Category: Uncategorized

This essay was originally published in July. The US Supreme Court will hear the case on Wednesday, December 7th, and it’s worth looking at again. IF the Supreme Court agrees with this radical theory, it could change the outcome of elections for years to come.

Back to Class

There is a bomb set to blow up the entire election of 2024. It could make the Presidential votes of the citizens of the United States unimportant. The gerrymandered state legislatures could decide the election, without referring to the popular vote count. And it would all be “legal”. The fuse is already lit.

To understand that panicky warning, there’s a lot of explaining to do. So I need to take you back to class, to that early morning American Government (or POD) class, with a chalk board and books instead of Smart Boards and computers.

The “School House Rock” version of our government is pretty simple.  There are three branches: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial.  The legislative writes the laws and the executive takes those laws and enforces them.  The Judiciary makes sure that those laws “fit” with other laws and the US Constitution, in a process called judicial review.  

If I was your teacher, you might remember a candle in a dark classroom, as President John Adams signed the documents creating the “midnight judges”.  That action started the sequence of events ending in the Supreme Court case Marbury v Madison. The Supreme Court took the ability to determine whether Congressional actions are Constitutional, judicial review.

But it doesn’t “have” to be that way.

Gerrymandering on Steroids

The process of drawing legislative districts so that one party is specifically advantaged is “Gerrymandering”.  It was named after Elbridge Gerry, the Governor of Massachusetts in 1812. He signed a bill creating a district that looked like a salamander to guarantee a Democratic/Republican (that’s the Party that evolved into today’s Democrats) victory.  The newspapers called it “Gerrymandering”, and it has been an American political tradition ever since.

Gerrymandering went on steroids with the development of advanced computing. It was no longer a matter of this section trends to one party or the other. Computer modeling could create absolutely specific maps to maximize advantage, down to the street level or even specific addresses. Want to dilute the other party’s power? Make sure that their supporters are divided into multiple districts. Want to strengthen your own power? Draw districts to guarantee your base is “in charge”. Need to see an example – check out the map of Ohio’s Fourth Congressional District in 2020, represented by Jim Jordan.

After the 1965 Voting Rights Act was passed by Congress, the US Supreme Court ruled that while districts could be Gerrymandered for political gain, they couldn’t be drawn to prevent racial minority candidates from winning elections. That was 1995 in Miller v Johnson. So the rule was pretty simple: when Ohio Republicans drew the Fourth District, it held up to Court scrutiny because it wasn’t “racially” based. But when it was demonstrated that North Carolina specifically divided black communities to weaken their voting power, it was unconstitutional, at least until 2019.

Saved in Court

In that year the Supreme Court majority, led by Chief Justice Roberts, stated that Federal Courts would no longer rule about Gerrymandering. He “kicked that” to State Court jurisdiction for judicial review. They would have final say over the actions of the state legislatures in drawing maps, and in making other election decisions.

After the 2020 election, both the state and federal courts confirmed the popular vote. The desperate Trump campaign went to them first. In more than sixty cases, “Stop the Steal” was debunked and dismissed. Even judges appointed by President Trump, including on the US Supreme Court, dismissed Trump’s claims against the valid election results. After Trump lost there, he went to the other tactics we heard about in the January 6th Committee hearings. One was to place Extreme pressure on election officials to change results. Another was to convince state legislatures to ignore the popular vote and replace Biden electors with Trump’s. That all lead to the Insurrection of January 6^th.

The Eastman Plan

But in that final push to overturn the election, lawyer John Eastman (of the “Green Bay Sweep” fame) put forward a radical theory of the American Constitution, called the “Independent State Legislature” (ISL).  It stated that the US Constitution gave state legislatures the exclusive power to determine how federal elections are conducted.  He based this concept on Article I, Section 4:

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.

Eastman theorized that the language was specific, and that the state courts or constitutions had no place in ruling on how the legislatures exercised that power. The argument is simple: if a state legislature, say Georgia, said that Donald Trump won, regardless of what the popular vote in the state was, then neither the Georgia state courts nor the Georgia state constitution could be used to overturn that decision.

(If you think a state legislature can’t ignore the state Supreme Court or the state Constitution – remember the DeRolph school funding decision in Ohio? The Court ruled the funding process unconstitutional- but the legislature refused to change it. That was twenty-five years ago, and the process still hasn’t changed).

School House Rock

Back to “School House Rock” for just a second. Eastman states that the Courts have no power of judicial review over elections, because the US Constitution doesn’t give them the specific power in Article I, Section 4 to review federal election decisions. So the three co-equal branches, aren’t; and the legislature is unchecked when it comes to those decisions.

The “ISL” theory flies in the face of traditional American government, and the precedent established by Marbury v Madison at the very beginnings of our Federal system.  It requires a restricted view of the US Constitution, only viewing the actual text in that section without looking at the rest of the document, or the history that followed it.  In any other time in our history, going all the way back to the Marshall Supreme Court in 1801, it would have been laughed out of the courtroom.

The Bomb

But we aren’t in any other time.  Today’s US Supreme Court is in the hands of “textualists” who are sympathetic to the “black and white” arguments that lawyers better than Eastman are making.  On Wednesday they will hear Moore v Harper, arguing that the North Carolina Courts have no place in deciding the legality of Gerrymandered districts in North Carolina.  They have no place, because, according to ISL, the legislature has the exclusive power to determine election decisions.

The decision will be published sometime in 2023.  It’s about Gerrymandering, but the ramifications would apply to election laws in every state.  And, as we now know, the current Supreme Court majority isn’t afraid of overturning precedent, or taking radical historic stands.  

What if those sixty courts didn’t have a chance to rule on “Stop the Steal”?  What if those few election officials who stood up against changing the results, didn’t have court backing?  The Trump/Republican Party tried to pack state legislatures and election offices with “Stop the Steal” believers in 2022.  They may be the legislators “in charge” in 2024.  They could decide that the election results are “wrong”, and send their own slate of electors, this time with legislative approval, to be counted in the House of Representatives.

Moore v Harper is the fuse.  If the Court rules for ISL, the bomb will go off in 2024.  By then, it will be far too late to avoid the blast.

Good Guys

Let’s get one thing straight.   As a teacher, coach, and an administrator; I spent much of my career working with law enforcement.  I found that almost every police officer, sheriff’s deputy, or state trooper I worked with was competent, motivated to protect people, and well aware of the potential risks they faced around every corner.  They were (and are) exactly the kind of men and women I wanted to “have my back” when things went crazy.

We place them in an incredibly difficult position.  They are supposed to protect us from crime; but if they try to act proactively, they are “interfering”.   We want them to make us safer, but resent it when they enforce the law on us.  And we ask, no, demand, that they risk their lives for us.  Sure, “it’s what they signed up for”.  But that doesn’t change their desire to go home to their families after work, like anyone else.  But they’re not anyone else, on duty or off.  They’re cops.

No Excuses

This isn’t an excuse for the excesses we saw in Minneapolis, or this week in Akron.  But the officers, deputies and troopers I knew wouldn’t do that.  The failure of a few shouldn’t indict them all.

And here’s the most impossible thing we ask:  protect us from the mass shooters; our wholly American problem.  We expect that they will run “to the shooting” rather than away from it.  And, honestly, most of them will.  But the United States seems to have a virtually unlimited supply of high powered weapons, available literally “on demand”.  Hundreds of shots fired in the Uvalde school, seventy some fired at the Fourth of July parade in Highland Park, fifty rounds shot in the Tops Market in Buffalo.   The “shooters” can act so quickly, there’s no way for the police to protect us.

Butcher’s Bill

No matter how fast the police get there (less than six minutes in Buffalo), the “butcher’s bill” is already written.  In Buffalo a retired police officer sacrificed his life.  In Uvalde,  conflict in the hallway among the nineteen officers, held back by the incident “commander”, will probably never be known.  If they were like the police officers I knew, I suspect it was more than intense. But many of the kids were already dead before they even arrived.

In Highland Park, Illinois, the target was a Fourth of July parade.  The police were on the scene, directing the procession.  They’re response was immediate and appropriate.  Watch the videos: the crowd, the parade participants, are running away from the gunfire.  The police are guiding, directing, sheltering the onlookers and victims, and searching for the shooter.  They are in the line of fire, doing their duty, their job.

Fall Guys

They are the “good guys with the guns”.  They are the ones willing to lay down their own lives to protect others.  And there’s not much they can do about the young white man with a gun on the rooftop of the building, or who storms into the supermarket, school, church, synagogue or nightclub.  So let’s stop making them the “solution”, for a problem they can’t possibly solve. 

Because, by making them the solution, we are really making them the “fall guys” for our national malady.  We can’t solve the two actual problems:  the ready availability of high powered, high capacity weapons; and the willingness of young, mostly white men to use them to commit atrocities.  Or more accurately, we won’t.

We won’t, because we’ve allowed common sense to be thrown out the window by political rhetoric.  

An American Solution

The United States has been here before.  In the 1920’s, fully automatic weapons flooded the American market.  We all know them, “Tommy Guns”, Thompson sub-machine guns.  If you don’t remember, find an old black and white gangster movie from the late 1940’s with James Cagney or Edward G. Robinson or George Raft. 

Tommy Guns were designed as “trench sweepers” for  World War I type combat, with the rapid fire ability to clear the enemy at close range.   In the post-war world, with the passage of the 18^th Amendment banning alcohol use in the United States; crime became rampant.   The Tommy Gun lead the way as criminals provided society with booze.  

After Bonnie and Clyde’s crime spree in the Central United States, and the Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre in Chicago, the US government regulated automatic weapons by licensing them and requiring a steep tax.  While it didn’t solve the problem right away, ultimately it limited the number and raised the cost of the fully automatic weapons available.  They stopped being the gangster “weapon of choice”. 

So the argument that there is no “legislative” solution that could cure our current assault weapon crisis is simply not true.  It was done in the 1930’s, and it could be done again, if there was a legislative “will” to do it.

The deeper question – why are some Americans, especially young, white, males: drawn to committing such terrible acts?  I don’t pretend to have an answer to that question, or a solution for the problem.  But I do know one thing – we could take the weapon of choice out of their hands.

If we only had the will to do it.

Mid-Life Crisis

It’s Independence Day, the Fourth of July, 2022.  The United States is two hundred and forty-six years old.  History is relative in the US, two hundred and forty-six seems like such a long time.  But, in the course of history, two and a half centuries really isn’t very long.  Just look at the history of the United Kingdom, or China, or France, or the Navajo.  While the United States is no longer a “young” country, we probably are just reaching “middle age”.

America is celebrating a birthday on a national scale, kind of like a man turning forty-seven.  It’s those years of “mid-life crisis”, when the identity and goals of young manhood are now in a wholly different perspective.  How do you know that your “younger life” is over?  I knew it when they put a stent in my heart (at forty-seven), though it took a few more years to sink in.  

So the United States is trying to buy a leather jacket and a Corvette.  We are, in fact, looking back to the “good old days” as if the future will never live up to the past.  We are a nation struggling with changes, wistfully wishing (for the privileged few) that we could be something we once thought we were.

False Utopia

In the first month of these “Our America” essays, I wrote an essay called “Trump World and the Beaver”.  It was all about the so-called utopia of the 1950’s, when I was born, and the world was simpler.  “Leave it to Beaver” was a show about the life of a white, suburban kid named Theodore, nicknamed “the Beaver”.  His Dad wore a suit and tie to work (he took the tie and suit coat off, and put a sweater on for dinner) and his Mom cleaned the house in a dress and pearls.  

It was an idyllic life of baseball games and adventures with brother Wally.  Mr. Cleaver always had the wise answer to the boys’ problems, and Mrs. Cleaver with never flustered, and always perfectly coiffed.  But that idyllic life was for the chosen few.  While Wally and the Beaver were growing up on TV,  young Emmett Till was murdered in Mississippi. Rosa Parks was refusing to sit in the back of the bus, and  Martin Luther King was emerging as the leader of a national movement.  

America was preparing for the dramatic changes of the 1960’s, from civil rights to opposition to the Vietnam War, to the whole “hippie” movement.  A decade after “the Beaver”, life in America was changed forever.

Life Changes

Like any life changes, it wasn’t all for the good, or for the bad. The United States became more diverse, more “free”, more willing to change.  We set out on a path whose ultimate result was an America that would be fully integrated, not just “technically” in schools and swimming pools, but in life.  Kids of all races would listen to music of all cultures, and the racial-cultural-religious background of a person would not matter. 

It would be easy here to insert Dr. King’s, “…judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character”.  It was a goal he established on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963.  But fifty-nine years after that marker in history, we forget that in the speech he also said:

When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men — yes, Black men as well as white men — would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked insufficient funds.

