely desire the well-being of the country. They are surrounded by the constant agitation of parties seeking to draw them in and to enlist their support.”¹

A great historian wrote these words during the Administration of Andrew Jackson, perhaps our first truly “popularist” President. They capture the essence of a society not born of history, but of philosophy, as Margaret Thatcher once stated. Unlike the “old world” with its tribal, religious, territorial, and hegemonic turmoil, this “new world” chose to govern itself in a democratic system designed to represent the will of the people and subject to a Constitution based upon fundamental rights and the rule of law. And those rights were based upon a state of nature (“all men are created equal”) and enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitutional Convention subsequently designed a system that would defeat any recidivism into old world despotism or the chaos of special interest agitators or illiberal opportunists. In accordance with the Preamble to its Constitution, America’s majority of so-called “peaceful citizens” would rule to “insure (sic) domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence (sic), promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

This ideal America is not only revolutionary in concept, but also aspirational. Rarely has a new idea so captured a people that it would change the course of history. Our historian certainly is impressed, as he draws an almost idyllic portrait of this new world. Its founding principles evoke the natural state into which every human is born and the universal human need to create a system of government that would preserve those principles. Jefferson’s Declaration states the case for the former; and the Constitution outlines the latter. But our historian’s two-volume account of early nineteenth century America casts shadows which dim our view of this democratic idyll. This new world was created in the much too real world.

Perhaps predisposed by the Romantic Period, Tocqueville may have described America as seen through rose colored glasses. And the tinge on those glasses was distinctly Old World. Because he could foresee “the whole future of the English race in the New World spread before me,”² he could also look past any concerns about slavery in the South and the Hispanic population in the Southwest. In the same vein he could even disregard the displacement of the Indian nations and give no mention to the disenfranchisement of women. His assessment reminds us of the historical nearsightedness that can infect any contextual perspective. He perceived America through the eyes of a nineteenth century European: Indians were discounted as uncivilized savages; and women, unless born into royalty, were considered unfit for governance. The Constitution’s phrase “we the People,” therefore, must not include them. And his bias for the “future of the English race in the New World” also predisposes his non-acceptance of Black and Brown peoples into this new world of self-governance.

Nevertheless, he was an insightful historian who could predict two significant obstacles to his vision of an Anglo-America, both of which would threaten the future dominance of “the English race in the New World. . . In truth,” he states, “there are only two rival races sharing the New World today: the Spaniards and the English.”³ He foresaw the need to push the Mexicans out of Texas, to conquer/subjugate them throughout the Southwest, and to assimilate all remaining Spanish speaking peoples. It is revelatory that Tocqueville excludes African slaves and the native Indian population as obstacles to his grand vision. Instead, he thought the second significant obstacle would be the rise of a diametrically opposed system of totalitarianism in Russia. He explained that while America places ultimate power in its people, Russia gives absolute power to one man. In Tocqueville’s words, “One has freedom as the principle means of action; the other has servitude.”⁴ In this instance, he portended Roosevelt’s placating of the Russian bear after World War II, the Cuban missile crisis, the cold war, and the ongoing adversarial relations between the two countries.

But Russia was not posed as an immediate threat to this new Anglo-America. Slavery, on the other hand, was. Tocqueville, rather surprisingly, rationalized its institution into a permanent state of stasis. Did he assume the slaves’ lot could never change and therefore not present an obstacle to his grand vision of an Anglo-America? While he demurred the Southerners’ attempt to justify the principle of Negro slavery, Tocqueville also believed they had no viable alternative. He believed they could neither assimilate freed slaves nor protect themselves from violent retribution if they abolished slavery. The South, then, was in a bind. The North, if it pressed for abolition, would occasion “the most horrible of civil wars, and perhaps in the extermination of one or other of the two races.”⁵ Why, you might ask, could this foresighted historian not anticipate the possibility of assimilation. Well, he explains, “I do not think that the white and black races will ever be brought anywhere to live on a footing of equality.”⁶ His explanation infers that the institution of slavery would never be abolished. And, of course, the Constitution, at the time, assured he would be right to think so.

