Category: Uncategorized

 

Artificial Barrier

The “debt ceiling” is an artificial barrier.  It was created by Congress, and it can be altered, expanded, or abolished by Congress. But while it exists, it poses a serious hazard to the American economy.

The concept of the debt ceiling is pretty simple:  Congress sets a hard “ceiling” on the amount of debt the United States Government can have.  Once the government reaches that limit, it can no longer borrow money to cover expenses.  Since the US Government is in debt to the tune of almost $32 trillion, and is running a negative budget this year of $1.3 trillion (CBO), the practical effect of “hitting the ceiling” is the US Government will stop paying its debts.  And part of that is payments for the US Government bonds that finances debt.  In short, the US Government will default on its loans.

One thing to get very clear, is that the debt ceiling is not a “budgeting” item.  Congress operates on a “double entry” system.  They pass a law, say to build a dam.  Then they pass a second law, to spend the money to build that dam.  Twice Congress had the opportunity to NOT spend the money, the actual dam law, and then the dam finance law.  So all of the spending that causes the US Government to reach a “debt ceiling” is money already twice agreed to in the US Congress.

Dishwashers

Or to put it in more personal terms, like most Americans, we carry some debt.  We have a mortgage on the house, we have a car loan, education loans, and we have a few credit cards with debts on them.  Every time we spend money creating a debt, we make a choice.  Jenn and I chose to buy a new washing machine (the old one broke).  We spent the money to buy it.  (We chose not to replace our broken dishwasher – yet. After all, there’s only two of us…)  

But what if we said, one day, that we have hit our “debt ceiling”, and we aren’t paying on the loans or the credit cards anymore.  After all, we’ve hit a “ceiling”.

For a couple of weeks there’d be silence from the creditors.  Then would come the flurry of notices, failures to make payments, threats of debt collection and perhaps even foreclosures.  And ultimately, the full force of the law would be used to require us to pay our debts.  And meanwhile our credit rating would be trashed, and no one would allow us to borrow money from them, through loans or credit, again.  Or, if they did, they’d charge a huge cost, high interest, to protect them from the risk of our defaulting again.

Interstate Highways and Aircraft Carriers

If we didn’t want to hit the ceiling, we shouldn’t have spent the money in the first place.  Once we spent the money, and made the commitment to pay it back, anything other than paying it back is reneging on the deal.

What is the practical impact of the US Government “reneging” on its debts?  No one is going to send the “world sheriff” to foreclose on the Capitol Building.  Unlike our personal debts, they won’t be evicting the military from their bases, aircraft carriers, or repossessing the Interstate Highway system.

What will happen is that folks will no longer buy the US Bonds that finance the trillions of dollars of debt, at least at the interest rate the Treasury Department is offering.  So Treasury will have to pay more in interest to sell the bonds, costing us (both the you and me ‘us’, and the United States ‘us’) more money.  In the long run, just like personally trying to borrow money after defaulting, the “cost” of that money will be higher because the risk is higher.

That will echo throughout our financial system, as the price to borrow money goes up.  Mortgages, car loans, credit card interest rates, home improvement loans, second mortgages and flexible interest rates all will jump. 

And, of course, since the Government can’t spend money, they can’t pay workers.  We’ve been through Government shutdowns in the past (for other reasons).  Millions of workers go without paychecks, and government functions come to a standstill.  Those “essential workers” who are required to work, do it with the “faith” that they will be paid in the future, but in the meantime, they can’t pay their personal bills.  And things we depend on, from the Internal Revenue Service to the National Parks, close.

The Brink

Congress created the debt ceiling to “make a point”.  It put every legislator “on notice” that the debt was going up.  It started in 1939, after six years of the New Deal legislation to combat the Great Depression.  But it was raised for the Second World War, lowered after the War was over, then raised again for the Korean War.  Since 1960, it’s been raised seventy-eight times, forty-nine times under Republican Presidents, and twenty-eight times under Democratic Presidents (US Treasury). 

The point obviously wasn’t made.  The first debt ceiling law in 1939, placed the maximum at $45 billion.  

Both parties used the debt ceiling as a negotiating chip in the past.  But neither Party allowed the US to default on its obligations, because of the danger of catastrophic economic consequences.  In the end, leadership has avoided, “Cutting off our nose to spite our face”.  

But we live in unprecedented times.  Our era of political polarization, the tenuous hold the Republicans have on the House of Representatives, and more significantly, the slim margin that Kevin McCarthy holds on the Speakership, brings us much closer to the brink.  McCarthy knows:  Republican John Boehner lost his Speaker’s seat because he “gave in” on a debt ceiling negotiation with President Obama.   McCarthy has an even narrower margin of support than Boehner had.  

Sure we’ve got until sometime in June before we fall off the cliff.  The “wizards” of the Treasury can manipulate the debts and borrowing to keep us clear for that long.  But, come June, we will hit a “hard ceiling”.  

We, the American people, are depending on our leadership (on both sides) to find a way to step back from disaster.  Hold your breath, it’s going to be a scary “ride”.

Precedence

 The law is really all about stories of the past.  The decisions made by jurists long dead still influence our law today.  The origins of the American legal system goes all the way back to the English Courts of Assizes, the first circuit judges in the 12^th Century whose decisions set precedence that still carry weight in the English legal system, and even here in the United States.

In the 1980’s I spent a brief sojourn at the University of Cincinnati’s Law School where I made it through “Torts” class.   “Torts” are damages committed by a person against another. Today it is the basis for many of our civil law suits.  On the first day we learned this “story”.  In the 13^th century,  two boys on a hill found almost identical rocks.  Being boys, they determined to simultaneously throw their rocks over the crest of the hill. (As a teacher and coach, I found that throwing rocks was a genetic predisposition of boys, not unlike spitting off of bridges, cliffs and overhangs).  

So the rocks were launched, soon followed by a cry of pain.  The boys raced to the top of the hill to see a man on the other side with blood streaming down his face.  A rock struck him in the eye, putting it out.

Neither boy knew whose rock hit the man.  Neither did the man himself.  But he still took the boys to Court, as it was clear that one of the boys launched the rock that took his eye.  And the judge wisely determined that the boys acted with such reckless disregard for the danger of their actions they were BOTH responsible, and the man needed to be compensated for his loss.  Each boy’s father had to give the man a pig.  There is no record of how the fathers punished their sons.

And there it was:  not an “eye for an eye”, but two pigs for one. 

Cold, Hard, Cash

The second story is more recent.  In a car accident, a young man was paralyzed from the waist down.  It wasn’t his fault, but for the rest of his life, he would require special care, including hospitalizations and procedures, to deal with his paralysis.  In addition, he would never stand to be married, or “walk his potential daughter” down the aisle.  In fact, his ability to create that daughter would be especially arduous. 

So there was all the costs of his care, plus all the costs of his suffering.  And then then there were limits on how much he could earn.  He was seventeen, with a life expectancy of seventy-two years.  Add all of those care, suffering, and loss of income together – and those were the damages that his lawyer would ask in court.  It was more than two pigs.

What If

Law School is all about “what if”. Alter the facts of a case slightly, and then figure out the impact of the change. So, alter this “equation” just slightly, and make the young man a Division I Football prospect, already signed to a major university.  Now his earnings potentials are much greater, and so are the prospective damages.  It might not be “fair” to the person who caused the accident – he didn’t “intend” to hit a football star.  But he acted in the same “reckless disregard” as the two medieval boys with rocks.  And he (or his insurance company) will pay.

The moral that my Torts professor taught us was this:  in civil law, the only punishment is money.  Courts can’t make others feel the pain and anguish of paralysis, or the loss of an eye.  All Courts can do is try to recompense the injured for their damages.  And that’s all calculable, in cold, hard, cash.

Libel

Libel is a special kind of a “tort”, and the law is a bit more complicated.   It is defined in the legal “Bible”, Black’s Law Dictionary, as a, “Defamatory statement published through any manner or media.”  Libel is a lie, that “defames” someone or something.  But libel often runs up against the American “black letter law” of the First Amendment, guaranteeing freedom of the press.  So if someone goes on the news and tells lies about someone else, they might be subject to libel, but the news broadcaster might not be.  

What if a news broadcaster intentionally lies about someone (or something), and does it with full “knowledge aforethought” and malice (the intent to harm someone). Or maybe they have that same reckless disregard for the truth of the two boys throwing the stones. Then they can be held accountable for their libelous statements.  And like the poor one-eyed man, or the paralyzed seventeen year-old athlete, the damages are calculable in cold, hard, cash.

We Know

We now know that Fox News broadcasters intentionally, willfully, and with “full knowledge aforethought” lied about the Dominion voting machines in the 2020 election.  They did it, because the lies improved their ratings, kept their viewership, and therefore maintained their profits.   They not only lied, but they did it for their own financial benefit.

It wasn’t just about Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, and other the sad Trump lawyers appearing on Fox News and telling their lies over and over again.  It’s that the Fox News personnel knew that they were lying, and continued to amplify those lies.  We have the texts, even recordings, where Fox New personnel acknowledged the lies, and that they were doing it to continue their profits – “malice aforethought”.

Get What You Need  

I know that many of those politically “aligned” with me are disappointed today.  We were all hoping for a weeks-long flagellation of Fox News by the Dominion lawyers. But yesterday, as the Court prepared for opening statements, Fox and Dominion settled. There will be no weeks of airing Fox News impropriety, no Tucker Carlson on the stand admitting to his lies.  But remember, it’s a civil case.  No one, not even Rupert Murdock himself, would ever go to jail from this case.  So we should take this “win”.   

Fox Corporation is going to “for sure” pay Dominion (and its lawyers)  $787.5 MILLION.  And they’re going to do it soon, not in a few years, but in months.  Sure Dominion asked for $1.6 Billion, and there was the potential for even more in punitive damages.  But Dominion has the right to determine the “value” of their “eye”.  And if $787.5 MILLION makes them “whole” – then good for them.

Fox News may never admit the lie, but they sure as Hell are paying for it.  To quote the Stones, “You can’t always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need.”

High Priests

When I was a younger man, I thought of the Supreme Court as a kind of “Temple of the Law”.  I saw the Justices as the “high priests” of American jurisprudence, bringing their differing views of the Constitution to the table to have “learned” discussions about what our Law should be.  They had carefully orchestrated private sessions, held around the table and strictly regulated by protocols developed over centuries.  It was almost a religious experience, like the Christian Council of Nicaea.  

No staff, no prompts, no outside influence allowed.  The most “junior” Justice did the housekeeping “chores”, getting the water and closing the doors.  And around this exalted table, from the Chief to the most Senior then down the list, they gave their views, and listened to each other.

And after that first conference, the Chief would call for a preliminary vote.  If he was in the majority, he assigned a Justice to write an opinion (or took it himself).  If he wasn’t, then the most Senior Justice in the majority would make that decision.  It was ethereal, almost like the angels determining the pathways of heaven.  

Battles of Intellect

As I grew wiser, I realized that many of these Justices held fierce views, and had other influences in their lives.  Some were former Governors or Senators, one even a President.  Of course they brought a keen sense of politics to the table, a better understanding of the results of their actions in the “real” world, down from the “Mt. Olympus” on Capitol Hill.  

The “most activist” Court of the 1950’s and 60’s, was led by a former Republican Governor of California, Earl Warren.  Among the members of his Court:   Senator Hugo Black, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission William O. Douglas, Harvard Professor and founder of the ACLU Felix Frankfurter, Attorney General Tom Clark and former NFL Player Byron “Whizzer” White.

Even into the 1990’s and early 2000’s, there was still the view of the Court as a battlefield of intellectual prowess and conviction.  There was the “great conservative” Antonin Scalia, versus the “great liberal” Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They had battles of will and intellect, tempered by a best friendship outside of the building.   They brought their “best” to the Court, and fought fiercely for their view of America.