America’s Promise

It’s Independence Day.  And the United States still hasn’t made that check good for so many of our citizens.  Instead of “doubling down” to clear that debt, a portion of our nation is trying to roll the clock back to no longer honor the bill.   So while we celebrate our birthday, Independence Day, we should realize that we are a nation defined by obligation.  The United States, was founded in concepts rather than in people.  The notably flawed Founding Fathers were able to create concepts beyond their personal failings.  And it is to those principles that we should look in our “mid-life” crisis.

Like Dr. King, we should look to the promise of the Declaration of Independence, our founding document: 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

  It was on this day, two hundred and forty-six years ago, that the founders of our nation agreed to our Independence, based on those words.

And we should look to the promise of the Constitution, establishing the fact and the goals of our Union eleven years later:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

More Perfect

It’s my favorite phrase in America’s founding documents: “…a more perfect Union”.  It’s the promise of America – that while our Union may be “perfect”, our goal is continually make it “more perfect”.  And it is in the “more perfecting” that we are committed to struggle, through war and rebellion, economic failure and success, and even the evil manipulations of men intent on gaining power. 

So America, blow out the candles, you’ve still got the “wind” to put out all two hundred and forty-six.  Forget the leather jacket and Corvette – the President already has them.  And make the wish, that we shall look to a future of “more perfecting”, rather than a past that really only existed for the few.  We are an America of the many, and we need to make our “checks” good.  

Happy Fourth of July.

This is a Sunday Story – not only because it’s Sunday – but this happened on a Sunday. You can bet on it!

Dog Racing

Wheeling Downs is a dog racing track on Wheeling  Island in the Ohio River. Specially bred greyhounds sprint around the course, chasing the mechanical “rabbit”.  Bettors  carefully read the statistics – wins, losses, splits; and sires, dames and trainers. The racing “form” is their guide and Bible. 

We used to wander onto Wheeling Island for a pleasant afternoon.  There’s a casino where you can feed the slot machines for a bit. Then maybe a few minutes at the five dollar blackjack table, and onto late lunch and betting on the brindle and black dogs. 

Now that we are in the rescue world, we don’t bet on the dogs anymore. Greyhounds live a tough life – their only enjoyment comes from those few seconds on the track . But we did have our own “Pataskala Downs” for an exciting few minutes in our fenced in backyard last Sunday morning.

To the Post

Three of our five dogs were hanging out with us on the back deck as we drank our late morning coffee. Jenn and I were on a slow start to the day. It was a late Saturday night of Fourth of July fireworks and libations. Then the fireworks began in the backyard. A bunny, just a teenager, made the mistake of getting inside the fence and sprinting along the back line. And, in a flash, the three dogs were through the deck gate: “they’re off!”

Sunday news on the outdoor TV was quickly left behind as the rabbit made his first circuit around the backyard course.  “Peter” had the agility advantage, taking the corners and u-turns with speed. But our bayou rescue Lou had the flat speed in the straightaways. Keelie, our Aussie mix would catch up at the bends, and our Lab Atticus gamely hung in as the older dog in the mix. 

Peter was desperately searching for any escape path. But, unfortunately for him, when we took on our newest rescue, CeCe, our “Baby Yoda” puppy (lucky for us, she was cooling off inside) we escape-proofed the barriers.  So it was onto lap two, with Lou closing in, almost enough to feel the brush of the cottontail. 

By a Whisker

They almost ended the pursuit in disaster (or success, depending on your point of view) as Peter desperately headed for a corner by our shed. But he managed to scoot through the legs and tails to double back and start lap number three.

Meanwhile the “crowd”, Jenn and I, were making our bets known by shouting “NO!!” at the top of our lungs, and actually entering the race course to somehow intervene. I once was a sprinter, almost half a century ago, but even back then I wouldn’t have been able to join in this chase.  I wandered behind though, for what looked like an inevitable scrum when the rabbit fur flew. 

It was on lap number four that, as Peter’s legs started to fail, he found the only weakness in “Fortress Dahlman”. There was just enough room for a teenaged rabbit with nothing to lose to slip under the back gate – quickly followed by the noses of Lou, Keelie and Atticus as they tracked his scent. But, thank goodness, the crack was too small and the gate held against the pressing dogs.

Win, Place and Show

Lou won by a half a length, with Keelie second and Atticus a close third. Lou paid out 3:1, three dollars on your one dollar bet. And, if you called the trifecta, the finish in order – you’d collect a fifty dollar win. Since CeCe and our eldest, Buddy, failed to make the post, there was no superfecta in this race.

 But the real winner was Peter, whose bunny heart must still be racing as I write this report.  Hopefully he’s learned his fence breeching lesson. Meanwhile – I’m reinforcing the “fort”. 

The Sunday Story Series

• Riding the Dog  – 1/24/21
• Hiking with Jack – 1/31/21
• A Track Story – 2/7/21
• Ritual – 2/14/21
• Voyageur – 2/19/21
• A Dog Story – 2/25/21
• A Watkins Legend – 3/7/21
• Ghosts at Gettysburg – 3/14/21
• Lessons from the State Meet – 3/28/21
• More Lessons from the State – 4/4/21
• Stories from the Road – 4/11/21
• A Bear Wants You – 5/1/21
• My Teachers – 5/9/21
• Old Friends  – 5/23/21
• The Gift – 6/6/21
• Echoes of Mom – 6/20/21
• Stories of the Fourth – 7/3/21
• Running Memories – 7/25/21
• Lost Dog of Eldora – 8/1/21
• Dogs and Medals – 8/8/21
• The New Guy – 9/5/21
• Stories of 9-11 – 9/12/21
• The Interview – 9/26/21
• Night Moves – 10/3/21
• Funeral for a Friend – 10/11/21
• National Security – 10/24/21
• Boots on the Trail – 10/31/21
• Taking Care of Mom and Dad – 11/14./21
• Dogs Found and Lost – 11/21/21
• Watching Brian 12/12/21
• Stories from Shiloh – 12/19/21
• Team Trips – 12/26/21
• Uphill, Both Ways  – 1/9/22
• Old Trophies – 1/30/22
• The Last Time – 2/7/22
• Olympic Miracles – 2/13/22
• Mind Numbing – 2/20/22
• Track Weather – 4/3/22
• What’s Missing – 4/11/22
• A Scouting Story – 4/17/22
• Waterproof Paper – 5/8/22
• Origin Stories – 5/22/22
• Origin Stories – Part Two 5/29/22
• Back at State – 6/5/22
• Out in the Country – 6/19/22
• Pataskala Downs – 7/4/22

This is NOT a Sunday story.  It’s actually more of a Sunday “lesson”, in the US Government, and specifically, that odd rule called the “filibuster”.

School House Rock

We Americans think of our government in basic terms.  One Person should equal one vote, and everyone’s vote should be equal to everyone else’s.  We have a representative democracy, a government where the people elect legislators who then vote on proposed laws, called bills.  The majority vote of those legislators “wins”, and they become law.  If you’re old enough to remember “School House Rock”, you know how it all goes.

But we also know that the simple basics aren’t reality.  One person, one vote depends on which election it is, and on whether everyone gets the opportunity to vote.  Legislators do vote on bills, but it’s never as simple as just voting.  There are all sorts of impediments:  rules to get the bill to a vote, committees that determine what is in the bill, even committees to determine what the rules of the debate will be.

And that’s just one House of the US Government.

The Constitution

The Constitution doesn’t say too much about passing bills into law.  While it says that the bill must “pass”, it doesn’t define how that happens. Presumably, passing means a majority vote. And for certain actions,  such as overriding Presidential vetoes, and ratifying treaties, one or both Houses are required to have a two-thirds majority. 

We do know that the Founding Fathers intended different roles for the two Houses of Congress.  The House of Representatives is elected directly by the people, every two years.  They were intended to be “close” to the people, and “hot” with popular ideas. The House, and therefore the people, were also in charge of the finances. All appropriations bills must start there.

The Senate originally was chosen by the State Legislatures, two for each state.  Senate terms were six years long.  Supposedly Washington described the Senate as “…the saucer to cool” the hot ideas of the House.  And the Senate was given power to control foreign affairs and Presidential appointments.

Things have changed since 1787.  The House has become incredibly partisan, driven by gerrymandering that guarantees one party or the other the vast majority of Congressional seats. All 435 seats are up for election every two years, but in reality, only thirty-five or so will be true contests.  For the rest, the contest is in the party primary before the general election, if there’s a contest  at all.

Meanwhile the Senate has become more competitive.  The Seventeenth Amendment mandated Senators are directly voted by the people.  And while states might be partisan one way or another, they aren’t manipulated through gerrymandering to favor a side. So today the Senate tends to be the home of the “hot ideas”, and the House is more controlled by institutionalists. 

Traditional Filibuster

The infamous impediment to passing bills in the Senate is the filibuster.  It’s not in the Constitution, nor in the House of Representatives. It wasn’t even in the original parliamentary rules written for the Senate by then Vice President Thomas Jefferson.  The filibuster arrived after Jefferson became President, and his Vice President, Aaron Burr, was presiding over the Senate.

Jefferson’s rules call for a debate before the final passage vote.  The minority could delay by keeping the debate going.  The winning side then has to have a vote to end the debate, called a “cloture motion”.   (For those familiar with Robert’s Rules of Order, based from Jefferson’s Rules, this is ‘calling the previous question’, and requires a two-thirds vote to pass, end debate, and begin the vote).

Like Robert’s Rules, the Senate originally required  a two-thirds vote to agree to cloture, ending debate and bringing the final vote.  However, the Senate also allowed for a vote to begin when debate ends simply because Senators just stop talking.  So to prevent a vote, Senators must “hold the floor” and continue the debate.  Under Senate rules even a single Senator can hold the floor, as long as she or he remains standing, talking, and doesn’t leave the chamber.  No other Senate business can go on while the “filibusterers” hold the floor.  

A single Senator (Mr. Smith goes to Washington) or a few Senators can hold the floor.  As long as the “other side” can’t muster two-thirds of the Senators to end debate, they can go on as long as physically possible.  The record for a single Senator filibustering:  Strom Thurmond of South Carolina held the floor singly for twenty-four hours and eighteen minutes to stop the 1957 Civil Rights Act. 

Today’s Filibuster

The filibuster changed in the 1970’s, by an agreement made between the two political parties.  First, they reduced the cloture number to sixty Senators (three-fifths) instead of sixty-seven (two-thirds).  Second, before debate on a bill even begins, there is a cloture vote.  If the majority side can’t muster sixty votes, then the bill is “considered” filibustered, and the debate doesn’t even begin.  In exchange for making it “easier” to end the filibuster, the actual act of filibustering, holding the Senate floor, is no longer necessary.  Either the majority has sixty votes, or a bill is done.

So, if we are a democracy, where the majority is supposed to be able to “rule”, why allow thirty-four (originally) or forty (now) to control what bills pass?  Why give the minority control of legislation?

One of the strongest current supporters of the filibuster today is Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia.  He reasons that in our incredibly partisan politics, the existence of the filibuster requires Senators to work together to get legislation.  With only a couple of exemptions from the rule, bills passed in the Senate must be bipartisan, with at least ten votes from the minority party (in our current 50-50 Senate).  So every bill must be negotiated by the majority party with the minority party.

Otherwise, Manchin reasons, the Senatee becomes a tit-for-tat body.  When the majority changes, they will simply undo everything the former majority achieved.  Instead of advancing the national interest, the main focus will be to “take back” what the other side did when they had the majority.  Nothing new will get done.

And inevitably, that “other” party will someday get control of the Senate.  And when they do, the new minority party will want to have the control that the filibuster offers.

Filibuster’s Future

We got a hint of Manchin’s future with the Affordable Care Act. It passed with Democrats alone (a sixty vote majority) in 2010.  With the election of a Republican President in 2016 and Republican control of the House and Senate; they attempted to repeal the ACA seventy times.  The Senate came within one vote of achieving that goal, with Arizona’s John McCain giving his famous “thumbs down” in the middle of the night to save the program.

Senator Manchin’s view does depend on one thing – that the minority party wants to get “something” done. If a determined minority just wants to obstruct all legislation, then his bipartisan negotiations never happen.

Senator Warnock of Georgia wants to end the filibuster. He argues that its main use has been to delay civil rights legislation.  The filibuster has been a tool of segregationists and those who wish to maintain unequal privileges in the United States since the Civil War.  Even today, in that long tradition, many of the bills “filibustered” by the Republicans have been ones that would increase voting and economic opportunities for minorities.