So, we now know what dangers the Black and Brown races posed for Tocqueville’s Anglo-America. Why did he so casually exclude the Indian nations for whom he devoted an entire chapter? Though he describes a history already well documented, his Western European perspective focuses on the barbarous nature of the Indian tribes. They are, in his telling, proud savages, unable as a group to assimilate to civil society. Describing the dispossession of their land and resources in legalistic terms, he seems ignorant of the human suffering attendant upon their displacement and makes no mention of the genocidal effect of the many Indian wars. Ironically, he wrote during the term of Andrew Jackson, the premier Indian slayer of his time. Jackson had organized and led his Tennessee Volunteers to eradicate the Indian nations from the lands granted frontier settlers. Tocqueville could just as easily dismiss the Indians as he did the Black and Brown peoples. For, in his determination, they simply had no place in his Anglo-America.

This blog was not intended to be a book report. But, as an early historical account of our nation’s beginnings, “Democracy in America” clearly illustrates how our founding principles had not yet been fully realized. America may have been born of a rational humanistic philosophy, but its people were matriculated in the womb of European social and political history. Tocqueville captures both the ideals that founded our nation and, inadvertently, an honest assessment of its limitations. If you place his account within the background of manifest destiny, you can visualize something other than the land of the free. What you see, instead, is the seeds of white nationalism. What could so easily be dismissed in the early nineteenth century, continues to haunt us today, specifically, the assumption of white privilege. And that assumption still defines American racism.

America’s roots are grounded in both its founding documents and its two and a half million English colonists. Its present incarnation now includes 330 billion heterogeneous inhabitants, descended or immigrated from nearly every nation in the world. And its influence is global with an economic and military footprint greater than any nation in human history. Although we still are an English-speaking nation, we are far removed from that small coterie of Anglo colonists. For most of us, our shared heritage was/is adopted, not primarily prescribed by ancestral origins. The wisdom of this heritage, though, is its ability to transform diversity into a unified democratic nation. But that transformation cannot happen unless the unifying principles of our democracy are understood and accepted by most Americans. And at the core of those principles is acceptance of all humans as equals regardless of race, gender, or ethnicity. Innately, we all share the same genetic code. As social mammals, we share similar needs for family and social relations. As homo sapiens, we share a need to understand and develop ourselves and our place in the world. At birth, we share the same human nature and therefore deserve an equal opportunity to live our lives and pursue our individual paths to whatever goals might make us happy. Equality, then, is at the root of those “unalienable rights.” We inherit this equality at birth. It is the foundation for a democratic society and nation. It engendered the birth of our nation. Its full realization is our destiny. How, you might wonder, are we progressing with this destiny-mission?

Our founders designed a government that assured the peoples’ voice would be heard through elected representatives guided by law and metered by three equal branches of government. They did not, however, prescribe political parties. The latter did not come into existence until our third President. By the time our population had more than quadrupled, the two dominant political parties were deeply divided over slavery as an economic system, a democratic anomaly, a political firestorm, and a humanitarian crisis. The Civil War that ensued challenged the concept of democracy where a diverse population could govern itself as one nation (E pluribus Unum). Today, when our contemporary population is more than a hundredfold greater than it was in 1776, we are once again torn apart into fractional political debates over the state of our economy, our democracy, and basic human values.

Once again, racism runs beneath the surface of many debates, whether it is criminal justice reform, police profiling, real estate red lining, de facto segregation in our schools, inhumane treatment of Hispanic immigrants, or the delivery of social services to the less fortunate that still disproportionately include people of color. Complicating America’s ability to address what may be termed its original sin is the breakdown of our system of self-government. Consider the contemporary relevance of Tocqueville’s statements about America in the early nineteenth century:

• “. . . the people directly nominate their representatives . . .” Tocqueville is right if you include the way the electoral college was initially formulated. As with members of Congress, the electors were selected by voters in each state. If no Presidential candidate received a majority of electors’ votes, then the elected members of the House of Representatives “shall select out of the candidates who shall have the five highest number of votes the man . . . best qualified . . . (assuring) the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” Obviously, Hamilton, when he wrote Number 67 in the Federalist Papers, did not foresee a time when these electors would no longer be nominated by voters in each state. Instead, they would be nominated by the dominate political party in each state legislature.
• “. . . direction really comes from the people . . .” Most often, however, direction now comes from Party leadership. And the positions taken by leadership reflect the will of large campaign donors more than that of voters. There are too many examples of this practice to enumerate here. Let’s just name two: more than 90% of those citizens polled want reasonable gun control policies in place; and, in the last Federal election, a vast majority voted for affordable healthcare. But Republican Party leadership has steered the ship of state away from any form of gun policy reform and away from any furtherance of affordable healthcare. In fact, it has relentlessly attempted to repeal the Affordable Care Act without any reform or revision that might extend coverage or reduce costs.
• “. . . the majority rules in the name of the people . . .” Really? Two of our last three Presidents won a term as President without winning the popular vote. Also, except for the last general election, we have had a series of Congressional elections where the winning Party did not gain a majority of the votes. But this issue cuts deeper than gerrymandering and voter suppression laws. For Congress is more beholden to special interest groups than to the majority interests of the electorate. Those interests are too often tabled in lieu special interests. As a result, the congressional agenda is governed by political leadership, rather than by the public welfare. (In February of 2016, I wrote a blog, “A Clash of Minorities,” disclaiming the reality of majority rule.)
• “. . . the majority . . . is chiefly composed of peaceful citizens who by taste or interest sincerely desire the well-being of the country . . .” In fact, I believe peaceful well-meaning people do comprise the majority of Americans. But they obviously do not all vote.
• “They (the majority) are surrounded by the constant agitation of parties seeking to draw them in and to enlist their support . . .” When cable news, social media, and state sponsored propaganda is considered, the state of agitation created by self-interested parties, demagogues, hate groups, and foreign adversaries threatens to overwhelm the will of the people. The latter threat from foreign intervention in America’s electoral process currently goes undeterred as a result of one Party’s obstinance. That Party’s leader, the President, seems to believe he will benefit from such interference, as he did in 2016. The Senate Majority Leader refuses to consider bills that aim to contain this threat of foreign intervention. Once again, political leadership refuses to consider the will of the people or even the security of our democracy over its potential political benefit.

Has our constitutional framework become unworkable in the face of these political party dynamics?

Now, I recognize the founders feared mob rule or the overthrow of our government by an opportunistic despot or a foreign power. The majorities enumerated in the Constitution are counterbalancing: Congressional majorities in proportioned Districts, Senatorial majorities in each State, and Electoral College majorities in Presidential elections. And, of course, our founders established checks and balances in the three equal branches of our government. Only the Executive Branch was given exclusive powers to assure the preservation of the Union from foreign or domestic adversaries. With so many balancing and protective mechanisms, how could America avoid chaos and still hold a steady course toward its perennial self-realization—that is, Lincoln’s “rebirth,” Reagan’s “shining city on a hill,” Obama’s becoming “who we can be”? Our lifeline, our beacon of light, or our hope is and always has been the full realization that we are born in an equal state of nature that preordains our natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This realization is the fulcrum that levers America through the chaos of history. But nowhere in our founding documents will you find references to political parties. In fact, our initial Presidents warned against the establishment of political parties. James Madison, in Federalist Paper Number 39, defined a fundamental prerequisite for a republican form of government:

“It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.”

In this quote, Madison is not addressing political parties per se. But the gist and tone of his statement argues against a “favored class,” such as “a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions.” He did not assume that future elected representatives would organize into political parties that would govern not “from the great body of the society . . . (but) from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it.” Given these quotes, how do you think Madison would assess the influence of large campaign donors over the political agenda in Congress? Would he consider the current operation of political parties consistent with a democratic republic?

As I reflect on the relevance of Tocqueville’s America to contemporary America, two questions come to mind. First, have we ever been or even now fully able to embrace the ideals expressed in our founding documents? And, second, does are current government preserve and enhance a self-governing society composed of diverse peoples and races? Of course, America has changed in the last 243 years. We are no longer a nation of farmers/landowners and frontier settlers who need to defend their land with muskets. We exist in a globally interdependent world where trade, technology, and the earth’s natural resources are the field for international competition. We no longer face an existential threat from a foreign monarchy or an Indian revolt to reclaim their lands. Instead, we live under threat of nuclear war, extremists’ violence, and the growing intensity of natural disasters. The answers to the questions posed here encompass more than racial prejudice and the political Parties’ subversion of democracy. At their core, these questions ask who we are as a society and how we choose to govern ourselves.