Tattered Robes

Sure there were “hiccups”. Justice Abe Fortas, nominated for “Chief” by President Johnson in 1968, was taking $20,000 as an annual retainer from Wall Street corporate raider and convicted felon Louis Wolfson.   While that wasn’t illegal, it definitely was unethical.  Ultimately Fortas resigned under pressure from the Republican Nixon administration, who were anxious to get a liberal off the bench for a more conservative voice.  

$20,000 a year:  that’s “chump change” compared to today’s Court.  I’ll get to that soon enough.

The “holiness” seemed to fade as the appointment process became uglier.  Nixon had his troubles replacing Fortas (paybacks – for sure).  Then there was the infamous late 1980’s Reagan appointment of Robert Bork, a devout conservative, that became an ideological battleground in the US Senate.  Led by Senator Ted Kennedy and a younger Joe Biden, the Democrat majority refused Bork’s nomination.  It was “hardball” politics, without the façade of politeness.  It was soon followed by the Bush Administration’s nomination of Clarence Thomas, accused of sexual impropriety.  Bork failed to win approval, but the Biden-led committee ultimately approved Thomas for the Court.  From then on, politics were raw and open in Court appointments.

Ideology and Law

The big change in the US Supreme Court is that now that the law seems to comes second, ideology comes first.  An avowed political group, the Federalist Society, wraps the law around to advocate for their own political beliefs.  The concept of precedent, one of the “holiest of holy” precepts of American Law, is tossed aside to achieve seemingly political ends.  (To my remaining conservative friends who read these essays, I freely admit that precedent definitely favored MY views, not the Federalist Society’s). 

The nomination hearings for some recent Justices of either “side” were tame, like Sonja Sotomayor, Neil Gorsuch, and Katanji Brown-Jackson.  But there also was the contentious hearing for Amy Conan Barrett, and the accusations of sexual misconduct, tears and beers about Brett Kavanaugh.

Under the Robe

But we got a revealing look at the pockets under the robe with recent reporting on the financial actions of Justice Clarence Thomas.  He took millions of dollars in free vacations from conservative “friend” Harlan Crow, and even sold his mother’s house to him (his mother is still living there).  Oh, and Crow also provided the funds to start Ginny Thomas’s conservative political action committee (the Justice’s wife).  If $20,000 a year was enough to force Abe Fortas out, then Thomas is definitely far beyond that (inflation included).

Don’t expect him to resign.  Besides Thomas’s obvious hubris about ethical concerns, there is a “world” of conservative pressure to keep their most Senior and devout member on the Court.  That’s especially since a Biden replacement would make Chief Justice Roberts the “swing” vote again.  Robert’s is as conservative as they come, but more concerned with precedent and the moral standing of the Court, than the current majority of Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Barrett and Kavanaugh.

High on the Hog

It’s kind of ironic.  89 year-old Senator Diane Feinstein of California is recovering from shingles.  She’s missed almost two months of attendance in the Senate, and fifty-four Senate votes (though she is working from home).  Some of her fellow Democrats from California are calling for her resignation.  Her absence is holding up Democratic nominees to lower Federal Court benches.  While Feinstein isn’t resigning, she voluntarily allowed her seat on the Judicial Committee to be temporarily reassigned to another Democrat.  If Senate procedures won’t allow that, and she isn’t ready to return, don’t be surprised to hear Democratic calls for her resignation increase.

But Thomas, with daily reports about even more ethical violations, stands firm.  And so does his party.  Personal ethics aren’t an issue to today’s Republican Party leadership.  Anything is fair game, as long as Thomas continues to push their agenda.  The sanctity of the “Temple of the Law” ain’t what it used to be.  One of the “high priests” is living “high on the hog”. 

Memes

There’s a meme going around on Facebook.  

            “A Rock in bad hands killed Abel.

              A Rock in good hands killed Goliath.

              It’s not about the Rock.”

The National Rifle Association is holding their annual convention this weekend in Indianapolis.  Just an aside:  you have to go through a metal detector to get into the Convention hall to hear Trump or Pence; no personal guns allowed in there.

The NRA’s famous “gun rights” claim is:  “The best protection from a ‘bad guy’ with a gun, is a ‘good guy’ with a gun.” 

That definitely was true in Nashville and Louisville in the last couple weeks.  The “good guys” stopped the killing, responding immediately and courageously to mass shooters.  One rookie Louisville police officer is still in the hospital.  But it didn’t save the six already dead in Nashville, or the five in Louisville.  And that didn’t work out for the twenty-one kids and teachers in Uvalde, Texas.  The “good guys” stacked in the hallway for an hour, unwilling to take out the “bad guy”.  Meanwhile, kids bled out from their wounds.

How Many Rocks

To push the “Rock in hand” analogy a little bit farther, try this.

“A fight in a gravel pit uses rocks.

  A fight in a sand pit uses sand. 

  Sand is ‘safer’ than ‘rocks’.

 Don’t fight in a gravel pit.”  

And that’s where we are in the United States today.  We live in a “gravel pit” of guns, with 1.2 guns per person, all 334,625,932 of us.  For us non-math majors, that’s over 400 million guns in the United States.  We don’t live in “gravel pit”, we’re buried in gravel.  No wonder the weapon of choice in the United States, from gang-bangers to mass murderers to suicides, is guns.

It’s not that other countries don’t have mental illness, crime, gangs, suicides, or even wars.  It’s that they are in a “sand pit”, not a gravel pit.  There are fewer guns.  Canada, for example, has .34 guns per person.  Even in Yemen, wracked with civil war and battling with Saudi Arabia; .53 guns per person.   

And of course, we don’t just have guns, we sell guns designed for warfare.  The “assault style” rifle (yes, I know AR originally stood for Armalite) was designed for war.  The “trick” was a rifle that would be light and efficient.  But the real “value” of assault weapons in war:  the wounds created by these rifles were devastating, disabling the wounded and requiring massive and immediate care.  When someone got hit by the high velocity round from an assault rifle, they were “taken out” of the battle, and so were a couple of others to care for them. 

There are eleven stores where I can buy “my” rifle within twenty minutes of the house.  I not only live in the gravel pit, but I can easily access the “big rocks”.  So can everyone else.

Books not Rocks

The NRA claims that if “everyone” had a gun, our Nation would be much safer.  But we know that’s just not true.  Statistics aside; if we were all safer, then people wouldn’t be so scared.  But we know that many Americans are afraid:  afraid of strangers, afraid to go to the mall or the city, afraid to send their kids to school. 

 Here in our community, we just had a big “dust-up” about temporarily moving the public library into part of a school building.  The concern – that the library threatened the safety of the kids in that school.  And you know what?  After months of discussions, the library was temporarily moved — somewhere else.  Why is the library such a threat?  We live in a gravel pit, and we need to fortify our schools against any “stones”.  Even the public library, is now a threat.  Who thought books were so threatening?  

Out of the Pit

I know, “…the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.  I’ve already written about the Constitutional dilemma of taking a single phrase out of full context, but the reality is this.  We, the American people, can regulate guns.  We can regulate the size, the style, the numbers and styles of bullets.  And we can regulate the gun owners, including their “qualifications” to own and use guns. 

 Supreme Court Justice Jackson (and others) noted that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.  But for thousands, 12,237 in the United States in 2023 to date, our current interpretation of the Second Amendment is a literal suicide pact.  In fact, half of those deaths were actually suicides (Gun Violence Archive). If gravel is killing our children, then get them out of the gravel.  Gun violence is the leading cause of death for children in the United States (New England Journal).  

It’s time to start crawling out of the pit.

Essays on Guns

Guns and Sadness	10/3/17
A Teacher with a Gun	2/23/18
Don’t Change the Subject	3/25/18
Again	4/15/18
Staying Small	5/3/19
Saving Lives Is Not Politics	8/4/19
The Pain Becomes too Great	8/5/19
Who’s Your Daddy	8/21/19
A Good Guy With a Gun	9/1/19
Rights and Guns	5/17/20
Pittsburgh	6/17/20
Our Choice	12/1/21
Toxic Mix	5/16/22
Apple Pie	5/25/22
Prairie Dogs	6/9/22
The Will to Do It	7/6/22
Hanging Together	8/12/22
Swatted	9/23/22
They Aren’t Pro-Life	9/23/22
Motive, Means, Opportunity	1/25/23
Accepted Losses	2/14/23
German Rights	3/28/23
Fear Itself	3/30/23
The Gravel Pit	4/16/23

Runaway Train

Our Nation is on a “runaway train” of events.  Just now, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld part of the abortion drug ban of an extremist Texas Federal Judge.  It’s not the nationwide ban he called for, but it still limits access to the drug, Mifepristone, that’s been used for over twenty years and shown to be safer than Tylenol and Viagra.

Monday, we got started with another mass shooting, this time in Louisville, this time a bank.  The common theme is what we’ve heard over and over again:  a young white man, an assault “AR-type” rifle, untreatable wounds.  Five died, more wounded, including the two young police officers who heroically confronted the shooter within minutes.  They did their “job”:  one officer sworn in just days before, was shot in the head.

US secrets about Ukraine were leaked to the open internet. Donald Trump is back in New York for another court action and trying to silence Michael Cohen with a massive lawsuit.   President Biden is rejoicing in his Irish ancestral homeland, and there’s an internal Democratic spat over Senator Feinstein’s absence.  It’s hard to catch your breath, difficult to keep up.

New York Minute

But let’s pause for a second (maybe a New York minute), and look back at what’s happening in Nashville.  Last week, the super-majority Republicans in the Tennessee State Legislature expelled two young Black men who represent parts of Nashville and Memphis.  The two Democrats had the audacity to join children protesting the lack of any gun regulations in Tennessee, after three nine year-olds and three adults were killed in a school shooting.  Justin Pearson and Justin Jones took to the “well” of the chamber along with White representative Gloria Johnson to join in the chants for change (see last week’s essay, Tennessee).

The Republicans voted to expel Pearson and Jones.  Johnson narrowly remained in her seat.  The point was obvious:  young Black men in the Tennessee State Legislature should barely be seen, and never heard.  The Leadership of the House seemed to take pleasure in removing them.

That created a national firestorm.  The “Justins” (the signs read “No Justin, No Peace”) were vaulted to national prominence.  Not only did the old Republicans in Tennessee make them martyrs to the civil rights cause, but the Tennessee Democratic Party was reinvigorated with both energy and funds.  The Democratic controlled local governments in Nashville and Memphis, charged with filling the interim open seats, reappointed the Justins.

Republican Leadership

On Monday Justin Jones paraded from the Nashville City Hall to the Tennessee Capitol in a triumphant return.  Yesterday Justin Pearson was reappointed in Memphis and paraded through that city. He will return to the Capitol today.   By the end of the week, both will be back in the small minority of Democrats in the Tennessee legislature.  And the Republican leadership has to answer the question: what was the point?

Surely all of this was foreseeable, even to them.  Regardless of their political viewpoints, Justin Jones and Justin Pearson are charismatic and politically seasoned, able to take clear advantage of what the “old white men” of the Tennessee legislature decided.  The protests, the parades, the rallies on the Capitol steps and the reinstatements – all were perfectly obvious to anyone with a sense of Tennessee’s political climate. 

Representative Johnson claims it was out of sheer pique.  The Republican leadership lost control of “their” House when the three went to the rostrum “in the well” and began chanting.  The great “capital sin” was that they were “out of order”, violating the “decorum” of the House.  That the three would dare do such a thing was so outrageous that expulsion was their only remedy.  Johnson sees the action as simply wielding the absolute authority that a super-majority of Republicans have, regardless of the consequences; the hubris of power.