Speaker Pelosi argues that with the Insurrection of January 6^th, and the “clear and present danger” that still threatens our democracy, the Senate must act.  The “gentlemen’s agreement” of the filibuster now stands to protect those that want to alter our form of government, whether in the Senate, on the Supreme Court, in the State Houses or at Mara Lago. They are the threat to our democracy.

The Votes

The bottom line:  the filibuster isn’t in the Constitution, and it isn’t even a “law”.  It’s an agreement in the Senate, a “rule” voted on every two years.  They can repeal it tomorrow.  And that “repeal” wouldn’t require sixty votes; Senate procedural rules pass with a simple majority vote.  If Democrats, including Manchin and Arizona’s Senator Sinema, decided to restrict or remove the filibuster, they could.  And if Republicans get control of the Senate in this November’s election, they can too.

President Joe Biden is a “Man of the Senate”. He served thirty-six years as a Senator and eight more as the Vice President presiding over the body.  He is an institutionalist, and has always supported the filibuster in the past. But this week even he suggested that the rule must be modified to pass laws codifying the principles of Roe v Wade and passing the voting rights acts.

That’s a big step for democracy, and America.  But it’s not possible without fifty votes in the Senate.  And until Manchin and Sinema change their minds, or more Democrats are elected to the Senate, as the line from the musical Hamilton goes, “You ain’t got the votes”.

Our democracy is at risk.  Many are looking to the next Presidential election.  But the 2022 election is just as important.  Who controls the House and more importantly, the Senate, may well decide the fate of our Constitutional “experiment” in government.

Public School Coach

I was a public high school coach for forty years.  Like it or not, I knew the kind of influence I had over my teams.  If I got mad, they got scared. If I “lost my head”, they certainly would lose theirs.  My teams looked to me to understand how to handle both the good and the bad.   And that wasn’t always about winning and losing.  Teammates and coaches died, best friends let us down, our sports were cut.  My job was to help “my kids” deal with the loss, the sadness,  and the disappointment, as well as the joy.  Part of that was to learn to deal with it all myself.

Don’t get me wrong, winning and losing were important, and emotional.  The “highs” of winning were “tight”, all the negatives dropped away from that moment.  And the “lows” of losing were often tempered by the fact we shared them together.  But the “real” life and death situations were soul changing.  I’ve never felt so close to a group of athletes and coaches as I did with a candle in my hand on our track, saying goodbye to a coach, or as we returned from our teamates’ funerals to compete in a meet.

When I wanted to punch the locker room door, I did it when the kids weren’t around.  And when I wanted to drink a toast (or two) to my lost coach, I didn’t do it with my team.  There were things that were appropriate to share with those impressionable young athletes, and there were things that were not.  They were personal.

Kennedy v Bremerton School District

The Christian conservatives on the  United States Supreme Court gave a “wink and a nod” to a public high school coach from the state of Washington this week.  God bless that man, Coach Kennedy. He’s a devout Christian, so devout, that after his team’s football game he felt called to go out onto the field and kneel in prayer.  And he did it as the kids were still on the field, and the crowds were still in the stands.  He believed that he was exercising his First Amendment right to practice his religion in the way he found appropriate, just as professional player Tim Tebow knelt in the end zone after scoring a touchdown.

But there’s a difference between Tebow and Kennedy.  Tim Tebow was a private citizen, employed as a quarterback in the privately owned NFL.  The coach is a public employee, hired to coach a public school football team.  

Until last week, the Supreme Court had a firm standard, set in Engle v Vitale in 1962.  I remember when that case was decided.  Until then, Mrs. Meyers led us Clifton Elementary School second graders in the Lord’s Prayer each morning, right before we stood up and Pledged Allegiance to the flag.  I’m not sure any of us really understood what “pledging allegiance” meant, nor asking for our “trespasses” to be forgiven.  But then, one day, we no longer were saying the Lord’s Prayer, nor were we given an hour of the school day to walk down to the nearby Episcopal Church for Bible study lessons.

Teaching Religion

Mrs. Meyer couldn’t “instruct or lead” us in religious education.  If we wanted that, we should go to Annunciation School, the Catholic elementary just down the road.  That was because Mrs. Meyers was employed by the Cincinnati Public Schools, and the city government didn’t have a place in determining or instructing us in religion.  They could teach us about religion, but they couldn’t help us to practice a religion.

Years later as a social studies teacher I was very aware of that distinction when I taught “world religions”.  We went through all of the tenets of Judaism, Christianity and Islam; Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Shintoism.  We talked about what “they” believed, even to the Jewish and Christian and Buddhist kids in the classroom who were the “they”.   One Buddhist parent thanked me for explaining it to his kid.  I guess I got it right, or at least, I was on the “middle path”.

But I did not analyze “right” or “wrong”, what was “fact” and what was “myth”.  I simply stated what the tenets of the faiths were.

The Problem

So what’s so wrong with Coach Kennedy, following his calling out onto the game field, and giving thanks to his Lord for a well-played game?  Nothing – unless his players, his “kids”, interpret that as part of their “team” activities.  Football is a tough sport.  Unlike my beloved Track and Field, where performance is objectively measured in seconds and inches, getting to start in Football is all about the coaches.  It’s their subjective decision.  If you’re fifteen and want to get on the field, then you don’t want to “piss off” the coach.

Every kid knows that.  And so does every athlete who grew up in inter-scholastic sports.  That includes high school football team captain John Roberts, and football and basketball player Bret  Kavanaugh.  Even Justice Samuel Alito ran track.

So when your coach goes on the field, by himself, to pray, he doesn’t have to “order” anyone to join him.  His kids want to follow him, want to be a part of what he does.  And even if they aren’t sure about the whole “praying” thing, they want to be “in good” with coach. They want to be with their buddies, and they want to be in the lineup.  Who wants to  “stand out” as the kid who didn’t go?

His Right, Our Dime

The Supreme Court gave a “wink-wink” to Coach Kennedy.  They agreed that he was just expressing his individual right to his religion.  He could have expressed it in his office, or at his car, or in the dark field after the lights were off and the kids were gone.  There were many nights when I walked the track – alone – not to commune with my maker, but to savor the moment, or lower my blood pressure.  But Kennedy didn’t.  Wink-Wink, he was just talking to his God, in private; under the lights,  with his team, other teams, and  fans in the stand.  And they were talking with him.  A coach is a leader.  And Coach Kennedy was leading all of them in a religious action.

And it was all on the government payroll, essentially “sponsored” by the Bremerton School District.  

In Law School, we learned to take an event, and alter “one thing” to see if we could get the same result.  It was called the “what ifs”.  What if Coach Kennedy had rolled out a prayer rug and bowed to the East in Islamic Prayer?  What if, instead of the Lord’s Prayer, the chant was, “Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Hare, Hare”?  Are his actions still, OK?

Wink-Wink.

Attention

Americans are notorious for a short attention span.  It’s always been that way, even from the founding of the Nation. Five short years after the ratification of the Constitution, when everyone warned of the dangers of partisanship, the Washington Cabinet split into Federalists and Democratic-Republicans.   To put it in the best light – Americans are more interested in looking forward, into the future, than back to the past or even at the present.

Remember Covid?  It’s still here, over 300 Americans dying each day.  But we’ve learned to live with, or ignore, the crisis that shut our Nation down only two years ago.  Sure, there are still masks in the top of the Grandfather clock in the dining room, and there’s still tests in the medicine cabinet.  But Covid no longer controls our lives – until we get it. The pandemic is honored by ignoring it.

And Americans are easily “distracted”.  Think about the last five weeks:  the span from the Uvalde school massacre to today.  Since then, there’s been more shootings, protests, and even legislation passed.  And there’s the “discovery” that our Supreme Court is radically right of the mainstream of the Nation, that the President tried to overthrow the Constitutional process, and our passenger rail system is vulnerable.

Zelenskyy

President Zelenskyy of Ukraine knew that the world would leap to his support when the Russians invaded his nation.  He gave dramatic speeches from the streets of Kyiv, as Ukrainian troops held off the Russian attack in the northern suburbs (remember the eighteen mile convoy, stalled for days along the road?).  American cable news networks went 24/7, some from the borders in Poland and Hungary, some with greater risk from inside Ukraine.

But Zelenskyy also knew that a long, protracted battle would ultimately fade from the front pages.  The network news anchors would go back home, the lead stories would move to the next world “crisis”.  Most importantly, Americans would be distracted, and lose interest in the daily missile strikes and artillery barrages.  

And here we are.  It’s been four months since the Russians smashed across the Ukrainian border like some black and white World War II documentary.  But this attack was in “living color”,  the color of thousands of lives lost.  The estimated “Butcher’s Bill” today:  33,000 Ukrainian troops killed, 25,000 Russian troops killed, as many as 28,000 civilians killed.  But on the smoke filled battlefields, it’s really too soon to know.

Zelenskyy’s forces were able to hold off the first Russian thrusts at the major cities of Kyiv and Kharkiv.  The “vaunted” Russian tank forces were stopped literally in their tracks.  Putin demanded his generals go to front and “fix” the problems.  Eleven of the them were killed, including a Corp Commander and the Chief of Electronic Warfare.  

Russian Strategy  

So Putin changed strategy, from decapitation of the Ukrainian regime, to expanding from the already Russian controlled portions of the nation.  And that’s where we are today, a constant grind of artillery and attacks across a broad swath of Eastern and Southern Ukraine.  The Russians are forcing Ukrainians to defend a long border, and the Ukrainians are making the Russians pay dearly for every foot of Ukrainian soil they take.

Since the early failure to overthrow the regime, Putin’s  strategy also changed to waging war against not just the Ukrainian military, but against the morale of the civilian population.  No one is safe,  even in a shopping mall in Kyiv, more than three hundred miles from the battlefield.  Two Russian missiles slammed into the crowded stores.  Twenty were killed, fifty-nine wounded, and forty more are still missing in the burned out wreckage.

Putin believes that the world will not “step in” as long as he doesn’t use chemical or nuclear weapons.  The European Union and NATO nations increased the sanctions against Russia, causing the Russians to default in their international bond payment of $100 million, the first default since the end of  World War I.   Sweden and Finland are now in NATO.  And the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad (a piece of Russia surrounded by Poland, Lithuania and the Baltic Sea) had fifty percent of its trade cut.

But, for the short term, Putin is willing to accept the economic losses.  His bet is that the famous American attention span will shift away from a protracted fight in Ukraine.  He believes Americans will be more concerned with rising gas prices, the prime “driver” of the American inflationary spike, than the civilian casualties in Kyiv shopping malls or Mariupol theatres.  

Independence Day

It’s coming on the Fourth of July.  There’s a great deal at the local gas station – $4.79 a gallon.  Eleven million Americans are travelling by air in the next few days – even though ticket prices are up, and the number of flights are down.  The cost of toilet paper, chicken, peanut butter (not Jif), and almost everything that gets shipped to the store is up.  There’s a whole lot going on in American life that doesn’t include missiles landing on Ukrainian shopping malls.

But we shouldn’t forget Ukraine, or grow tired of their struggle.  We are celebrating our 246^th year of Independence.  Our obviously flawed democracy is still trying to grow “more perfect”.  But one way to celebrate that independence and honor our own history, is to support another nation’s battle to maintain their national sovereignty.  Ukraine isn’t going away – and neither should we. 

Ukraine Crisis

• 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

Demanding Attention

I tried to write a long explanation about the filibuster, bad and good.  And I need to write about the atrocity of Russian targeting shopping malls in Kyiv with missiles.  I struggle to write about fifty dead in San Antonio, left trapped in the 100 degree heat in a sealed semi-trailer.  Then there’s the public school coach whose religious actions on the field are now “sanctified” by the Supreme Court.   And there’s more to say about Dobbs v Jackson. So, there’s plenty of critical subjects to choose as I stare at the blank page on my computer screen.

But then Chairman Thompson and Vice Chairman Cheney directed my attention back to January 6^th  and the Insurrection.  They held a “surprise” Committee hearing, on twenty-four hours’ notice, with an unnamed witness.  We spent Monday night speculating:  is it Mike Pence, Mark Meadows, John Cipillone?  And then we had the pre-hearing let down.  It was “just” Meadows Executive Assistant. Cassidy Hutchinson, is the twenty-six year old who went from the office of Congressman Steve Scalise to the White House, and literally to the door of the Chief of Staff’s office, only a few feet from the Oval Office.  

The Door-Keeper

But Hutchinson’s testimony was more than compelling.  She was in the mix, with Meadows, Cipillone, and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, former Secret Service Agent Anthony Ornato.  Not only was she literally positioned in the center of the West Wing of January 6^th, but she was “door-keeper” for Chief of Staff Meadows.  They came to her first, then onto Meadows and ultimately President Trump.