I believe there is a convergence in political and individual action that could provide America with a fresh start toward a representative democracy. First, let’s restore classical liberalism, currently reincarnated as conservatism, to the Republican Party. It anchors our government in its founding principles. Secondly, we need the Democratic Party to assure its programs of economic and civil liberties align with those founding principles. Here is where the two Parties should converge as guided by the Articles of the Constitution and clearly specified in its Preamble. Therein is plenty of common ground for compromise. As private citizens we need to exercise a staged revolt at the ballot box, beginning with campaign reform and demands for those government programs that preserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for everyone living in America. Remember Jefferson wrote his Declaration before American citizenship was defined. But the principles he defined therein have guided America to award full citizenship to former slaves, to women, and to immigrants in the course of the last two centuries. In addition, those demands must include clean air and water, the safe use of land and natural resources, equal protection under the law, fair and equal access to healthcare, the provision of a liberal education for our children, and, in general, all government actions that preserve Americans’ “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.”

But even more is demanded of us as members of a free society. The issue of white nationalism and racism, for example, can only be addressed effectively at the individual level. As a famous legislature once said, “you can’t legislate morality.” Although true, this dictum does not preclude the persuasion of enlightened leaders, both in government and in communities. Civil rights and voting rights laws set guardrails that protect minorities from injustice. But they cannot change the hearts and minds of individuals. That change must occur in each of us before it can become part of the social fabric that makes us one America. Each of us as individuals must question and openly confront personal biases and racial prejudice. It is not that difficult to engage and connect with others. Although de facto segregation does exist, there are still many opportunities in our diverse society for people to come together. Personally, I was raised with the Christian belief in loving “thy neighbor as thyself.” But that aspiration did not become real for me until I attended high school and college and subsequently served in the military with schoolmates and comrades of every race and ethnicity. While citizenship makes us real or potential neighbors in America, our unique backgrounds can define those personal biases that divide us. But our diverse backgrounds also offer an enormous opportunity to broaden individual perceptions about each other and the America we create. We can define our shared future together.

Seriously, if we Americans truly believe in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, then America can recover its idealism, realize its potential, and fulfill its promise.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Alexis de Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” Volume 1, p. 159.
2. Ibid. p. 374.
3. Ibid. p. 375.
4. Ibid. p. 379
5. Ibid. p. 331
6. Ibid. p. 327

Who can self-identify as a “stable genius?” Einstein never did. Da Vinci? Jesus Christ? Perhaps, if we identify “genius” with IQ, we can call certain gifted people geniuses. I have known individuals with extremely high IQ’s. Two of them committed suicide in their twenties. In fact, they were brothers; and one of them was a friend. Unfortunately, immaturity overshadowed his intellectual gifts. Those native abilities gained him no wisdom or ability to navigate in society.

We use the word “genius” in different ways. Sometimes it refers to ability, as was the case with my friend. At other times, it acknowledges achievement. In the first case, we are bearing witness to an extraordinary ability to memorize, to calculate, or to learn. My friend could pass an entire semester in college without opening a textbook and still ace the finals with just one night of cramming. But he achieved nothing in a life that ended too abruptly. I could not have predicted his suicide, but its premise overshadowed many of our arguments. While he bragged about his prowess, I accused him of wasting his talents—for he gained nothing from his studies. At the time, I knew less about wisdom than I do now, but could readily see that nothing he learned seemed to mean anything to him personally. In fact, he believed “he knew it all.” But, in truth, the only knowledge worth having is the extent of one’s personal ignorance. And that ignorance or knowing what we do not know, is the beginning of wisdom.

President Trump has called himself “a stable genius.” His wealth, for example, does evidence certain abilities: he has schemed to build a fortune on what he coins “opm,” that is, “other people’s money.” He has scammed banks and debtors out of millions of dollars in bankruptcy courts. He keeps hidden his tax returns to suppress comparison with his various financial statements and his justification for dodging eight years of Federal taxes. He has used the legal system to sue adversaries and to outlast plaintiffs unable to support extended court battles. Also, he has succeeded in using his reality show stardom and tabloid celebrity status to create a unique brand that is captured in the pseudonym “the Donald.” Like my long-departed friend, he can be “full of himself” over his abilities. But what he might term achievements are empty of any value. For the acquisition of money, fame, and power are of no more value than maxing a college exam—unless contributory to personal character and the welfare of others.