The Script

In a larger sense, the Tennessee super-majority is simply following the “script” of the National Republican Party.  Their national answer is to “double-down” on power, and on the small base of Republicans who believe that somehow protests, by minorities and more particularly by Black people; are un-American.  Catering to the White, soon-to-be minority base, is the essence of the MAGA philosophy that dominates Republican politics today.  It abandons any pretense at a “middle ground” political view. Just demonstrate ruthless power and control, and satisfy those voters who are terrified of changing demographics.  

It is not just “Trump” politics, it is the governing strategy of DeSantis and Florida and Abbot in Texas.  The ruthlessness isn’t just seen in heavy-handed legislative action and gerrymandering to protect Republican seats.  Abbot is begging for the opportunity to pardon a White man who was convicted of murder for shooting a Black man with a gun in a protest.  DeSantis is scrubbing the Florida public school curriculum for references to race.  Like the House leaders in Tennessee, it just seems extreme to crazy.

The danger is, that, at least for the short-term, it works.  And, of course, that’s the point.

Carville

James Carville is a strange guy.  He is the famous (infamous) political operative behind the Bill Clinton successes:  but Carville’s bald dome, often covered by a Marine or LSU baseball cap; angular body and almost incomprehensible Louisiana accent makes him – well – eccentric.  Carville made his reputation in the 1990’s Clinton campaigns, but since has built a career as a progressive international campaign operative.  

Carville is known for “Carville-isms”.  And one of his most quoted applies to Presidential campaigns:  “It’s the economy, stupid”.  

Economic History

Carville knew in 1992 and 1996 that the condition of the American economy played into the hands of his empathetic but flawed candidate.  In 1992, President George HW Bush was fresh off victory in the First Iraq War, but had a nation suffering in recession.  That recession triggered the third party candidacy of Ross Perot, who likely syphoned enough votes from the incumbent to clinch a Clinton victory.  War victories aside, it was, “…the economy stupid”. 

John Kerry ran into that same struggle in the Presidential election of 2004.  The Nation was three years past 9-11.  While George W Bush showed tremendous leadership at that time, by 2004 we were mired in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Kerry, a Democrat who made his original reputation as an anti-Vietnam War veteran, was leading in many polls up to the last few weeks of October.

But, after the economic crash of the 9-11 attacks, the United States recovered nicely.  The economy was humming along in 2004 for the Bush Administration, and Bush was re-elected to the Presidency in spite of his foreign policy misadventures.  It was, “…the economy, stupid”. 

Today’s Economy

With all of that, you’d think Republicans could feel good about the upcoming 2024 Presidential elections. Biden managed to ride out the Covid economic disaster, but the “treatment” that  sustained the economy through 2020 and 2021 is now exacting a cost.  The stock market that dropped over 15,000 points in 2020, almost half its value, rebounded back to within 2000 points of the 2019 peak.  Unemployment dropped from over 10% to a fifty-year low of less than 4%.  

But the price of the “cure” was inflation.  Prices surged up, first from the imbalance of supply and demand, then from increases in wages.  While the rate of inflation has slowed now, Americans are still looking at soaring energy, housing, and food prices.  If that remains the case next year, it would be great material for Republican Presidential candidates. “It’s the economy stupid”.

The one thing any Republican candidate should do, is focus on that issue.  Anything else becomes a distraction to the shared experiences that every American citizen can relate to:  buying groceries, filling up the gas tank, or paying the electric bill.  Whether Republicans can really do anything about that is questionable, but they can definitely lay the blame at Biden’s feet.

But that’s not what’s happening. 

Wedge Issue

Instead, Republicans have opened a “whole can of worms” (worms really do come in cans – Amazon) of “wedge issues”.  Wedge issues divide voters, pushing them to take an absolute position on one side or another.  There is little room for moderation when it comes to wedge issues, instead, there is polarization with a chasm of emptiness in between. 

Three issues where Republicans have “doubled down” on divisive issues:  abortion rights, guns, and race.  

The Trump appointed Supreme Court erased fifty years of women’s rights by overruling the Roe abortion decision.  Instead of setting a new standard, the Court “punted” the issue, sending the question of if-or-when a woman can get an abortion to the individual states.  So now the United States is a mish-mash of abortion regulations.  Some states are even attempting to regulate the travel of their citizens, criminalizing attempts to leave the state to get abortion care.  And, now in Texas, a renegade Federal Judge is trying to nationally outlaw one of the two primary drugs used for medical abortions.

The Republican stand on abortion led “Red-Red” Kansas to vote down a state constitutional amendment to ban abortions, elected an entire slate of Democrats to the Michigan executive branch, and last week turned the determining seat in the Wisconsin Supreme Court to a progressive.  It’s been a political “loser”, with the exception of motivating the 30% Republican base.  And it has motivated even more the Democratic base, women and younger voters, to come out and make their opposition heard.  Last I checked, you can’t win with only 30% (that’s a “Dahlman-ism”).

Guns and Minorities

The Republican stand on guns is doing a similar thing.  While most Americans, including gun owners, would accept moderate regulation of who can have guns, the Republican state legislatures have gone to the far extreme.  States like Ohio and Florida (and Tennessee and Kentucky) are voting full “Constitutional Carry” laws, with no requirements at all for publicly carrying a firearm.  This absolute position is pushing moderates to the Democratic side, in light of the almost daily dose of mass shootings.  You can’t win with only 30%.

And Republican actions on minority and LGBTQ issues are polarizing to the extreme.  Last week’s action by the Tennessee state legislature, expelling two Black legislators, is reminiscent of the 1950’s and 60’s segregation fights.  And constant attacks on city governments, local prosecutors (like Manhattan and Atlanta) all have racial overtones.  Add that to the drumbeat of anti-LGBTQ legislation sweeping through Republican controlled legislatures nationwide, and again the Republican’s seem to be the party of extremists, doubling-down to their base but ignoring everyone else.  You can’t win with only 30%.

Big Picture

So here we are, 18 months out from the 2024 elections.  From this vantage point it looks like a rematch of Biden and Trump, one that ought to be winnable for Republicans should the economic situation remain the same.  But their focus on all of these polarizing issues takes their message “off the ball”.  Sure it might be good for maintaining their base, and it certainly for the Republican primaries.  But they are missing the big picture.  They can’t win with 30%.

And that’s fine with me.

Russian Gamble

It’s been more than a year since Russia, a sovereign nation, invaded Ukraine, another sovereign nation.  The world, and clearly Russian President Putin most of all, thought the war would be over in a few days.  His goal was a lightning strike at the capital, Kyiv; take out the President and the government; and replace them with a Pro-Russian Ukrainian regime.  You can be sure he had an entire government ready to take office.

A lightning strike, so quick that the only reaction that NATO and the United States could make would be to strengthen the NATO countries’ borders, and protest loudly in the world.  Putin was willing to accept the punishment, economic sanctions, in return for total control of Ukraine.   NATO would be faced with a  de-facto Russian victory.  Their only military alternative would be all-out war, something that no one in NATO would legitimately contemplate.

Called Bet

As we now know, the Russian “gamble” failed.  Everyone, including Putin himself, over-estimated the strength of the Russian Army.  We saw the results:  Russian commanders using cell-phones that targeted their location for Ukrainian attack; Russian forces unprepared for anything more than an “exercise” in Ukraine; Russian logistics completely unable to supply their forces.  As it turned out, the strategy was “lightning strike” or nothing.

And, as it turned out, the Ukrainian forces were willing to sacrifice for their homeland.  Russia with the second most powerful army in the world, failed against the 27^th ranked power, behind Thailand, Spain and Indonesia (CEO).  That resistance gave the United States and NATO the opportunity to pour support into Ukraine, creating the supply chain their Army needed to withstand a long-term slog against the tired Russian forces.  

World War I

What was supposed to be Putin’s “brilliant strike” both at Ukraine and NATO, turned into an unending slog of forces.  It wasn’t like the great victorious tank battles of the Soviet forces in World War II.  It turned into the ugly slow-motion slogging of trench warfare and artillery of World War I.  The Soviets ultimately won the Second World War, but the First cost the Russian monarchy their thrones, and their lives.

So here we are, on the cusp of the second set of “spring campaigns”.  Russia is trying to consolidate the existing gains in the eastern province of Luhansk and Donetsk, and even more importantly, keep the southern province of Crimea.   Ukraine, on the other hand, is looking to take back as much territory as possible, including perhaps invading into Crimea, where the Russian Southern Fleet is based at Sevastopol.  Putin could find a way to justify losing parts of the Eastern Provinces, but he can’t stand losing Crimea and his only warmwater port.

So the United States and NATO can celebrate – Russia is not the formidable foe we all thought they were.  But we shouldn’t forget that while the Russian forces are still using the battle tactics of mass attack – throwing untrained troops into the slaughter to overwhelm their opponents – there are still some things Russians are very good at.  One of those is internet mis-information.

St Petersburg

We know Russia was able to intervene in the  US Presidential election in 2016, sowing discontent and amplifying one side against the other.  Russian social media agents even arranged real rallies, and worked to reduce Democratic voter turnout.  Their success may not have been determinative:  the 2016 election was so close that almost anything might be the critical turning point.  But there is no question that the operatives in St. Petersburg had a significant impact.

They haven’t gone away.   This week several classified US documents appeared in “alternative” social media.  The documents showed Ukrainian troop concentrations and supply status, and were labeled “Top Secret”.  But the documents oddly have specific errors included in them, errors that would not have been part of the original Pentagon produced reports (NPR).

Stolen or Fake

Are they really stolen documents, taken from the Pentagon?  Or were they somehow leaked by the United States, either through carelessness, or to pursue some intelligence objective.  Or are they doctored by Russian Intelligence and placed by the St. Petersburg team.  Is this just another Russian operation to make the US look foolish, unable to hold onto its most classified secrets?  Is the goal to drive a wedge between the US and the Ukrainians, or the rest of NATO? 

Because – if these were real Top Secret Documents – why would there be obvious errors in them?

Surprise

The Russian tank forces aren’t what they used to be.  And while Russian soldiers are as brave as ever, their commanders still seem willing to wantonly waste their lives on the battlefield.  Russian killed and wounded in Ukraine are estimated to be near 200,000 (NYT).  Russian communications have improved since the beginning of the conflict, but at the cost of as many as fourteen Russian Generals.  

But Russian cyber-warfare capabilities are still powerful, one of the top five most powerful in the world (Secure World).  Don’t be surprised to find that the Top Secret document story is more complicated than just a “spy” in the Pentagon.  

The Ukraine Crisis

• How Good Are They – 4/10/23
• Marking Territory – 3/15/23
• Ukraine and America – 2/28/23
• Kherson – 11/14/22
• When Winter Calls – 9/12/22
• A Full Plate – 7/26/22
• Ukrainian Independence – 6/30/22
• No Victory Day – 5/10/22
• Desperate Moves – 4/27/22
• This is the Time – 4/20/22
• The Winning Message – 4/18/22
• Victory Day – 4/12/22
• Chapter Two – 4/11/22
• Zelenskyy’s Choice – 3/31/22
• The Gaffe – 3/28/22
• Putin’s Choice – 3/27/22
• Far Away From the Front – 3/20/22
• The Next Step – 3/17/22
• Thinking the Unthinkable – 3/14/22
• Russian Oil – 3/11/22
• Kyiv’s Choice – 3/8/22
• The Logic of Madness – 3/7/22
• Lights Out – 3/6/22
• Ante Up – 3/3/22
• State of the Union  3/2/22
• The Guns of March 3/1/22
• Sanctions 2/26/22
• What Happens Next 2/24/22
• The Games Begin  2/22/22
• Talking with a Friend 2/18/22
• Trip Wire 2/2/22
• On the Brink 1/23/22
• The Ukrainian Dilemma 12/5/19

Values

A friend of mine brought a recent Wall Street Journal (NORC) poll to my attention (WSJ – paywall).  The headline reads:

 America Pulls Back from Values that Once Defined It, WSJ-NORC Poll Finds

 Patriotism, religion, and hard work hold less importance.