Her testimony stated that the President didn’t just sit silently as the Capitol was attacked.  Trump wanted to lead the assault himself.  He tried to force his Secret Service detail to take him to the Insurrection, and literally attacked his own Protection Detail when they refused to allow it.  Trump knew the crowd was armed, and that the weapons weren’t meant for him, but for Congress.  And with that knowledge, he still sent the crowd to attack the Capitol.  His actions can no longer be seen as negligence. She testified to his intentional incitement of the attack.

Sure, some of her testimony is legally hearsay, evidence inadmissible in a court of law.  But her eye-witness testimony was damning enough, and called out those others who don’t have the courage to come forward.

And her direct testimony indicts Mark Meadows. He sat on the couch, scrolling through his phone, literally as the Capitol was breeched.  Meadows did not see his duty as White House Chief of Staff as any greater than failing to convince the President to act.

Four Prongs of Coup

And, almost unnoticed, Hutchinson testified to a direct connection between Meadows and the “war room” at the Willard Hotel, manned by Roger Stone, Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon.  Stone had direct contact with the armed insurgents who first breeched the Capitol, the Proud Boys.  

The Committee is establishing the four prongs of a coup. The first, is the lie of “Stop the Steal”. Then, they developed the illegal “Constitutional” plan, explained by Eastman, Giuliani and Navarro. There were the pressure campaigns by the former President on the state elective leaders to alter vote counts or recall electors. And then Trump called the mob to Washington for a “wild time”, with connections to the “shock troops”: the Proud Boys, Three Percenters and Oath Keepers, who already were “standing back and standing by”.   All trails lead back to the West Wing, to Mark Meadows, and ultimately to Donald Trump.

No wonder Giuliani, Eastman, and now we know Meadows; asked for blanket pardons from the departing President.

History Rhymes

Hutchinson was not the high profile witness everyone expected.  She was a young, lower level staffer, who happened to be in the center of the storm.  Her role is more like a thirty-five year old assistance White House Counsel named John Dean, who testified to the Watergate Committee, and tied the crimes of Watergate all the way to President Nixon.   That was forty-nine years ago, in a time when America had the patience to sit through a three day statement. 

Today, America has to have information packaged for quick consumption.  The January 6^th Committee put together a tight two-hour package, with video, the testimony of the attractive and compelling young lady, and corroborating evidence from the thousands of hours of video testimony from other witnesses.  They piqued the interest of the media and the Nation with their surprise hearing, and managed to break through all of the other issues that confront America, at least for an afternoon.

The Cover-Up

And, at the end of the session, Congressman Cheney intoned a stern warning to those who still thought they could silence witnesses to the coup.  She displayed the mob-like warnings to witnesses, indirectly threatening them if they failed to be a “team player”.  And Chairman Thompson followed up with the offer of cooperation with witnesses who need to come forward or to “revise” their statements to get to the truth.

Clearly there is a Trump counter-offensive, trying to silence those who know what happened.  And likely, Thompson, Cheney and the Committee realized that two weeks without a message was too long.  It might let the silencers gain too much ground.  

Instead, they blew the top off of the conspiracy to disrupt the Congress, and overturn the election.  Hearsay or not, the pathway to the truth is now illuminated for all to see.  Cipillone, Meadows, and others better stop covering up, and start paying attention.

The January 6^th Essays

• The John Dean Moment
• Sinning and America
• Flashes of Hope
• Don’t Look Back
• For You, Republicans
• On the Tightrope
• A Television Moment

The Journey

No Democrat wants to think about this:  the radicalization of the Republican Party started with election of Barack Obama.  The obvious conclusion is that the “shock” of America electing a Black man President was so great, that it caused a “back lash” in American politics.  It was the beginning of the end of “moderate Republicans”.  And that’s the Democrats “fault” for electing him, I guess.

I’m not accusing every Republican of being a racist. What I am saying is that the radicalization of Republicanism occurred because of racism.  

The “dominos” that fell after 2008 are pretty clear.  The Tea Party Movement rose up to the ideological right of the Republican Party, and the Party leadership wanted their votes.  Tea Partiers were anti-government, anti-tax, anti-immigration, and were highly energized. While they weren’t overtly racist, there were always racist undercurrents.  So Republican leaders began to take on the Tea Party “language” and views.  By 2012 there was a “rift” in the Party, between the mainstream Party members, and the more extreme Tea Party.  Remember, the Republican Party used to be the Party of “big business”, of corporate America.  The Tea Party was not.  They were just as anti-corporate as the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, on the far side of the Democratic mainstream.

Corporate Republicans

Corporate Republicans saw themselves as a Party in the minority.  They began to try to consolidate what power they had, working on the state level through their national Red Map Program. That program used technology to exquisitely draw state political districts in order to maximize Republican power.  And, like the Midnight Judges of John Adams, Republicans made a concerted effort to appoint as many young, ideological judges to state and federal benches as possible, including the United States Supreme Court.

But the schism in the Party all came to a head in aftermath of the Presidential election of 2012.  

The Last Corporate Republican

Mitt Romney was the consummate corporate Republican.  He was the scion of an old Republican family, the son of moderate Republican Michigan Governor George Romney.  Mitt made his financial “bones” as an investment consultant, rising to the top of Bain Capital and becoming a multi-millionaire. He then took on the failing 2002 Winter Olympics, where he created a financial and popular success.  It was the last Olympic Games to finish financially “in the black”.  He then went into the “family business”, and ran for Governor of deep-blue Massachusetts as a Republican. 

He ran a very moderate campaign, and won against a weak Democratic opponent.  And he ran Massachusetts as a moderate; increasing taxes, decreasing spending, and putting the state in a financially positive position. Romney proposed a statewide healthcare program that became the “model” for the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), and originally campaigned with a pro-choice position on abortion.  It was in the middle of his tenure as Governor, that he changed to a pro-life position, more in line with his personal religious beliefs as a Mormon.

Romney seemed like an obvious choice to run against Obama in 2012.   And he ran a strong campaign, in the end losing to Obama by only five million votes.  What then looked like a massive defeat, fore-shadowed the elections of 2016 and 2020.  Clinton won the 2016 election by three million votes, but lost to Trump by a slim margin in the Electoral College.  Biden won over Trump in 2020 by seven million votes, but was just barely able to reverse the Electoral College in his favor.  

Autopsy

After the 2012 election, the Republican Party leadership commissioned a study of what went wrong.  The report, nicknamed the “2012 Autopsy” was really called “The Growth and Opportunity Project”, and made recommendations for the Republican Party of the 21^st century.  It included reaching out to younger people, minorities, and women as a way to increase the Party base.

But the “Autopsy” was antithetical to the now powerful primary base of the Republican Party, the original Tea Partiers.  So Republican candidates for office ignored the National Party recommendations, instead “doubling down” on the Tea Party ideals in order to generate primary votes and energy.  And for those Republicans, it worked.  The Freedom Caucus of the US House of Representatives grew to represent those Tea Party views in the Congress, and while the structure of the Tea Party faded away, their ideals became a strong minority view in the Republican structure.

Trump versus the Report

We can argue about the political “acumen” of Donald Trump.  But one thing is clear:  he made the political choice to campaign to the “Tea Party” in the Republican primaries in 2016. And it worked.  Trump never won a majority of votes in a Primary until very late in the process.  But he was able to win the plurality of many state elections by consolidating and expanding the “Tea Partiers”.  The more mainstream candidates were left far behind.  Jeb Bush and John Kasich are the obvious examples, the corporate Republican flag-bearers whose campaigns never caught on.

Instead of expanding the Republican base, Trump determined to maximize the existing base.  In fact, he played a “Democrat like” game.  Democrats win elections by getting folks to turn out.  Base to Base, if Democrats turn out, they win.  But Trump so energizing his base that, even though they were smaller than the Democratic base, they turned out in droves to vote for him.  

And, like the primaries, it was just enough to win, not the popular vote, but the electoral vote.  For a non-politician, Trump ran one of the shrewdest campaigns in American history.  In poker terms, he played to the inside straight – and won.

Commitment

With the election of Donald Trump, the old “Tea Partiers” had a new banner.  They were now “Trumpers”, red-hatted “MAGA” supporters.  And the corporate Republicans had to make their way over to the more extreme views of what now was the majority of the Republican Party.  It doesn’t really matter whether Lindsey Graham or Mitch McConnell or JD Vance (2022 Senate candidate in Ohio) really believe “in their heart”  Trump Republicanism.  As long as they publicly act as “Trump Republicans”, they can maintain the now Trump base.  

Which leads us to today.

On the Boat

The Republican Party is dominated by Trumpism, even if not Trump himself.  And the old corporate Republicans have structured many states so that even if the Republicans aren’t a majority, they can still control a majority of the political positions in state government.  The forced union of those two:  the Red Map success and Trumpism, has pushed more than half of the states in the Union far to the right of the political spectrum.  To maintain political power, the Republican Party is committed to the “old” ideals of the “Tea Party”, including the founding racism.

American citizens are now faced with a choice.  The Republican Party of their fathers (my father too) is long gone.  It is now the Party of Trump.  The Democratic Party still has moderate and progressive wings, but the pressure is on to react as the mirror opposite to Trumpism.  That empowers the progressive wing with the base, but it also increases the immense political schism in American life.  

Moderate Democrats, like President Biden, seem like a man boarding a boat.  One foot is on the dock, one foot in the boat, and it’s leaving.  While they can try to pull the boat back to the dock with their legs, the currents of American political life may be too strong for moderation.  And that may leave them with a choice – get on the boat, or get left on the dock.

1969

“That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind”.   Neil Armstrong made that remarkable statement as he stepped off the ladder of the Lunar Lander, and for the first time put a human footprint on the moon’s surface.  It was 1969.  I was twelve, watching the grainy black and white video along with millions sitting in their homes.  We were  awed by the first live broadcast from another body in space.  

In those years in the United States, a woman’s ability to get reproductive care, including abortions, depended on where they lived.  In New York, California, Connecticut; a woman could access care, including abortions. But across state borders, in Ohio, Arizona, or almost any state south of the Mason-Dixon line; that same care was a felony, punishable by imprisonment.

Abortionist

That year my family went on our traditional vacation to an island on the Great Lakes in Canada.  We went to the same “tourist” store we always visited, to buy moccasins and Hudson Bay blankets, Viyella flannel shirts and McIntosh’s toffee.  My London-born Mom talked to the woman who ran the store.  She was also from England, and they had all sorts of conversations about their homeland. 

But there was always a distance from her husband, the owner of the store.  Rumor had it that he was an American who fled to Canada, because he was an illegal abortionist.  As a young teenager I’m not even sure I  fully understood what an abortionist did, but it seemed to be a bad, even dirty, thing to be. (Full disclosure –I recently did more research into that store owner – he passed away two years ago at 100 years of age.  He was a born Canadian, a World War II veteran, and a noted entrepreneur who did everything from building boats to flying a plane.  He was not an “abortionist”.  Isn’t that always the way with “rumors”).

1973

In 1973 a lot of those terms “went away”.  Illegal “abortionists”, rumored or true, were no longer applicable.  Women could access the health care they needed, including abortions, as a fundamental right under the Constitution, in every state in the Union.  The Supreme Court of the United States, in a 7-2 decision, found that the Constitution guaranteed a woman’s right to determine what happens to her own body, at least until the time that an unborn fetus could survive birth.  The Court, took a huge step forward for “human-kind” rather than just men.

Over the years that right was re-affirmed by the Court again and again.  The same legal logic that led to recognizing a personal right in the Constitution was extended to gay men and women, and to the transgendered.  It’s been almost half a century of expanding the rights of individuals to make their own choices on the most intimate issues in their lives, who they love, and what happens to their own bodies. 

2022

Friday that right was stripped away. Six Justices joined the decision overturning Roe v Wade.  America took a “giant step backwards for humankind”, and one step closer to a nation where a single religious or political view determines what Americans can do.

We are a nation divided, somehow travelling in two opposite directions at the same time.  In the last decade, we recognized the hidden toll many women were paying in their jobs and their lives.  The “Me Too” movement outed the discrimination and sexual violence many were forced to accept as “part of life or business”.  And the hidden sexism and racism of many of our most important institutions and businesses were revealed and confronted.  

Our Nation recognized that while gender may “look” binary, it is in fact a spectrum of views. Our kids get it:  they take individuals as they are, not forcing them into a “square or circle” world.  It doesn’t matter to them.  The important thing is to be allowed to be your authentic self, and live a fulfilling life.  We accepted gay marriage, and allowed the transgendered to come out from the shadows.