I suppose our President would say that my college friend was an “unstable” genius because of his suicide. The President, by contrast, calls himself “a stable genius,” perhaps to convince Americans that his rage, ever-changeable moods, and irrational whims are not the erratic behavior of an emotionally disturbed or neurologically handicapped person. Granted, he may be right. Nevertheless, such behavior does not exemplify emotional maturity.

But, for many Americans, neither our President’s ability/achievements, nor his stability should be questioned. His claim of “stable genius” is either accepted as fact or as a flippant expression designed to annoy his detractors. Often, when his statements are ridiculed, he retorts that he was joking. In other words, what “fake news” maligned as offensive, absurd, or untrue is not to be taken seriously. The joke is on his accusers. Donald Trump, then, is more authentic than his predecessors, for he is who he is and not the pretend politician who mirrors the norms of predecessors. But how do we assess his authenticity when he squints into the teleprompter to deliver a “normal” Presidential address? He seems stiff and uncomfortable in such instances. Likewise, he appears uneasy and even inappropriate in comforting victims of natural disaster. His words and body language make no connection with their suffering, making him appear remote and unfeeling. By contrast, he is very animated and spontaneous when railing against the press, the Democrats, or any and all critics of his policies or actions. Maybe his supposed “stability” is really nothing more than the consistency of this behavior. In the same vein, his “genius” is simply the ability to reframe norm-breaking behavior into an expression of his authenticity. And that reframing is his brand. His “genius” achievement is the success of that brand. It should not be surprising that “winning” is everything to Donald Trump. It is both the consistent motivation behind most of his actions and the justification for his claim to genius status. It conflates “stable genius” with “winning” and his self-branding as “the Donald.”

A major characteristic of the Trump brand is rule breaking. Crippling the EPA, CFPB, HUD, USDA and violating laws governing asylum, equal protection, campaign finance, obstruction of justice and ignoring Constitutional provisions relating to emoluments and to Article 1 provisions are all par for the course. None of these actions were previewed to voters in 2016. Nor were Americans provided any insight into what he would do with the Department of the Interior, the Department of Education, or the State Department. Would they have agreed to releasing natural parks to oil drilling, to eliminating the Clean Power Act along with numerous clean air and water regulations, to reducing funding for education to support special needs, school lunches, or teachers’ salary, and to eliminating foreign aid to many countries while reducing State Department staffing and leaving many ambassador positions vacant? All this rule breaking is framed as “the Donald” winning his war against the deep state, that is, his mythical windmill. But his real enemy appears to be American institutions.

Nevertheless, the President is an unabashed advocate for his brand of winning. His biggest self-proclaimed “win” is the economy. He inherited an economy from the Obama Administration that had reduced unemployment by 43% (from 7.6% to 3.7%) while his “greatest unemployment rate in history” further reduced that rate by .14% (from 3.7% to 3.3%). * The impetus for this success, he claims, is the passage of his signature tax cut legislation. That legislation heralded in a significant jump in the stock market with its reduction in the corporate tax rate and protection of the carry-interest provision. That immediate jump has since levelled off as corporations initially invested in stock buybacks rather than longer term investments in growth. Meanwhile, the Federal deficit spending is growing to the 1 trillion-dollar level. In other words, President Trump inherited an economy that had recovered from its greatest recession in history and a 1 trillion-dollar deficit. But his current budget restores that pre-recession deficit level. His only “achievement” here is once again his branding. The fiscal reality is a time bomb that could bring down the global economy in its wake.

No President succeeds with every decision or policy. But most never attempt to act alone. Lincoln even included political opponents in his Administration—as did Obama. For these Presidents could easily disregard the opposition of former adversaries because they valued their advice. Franklin Roosevelt so valued the input of Francis Perkins that he kept her in strategic positions throughout his four Administrations despite her gender. (I believe he was the first President to put a woman in charge of a department with many male direct subordinates.) Reagan famously sought the advice of Tip O’Neal, the Democratic Speaker of the House. Each of these Presidents admitted to serious failings during their terms, but each had historic successes. Their genius was in eliciting the contribution of others to rise above their personal limitations. The compassion they showed both in smiles and tears endeared them to a grateful nation. But neither called themselves stable geniuses. They were smart enough to know why.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
* These rates are quoted from the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics for January 2009, January 2017, and August 2019, respectively.