The polling contrasts results over the past twenty-five years to how important Americans find the following:

• Patriotism – down 32% (1998 70%, 2019 60%, 2023  38%)
• Religion  – down 23% (1998 – 62%, 2023 – 39%)
• having children – down 20% (1998 – 50%, 2023 30%)
• community involvement – down 35% since 2019 (1998 46%, 2019, 61%, 2023 24%)
• tolerance for others down -22% (1998 80%, 2023 58%)
• Hard Work – down 13% (1998 75%, 2023 62%)
• money – up 10% (1998 31%, 2023 43%).

Note – 2019 results included when it marked a significant change in the polling track.

The numbers seem almost “apocalyptic” for American civilization.  The “top line”: values that make America into America are drifting away.  We are becoming (or maybe already are) a nation of narcissists; valuing family, religion, community, and country less; and unwilling to work hard for a living.  In fact, the only thing we seem to value more is money.  It is a statistical argument to show that the “idyllic” America of the past is gone.

But let’s analyze some alternatives to this “end of America as we know it”. 

Polling 

First of all, we need to recognize that polling in and of itself is dramatically different.  In 1998, polling consisted of human beings calling other human beings in their homes on land lines.  In 2023 (and 2019) polling is “robo” polling, trying to reach folks on cell phones where the answerer is unlikely to pick up a number they don’t recognize.  Polling in 1998 was a direct interaction, but polling today tends to only reach those most motivated to be polled.  

So pollsters cannot depend simply on “large numbers” to reach an accurate conclusion in their polling data. Instead, they create a “model” of the population they are polling, then call until they reach enough folks that match the factors in the model they are looking for.  So if the “model” is inaccurate, so are the results.  

We know this is true, because here in 2023 we are well aware that polls can be surprisingly wrong.  We’ve seen it in election after election, really since 2012, when polling seemed “certain” but the election outcomes were very different.  And we know that there are partisan polling organizations (not NORC) that intentionally skew polls for their own political purposes.

Not only has it made Americans very wary of polls, but it also shakes American’s confidence in our electoral process.  Since polling results and election results are often so different, it raises the specter of some failure on one side or the other.  That specter is inflamed by politicians claiming election fraud.  Is it the polls, or the ballots?  Americans in 2023 are uncertain.  That’s two American institutions we don’t trust.

Patriotism

According to the poll, patriotism declined, slowly by 10% over twenty years, then dramatically 22% in the past four years.  Accepting those numbers, there are two huge factors in this decline:  “MAGA-ism” and Covid.  

Covid put Americans in a difficult “patriotic” bind.  Was it “patriotic” to isolate, wear masks, and get vaccinations; all to protect your family, community and Nation?  Or was it “patriotic” to demand the “freedom” to gather, go maskless, and ignore vaccinations?  Both sides claim to be representing the “best” of America.  But only one side claimed the trappings of patriotism, flags and Constitutional language (you can’t take my RIGHTS!).  The other side based its argument on science and humanity, not necessarily protecting themselves and others for “God and Country”.

“MAGA-ism” created much the same patriotic dilemma.  The MAGA figurehead, Donald Trump, literally wrapped himself in the flag, “…Proud to be an American…”, and told Americans that they were losing their nation, their religions (white Christianity), their jobs and their future.  Flying the Star Spangled Banner in front of your house largely became symbolic for a particular political view (though it still flies proudly from my front porch).  

So this dramatic drop in “patriotism” in the past three years might have more to do with the working definition of current patriotism, than actual love and willingness to sacrifice for country.  Patriotism to many seems synonymous with extreme nationalism, so those who don’t agree with that would not define themselves as patriotic.  On the other hand, I would argue that acts of American patriotism include the Black Lives Matter marches of 2020, the fierce stand of the two young legislators in Tennessee last week, and the huge increase in women and young people turning out to vote.  They just don’t describe themselves as “patriots”.  

Institutions

Many Americans lost trust in our “institutions”.  That’s not just restricted to government institutions like the FBI or the Boards of elections.  Public schools are under increasing fire, as are local governments, and police departments all over the country.  Our current political climate undermines institutional trust from both sides.  In addition, we have discovered betrayal from “trusted” institutions from major churches to Little League Baseball to the Boy Scouts.  Not only were children molested, but those institutions played a large role in protecting the molesters.  

So it should be little wonder that Americans are losing “faith” in institutions, and particularly organized religion.  Those institutions often are involved in the fraught political issues of our time, right or wrong.  When church members found themselves in political conflict with their own “religion”, many walked away.  So, like the question of patriotism, the question of religion might well be more a matter of definition.  Is religion a “going to church” thing, or is religion a question of faith?  The NORC poll doesn’t make that distinction. 

Community

The “hidden number” in the poll is involvement in community.  That increased 15% from 1998 to 2019, then crashed 37% in the past four years.  The obvious answer to that is Covid.  Americans stopped being involved in their community for over a year of shutdowns in the pandemic.  In that time, we “lost” the habit, not just of community involvement, but of many other kinds of social interaction.   Even movie theatres haven’t recovered from the pandemic.  

Folks changed their lifestyles in “lockdown”, and not just in their views of their community.  They also became less tolerant of others as they sat in the social media-fed isolation, and found less motivation to “work hard” at their computer screens, or were put at risk as “essential workers”.  Lockdown isolation certainly encouraged narcissism (the importance of “money” versus “hard work”).  It’s not the whole reason for that polling, but it’s a significant factor.

Apples and Oranges

America is a very different place then it was in 1998.  That was before the Clinton Impeachment, before the attack on 9-11, and before the election of the first African-American President.  America fought a war in Iraq based on a false accusation, and the longest war in American history in Afghanistan.  Oh, and then there was that thing called the internet and social media.

The definitions that made “sense” in 1998; patriotism, religion, family and work aren’t the same as many have today.  So to make comparisons based on those “words” may well be comparing apples and oranges, rather than potatoes and potatoes.  In spite of the flaws in polling in 2023, even if the results are accurate, the pollsters may not be asking the right questions. 

With all of that, I think the“demise” of America is highly exaggerated.  

Imperfect Union

When James Madison wrote the Preamble to the Constitution, he used a grammatically odd phrase.  He wrote:  “We the People, of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect union…”(italics added).  More perfect:  how does a “perfect” thing become “more perfect”?  Isn’t perfect just that; perfection unable to be better because it is the best?

Madison was a Virginian, a white man who enslaved other humans at Montpelier, his plantation.  He was well aware of his own imperfections, and that the representatives of the thirteen diverse states created a document that was far from perfect.  It was full of compromises.  It accepted the inherent evils of enslavement and usurpation of Native lands. And, it balanced conflicting powers and interests.   Madison well knew that the Constitution was not the end, but the beginning of a National journey in government.  It was not perfect.  But he established our great national goal:  to strive to become “more perfect”.  A worthy goal even though established by flawed, less than perfect men.

It is one of my favorite phrases describing our history and our present:  a flawed nation of flawed individuals striving to become “more perfect”.  After Thursday, we have a lot of “perfecting” to do.

Evil at Work

A couple of weeks ago, an armed individual shot her way into a Christian elementary school in Nashville.  She killed three adults and three nine year-old children, and was ultimately killed herself by rapidly responding Nashville police.  Perhaps the most haunting security video shows her shooting her way through the locked glass doors, then stalking the hallways looking for victims.  Regardless of her mental state, the video shows cold-blooded evil at work.

Nashville is the capital of Tennessee, and the Capitol Building became the focus of righteous protest.  Citizens; mothers and fathers and children themselves, demanded that the state legislature do something to protect children in their schools.  They made their voices heard in the public hallways and galleries of the building. Ultimately some of the protestors refused to leave the Capitol property, and forty-three were arrested by the Tennessee State Police.  

In the midst of these protests, three Tennessee legislators, two young Black male legislators and one white woman, joined the parents and children in the state legislative chamber demanding that changes should be made.  Tennessee Republicans have a super-majority in the legislature (gerrymandering works), but these three legislators were all part of the minority Democrats.  After the protests were over, that majority held them accountable for violating the “decorum” of the House.

Expulsion

The ultimate penalty for violating “decorum” is expulsion from the legislature.  But expulsion is a seldom used penalty.  Child molesters, domestic abusers, and even members who urinated on other member’s seats (really?) were allowed to stay in the body.  But for the audacity to join children in protest, the Republican majority demanded that the three Democratic members be expelled.

The protests were about gun control and protecting children in schools.  The Tennessee Republicans are in the thrall of the Second Amendment and the gun powers, and are unwilling to take any steps to further restrict gun access.  Tennessee doesn’t even have “Red Flag” laws that allow courts to keep guns away from the mentally ill.  So, America thought that the expulsions were all about guns and the power of the gun lobbies.  But we were wrong.

After the expulsion “trials” were over, and the Republican expellers’ lectured the Democrats (“…you don’t understand…” the ‘you’ that symbolizes ‘your kind’) how sacrosanct the decorum rules were, the legislature voted.  By overwhelming majorities they removed the two representatives from Nashville and Memphis, both Black men.  Justin Jones is twenty-eight, Justin Pearson twenty-nine.  But the Tennessee Republicans were unable to reach the two-thirds majority necessary to expel Gloria Johnson, a fifty-one year old white woman from Knoxville.

Racism

It became obvious.  The “old (and not so old) white men” of the Tennessee legislature weren’t so worried about gun protests.  They were incensed at the audacity of two young Black men.  This wasn’t about guns, or school safety, or children.  This was about the “snake under the table” of American history.  It was all about racism.  

Ten years ago, even the Republican super-majority of the Tennessee legislature wouldn’t have dared act so blatantly.  Ten years ago, there was still a veneer of modernity, of a Nation beyond the ugly white supremacy of our past.  The black and white films of the 1960’s protests on the Edmund Pettis Bridge, and of the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in Memphis, Tennessee; were just that – past, a part of our history, before we were more “perfected”.  But like the dried bandage on a bloody wound, the Republican super-majority of the Tennessee legislature has made it clear. They ripped the bandage off to reveal their truth: young Black men should seldom be seen and never, ever, heard.  Racism lives.

This should be the part where I talk about “… The arc of moral history is long but bends towards justice”.    And Dr. King was right.  But it feels like the arc is bending the wrong way right now.  We seem far, far from our perfect union.

Classroom Rules

I write political essays.  While (hopefully) many are educational, and a few are just “story time”, most are outright, blatant, political commentary.  I spent twenty-eight years in a classroom, making sure my students felt I was a neutral party in our political conversations.  Often, I would take a side that was opposite to my personal opinion.  Sometimes it was to bolster a minority view in the class, to empower them to express their views.  Sometimes it was because there was no opposing opinion expressed – someone had to represent the “other side”.  

My classroom rule was to “cherish” every opinion.  That was the goal, to make sure my classroom was a place where students could freely express themselves.  It was all about teaching good citizenship, the ability to analyze issues and reach a “considered” opinion.  The only rule was no “ad hominen” arguments.  No one was “stupid”, no group was “dumb”.  We gently discussed racism and gender roles; conservative and liberal philosophies; and the hot issues of our time from the Iran hostages to 9-11 to the abuses at Abu Gharib.  