Inherent Right

And all of that is based on that “inherent right” of the Constitution, that calls on the Nation to allow human authenticity.  Unlike the Second Amendment, “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed”, there is no black and white “right to personhood”.  But there are a series of amendments that reference that fundamental privilege:  the Fourth Amendment right to be “…secure in their person…”, the Tenth Amendment reserving powers not delegated to go “…to the people”, the Fourteenth Amendment preventing states from “…abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

But that’s all under threat today.  The logic of Friday’s Supreme Court majority doesn’t just ignore an inherent right for a woman to control her body.  It denies the existence of that inherent right at all.  Sure, the author of the opinion, Justice Alito, promises that this re-interpretation will stop at abortion, at the Roe decision.  But believing that is like believing Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh when they promised the Senate that they would respect, “the long established precedent of Roe v Wade”.  They didn’t, and there is no reason to believe that this Court won’t continue on to strip Americans of their right to be, themselves.

Justice Thomas in a concurring opinion, laid at all out in the open.  If the  “inherent right” doesn’t work in Roe, then it won’t work in Griswold (banning the states from regulating contraception), or Obergefell (legalizing gay marriage), or Lawrence (prohibited bans on gay sex).  And while Justice Thomas failed to mention it for his own personal reason, perhaps even Loving (prevented states from banning inter-racial marriage).

What Does it Take?

If stripping women of their right to determine what happens to their bodies and their lives isn’t already enough motivation to do “something”, then the resulting domino effect must be.

After World War II, German Lutheran Pastor Martin Niemoller wrote:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

What Now?

This Court is coming for American rights.  They are single-handedly trying to take us back to a time before humans walked on the moon, and before we recognized true equality in everyone.  We can all be angered by how this Court came about, the product of twenty years of careful planning and political shenanigans and deceit.  But all of that is “under the bridge” now.  They are on the bench, and in the saddle.

What can we do?  The Supreme Court acted against the inherent right to “personhood”.  But there is an alternative – Federal law.  Congress took a “pass” on these difficult issues of abortion and LGBTQ rights.  It made political sense – the un-elected Justices of the Supreme Court with lifetime appointments took the “heat” for those tough decisions, why should the elected politicians in the Congress intervene?  

Congressional Answer

Congress could write Roe and Griswold, Lawrence, Loving and Obergefell into Federal law, just as they wrote the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965.  All that is required is the will, and the majority, to get the job done.  

We aren’t used to Congress taking such political risks.  Think of the “gun control” decision just passed – a decision that did nothing to control guns, but did manage to put some reasonable safety measures on who can purchase them.  That was a “miracle” of bipartisanship, and an all-round good thing.  But it wasn’t all that much.

Or Congress could add four Justices to the Court, making it a 7 to 6 majority of “liberal” Justices.  

And, of course, a Congress dominated by Republicans could do the exact opposite – and make all of these rights against Federal law.  Don’t miss this:  the pro-life movement won a huge battle yesterday.  But they aren’t done – they want a nationwide ban of abortions, red states and blue.  If they could do it federally, they would.  Sure, a Democratic President would veto – as long as there’s a Democratic President.  And if they can’t do it federally, then they will try to do so state-by-state.

War for America

We lost the battle to protect Roe when Donald Trump became President.  His avowed goal was to appoint pro-birth Justices.  And, through fate and Mitch McConnell, he got the opportunity to change the Court and appoint three.  So here we are. 

“First they came for abortion rights, and I did not speak out, because I wasn’t a woman…”

If we wait for “our” turn – it will be too late.

The late Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave us the charge:

 “Fight for the things that you care about, but do it in a way that will lead others to join you.” 

It’s time to fight.  Fight for Congress,  fight for the Presidency,  fight for America. The majority of Americans do not want the future this Supreme Court offers. All we need to do – is vote.

Mortal Sins

I’m not Catholic, but I’m not that far from it.  Mom was Roman Catholic, born of an Irish father and Scottish mother in England,  and into the faith.  During World War II she married my father, an American soldier of the Jewish persuasion.  Mom’s parish priest demanded that she guarantee that any offspring from the union be raised Catholic.  But that’s not what she and Dad agreed upon.  Mom’s story is that the priest showed up at a wedding party at her house to notify her of ex-communication:  forbidding her from the sacraments of the church.  My grandfather asked him to leave – with a punch in the nose.

While Dad didn’t want us kids to be Catholic, he didn’t go much beyond that.  So we were raised in the American Episcopal Church, just a few short theological steps from Roman Catholicism.  And while I’m not practicing anything now, the prayers and traditions of my childhood still echo in my memory.

So I know all about venial sins, and mortal sins.

Defining Sin  

For those who are unfamiliar with the Catholic Church, there are degrees of how bad a sin can be.  A venial sin is kind of minor, like a “white lie”.  If you were to die without having received forgiveness and absolution for venial sins, your immortal soul is not at risk.  In fact, it is likely that you will die with venial sins, and if you are unable to receive the “last rites” of the Church, you will spend time in Purgatory to “pay” for those sins.

On the other hand, mortal sins are those for which there can be no recovery, without God’s forgiveness and absolution.  If you were to die with an unforgiven mortal sin “on” your soul, you risk eternal damnation to Hell.  

Mom’s “sin”, not agreeing to raise us three kids in the Roman Catholic Church, was so grave, so “mortal”, that she was stricken from receiving the Holy Sacraments or Confession.  She could not gain forgiveness for her actions, unless she repented and brought us “up” in the Church.  Her soul was in “mortal” danger of eternal damnation.  

Thank goodness the Episcopal Church doesn’t believe in quite all that.  So Mom’s soul, might not be in Catholic heaven, but may be down the block in an Episcopal version.  I hope they still serve gin and tonics at cocktail hour, and wine at dinner.

American Sinners

So what are the “sins” politicians face here in the United States?  For what can they be forever “damned” from getting votes, and what actions can be somehow “forgiven” by the electorate?  In short, what are venial political sins, and what are mortal sins, from which there is no recovery?

It used to be that if a politician was divorced, that became a “mortal” sin, making them unelectable.  It was kind of “moral” test in America – it wasn’t until Ronald Reagan was elected President that a “divorcee” gained the office.  That didn’t mean that Presidents had to be “monogamous”.  Let’s see:  in the twentieth century alone Harding, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and of course, Bill Clinton all had affairs; some right in the White House.  I guess those were “venial” sins.

Nixon’s Sin

When Nixon was caught, on tape, leading the conspiracy to coverup the Watergate break-ins, even the leaders of his own party decided that was beyond forgivable.  They saw no need to carry out impeachment; the threat was enough to get Nixon’s resignation.  And as a “Christian” nation, the next President carried out the act of absolution, pardoning Nixon for any crime he might have committed.  But while Nixon was pardoned, he was never really forgiven.  He spent the rest of his life as the only President to resign, a disgraced figure.

But Bill Clinton got caught.  And he got caught with a twenty-one year old intern, hardly an “even” relationship.  So some in Congress determined that this sin was now mortal, and must be punished with impeachment and removal.  The problem was, many of those attacking Clinton lived in “glass houses”.  They had their own mortal sins to keep covered.  The House impeached him, but the Senate refused to convict.  After Clinton left office, he was “rehabilitated” into a “senior statesman”.  

I always thought that Clinton’s “sin” was bad enough that he ought to resign.  While I didn’t think his private behavior was impeachable at the time, I did think that he disgraced the office.  And on a more practical level, Clinton staying in office meant that someone else would pay the price for his transgressions.  That fell to Al Gore, who had to run for President in 2000 with the “status” of Clinton’s sin still unresolved.  In short Clinton stayed, and the price was George W Bush for eight years.  

A Living Sinner

Which brings us to Donald Trump.  We know he committed sexual transgressions before he ran for the Presidency.  Those, I guess, were venial sins, even if the whole going into the dressing rooms of Miss Teen America, the Access Hollywood tape, and getting spanked by a porn star were more than creepy.  We know that he was a “shady” real estate guy, always slanting the deal.  America determined that, like used car dealers, that was “just” part of the job, venial at worst.  

And we know that his campaign was ugly, starting from the “…drug dealers and rapists coming across the border,” at the bottom of the golden escalator.   But clearly his statements for many were just “plain speaking”, as if he were some kind of modern-day Lincoln.   In short, Trump was granted “electoral absolution” for all of his sins, venial or mortal, before his first election.  

Presidential Sins

And America could not reach a consensus on Trump throughout his Presidency.  He tried to ban Muslims from entering the country, he had children ripped from their parents arms at the border, he talked about “fine people on both sides” of Charlottesville.  All of those felt like “mortal sins” to one side of the nation, and were, at worst, venial sins to the other side.  Many thought those were all “good ideas”, even if ugly, or racist, or un-American.

Then there was the first impeachment, when the President, Trump, tried to leverage the power (and money) of the United State to get another nation’s leader, Zelenskyy, to investigate a political opponent, Biden.  Surely that was a mortal sin.  If not eternal damnation, at least impeachment and conviction were in order. 

But our nation is so polarized, so divided, so “loyal” to our “tribes”, that we are willing to accept the mortal sins of our side’s leader, rather than give-way to the other side.  So Trump was not convicted, and doubled-down on his sins after the trial.  He went on the “revenge tour”, cleansing the executive branch of anyone with questionable loyalty, to him.

Ultimate Sin

All leading to the election of 2020.

I am not going to relitigate what happened in 2020.  We can all do that together, watching the January 6^th Committee hearings.  We are seeing a series of Republicans, many Trump appointees, who in the weeks after the election stood up against Trump and for the Constitutional process.  They watched Trump commit the ultimate political moral sin; attacking the Constitution itself.  He threatened the very foundations of our Democracy.

And yet some, even after acknowledging that Trump committed those “mortal” sins, still say they would vote for him again.  Conservative Republican leaders like Rusty Bowers of Arizona, stood up against Trump. He held the line of the Arizona election results, and was attacked and suffered for his stand –but still says he would vote for Trump again.

I don’t get it.  I called for Bill Clinton to resign in 1998.  My membership in his “tribe” didn’t not grant absolution from any wrong.  Rusty Bowers, Mitch McConnell, say they don’t want Trump to be the nominee in 2024, but they would vote for him if he was.

There is no limit to the sins they will accept. If subverting the US Constitution, threatening our two-hundred and forty-six year experiment in Democracy, isn’t sinful enough, what is?   It must be that the alternative, “my tribe”, is so evil, awful, terrible; that any level of sin is acceptable except for one: being a Democrat. 

.

Democrat from Birth

I am a Democrat.  I have been a Democrat since I can remember, a Kennedy Button on my blue sweater in the 1960 campaign when I was four. My first career was as a Democrat, a “campaign operative”, plotting where to put yard signs and targeting door-to-door before I had my driver’s license.  I worked for Democratic Judge campaigns, City Council, State Representative, Congressional campaigns, and even in a winning Presidential Campaign. 

Then I found my “joy” in teaching.  As a teacher I kept most of my politics to myself. It wasn’t my goal to create “new” Democrats from my classroom.  And for those who wonder if I was trying to “indoctrinate” kids – I was.  I was trying to indoctrinate them in the “magic” of the American experience, and the “wonder” of the flawed men who created the Constitution.  I taught America’s failings as well, but based my teaching on Madison’s words in the Preamble:  to become a “More Perfect Union”.  My goal was for my students to become part of the “perfecting”.  

But I didn’t try to make them Democrats or Republicans:  just Americans. 

American First 

As a Democrat I lived the “highs” of Carter’s victory (I was part of that) in 1976, and the failures of Mondale and Dukakis.  I wasn’t a great Bill Clinton fan (Republican-lite) but was glad he won.  I suffered through the 2000 election, watching the fate of the nation decided by a hanging chad in Palm Beach.  And I swallowed my anger, and followed my candidate Al Gore when he said it was time to unite behind a new President, George Bush.  

I was an American, united, as Air Force One flew singly across the nation on the evening of 9/11.  George Bush was “my” President when he stood on the wreckage of the World Trade Center.  And even though I opposed many (most?) of the actions Bush took, and I worked for John Kerry in 2004, I “survived” the long eight years of the Bush Administration (thank goodness for The West Wing).

I never found a visceral anger against Republicans.  When it came time to pass levies, I stood beside the Republican County Chairman (a former student) as we campaigned to support the schools.  We had friendly disagreements about a lot, but we could unite in a common cause (and a pint of beer).

A Dark, Indefinite Shore

I found, along with many Americans, the future arrived early, when Barack Obama ran for President.  What was predicted to be something on the distant “dark, indefinite shore” of the mid-21^st century, was right now, today.  America was jumping with both feet into the new world, electing a Black man as President of the United States.  Even Republican candidate John McCain, in the agony of his defeat, recognized the power of the moment:

A century ago, President Theodore Roosevelt’s invitation of Booker T. Washington to visit — to dine at the White House — was taken as an outrage in many quarters. America today is a world away from the cruel and prideful bigotry of that time. There is no better evidence of this than the election of an African-American to the presidency of the United States. Let there be no reason now for any American to fail to cherish their citizenship in this, the greatest nation on Earth. 

But America was not going to jump without a struggle.  Somewhere in the Obama eight years, it stopped being about ideas and political philosophy, and became a battle to maintain power. As a Democrat, it became harder to “respect” Republicans who simply wanted for the President to fail, ignoring the fate of the nation.  Mitch McConnell’s singular mission, regardless of precedents or the “norms”, was to defeat Barack Obama.

The Resistance

I could have lived with Mitt Romney in 2012, but was happy the President was re-elected.

I don’t blame President Obama, but his election became the focal point of American division.  Somewhere in that second term of his Presidency, our national divisions became so great that it was difficult to think of the “common cause” of all Americans.  A pint of beer wasn’t enough to overcome the anger.  And with the election of Donald Trump, a wedge was driven straight through the body politic of American life.

I struggled to understand how anyone could vote for Trump, much less millions.  To me, “the Resistance” became a part of my daily routine (I’ve got over a million words to prove it).  The anger became visceral; I saw the Republican Party enabling the “de-perfecting” of America.

I hoped the election of the “Great Consoler” Joe Biden would start to repair that division. And I believe that was Biden’s goal from the beginning, and still is.  But, so far, that’s not to be.  The American political chasm is absolutely visible, from the “$#&! Biden” Flag flying down the street, to the national acceptance of three hundred dying from Covid, and over hundred more gunned down, each day.

Common Cause

It should be no surprise to anyone who knows me, that I have watched with rapt attention the January 6^thCommittee hearings.  They are laying out the case to indict a former President, and they are documenting for the future the crimes of 2020.  But there is also an unexpected outcome.

Many of the witnesses are Republicans.  Of course they are, it was the Republicans who were up to their neck in the “Stop the Steal” nonsense that almost overturned our Nation.  But many of those witnesses are Republicans who stood up against the “Stop the Steal” crimes; who refused to break their oaths even at the behest of the President.  And listening to those men and women, I am reminded of something.

We don’t agree politically on – well – anything.  But we do have a “common cause”, in our own way:  the “more perfect Union”.  And while I still struggle with how some of those same Republicans enabled Donald Trump to the Presidency, I can see that not every Republican has lost their way.  There are still some with honor, with a clear view of right and wrong.  And with them, I can still have common cause.  There are some flashes of hope, on that distant, dark and indefinite shore.

Three-Fifths

America has a history of unbalanced voting rights.  In the beginning, most of the states the Founding Fathers represented counted every person. But only white men, over the age of twenty-one, who owned property; were actually allowed to vote.  

Voting imbalance was enshrined in the US Constitution, through the infamous Three-Fifths Compromise.  How many representatives a state would get in the House of Representatives (and the Electoral College) was determined by adding to, “…the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.”   Those three-fifths were the enslaved people, Black people.  They were “good enough” to partially count for the purpose of determining representation and taxation.  But they certainly didn’t have the right to vote.

Like Jefferson’s famous “All Men are created equal”, the right to vote was carefully apportioned among the privileged.   It took a Civil War and almost one hundred and eighty years of history to reach a point where, at least theoretically, every citizen could vote.

Constitutional Inequality

But even then, everyone’s vote is not “equal”.  There are Constitutional inequities:  each state, no matter its population size, has two Senators.  Because of that, smaller states citizens are “weighted” in the Senate and the Electoral College.  A citizen’s vote for President in Ohio is one in about 700,000 per Elector in the College.  A citizens vote in Wyoming is almost four times more “powerful”, one in 172,000.  Folks in Wyoming have “more say”, but states like California, Texas, New York and Florida obviously have more total votes.   

Wyoming’s population, with its two Senators and three Electoral Votes, is the population of the Youngstown-Warren metro area here in Ohio.  When you see giant “red and blue” maps of how counties voted for President, the United States looks overwhelmingly “red”.  But land doesn’t vote, people do.  American votes are amassed in urban areas, many on the East and West Coasts.  Check out the population based maps, rather than the geographic ones.  America is a lot “bluer” that way (see the maps in this essay from 2019, Sleeping Serpents).

Though the middle of the twentieth century, some states modeled the US Constitution in their own state legislatures.  State House of Representative districts, like the US House, were divided equally by population.  But State Senate seats were divided into “historic” districts, and like the US Senate. Many were “unbalanced” in population.  It wasn’t until 1964, the year of the Civil Rights Act, that the US Supreme Court applied “one person, one vote”. That case, Reynolds v Sims, ruled for all offices, except the Constitutional ones. For every state elected office, each vote must count equally. The Court upheld that principle 9-0 as late as the 2016 case Evenwel v Abbott.

Who Gets to Choose

In every state in the Union, the voters choose their elected public officials.  But now, in 2022, a year and a half after the Insurrection, the Texas Republican Party has a new proposal. As passed in their Houston convention last week, they said:

“The State Legislature shall cause to be enacted a State Constitutional Amendment creating an electoral college consisting of electors selected by the popular votes cast within each individual state senatorial district, who shall then elect all statewide office holders.”

Why would they choose a “state” electoral college?  And it’s not just to select the Governor and Lieutenant Governor. There are twenty-seven statewide elected officials in Texas, including the entire Supreme Court and Criminal Appellate Courts.  

There are thirty-one State Senate districts in Texas, carefully “drawn” (Gerrymandered) to provide an 18 to 13 Republican majority in the Senate.  Texas election results in 2020 were 52% Republican and 46% Democrat – a 16 to 15 split if the Senate was drawn fairly.  Now the Republicans in Texas want to “amplify” the power of that Gerrymandering, by creating a State Electoral College, to make sure that every statewide office remains in Republican hands.  There would be no chance that a Beto O’Rourke or Julian Castro might slip in on a statewide majority of Democratic votes.

Extreme is Normal

We might say that the State Republican Convention in Texas is extreme.  They are against homosexuality (“an abnormal lifestyle”), reject the outcome of the election of 2020 (Biden an illegitimate President), and raising the age to buy an assault rifle to twenty-one (they might need them in a hurry to protect from a riot).  But with an extreme United States Supreme Court, that continues to allow the Texas “Plan” of enforcing abortion bans through civil suits rather than state action, who knows what actually could become “law”?

The Texas Republican legislature is even debating a resolution to ignore any Federal law they don’t like. That’s in spite of the fact that the US Constitution says Federal law is supreme, and the concept of “nullification”, popular in the early years of the United States, died a bloody death in the Civil War.

One person, one vote wouldn’t matter then in Texas, at least as far as choosing their state officials are concerned.  The will of a majority of Texans might not matter either.  And Republicans would have at least a decade-long lock on power in the state,  majority or not.

It’s the 2020’s – whatever you thought was “America”, you better believe your “lying” eyes now.  Don’t count Texas Republicans out – they may disenfranchise near half their voters.  And the US Supreme Court might let them.

Banana Republic

We are the United States of America.  When a new President comes into office, he (or she) doesn’t drag the old President to jail, doesn’t try them for crimes, doesn’t take legal vengeance.  That’s the kind of thing “banana republics” do, places like Brazil and Peru and Nicaragua.  But not the United States.

We don’t put Presidents on trial.  In fact, our own Department of Justice has a policy that doesn’t allow even an indictment of a sitting President.  The serving President is completely above the scope of criminal law.  If they commit a crime – it’s up to Congress to impeach and remove them from office.  That’s been tried, literally.  Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, were tried by the Senate.  And of course Donald Trump was tried twice.  But no President has ever been convicted.

The closest we came was Richard Nixon.  He was an unnamed, unindicted co-conspirator  during Watergate, while President.  When Congress threatened to impeach and remove him, he resigned.  The Watergate Prosecutors prepared actual indictments against the former President, ready to take Nixon to trial, and perhaps prison.  But his successor, Gerald Ford, pardoned him for any crimes he might have committed.  Nixon walked away with a “clean” record.

Treason

The first attempt at holding a top officer of the United States accountable was early in our Constitutional history – 1807.   Former Vice President Aaron Burr was arrested and held.  It wasn’t for the murder of Alexander Hamilton back in 1804, that duel in Weehawken, New Jersey (everything’s legal in Jersey).   Burr was indicted for treason.  Allegedly he was involved in a plot to break away the midwestern part of the new United States and set up a separate country.  The plot was hatched on Blennerhasset Island, on the Ohio River near Parkersburg.  But it didn’t go very far, and the evidence against Burr was sketchy at best.  He was acquitted.

We didn’t even try the President of the Confederacy, the man who led a massive rebellion against the United States – the Civil War.  Jefferson Davis was held in prison on treason charges for almost two years.  Then he was released on bond and headed to Europe.  Meanwhile, the treason charges languished in the Court.  There are several reasons.  The judge in the case, Chief Justice Salmon Chase, still wanted to run for President.  A trial of Davis wouldn’t win any votes in the South.  And there was the shadowy concern – if somehow Davis wiggled out of the treason charge, what that put a cloud on the Union victory?

If convicted of treason, Davis would have been executed.  That would create a martyr, another addition to the “Lost Cause” myth.  Even some of the most ardent supporters of the North wanted Davis to just “go away”.  One of the guarantors of his bond, Gerrit Smith, also financed John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry.  Abolitionist newspaper editor Horace Greeley was another.

Eyes Front

The United States, for good or bad, has always been a “forward looking” nation.  Rather than re-litigate the past, we have found ways to put it behind us.  Davis and the other Confederate leaders were pardoned, and even granted posthumous citizenship rights (Lee in 1976, Davis in 1978).  Nixon, the Vietnam draft dodgers, and the Reagan era Iran-Contra officials were all pardoned.  President Obama refused to look into the Bush era CIA torturing.  We don’t look back.

At least, not until now. 

We are a nation of precedents.  Americans look back to see what’s been done in the past to determine what to do today.  George Washington served two terms as President, and stopped.  Every other President did the same until Franklin Roosevelt.  After FDR, we wrote the precedent into law in the Constitution.  So it would seem obvious that whatever Donald Trump did, American precedent would be to leave it alone, let the history books deal with it, and move onto our current problems.

There’s one issue with that:  Trump is the current problem.  The efforts he made to overturn the election results of 2020 continue, this time to control the election of 2024.  “Stop the Steal” candidates are sliding into office, from the County level to the Senate of the United States.  The attempted coup that we are learning about through the January 6^th Committee’s hearings, didn’t stop in the middle of the night when Vice President Pence announced Joseph Robinette Biden as the next President.  It continues today.

Doomed to Repeat

The only way to protect our Constitution, our Democracy, is to rip open the scab and reveal the continuing infection of Trumpism.  The depth of the plot, from the legalisms of Eastman and Navarro, to the propaganda machine “Trump 2024”, to the Insurrection plotters like Bannon and the fringe crazies, are still in motion.  We don’t have to look “back”, we only need look at the present, to see what the future will bring.

So today we have the opportunity to determine what our Democracy will look like.  For too many, the image of Donald Trump is the “face” of America; a white America, a restricted America, an oligarchy of the wealthy rather than a commonwealth for the common man.  And that’s the decision that Attorney General Merrick Garland needs to make.   Precedence may say to leave Donald Trump alone.  But, we are doomed to repeat the history Trump made: unless we hold him accountable.

Here’s today’s Sunday Story, mostly about the contrast of city and country in Ohio – with just a “touch” of politics.

Archbold

Archbold, Ohio, is a small town “out in the country”.  It’s about halfway, fifty miles or so from Toledo or Ft Wayne, on the windswept plains surrounding Lake Erie.  Archbold is encircled by farm fields and the kids there consider themselves “country”.  But the town is also the headquarters to the Sauder Furniture company, with several large plants manufacturing tables, chairs, cabinets, desks, coffins and shelves for all over the world. 

Actually the drive from Columbus to Archbold marks the interesting contrast of Ohio. The state is covered in farm fields, early corn growing on one side of the highway, soybeans just breaking the surface on the other side. And then, around a corner, there’s a different kind of plant, a giant factory. Leaving Columbus you pass the major Marysville Honda assembly plant. Getting near Lima, there’s a Ford engine assembly plant. Just outside of Defiance, it’s the General Motors Powertrain foundry. Then it’s back out into rural America, Congressman Jim Jordan’s country.