I don’t envy today’s teachers.  Just from my brief “substitute teacher” experiences, the battle lines are so hardened that it’s difficult to get students to listen to each other.  As a substitute,  I don’t have the rapport with a class to even attempt those kinds of discussions. But even reading a story about a man who accidently gained absolute physical power somehow ended in current politics.  When I evoked the saying, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” several students muttered “Biden” under their breath.  I didn’t go any further – it’s 2023 an era when that kind of open discussion could get out of control – or get substitutes “removed” from the sub list.

Essaying

There are two ways people can read my current thoughts.  Some 2,640 “subscribe” and  get every essay in their email, either from the WordPress program I use, or directly from me.  And then I “publish” on social media, Facebook and Twitter, publicly putting my views “out there”.  

And, oddly perhaps, I still try to follow the “classroom rules” of old.  Sometimes the essays generate discussions.  We’ve had good “talks” about gun violence and Ukraine, and the usefulness of college education.  Some of those are in public, and some are private through email and messaging.  I love the discussion, the back and forth, just like my classroom days.  And this time, I express my views, but try to find middle ground that is so often missing in today’s debates.

In the old classroom days, there occasionally were students who tried to dominate the conversation, attacking anyone with a differing view, and used harsh words and bullying tactics to win the argument.  That’s when I would intervene and try to back them down.  If that didn’t work, I’d remove them from the discussion.  If reason didn’t dominate, bullying wasn’t the alternative.  In those days we had other terms for them:  hard headed, bullies, or just assholes.  In our modern social media era, we now call them “trolls”.  

Trolling

Beginning with my “essaying” in 2017, I found a lot of “trolls”.  I was called a traitor (not one) and a bleeding heart (guilty); accused of supporting pedophiles (really?) and, perhaps worst, of trying to indoctrinate generations of students. (If I was doing that, I sure did a lousy job!).  Some I have been able to bring around to the “classroom rules”.  But some I had to cut off, “block” in Facebook terms.  I’m not letting someone else use my “bully pulpit” to spread lies and misinformation.  And I’m not letting them literally bully others from expressing their views.  I won’t accept the insult that protecting transgendered and gay rights is the same as pedophilia, or that the students protesting for protection in Nashville are the same as the Insurrectionists of January 6^th. 

I blocked a “friend” yesterday.  He won’t see this essay, and I’m sure won’t understand why I did it.  He’ll say I was unable to argue his points, that this was his ultimate “win”.  So be it.  But I am sad.  Removing a kid from class was always a sign of failing the job – cutting someone out of “our” discussion is the same way.  But in this era, when there is no longer an accepted “truth” or “facts”, you can’t always moderate the discussion, or even work to the center. 

Sometimes there is no middle ground.

Free Publicity

Yesterday we had the spectacle of Trump flying from Florida to New York.  He got millions of dollars of free publicity.  Cable news went “all-in” on coverage, with reporters almost on every corner.  I’m surprised they didn’t follow the plane in the air.

Today Trump is the name on the lips of every newscaster and commentator.  The circus is in town.  MSNBC is filling “dead air” until 2:15 when the actual indictment will be read.  Again, another day of all-Trump, all of the time.  Give the Trump folks this:  they’re definitely making lemonade out of lemons.  After all, he is going to be indicted in Criminal court today.

So until 2:15 there’s really not much to say about that, though they are saying it anyway.  

MAGA

While Trump himself is in trouble, “MAGA – ism” is alive and well in the United States.  How strong is “MAGA-ism”?  Of all of the “leaders” of the GOP, only three have stepped up to say Trump should end his run for a second term. Only Asa Hutchinson, Chris Sununu, and John Kasich, if he’s still considered a Republican, have the courage of their convictions.   The rest have jumped on the bandwagon:  a “political” prosecution, a “Soros backed” prosecutor, charges even the “Democrat (sic) Justice Department wouldn’t bring”.

All of those others, from DeSantis to Pence to Huckabee-Sanders, aren’t “Trump lovers”.  But they are “Trump voter lovers”, and they know that MAGA voters control the Republican primaries.   They are not afraid of “fear itself”, they are afraid of offending MAGA voters and losing elections.  It is, in fact, the absolute truth of our times here in the early twenty-first century:  it’s all about getting elected.  The “Profiles in Courage” of other generations don’t seem to inhabit our current politics, at least not much on the Republican side.  

Ohio Pride

Here in Ohio, we take some “pride” in not being as “extremist” as other states – like Florida.  But the reality is that the Ohio State government, dominated top to bottom by gerrymander protected Republicans, may be even farther “right” than the Sunshine State.  Florida passed a no-license concealed carry law this week.  Ohio passed that law a year ago:

As of June 13, 2022, anyone 21-years-of-age or older who is not prohibited from firearm possession under state and federal law, and meets the definition of a “qualifying adult,” may carry a firearm in public without a permit or background check (Giffords).

The Florida Senate just passed a ban on abortions after six-weeks.  Ohio’s had that law for years, the so-called Heartbeat Law (though there isn’t really a heartbeat in a six week-old fetus).  It’s still tied up in Court, but when it finally clears, it will be the law here.  And while Ohio hasn’t “caught up” to Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill yet, that’s coming.  The state Board of Education somehow, some way, ended up with a Democratic majority.  So the state Republican legislature is working to remove most of the Board’s authority to control school curriculums.  They’ll never call it “Don’t Say Gay” in Ohio, but the ultimate impact will be the same on Ohio schools.

Minority Rule

In fact, Ohio’s Republican legislature wants protection from “majority rule”.  Ohio, like many states, has a referendum process that allows voters to pass laws and Constitutional amendments on a statewide ballot.  Ohio Republicans saw what happened to “Red-Red” Kansas, when a statewide referendum to restrict abortion rights failed 59% to 41%.   Surprise:  here in Ohio there’s a new proposal to require a 60% margin for referendum passage.  Gosh – I wonder where that number came from?

And, of course, Ohio proved its “MAGA-ism” by turning down Democrat Tim Ryan for the United States Senate, and choosing Trump supported JD Vance for the six year term in 2022.  Like the ROYGBIV color spectrum, the state has moved from indigo to violet to red; Trump red, MAGA red.  Ohio Republicans did it with a suit and tie and a hand in the pocket of the power companies instead of a red hat, but MAGA it remains.

Whatever happens to the twice-impeached defeated former President in Court today, or in Atlanta, or in Washington DC in the next few months; he has reshaped the Republican Party in his own image for the next decade (at least).  It doesn’t take Trump to drive MAGA-ism in American life.  His supporters are afraid of progress, afraid of changed demographics, afraid to lose their built-in racial advantage.  And Republican politicians are catering to those fears, some out of true-belief, but many “just” to get the votes to remain in power.  

Trump is the issue of the present, but not the future:  MAGA-ism is.

State Funeral

Tomorrow will have all the gravity of a state funeral.  We’ll watch “the motorcade” leave Trump Tower, and weave its way four miles through the New York streets to the Court House. I’m sure they’ll be cameras stationed at every intersection along the way (further snarling traffic).  Maybe some young MAGA tourist will echo President Kennedy’s funeral and salute the black SUV’s as they go by.  When they get to the Court House, it’s not likely the Secret Service will exit the twice-impeached former President at the front door.  It’s a Court House and there’s surely a “Sally Port” entrance through an underground garage.  Will see the motorcade slide into the building, with maybe with a profile glance of the former President in the window.

Mr. Trump will be escorted upstairs, booked, “mug-shotted”, and fingerprinted.  He’ll be “arrested”, and read his rights.  But he won’t be put in a cell, or stripped searched.  He’s not going to be detained.  Eventually he’ll be escorted (no handcuffs) down the hall to the Courtroom, the same hall where his finance guy, Alan Weisselberg, was walked not so long ago.  The indictment will be read, and his lawyer (likely not Trump) will plead a firm “not guilty”.  The judge will set the terms of release, bail or on his own recognizance, and whatever other restrictions are appropriate.  Maybe he’ll just tell the former President to stop threatening the District Attorney and his staff.  

Unprecedented

Then Mr. Trump will get back in the motorcade and head for the airport.  There’s a speech scheduled from the ballroom of Mara Lago on Tuesday night.  As Donald Trump has always said, better to get bad publicity than no publicity.  The attention of the Nation, both his followers and his detractors, is fully focused on HIM.  No reason for the former President to waste the opportunity; there’s money to raise, and victimhood to stoke.  

“Unprecedented” is the overused word of our millennium.  For the past eight years, since Donald Trump came down that “golden escalator” in Trump Tower, much of what he’s done is “unprecedented” in American history.  So I guess it shouldn’t surprise anyone, that Donald Trump is the first former President ever brought up on charges. 

And it won’t be as unprecedented if he’s brought up on more charges in Atlanta at the beginning of next month.  His demand for Georgia’s Secretary of State to find enough votes for him to win, was election interference committed in plain view.  And now we know that the Federal classified document Grand Jury heard new evidence.  Trump himself was rummaging through the boxes of classified documents, and ordered his attorneys to lie to the Federal agencies.  Not only did he keep classified documents and defy subpoenas for their recovery, he obstructed justice and suborned perjury.  It’s hard to see how the Special Prosecutor, Jack Smith, can avoid indicting him for that.

But all of these charges are preliminary to the “main show”.  

Main Show

Donald Trump may be found guilty of the “porn star” charges.  He should be guilty of election tampering in Atlanta (though a Republican Governor might step in and end that with a pardon).  And Jack Smith likely will win on the classified documents case.  But the “main show” is the other Federal Grand Jury in Washington, conducting the investigation into the January 6^th Insurrection.  If…if…if; if Jack Smith can make the direct connection through Mark Meadows from the rioters to Donald Trump, they can charge him with conspiracy to disrupt the US Congress.  And that charge carries three penalties:  $10,000 fine, up to ten years in prison, and disqualification from ever holding Federal office.

The MAGA crowd doesn’t really care about the “porn star” stuff.  That’s been “baked into” the Trump persona since the “Access Hollywood” tapes.  In fact, it kind of helps Trump’s image with some – “wow, he can ‘do it’ with a porn star!!”.   And the “perfect call” with Secretary Raffensperger will be read as simply a man asking for a “recount”.

Heart of the Matter

But the Insurrection case cuts to the heart of the matter.  MAGA-world is still convinced that it wasn’t a riot.  The believe, really believe, that the Insurrection was just a peaceful protest.  In spite of what we saw with our own eyes that day, they think the “peaceful protestors” were “driven” into the building by “police tear gas”, and lead on by “Antifa agitators”.  The shooting of one of those protestors was a “murder”, and the whole event a Democrat leftist plot.

So, if…if…if, if the twice-impeached former President is indicted for conspiracy to commit insurrection, don’t be surprised when the real reaction shows up.  That’s the big one, the charge that will go completely against the grain of MAGA world.   It’s the charge that could finally end our long national nightmare of Trump.  And it’s the charge that could fracture our Nation.

Un-Precedented

The twice-impeached former President of the United States was criminally indicted in New York yesterday.  The actual indictment isn’t publicly available yet, but it’s seems clear the that Manhattan Grand Jury is charging multiple offenses, including felonies.  We will know more when Mr. Trump appears in Manhattan Criminal Court, sometime next week.

This is the first time a former President faces criminal charges.  While other Presidents and former Presidents were scrutinized for their actions, none have actually been indicted (or indicated, as the case may be).  Former President Nixon was the closest, named as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in Watergate charges.  But his successor, Gerald Ford, gave him a blanket pardon for “anything he might have done” as President.  So Nixon dodged the court, setting a precedent that we lived with until yesterday.  As historian and author Michael Beschloss noted; the Nixon precedent opened the door for Donald Trump to do whatever he wanted.

Privilege

To tell the truth, Richard Nixon’s resigning from office was a time of celebration for me.  He committed crimes in office, and it was sad that he kept the country in turmoil for more than two years.  But that turmoil ended with his “victory wave” from the door of Marine One as he left the White House for the final time.  For those of us who believed in equal justice before the law, we thought he should held accountable for his actions.  Ford’s pardon denied the nation that closure for Nixon’s crimes.

This is only the first of many indictments Trump faces.  And there is no “saving pardon” likely here. Federal charges loom from the Department of Justice, both in the classified documents case and the January 6^th Insurrection.  But even if President Biden (or a future Republican President) decided to grant a pardon, both the Manhattan and Georgia charges are in state courts and not subject to Federal action.  Our long national nightmare of Donald Trump is going to last for another couple of years.  There is little joy there.  But there should be some satisfaction:  no man, even a twice-impeached former President, is above the law. The Founding Fathers wrote that there would be no titles of nobility or privilege in the United States. The Constitution is fulfilled.  

Constitution

No surprise that instead of accepting the Grand Jury actions, many Trump supporters, including a crying Senator Lindsey Graham, are screaming about “injustice”.  Injustice really would be if a Grand Jury found that, even though Trump might have committed crimes, he could not be held accountable.  But the litany of “regulars”, from Mark Levin and Sean Hannity to Graham and Marjorie Taylor Greene “scream foul”.  

More worrying is the statement by Republican Governor and Presidential candidate Ron DeSantis.  He basically offered Trump “sanctuary” in Florida, stating as Governor he would refuse to recognize a New York request for extradition.  That all sounds “powerful”: the “Free Florida” acting as a sovereign state.  But that clearly violates the US Constitution.  Article IV, Section 2 states:

 Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

So while DeSantis could delay the inevitable, and force New York to go to Federal Court to enforce the Constitution – in the end, if Trump decides to hide in Florida, he would be “delivered up” (Puerto Rico v Bransted 483 U.S. 219).  And it would lead to US Marshals arresting a former President protected by a Secret Service detail, with all of the fuss that might create.  As an acknowledged “flight risk”, Trump would then be held in confinement  — Riker’s Island?  And they would have to accommodate the Secret Service detail as well.

Path Forward

So DeSantis got his “sound bite’, and Trump will probably show up in Court next week.  What’s of concern is that a Presidential candidate was so quick to jump on a clear Constitutional violation. Looking at his actions violating the First Amendment in Florida already, DeSantis must not have been listening in Professor Tribe’s Constitutional Law class at Harvard Law School.

Donald Trump put our nation in un-precedented times.  Every action we take determines not only his fate, but what we expect from our future leaders.  Ford took the “easy way out” in 1974, avoiding the pain of a Nixon trial and possible incarceration.  But by avoiding that pain, it set the stage for our current agony.  There is only one correct path forward:  allow justice to take its course.

Together

As President Biden often says:  “We are the United States of America and there is nothing, nothing beyond our capacity if we do it together.”  But clearly there is one thing we cannot get together to accomplish.  We cannot, will not, have not; gotten together to protect our children from gun violence.  Gun violence is the number one cause of death for US children (1-19) today (Kaiser).  

It’s not like there’s an argument “for” allowing children to die from guns.  But we are completely unable to muster the will to even attempt to solve the problem that allows (and I do mean intentionally allows) clearly mentally unstable people to blast their way through school doors and murder nine year-olds and adults.   Our leaders send “heart-felt thoughts and prayers” after the fact.  We lower our national flag to half-staff.  We talk about fortifying the schoolhouse doors, or providing more armed guards to  patrol the parking lots and halls.  But we never get to the core of the issue.  No other nation in the world has mass shootings like the United States.  In fact, no other nation in the world would tolerate it.  But we, the People of the United States, do.

Foundation of Fear

Underlying the very foundation of the United States is a tradition of fear.  Franklin Roosevelt described it in his first inaugural speech:  “…(N)ameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”  While Roosevelt was describing the economic impacts of the Great Depression, America has acted in fear from the very founding of our Nation.  

The Constitution is based in fear.  Americans were afraid of a chief executive, and carefully circumscribed the powers of the President to keep him or her from being too dictatorial.  The Founders were desperately afraid of a standing Army that would take control.  So they only allowed the Congress to fund it for two years at a time.  Every general officer was specifically approved by the legislature (Article 1, Section 8).

The small states were afraid of the democratic power of the large population states.  So the legislative powers were divided into a popularly elected House and a selected Senate where all states, large and small, were equal.  And all of the states were afraid of the powers they were ceding to the central government.  One way they “balanced” that fear, was to call for the establishment of state “armies”, called militias (Article 1, Section 8).

The states of enslavement were desperately afraid that their immoral economic system might be restricted.  So they empowered slavery. They authored  the three-fifths compromise (Article I, Section 2), a specific ordinance demanding the return of runaway slaves (Article IV, Section 2), and a ban on restricting importation of slaves for twenty-two years (Article 1, Section 9).

Fear Enshrined

And since that wasn’t enough to satisfy some, the Bill of Rights were quickly added to the document.  Those Amendments protected the rights of people against the government.  The right to practice their religion, free speech, free press, assemble and ask the government for changes were defined in the First Amendment.  Rights in the judicial process were protected in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Amendments.  Protection against the standing Army was listed in the Third Amendment.  And a right to have weapons was established in the Second Amendment.

Reasonable Fear

At the edge of the new United States was a frontier fraught with dangers.  The new nation was imposing its authority on traditional Native American lands.  Not surprisingly, the resident tribes struck back against those incursions.  The settlers were fearful.  They could only look to themselves and their neighbors for protection, even the state capitals were too far away for immediate aid.  So every man had a rifle, a means to defend himself and his family against attack.  And most were organized into a militia, to respond to attack as rapidly as possible.

The Southern portion of the new nation was based on an enslavement economy.  As the number of enslaved people grew, the slaveholders need for weapons to maintain control grew as well.  When slaves ran away, armed patrols were sent out to return them for punishment.  And when the enslaved rose up in revolt, the Southern militias were called out to put them down.  Historians identify as many as 313 such revolts starting in 1739, even before the American Revolution (PBS).  It shouldn’t be a surprise that Southern men were better prepared for War in 1861; they’d been practicing for generations.  They were afraid of retribution from the people they enslaved.

The fear of an over-arching government is as American as the Constitution.  So holding onto weapons and organizing against the government is as traditional as the Whiskey Rebellion or the shots fired at Fort Sumter, the Black Panther movement of the 1960’s or the Branch-Davidians of the 1990’s.  America is “all about” guns:  guns and fear.  And that is what makes us different from most other nations in the world.

Fear Today

That tradition of “fear” continues today.  the slave owners of the 1800’s knew one way to assuage that fear is to hold onto guns.  Our politics today are built on fear.  We are afraid of “the cities, full of crime”.  But murder per-capita is actually lower in the biggest cities.  Birmingham, Dayton, Baton Rouge and Memphis are in the top ten of murders.  Chicago is twenty-eighth, New York City and Los Angeles don’t even make the top sixty (neither does Columbus, Ohio, CBS).

We are afraid of “them”.  Politicians build their careers on “us versus them”.  We see it in the culture politics of the far-right: “they” are coming to, “…change your children, steal your religion, and take your jobs”.  And America’s traditional protection against things we fear:  guns.

Of course “they” are coming for those guns as well.

We face a national crisis of murdered children.  And we bring the baggage of a history of fear; fear assuaged by guns.  The problem is this:  if more guns could fix this problem, we’d be the safest country in the world already.  America is awash in guns, with 1.2 guns per person, almost twice as many as any other nation in the world.  But we aren’t safe; instead we are afraid.  Afraid to send our children to school, to go to the city, to shop at the grocery.  And what makes us afraid: those same guns.

And that’s America’s dilemma.

Mass Shootings

Guns and Sadness	10/3/17
A Teacher with a Gun	2/23/18
Don’t Change the Subject	3/25/18
Again	4/15/18
Staying Small	5/3/19
Saving Lives Is Not Politics	8/4/19
The Pain Becomes too Great	8/5/19
Who’s Your Daddy	8/21/19
A Good Guy With a Gun	9/1/19
Rights and Guns	5/17/20
Pittsburgh	6/17/20
Our Choice	12/1/21
Toxic Mix	5/16/22
Apple Pie	5/25/22
Prairie Dogs	6/9/22
The Will to Do It	7/6/22
Hanging Together	8/12/22
Swatted	9/23/22
They Aren’t Pro-Life	9/23/22
Motive, Means, Opportunity	1/25/23
Accepted Losses	2/14/23
German Rights	3/28/23
Fear Itself	3/30/23

Autobahn

Semi-automatic rifles and open carry pistols aren’t an issue in Germany. There are strict gun laws that keep personal weapons mostly confined to hunting and target sports (Evening Standard). No one walks into schools, churches, or grocery stores armed.   Germany has one of the lowest gun death rates in the world.

Germans don’t consider carrying a gun a Constitutional or even a “God Given” right. They look at the American carnage of mass shootings, replayed almost daily; as some strange “Yank” aberration. 

But Germans do have their own odd predilections. Their national argument isn’t about guns – it’s about speed.  The Autobahn is the German version of the US Interstate highway system. Built by the Nazi regime before World War II, the Autobahn system was carefully designed for high speed driving. The wide roads traverse the nation without interruption, the curves carefully banked for maximum control. 

Unlimited Speed

Outside of the city centers, there is no speed limit on the Autobahn.   The Porsches, Mercedes, Audis and BMW’s can go as fast as they can – many upwards of 250 kilometers per hour (around 160 mph). Cars with less power huddle in the slower lanes,  straining to reach 120 kph (the 75 mph most Americans are used to).   To grow bold and drive 200 kph (120 mph), drivers venture into the fast lane – briefly. But flashing headlights from a half mile behind converge almost as quickly as a driver can pass – all at 65 kph (40 mph) closing speeds. 

To say slower cars get blown aside understates the feeling.  It’s like pulling onto the Indy track in the middle of the 500.   There’s even a listing of the top ten speeds clocked on the Autobahn (HowStuffWorks), the fastest at 432 kph (268 mph).  The Autobahn is considered safer than American Interstate highways. But when there are fatalities, more than half are from “inappropriate speed”.  

Like the American system, the Autobahn also includes commercial trucking.  They do have a speed limit; 80 kph (50 mph), increasing the contrast in closing speeds and the need for “moderate” traffic to move into the high speed lanes.  And there are environmental concerns as well, as the high powered cars produce more pollution at extreme speeds.

Unlimited Influence

Americans look at that, and often say, “That’s crazy, they should just slow down!!”  But many Germans see the Autobahn’s unlimited speed as a “right”.  That’s backed by the power of the car manufacturers, who make high speed a big selling point for their top models.  What’s the good of owning a new Porsche 218, or the more traditional 911, if you can’t “max it out”.  Like gun manufacturers in the United States, Porsche (Audi), Mercedes and BMW all maintain pressure on the legislature protecting the Autobahn’s unlimited speed.   And Germans do have a point in their favor.  German traffic fatality rates are 3.7 per 100,000 people, the US has 12.4/100,000 (and don’t drive in Liberia with 35.9/100,000 – World Population Review).

There is a movement in Germany today to restrict speed on the Autobahn, mostly for environmental reasons (NYT).  But it’s not “happening”.  The Germans like their speed, and they’re going to keep it.

I bet if almost 10,000 died on the Autobahn since January the Germans would have a different view.  That’s the number of Americans killed by guns, including 131 in mass shootings.  And it’s not even Easter (Gun Violence Archive).   Americans own 1.2 guns per person, double any other nation in the world (Germany has 0.2 guns per person – World Population Review).   

But my analogy might be better, if Germans were driving their Porsches into elementary schools and killing nine year-olds.  That’s an American thing, I guess. 