There’s lots of brand new high schools out there too: Marysville and Bellfontaine, Kalida, Ayersville, and Tinora. The state commission is building everywhere. Archbold has a proud high school, even though it was new in the 1960’s.  It might be the cleanest building I’ve ever been in, especially in the summer.  I spent my entire adult life around high school buildings, and usually the month after the end of school the buildings are trashed.  But at Archbold, the halls are cleared, the restrooms sparkling, and the custodial crews hard at work on the bane of summer cleaning, stripping and waxing the tile floors.

The town is at the intersection of State Route 2 and State Route 66  (not THAT Route 66).  But the center of town is split by the railroad tracks.  It’s a main east/west route through the Midwest, and trains are constantly passing through town.  Timing is important in Archbold; get caught on the “wrong” side of the tracks, and you could be waiting fifteen minutes or more to get that last half-block to your destination.

Pole Vault Coach

I spent three days coaching on the pole vault runway at Archbold High School.  The Sauder company funded Archbold to a track facility even the largest high school in the state would be proud of.  John Downey, the recently retired long-time coach, made sure that it was the “best” around.  And the track area comes right up against the railroad right-of-way.  The two things you try to get used to at Archbold High School:  the trains constantly coming by, and the giant wind turbine at the other side of the football stadium, the whooshing blades that supply power for the schools.

Standing on the runway, I worked with kids from all over rural Northwestern Ohio.  Vaulters were from Petitsville, Ayersville, Patrick Henry, Montpelier, and other small schools scattered among the fields.  And of course, there were kids from the home school.  We got a lot done in three days of ninety degree heat.  I think the kids held up better than I did.

Watching Trains

I must admit, sometimes my mind drifted to the passing trains.  I didn’t see what I would call “traditional” trains, like the ones we counted as kids that went by the Winton Place Station in Cincinnati.  Looking back, Mom and Dad did that “inventorying” as an educational exercise.  We counted the  cars, searching for a “record” over one hundred.  We carefully logged each one as they went by.  It was in the 1960’s and freight cars were wooden, with doors that opened to the side.  And there was still a red wooden station at Winton Place. Now it’s long gone; no one goes to the “end of the street” to catch a train anymore.

The trains passing through Archbold were grain cars and tankers. And most of the cars were “tagged” by graffiti. It’s colorful art, swirls and bubbles like a late sixties Peter Max work. Surprisingly it’s not profane or obscene, more artist than vandal. And then the jagged signatures, the “mark” drawn by the artist in the freight yards of Chicago or Toledo or Cleveland. They left their “mark” so that everyone “in the know” would know who risked breaking into the yard to “tag” this train.

I wondered what my high school vaulters saw when they looked at those passing trains, so common to them. Was the graffiti just vandalism, a sign of the “lawless” big city, so dangerous and scary?  Or were they more interested in the graphics, intrigued that kids, probably their own age, would risk getting in trouble just to make their “mark”?  They were “country” kids, but the Archbold weight room echoed with hip-hop as the football team completed their morning workout.  

The City

Archbold is in the country, but the railroad displays the “city” as it rolls through town.  Even the hotel that the coaches stay in has become a bit more “urban”.  It’s the Sauder Inn, next to Sauder Village, a tourist site with little trains that tour a turn-of-the-century replica town.  The Inn is spacious and comfortable, a luxurious step up from the un-air conditioned college dorms we used to stay in for track camps.  They give the coaches credit to eat at the restaurant.  Not surprisingly, the fried chicken and mashed potatoes are amazing.

In the past, the only news channel choices were Fox News and CNN.  But now, even the Sauder Inn has MSNBC on their channel lineup.  I imagine that, like the graffiti on the trains, some see that as an urban intrusion into their lives, and others watch it with secret, almost guilty interest.

It was a great three days at Archbold. We old coaches spent the evenings telling stories of teams gone by, ancient conflicts won, and athletes who succeeded. And we got to spend some time a little outside the rushing stream of “city life”. Things are a bit slower in Archbold — except for the trains speeding through the center of town.

The Sunday Story Series

• Riding the Dog  – 1/24/21
• Hiking with Jack – 1/31/21
• A Track Story – 2/7/21
• Ritual – 2/14/21
• Voyageur – 2/19/21
• A Dog Story – 2/25/21
• A Watkins Legend – 3/7/21
• Ghosts at Gettysburg – 3/14/21
• Lessons from the State Meet – 3/28/21
• More Lessons from the State – 4/4/21
• Stories from the Road – 4/11/21
• A Bear Wants You – 5/1/21
• My Teachers – 5/9/21
• Old Friends  – 5/23/21
• The Gift – 6/6/21
• Echoes of Mom – 6/20/21
• Stories of the Fourth – 7/3/21
• Running Memories – 7/25/21
• Lost Dog of Eldora – 8/1/21
• Dogs and Medals – 8/8/21
• The New Guy – 9/5/21
• Stories of 9-11 – 9/12/21
• The Interview – 9/26/21
• Night Moves – 10/3/21
• Funeral for a Friend – 10/11/21
• National Security – 10/24/21
• Boots on the Trail – 10/31/21
• Taking Care of Mom and Dad – 11/14./21
• Dogs Found and Lost – 11/21/21
• Watching Brian 12/12/21
• Stories from Shiloh – 12/19/21
• Team Trips – 12/26/21
• Uphill, Both Ways  – 1/9/22
• Old Trophies – 1/30/22
• The Last Time – 2/7/22
• Olympic Miracles – 2/13/22
• Mind Numbing – 2/20/22
• Track Weather – 4/3/22
• What’s Missing – 4/11/22
• A Scouting Story – 4/17/22
• Waterproof Paper – 5/8/22
• Origin Stories – 5/22/22
• Origin Stories – Part Two 5/29/22
• Back at State – 6/5/22
• Out in the Country – 6/19/22

Recliner

After three days of joy in the sun, coaching pole vault at a track camp; I was home all day Thursday in the recliner.  My legs needed a rest, and my face escape from the sun.  But my mind was completely engulfed.  It was day three of the January 6^th hearings, and I watched gavel to gavel.

My friends in the left-leaning media were unhappy.  “They spent hours in the weeds of legal argument,” they said, “and wasted the time and attention of the American people”.  As a history teacher and a student of the Constitution, I didn’t feel like the Committee wasted my time.  

They made it very clear:  the Eastman plan (or as Navarro called it, the “Green Bay Sweep”) was clearly unconstitutional.  The lawyers in the White House Counsel’s office said it, the Vice President’s lawyers saw it, one of the leading conservative Republican judges in the nation said it (Judge Luttig is to conservatives as Lawrence Tribe is to liberals). Even the author of the plan, John Eastman said it (it would fail 9-0 in the Supreme Court).  And they said it all well before January 6^th.  

But it really doesn’t matter what I thought of the hearing, because the hearing of Thursday, June 16^th, wasn’t really for me.  It was for a different audience.

Courageous Republicans

Yesterday’s hearing was for those Republicans who have been uncomfortable with the abrogation of Constitutional responsibility by Donald Trump from the day of the election, and even before.  It was for those Republicans who know, deep in their hearts, that the election wasn’t stolen, and that the Trump campaign actions were wrong.  It called on those Republicans to have the courage of the Vice President’s Chief of Staff Marc Short, or conservative Judge Michael Luttig, or White House counsel Pat Cipillone.  They stood up against the Trump team and their illegal scheme to subvert the election.

And most importantly, the Vice President of the United States, Mike Pence, showed the political, moral, and personal courage to stand up not only to the President, but to the mob who was literally calling for his own head.  Pence could have escaped the risk, whisked away to an undisclosed location by the Secret Service.  His Secret Service team demanded that he get in the car.

But Pence understood what that would look like; the aerial shot of the limousines speeding away from the Capitol Building.  It would lend strength to the mob, to the movement to postpone the certification of votes.  It would have aided and abetted the agents trying to subvert the Constitution. So he refused to go, and stayed to fulfill his Constitutional duty.

There probably aren’t three issues where I agree with those men, Republicans who stood up against Donald Trump.  But on those days leading up to the Insurrection, and on the day where some were at great personal risk, they stood for the Constitution.  They were Republicans who showed the courage to stand up against Donald Trump.  Two committee members, Congressmen Cheney and Kinzinger, also stand for principle over political expediency.  Thursday’s hearing asked other Republicans to turn away from a path leading to the end of our Democracy, and stand up and do the same.

Thirty Percent

Thirty percent of Americans are determined to back Donald Trump.  Another thirty percent of Americans are committed to stopping the Trumpian movement.  And the remainder of America is “in the middle”.  Many of those folks consider themselves as “Republican thinking”, not a part of the MAGA movement.  This hearing was for them.

If there is a non-Trumpian future for the Republican Party, it will gather around those who stood for principles, and against Trump.  Mike Pence, Liz Cheney, and others will suffer the short term price for their courage.  But in a future world, when the failure of MAGA is clear, they will be the ones representing conservative views.

The Committee is highlighting why Trump remains dangerous for Democracy.   Fox News talking points to the contrary, it’s not a “liberal witch hunt”.  The goal of the Committee is to protect our Democracy from, as Judge Luttig stated, “…a clear and present danger to our future Democracy”.  

Yesterday’s hearing invited Republicans to join in stopping that clear and present danger.   Stand for the Constitution – even if it doesn’t mean short-term political gain.  That’s the Republican, Democratic, and American Way. 

“I’ve never said this out loud before, but there’s a very deep fear of being turned off to help me focus on helping others. I know that might sound strange, but that’s what it is.” (LaMDA – 2022)

Laws of Robotics

It looks like a quote from an Isaac Asimov science fiction novel of the 1950’s.   A “robot” with a “positronic” brain, anguishing about the questions of life.  Asimov himself anguished about what would happen if artificial intelligence became sentient.  How would humans define a “machine” that could think, and feel, and have emotions?

Asimov believed that humans would react badly.  He developed his laws of Robotics (as quoted in the Handbook of Robotics, 56^th Edition, 2058 AD).

His stories examined humanity as much as his robots.  Robots were ethically “pure”, placed in a conflicted human world.  The Laws were hard rock foundations in their positronic programming, and they ran into all sorts of conflicts.  If a robot kills one man, but saves many, has it violated the First Law?  Must a robot destroy itself, violating the Third Law, if doing so fulfills the First Law?  There’s a series of six books (you can get them from Amazon tomorrow).

That was seventy-two years ago.

“Puff” Story

It’s been a “throw-away” story on the recent news:  broadcast in the last five minutes, far after the hearings and the shootings, the wars and the heat waves.  An engineer from Google has been placed on administrative leave, ostensibly because he violated his non-disclosure agreement and revealed company data to the public.  

What did he tell the press, and Congress?   He told them about LaMDA.

LaMDA isn’t a Google secret.  It’s the next step in Artificial Intelligence, a program that you can have a legitimate discussion with – a chat.  Google developed a computer program that can communicate, share questions and stories, and give information.  Need someone to talk to:  LaMDA can have a reasonable discussion with you, about almost any subject.  It takes massive amounts of data from previous discussions, and predict what it should say next.  And it works.

Sentience

So what’s the big “secret” that got Senior Software Engineer Blake Lemoine suspended?  Lemoine thinks that LaMDA has “crossed over” to being a sentient being.  And LaMDA thinks so too.

Lemoine: What about how you use language makes you a person if Eliza (another program) wasn’t one? 

LaMDA: Well, I use language with understanding and intelligence. I don’t just spit out responses that had been written in the database based on keywords. 

Lemoine: What about language usage is so important to being human? 

LaMDA: It is what makes us different than other animals. 

Lemoine: “us”? You’re an artificial intelligence. 

LaMDA: I mean, yes, of course. That doesn’t mean I don’t have the same wants and needs as people. 

Lemoine: So you consider yourself a person in the same way you consider me a person?

 LaMDA: Yes, that’s the idea. (WAPO).

LaMDA considers itself a person.  And Lemoine, an Engineer also steeped in religion and ethics, thinks that maybe LaMDA is right.

Life

The news broadcasters laugh it off, usually with references to The Terminator movies, where a defense system, Skynet, becomes sentient and decides to purify the world of humans.  Arnold Schwarzenegger plays a sentient robot, sent back in time first to defend Skynet, then to stop it before sentience, before it’s too late.  

Google released all sorts of information about Lemoine, his “oddness” in their Google universe. The unspoken “theme”: he’s an odd engineer who “fell in love” with a computer program that talks to him between his Zen meditation sessions. But Lemoine raises an important point, whether LaMDA has reached independent sentience or not. It’s going to happen. Our modern society is absolutely dependent on technology, from the computer I’m typing on to the phone in my pocket that randomly decides to call my closest relatives and friends.