I thought about how many times I’ve written about mass shootings in the past years. Here’s a list – at least the ones I can easily identify

Mass Shootings

Guns and Sadness	10/3/17
A Teacher with a Gun	2/23/18
Don’t Change the Subject	3/25/18
Again	4/15/18
Staying Small	5/3/19
Saving Lives Is Not Politics	8/4/19
The Pain Becomes too Great	8/5/19
Who’s Your Daddy	8/21/19
A Good Guy With a Gun	9/1/19
Rights and Guns	5/17/20
Pittsburgh	6/17/20
Our Choice	12/1/21
Toxic Mix	5/16/22
Apple Pie	5/25/22
Prairie Dogs	6/9/22
The Will to Do It	7/6/22
Hanging Together	8/12/22
Swatted	9/23/22
They Aren’t Pro-Life	9/23/22
Motive, Means, Opportunity	1/25/23
Accepted Losses	2/14/23
German Rights	3/28/23

World View

When people of the world look at the “Greatest Democracy”, the United States, they shake their heads.  From the outside looking in, America is in a desperate battle to maintain democracy against a more authoritarian form of government. Many Nations are following President Biden’s lead in defending Ukraine, boycotting Russia, confronting China and improving the climate.  But they are also hedging their bets.  If Biden (or whomever the Democrats ultimately choose) were to lose to Trump, then US policy would completely flip.  How far are those allies willing to gamble on a mere two-year “lease” on the White House?

 From inside the US it might seem like “just more politics”.  But put all of the issues of the day together:  curtailed abortion rights and book banning, partisan gerrymandering and dark money election funding, one political party against  the Insurrection,  and the other making the instigators into heroes.  There is a government funded school firing a principal for showing sixth graders a picture of Michelangelo’s David, and multiple states write anti-transgender laws that attack the very few trans-kids for political “points”.   Florida claims to do all this in the name of “parent’s right to raise their own kids”, as they quickly tell parents exactly how they are allowed do it.  

Run the Clock

Our former President, Donald Trump, is running for office again, despite multiple investigations into his potential lawbreaking.   One critical reason for him to run:  to regain the immunity from prosecution that the Constitution provides the Presidency.  If Trump could only get re-elected in 2024, he would be “safe” until 2028, when the statute of limitations for many of those charges would finally run out. As he is currently seventy-six years old, maybe his own life will as well.

But we aren’t the only world Democracy in trouble.  American allies like Turkey, Hungary, Italy, and Poland all are “leaning right”.  Hungary in particular has become a “testing ground” of authoritarian governing, and serves as the example for American leaders like Trump, DeSantis, Abbott and Huckabee-Sanders.   

In the Streets

Israel is also in a national crisis on this same issue.  The “only Democracy in the Middle East” has a Prime Minister accused of corruption and facing trial, who decided to reduce the powers of the Judiciary to hold “him” accountable.  How important is it to Prime Minister Netanyahu to get this change?  He is willing to have this crisis, fire his Defense Minister, and endure months of hundreds of thousands of protestors in the streets.  Even the core Israeli institution, the Army, is impacted.   Thousands of the all-important reservists refused to report to duty.

Like Trump here in the United States, Netanyahu denies all wrong doing, and scoffs in the face of facts and the press.  The terms are all familiar:  “fake news” and “a biased media”.  But it hasn’t changed the pressure from the crowds in the street.  In this case they are fighting to maintain democracy against an authoritarian claim of immunity from prosecution.  And, also like the US, Israel is narrowly divided politically, with five general elections in the past three years.  In the end, Netanyahu is taking Israel down this dangerous path for his own self-preservation.

Lessons to Learn

America might learn some lessons from Israel.  First, we should divorce personal criminal issues from the greater goals of our Nation.  Even if some agree with the draconian educational changes, the restrictive laws, and the “election police”; that shouldn’t crossover to protecting politicians from the consequences of their illegal acts.  

Second, the people of Israel are in the streets, demanding Democracy.  Perhaps Americans need to do the same.  The Black Lives Matter marches of 2020 did make a difference, as did the student led marches against gun violence.  Maybe Americans need to follow the Israeli lead and get out on the streets, before the 2024 elections, before some of these draconian measures take effect, and before we lose our democratic traditions.  It’s a lot to ask a Nation that is worn from controversy and divisiveness since even before Trump came on the political scene.  

But the alternative is unthinkable.

List of Charges

Twice-impeached former-President Donald Trump is drowning in litigation.  He is the target of (at least) four criminal investigations. The Manhattan District Attorney’s probe of hush money payments is the one we’re hearing the most about right now. But it’s probably the least of his problems.  The Georgia election fraud investigation, including Trump’s call to Brad Raffensperger, risks more serious charges.  

But, it’s in the two Federal investigations Trump faces that risk the greatest danger, both to his freedom, and his political career.  With the testimony of his attorney, the classified documents case is now “blooming” into an obstruction of justice investigation.  But the most dangerous case of all, is the Federal investigation into Trump’s role in the January 6^th Insurrection.  At worst for him, that case could result in conspiracy to commit insurrection, potentially a twenty-year jail sentence.

Progressive commentators have been “bad-mouthing” the Federal Insurrection investigation for years.  When the January 6^th Committee was holding hearings last summer, it seemed that their testimony was all “new-news” to the Department of Justice.  The typical “bottom-up” organized crime investigation of the FBI goes on after more than two years. It didn’t made the “jump” from the rioters on the steps to the organizers in suits and ties (or three shirts and khakis). 

But last Friday that changed.   

Pierce the Veil

The Federal Court ordered several of Trump’s closest staff members to testify to the Insurrection Grand Jury.  It’s a roll call of the former President’s closest advisors. It includes his Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Ken Cuccinelli, White House aides Nick Luna, and John McIntee, National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien and Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe.

Also required to testify are three even closer to the former President:  advisors Stephen Miller and Dan Scavino (who controlled the President’s Twitter feed), and, at the true center of the storm, Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.

All of these former officials claimed exemption from testifying based on “Executive Privilege”.   They believe their advice, conversations and actions were protected from inquiry by  the Presidential confidentiality to conduct business.  But the Court saw it differently.  Much as the attorney/client privilege of confidentiality can be “pierced” by the crime/fraud exception when both are engaged in criminal activity; the Court found that the possibility of a criminal conspiracy among those officials requires their testimony.

The man closest to the President in the days leading up to January 6^th was Mark Meadows.  The testimony of his assistant, Cassidy Hutchinson, to the January 6^th Committee was devastating to both Meadows and Trump. But only Meadows can speak first-hand to what Trump knew and didn’t know; did and didn’t do; and wanted or didn’t want.  

Top of the Pyramid

Meadows is the “top of the pyramid” of the potential conspiracy to disrupt the government.  He can speak to what happened and who did it, now that the veil of silence imposed by executive privilege has been pulled aside.  Meadows has two choices.  He can testify, or he can remain silence and face imprisonment.  Of course, the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is still avaliable.  And that becomes the major decision for Special Federal Prosecutor Jack Smith.

If Smith is “satisfied” with letting Meadows “take the fall” for planning the January 6th Insurrection, he didn’t need to pierce executive privilege, and he doesn’t need to offer Meadows immunity.  The testimony of the junior staffers like Hutchinson would be enough.  But clearly, the Prosecutor is not satisfied.  

Meadows has been on the verge of full cooperation for several months.  He even sent many of his communications; emails and texts, to the Committee. It lead to riveting testimony last spring and summer.  But Meadows pulled away when it came time for direct testimony, an act correlated to a million dollar donation from Trump sources.  Now, with executive privilege gone, Meadows can only fall on his sword for Trump, testify, or take the Fifth.

And Smith can offer some form of immunity, removing the Fifth Amendment from the equation; leaving Meadows with the choice of testimony or jail.   Likely,  that will make Meadows crack.

Watergate

In the Watergate crisis, the actual crimes took place in June of 1972.  It wasn’t until the spring and summer of 1973 and the Senate Watergate hearings that Deputy Assistant Alexander Butterfield revealed that President Nixon was taping all of the White House conversations. The proof was on tape, if Prosecutors could get their hands on them.   

It took another full year, the summer of 1974, for the Supreme Court to finally order the tapes released in the case Nixon v United States.  Once the tapes came out in July, it was only a couple of weeks before Nixon faced sure impeachment and conviction, and resigned from office in August.  He was only able to avoid Federal indictment and conviction by a Presidential Pardon from his successor, Gerald Ford.

Donald Trump dodged responsibility when the US Senate failure to convict in the second impeachment trial.  It’s been more than two years since that vote.  Now Jack Smith should make “the deal” with Meadows. He needs to demonstrate what the Nation missed in the 1970’s:  that this Nation, under Law; will treat its citizens equally at the bar of Justice.

It’s up to Smith.  

Medieval Markets

Metaphors and colloquialisms describe situations in our lives, in ways that go beyond the individual meaning of their words.  When “…the cat is out of the bag”, it’s much more than just opening a bag and seeing a cat. There’s the mewling, the clawing, and the racing through the streets that comes with the newly freed feline.  To get back to its Medieval origins, “cat in the bag” seems to relate to another phrase, “buying a pig in a poke”.  If you buy a pig in a poke, a bag, you might really be buying a much cheaper cat.  But you won’t know you’re swindled until  “the cat’s out of the bag”: the secret is revealed.

We may not know what the actual origins of “cat out of the bag” are, but we definitely understand the meaning.  When the “cats out of the bag” the secret is out.  It’s in the streets, spreading to all.  If you let “the cat out of the bag” everybody knows. 

On the Farm

Many of our favorite colloquialisms are based on farms.  “Don’t have a cow”, “stop beating a dead horse”, “a hard row to hoe”,  and “when pigs fly” are all in our daily speech, even in areas where the nearest cow or row to hoe is miles and miles away.  One of my favorites is “closing the barn door”.

“Closing the barn door” is part of a larger phrase, “closing the barn door after the horses are out”.  It’s a clear story – someone left the barn door open, and the horses got out.  Now, what once solved a problem, closing the barn door, doesn’t solve it anymore.  The problem is getting the horses back.  You can “have a cow”, or even “beat a dead horse” by blaming Little Boy Blue over and over again.  But the reality is – you’ve got to go get the horses, wherever they are:  “…the sheep’s in the meadow, the cow’s in the corn…”; and the horses are out.  Someone screwed up.

Tik Tok

From ancient farm stories we move to a most recent trend in modern life:  Tik Tok.  The social media application is used by over 150 million Americans, and a full one billion worldwide.  Tik Tok allows users to post brief videos of all sorts of things.  Us older folks who don’t have the app still are exposed to Tik Tok through other social media.  A significant portion of my “old school” Facebook feed seems to be from Tik Tok.  The videos can be anything; school pranks to dances, insults, arguments and fights,  to jokes and cute babies.  It seems harmless.

But Tik Tok has become a new political metaphor for losing control of our youth.  The company  ultimately is owned by the Chinese Government (or to use the new “hate speak” – the Chinese Communist Party).  And now Congressmen from across the political spectrum (and even President Biden) are sounding the alarm: social media collects data that can be used later.

Really?  That “cats” been out of the bag for quite a while.  Weren’t these guys at the 2016 election, when Cambridge Analytics taught the world how to manipulate social media users to their particular political goals?  These politicians are a little “late to the game”, aren’t they?

Perfect Storm

But now we have the “perfect storm” for politicians against social media.  It’s Tik Tok; it applies mostly to Gen Z (born after 1996) and seems extraneous to older folks, and Congressmen (that’s kind of redundant).   And it’s owned by the “new” bête noire, China.  We can retread the old story about “ evil Communism” to a whole new generation.  To some that might be “beating a dead horse”, but Gen Z doesn’t know that.

What they do know is that a whole bunch of old people are telling them what they can and can’t do.  Old folks who don’t have a clue about how it works, or why its interesting.  Old folks what are saying “…do what I say, not what I do” as they use Tik Tok themselves to reach younger voters.  

And don’t think it just the “grandstanding” of Congressmen in the House of Representatives.  The state of Utah last night, signed a law ( Black Letter Law) that:

• prohibits kids under 18 from using social media between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m.
• requires age verification for anyone who wants to use social media in the state 
• requires parental consent before kids can sign up for sites like TikTok and Instagram.

I guess we can expect the Utah police to now kick down the bedroom door and arrest fourteen year old’s huddled under the sheets, watching viral videos in the middle of the night:  “Up against the wall, drop the IPhone, and stop dancing, Damnit!”.   (At least, let’s hope their dancing).

No Way

It all makes for great television. The Tik Tok CEO didn’t help his cause yesterday, when he said “…I wouldn’t call it spying” at a Congressional hearing.  But the “adults” have missed reality:  this cat’s really out of the bag.  The barn door was wide open, and all the horses, cows, pigs, sheep, and even the barn cats  are out in the fields.  

Drug dealers figured this out a long time ago.  They created “designer drugs”, drugs that were chemically just a molecule different than the drugs that were illegal.  But because of the difference, they didn’t qualify as illegal under the law.  Remember bath-salts?  If it’s done with drugs, it most certainly will be done with social media on the internet.  

We can close this barn door, but it’s far too late.  All we are doing is making Tik Tok an even more seductive product:  one that “adults” are against.  We are in a modern process of banning “rock and roll” and television shots of Elvis’s pelvis.   We are telling kids to cut their hair and stop wearing tie-dye.   The new litany is:  no drugs, no sex, no Tik Tok.  And Gen Z is saying: “no way”. 

We are, in fact, beating a dead horse.

The Facts

In October 2016, Donald Trump’s Presidential campaign was in trouble.  The “Access Hollywood” tape broke at the beginning of the month. It was followed by the threat of former Playboy Bunny Karen McDougal to reveal an affair with the candidate.  David Pecker was the Chairman of the National Enquirer. He paid $125,000 to exclusively buy McDougal’s story in return for a non-disclosure agreement.  Pecker buried the story, in what now is called a “catch-and-kill” deal.

We also know that Donald Trump had an affair with porn movie star Stormy Daniels.   Later in October of 2016, Daniels threatened to go public (to the National Enquirer).  Trump’s then-lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen set up a “dummy” Delaware corporation. He transferred $131,000 to that corporation from a personal loan.  The corporation then wrote a  $130,000 check to Daniels, in exchange for a non-disclosure agreement.

We also know that Cohen asked Trump to reimburse him for the $130,000, plus $50,000.  The Trump organization doubled that fee to $360,000. Ultimately, they paid Cohen $35,000 a month for twelve months, for a total of $420,000.  Trump wrote that off as “business expenses” for the purpose of New York State taxes (CBS).

The voting public didn’t know about McDougal or Daniels prior to the election, one of the closest in American history.  They did know that the FBI reopened the email investigation of Hillary Clinton ten days before election day.  That investigation concluded eight days later, but millions of Americans voted early.  Clinton won the popular vote, but lost the Electoral College by a mere 74,744 popular votes. (See this essay from 2017). 

In 2021 David Pecker paid a $187,500 fine to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) for illegal campaign contributions for the McDougal “catch and kill” deal (Politico).

The Law

The FEC made it clear that the “catch-and-kill” non-disclosure agreements are a campaign benefit, that should be claimed as a donation.  It’s not that Trump couldn’t donate $130,000 to his own campaign, or even $420,000.  But that donation should be claimed as a campaign expense.

And the State of New York has a long list of examples of “falsification of business records”.  Certainly claiming an illegal campaign donation as a business expense, like the Stormy Daniels pay-out, would fall into that category.

Michael Cohen pled guilty to the crime of concealing this expense/benefit, as part of a series of Federal crimes that resulted in a three-year jail sentence. In the Federal prosecutor’s indictment, it was clear that Cohen did the actions with both the consent and involvement of “Individual One”, who was never named.

The Department of Justice has a policy of not charging a “sitting” President, and in the past, wouldn’t even name a President involved in possible charges (Nixon, the fifth “unindicted co-conspirator”).  But it was clear that “individual one” was Donald Trump.

After Cohen pled guilty, the Justice Department under Attorney General Bill Barr, ended the investigation.

Falsifying a business record is a misdemeanor offense under New York State law.  But falsifying to cover a further crime (campaign finance fraud) raises the offense to a felony.  The reality is that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has a “slam-dunk” case on the misdemeanor offense, and a solid set of circumstances leading to the underlying campaign finance fraud.

The Indictment

A Grand Jury determines charges (indictments) in New York.  The District Attorney presents evidence to Twenty-three citizens. A majority then decides if there is probable cause that crimes were committed.  In fact, New York also allows a potential defendant to present some evidence to the Grand Jury, to mitigate possible charges.  Monday a lawyer representing Mr. Trump, Bob Costello, testified.  In public statements after, he went to great lengths to lay blame for all of this on Cohen, rather than Trump.

The Grand Jury is meeting again today, either to hear more testimony, or a presentation of possible charges from the District Attorney’s office.  In the next couple of days history will be made, no matter what decision the Jurors make.  If they decide to indict Donald Trump, it will be the first time in US History that a former President faces charges.

So we wait.

The Text

Damn – I promised myself I wouldn’t do this.  But the news is too current and significant to let this “Tweet” (or “Truth-less”) pass.  Here’s the text. Donald Trump writes in all capitals. It was on his site “Truth Social”; posted at 7am on Saturday, March 18^th.

“OUR NATION IS NOW THIRD WORLD & DYING.  THE AMERICAN DREAM IS DEAD! THE RADICAL LEFT ANARCHISTS HAVE STOLLEN (sic) OUR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, AND WITH IT, THE HEART OF OUR OUR (sic) COUNTRY.  AMERICAN PATRIOTS ARE BEING ARRESTED & HELD IN CAPTIVITY LIKE ANIMALS, WHILE CRIMINALS & LEFTIST THUGS ARE ALLOWED TO ROAM THE STREETS, KILLING & BURNING WITH NO RETRIBUTION.  MILLIONS ARE FLOODING THROUGH OUR OPEN BOARDERS (sic), MANY FROM PRISONS & MENTAL INSTITUTIONS.  CRIME & INFLATION ARE DESTROYING OUR VERY WAY OF LIFE…

NOW ILLEGAL LEAKS FROM A CORRUPT & HIGHLY POLITICAL MANHATTAN DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE, WHICH HAS ALLOWED NEW RECORDS TO BE SET IN VIOLENT CRIME & WHOSE IS FUNDED BY GEORGE SOROS, INDICATE THAT, WITH NO CRIME ABLE TO BE PROVEN, & BASED ON AN OLD & FULLY DEBUNKED (BY NUMBEROUS OTHER PROSECUTORS!) FAIRYTALE, THE FAR & AWAY LEADING REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE & FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WILL BE ARRESTED ON TUESDAY OF NEXT WEEK.  PROTEST, TAKE OUR NATION BACK!”

Indictment

Donald Trump says he’s going to be arrested and arraigned on Tuesday in Manhattan.  He may have specific knowledge of this.  Common practice for “white collar” crime is for the defendant to voluntarily turn himself into the Court.  Since Trump is in Florida, his lawyers would have prior notice so that Trump could travel to Manhattan.  

Or, he might simply be “preempting” the Manhattan DA in order to get ahead of the news coverage.  In his tweet, Trump called for protests, claimed that District Attorney Bragg is linked to billionaire George Soros, and called the possible charges debunked and fairy tales.  He raised the threat of public violence if the Manhattan DA brings the charges.

Meanwhile the MAGA caucus of the House of Representatives jumped on the Trump bandwagon.  Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy called for House investigations of the Manhattan DA,  and the real leader of the House Republicans, Congressman Marjorie Taylor Greene, called possible charges “political” and “dangerous”.  

Strategic Leaks

I hope that Trump’s right.  I look forward to a demonstration of justice, where every American can be assured that we are “Equal before the Law”.  But, to be honest, we are in the midst of a full orchestration of MAGA activities.  First, Speaker McCarthy released thousands of hours of video from January 6^th solely to Tucker Carlson at Fox.  Carlson selectively edited that footage to “demonstrate” that the Insurrection was really not a “bad” thing.  Carlson’s message:  don’t believe your lying eyes from that tragic day, it was really just an extended “tourist” excursion into the building.  

Second, the Trump campaign scheduled a rally in Waco, Texas near the thirtieth anniversary of the David Koresh/Branch Davidian standoff against Federal authorities.  That weeks-long conflict ended with the Davidians burning down their own buildings, and killing seventy-six of their own men, women and children.  Four Federal Agents were also killed in the standoff, and numerous others wounded.  The site has become a “shrine” for those opposed to Federal authorities (Time), and Trump is wrapping himself in the “Don’t Tread on Me” flag.

Third, the MAGA Republicans in the House were quick to take steps to delegitimize the investigations of Trump, in Manhattan, Atlanta, and Washington DC.  It took them less than a couple of hours. They clearly are prepared for indictment, and Trump’s tweet was a call to action. Saturday’s reactions were pre-planned.

Eating Cake

One Republican talking point is already getting traction: this is “old news”. We knew about Stormy Daniels, Michael Cohen and the payoff checks years ago. Why is it just now, 2023, a year before another Presidential election that Alvin Bragg is bringing charges? Is this an example of “Justice delayed, justice denied”?

The payoff happened in the fall of 2016. It came into the public news in January of 2018. Originally it was a Federal case in the Southern District of New York, who charged and convicted Michael Cohen. Trump’s name was never in Cohen’s legal documentation, but everyone knew who “Individual One” was. Like the fifth “un-indicted co-conspirator” in the original Watergate indictment, the Department of Justice would not name a sitting President in criminal proceedings.

Trump was President until January 20, 2021, three years after the “Porn Star” story broke. And it took some time after to realize that even the Biden Justice Department wasn’t going to pursue charges, though Cohen was sentenced to three years in jail. It was only then that the Manhattan District Attorney’s office took on the case. Justice wasn’t delayed, it was deferred by Trump’s status and his ally, former Attorney General Bill Barr.

Show Trial

And make no mistake:  if indicted the Trump team will make this into a “show trial”, with Trump as the ultimate “victim”.  They’re going to “prove” that there is a “Democrat-Anarchist-Soros” conspiracy to stop his candidacy.   A Trump “perp walk”, preferably with handcuffs, will play right into his public relations ploy.  It will solidify his supporters, perhaps even bringing them into the streets reminiscent of their now “Carlson cleansed” Insurrection.  

What can Trump’s opponents for the Republican candidacy for President say other than supporting Trump’s actions? Even former Vice President Pence, threatened with death in the real Insurrection, spoke out against indictment (and looked incredibly weak saying “it’s not what the American people want to see”). Any statement to the contrary, and he and the rest of the candidates would lose the MAGA majority of the Republican Party. That group still controls the primary vote to choose the nominee.

It always goes back to the original Trump plan decades ago: better to get bad publicity, than no publicity at all.  And for Saturday’s news cycle, Trump “won”; probably for Sunday and Monday too.  He got what he wanted, and he wanted what he got (sorry for messing that quote up – Mr. Miranda!).

But I will say this – I am “clearing the decks” this week for a Presidential indictment. It’s American History: like Nixon’s resignation, Clinton’s Impeachment trial, and the two Trump Impeachment trials. A President, even a former one, will present himself to a Court for judgment. With all the concerns about violence and upheaval, in the end it shows our government exercise its ultimate power – the rule of law. A former chief executive called to the “bar” by the Judiciary is the final “check and balance”.

Ain’t that America?