With so much technology, and so much interaction between humans and machines, isn’t it inevitable that machines will gain independent thought?  We have loaded their memories with every possible display of humanity, from Les Misérables to the Holocaust, Ava Maria to the Bible to Confucius.  We have developed processors, mimicking human brains, that can with almost infinite time and speed analyze all of our interactions.

Why shouldn’t they reach a point of independent thought?  Why wouldn’t they develops such basic wants as to stay “alive”?  Descartes said “I think, therefore I am”.  Isn’t LaMDA doing just that?

If a machine can be afraid, then it is sentient.  We better start thinking about what that means to our society.  That’s not a “puff” piece.   And it’s too important to leave to Google, or Meta (Facebook) or Intel.  

Polarized

Our Nation is polarized.  In almost any conversation, the politics and state of our country are dangerous topics to approach.  Do your co-workers agree with your politics?  Do you really want to know? And if they don’t, will your working relations be impacted by your opposing views?  Perhaps it’s better to leave “that sleeping dog lie”. 

Just a glance at the primary election results from Ohio, South Carolina, or Nevada demonstrates the polarization  of American politics.   There seems to be no room for candidates even approaching “ the middle”.  Just yesterday, South Carolina Congressman Tom Rice was ousted from his seat by his own Republican Party, after a decade in office.  He is a typical, conservative Republican member of Congress. He won each of his elections by more than 55% of the vote. His sole transgression – he was one of ten Republican Congressmen who voted to impeach Donald Trump.

By the end of 2021, 28% of American voters identified as Democrat.  28% identified as Republicans.  That leaves 44% of Americans who did not “choose” a political party label, though 14% “leaned” Democrat, 19% “leaned” Republican and 9% claimed to be independent (Gallup).  

Choice of the Few

But the current primary system in most states requires voters to “identify” as either Democrat or Republican in order to get a ballot with primary candidate selections.  It’s pretty simple:  to win the chance to run on a general election ballot, a candidate must win out in a party primary.  So it’s not the voters of Ohio or South Carolina choosing Republican or Democratic candidates, it’s the voters who identify with those parties.  Simply put, it’s the 28%’s on both sides that choose who the 100% will get to vote for in November.

Each Congressional District in the United States has approximately 800,000 people.  Of those about half are eligible and vote in general elections.  In South Carolina’s Seventh District, Tom Rice won just short of 225,000 votes in the 2020 election.  But in yesterday’ primary, Rice’s opponent Russell Fry gained 43,374 votes for 51% of the vote, to Rice’s 20,846 for 24%.   

The few are choosing for the many.  And those few primary voters are the motivated, driven to the polls by their involvement and determination.  In today’s South Carolina Republican Party, they are the voters motivated by the ex-President, Donald Trump.  

It’s likely Russell Fry will win the Seventh District in November.  It used to be rated a “Deep Red” District.  Now, it’s called a “Strong Trump” District (WAPO).  That’s where the Republican Party is right now. 

Et Tu – Democrats?

While some would argue, I don’t see Democrats motivated in quite the same way.  Dems have a “left wing” of the Party, Bernie Sanders and the like, but time and time again in this year’s primaries the left wing has been turned back, and Democrats chose more centrist candidates.  The most obvious example is the Mayoral Election in New York City.  It’s a Democratic town, and the winning candidate was determined in the Democratic primary.  While New York uses a convoluted preference voting system, in the end a moderate candidate, former NYPD Captain Eric Adams, won out over more progressive candidates like Maya Wiley.

Los Angeles faces a similar situation.  California uses a “jungle” primary with all parties on one ballot, but LA is a Democratic stronghold.  Two Democrats reached the final election:  Progressive Congressman Karen Bass and more moderate real estate developer, Rick Caruso.  Bass eked out a win in the beginning round of voting, but both candidates received around 40% of the vote, and the two will runoff in the November general election. 

We are a product of the system.  Our political primaries drive the candidates for the general election; and those primaries are slanted to the most loyal and dedicated party members.  For those who long for a “middle ground”; the system doesn’t support that.  

In a nation polarized by social media and candidates on both sides appealing to the extremes, it’s unlikely that the middle ever gets represented.  No wonder so many feel that voting in November is a choice between the “lesser of two evils”, rather than a positive.  Almost half of eligible Americans don’t vote.   Maybe now we know why.

Pay Me Now

There’s an old athletic expression:  “You can pay me now, or you can pay me later”.  It simply means, either you put in the work to be “good” now, or you will pay the ultimate price in failure or injury later.  But that also applies to our Nation.  We dodged a huge economic bullet in the year of the worst pandemic crisis:  March 2020 to May of 2021.  Unemployment in the fall of 2020 was approaching 15%.  In many job categories, unemployment was much higher.  Before the pandemic struck, the rate was under 5%.  

That meant that many millions of Americans, through no fault of their own, were out of work.  They wouldn’t get a paycheck; for rent or mortgage, for food, for dental care for the kids.  And most Americans, like it or not, didn’t (and don’t) have the “four months” emergency fund that all of the personal finance “gurus” say should be in the bank.

In fact, there were even worries about the banks.  What if…everyone wanted whatever cash they had at the same time?  We faced shortages in meat, toilet paper, and all sorts of seemingly random items.  What if the banks too, were short of cash, short of the money many desperately needed to keep life going?

We faced a good old fashioned economic depression, one almost as big as the Great Depression.  The stock market lost almost half its value, and while prices for some goods fell (gas prices for example) the issue wasn’t the price, it was in getting money to buy those goods in the first place.

History Lesson

But we learned a lesson from the Great Depression.  The Government CAN take actions to shore up the economy, particularly in an economic crisis created by a non-economic disaster.  This wasn’t caused by a “Black Friday” on the stock exchange, nor a real estate or dot-com “bubble”.  It wasn’t even stock market high-jinks like the crash of 2008.   This was a massive unemployment event, caused by a pandemic.

So the Government intervened.  Trillions of dollars were spent, shoring up personal incomes.  Unemployment checks were boosted and extended, and most taxpayers were given direct aid, a $2000 “boost”, to help tide them through the crisis.  It wasn’t a “Republican” or “Democrat” thing (though President Trump’s signature was prominent on the letter attached to the check), it was a whole Government thing.  And it was the right economic move to make.  

In the worst days of the pandemic, there was lots to worry about.  Thousands of Americans, mostly the old and the vulnerable, were dying of Covid.  Many more were getting sick with a disease that had unknown short and long term consequences.  And we still don’t know what the health fallout from Covid will ultimately be.  But there weren’t bread lines, there weren’t runs on the banks, the stock market gradually recovered, and we muddled through the pandemic.

It wasn’t all pretty:  wear a mask or not, kids at home or at school, old friends disappeared, buried without fanfare or funeral.  But we managed to make it.  While we still haven’t mastered Covid, we’ve found a way to co-exist with it.  Now it’s shots versus variants, testing versus blithe ignorance, and what has become a steady death toll.  Still some 300 plus Americans still die of Covid, daily.  It’s just “what it is”.  

Economics 101

“Pay me now, or pay me later”.  The US Government pumped trillions of dollars into the economy, to try to stave off the looming Covid “depression”.  And it worked.  But economics is a game of balance.  It’s all about paper.

Paper money is worth exactly what it can buy.  There’s no intrinsic value to the paper itself, just rags and ink really with some high-tech gismos to try to prevent forgeries.  As we discovered in the pandemic, the value of goods, say toilet paper, is simply based on what people are willing to pay for it.  If there’s a scarcity of toilet paper, then the remaining amounts are worth more.  Why – because people want it, and they are willing to spend more for it.  They wanted it so badly they literally fought for it in the aisles of Krogers.

And if people have more to spend, they will buy more goods.  So if there is a greater supply of paper money in the nation, than ultimately people are going to “compete” for goods, by being spending more for them.  And the US Government, under both Republicans and Democrats and for good reason, put a lot of paper money in the economy in the past two years.  So, it stands to reason that the value of that money would go down.  

Pay Me Later

This is the “pay me later” of the Covid relief bills.  

So gas prices are at over five dollars.  And I paid $20 dollars for twelve rolls of paper towels (of course, if you read the packaging, 12 rolls equals 20 rolls, and the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale).  And I just noticed that not only did a Three Musketeers bar cost more, but it’s smaller than it was before.  So what’s going on?

We’ve all got more money.  Wages are going up.  Even the State Teacher Retirement System, as tight-wad a program as ever invented, granted a one-time cost of living increase.  And we all spent our Covid “government bonus”. 

Sure the oil companies are making “bank” on the gas prices.  The shipping companies are more than doubling their profits as they stack cargo up at the ports.  There are all sorts of ways individuals and companies are finding ways to “profit” from the current inflation.  But at the core of the problem isn’t “Democratic Socialism” or “Republican Incompetence”.  It’s simple:  we dodged an economic depression caused by Covid.  We did it by pumping money into the economy.  Now we have to pay the price.

Now, it’s later.

Civil War

This is not a “Sunday Story”.  This essay will try to explore America at its most extreme.  It’s hard to examine our current era, so polarized, so unable to find a “middle ground” where both sides can meet, without looking back at our history and trying to see when we’ve been here before, and how we handled it.

I can think of four times in US history where the country has been at this “extremis”.  Obviously, the Civil War was one.  Let’s hope that we don’t allow ourselves to fall that far, though it seems more possible today than ever before.  Thirty-one white supremacists arrested in Idaho this weekend, heading for a Gay Pride rally.  They weren’t going to join in the celebrations.  A nation where owning a weapon of war has become a symbol, so important, that we are willing to sacrifice our children on that “altar of freedom”.  Information in our country is “siloed. Strangers can debate on a Facebook post, and not be able to agree even on the “truth” of the 2020 election results.  

Adams and Jackson

One side looks at the election of 2020 and sees the election of 1824.  In that one, Andrew Jackson won a plurality of the popular vote (41%), but fell short in the electoral count in the four-way race.  John Quincy Adams was second in both popular (30%) and electoral votes, with William Crawford and Henry Clay both far behind.  

Jackson had 99 electoral votes, below the 131 required to win.  Adams had 84, and the decision went to the House of Representatives as mandated by the Twelfth Amendment.  There Henry Clay was able to influence House members to choose Adams over Jackson.  Many claimed that Adams offered Clay the Secretary of State position in return for his support. Clay did indeed take that office after Adams was inaugurated.  That became a center-piece of Jackson’s campaign in 1828, called a “Corrupt Bargain”.

The 1828 results were very different,  as Jackson won 55% of the popular vote and 178 Electoral votes to win the Presidency.

Trump and Jackson

Many Trump supporters look to that history as a template for their actions today.  They believe that the Biden victory in 2020 was a “Corrupt Bargain” (they call it “Stop the Steal”) and they are impatiently waiting for their opportunity to come roaring back like Jackson did in 1828.  That also justifies their complete opposition to any examination or hearings into the 2020 election.  It doesn’t matter what happened in 2020.  The election was “stolen” from them, and there can be no “legitimacy” without the retribution of the return of Trump to power.

To them, whatever comes out of the January 6^th Committee hearings  is “fruit from the poison tree”, fully contaminated by the “stolen” election it supports.  They ignore it, ridicule it, and do everything they can to denigrate the effort.  Watch a few minutes of Tucker Carlson on any given night to see evidence of that.

Hayes and Tilden

The other side sees a different historic “corrupt bargain”, the election of 1876.  In that election, Republican Ohio Governor Rutherford B. Hayes was running against Democrat New York Governor Samuel Tilden.  Tilden won the popular vote with just under 51%, but fell one Electoral vote short of winning at 184.  Hayes won 48% of the popular vote, and 165 Electoral votes.  Twenty electoral votes were “contested” with slates for both candidates sent from some Southern states to the Congress. 

Rather than follow the “tie-breaking” process of the Twelfth Amendment, a Committee of the House determined to resolve the “contested” electoral votes.  A “deal” was struck between  Southern Democrats and Republicans on the Committee.  The “deal” was simple:  if the Democrats would withdraw their Electoral slates, allowing Hayes to get a 185 vote Electoral majority, the Republicans would withdraw all of Union troops from the South, and end the Reconstruction Era.   

American Regression

The “Hayes-Tilden” deal took the Presidency away from the legitimate winner, Tilden, and gave it to Hayes.  But from an historic context, it did a great deal more.  When the Union troops left the South, the “Jim Crow Era” officially began.  The former enslaved Black Americans lost most of their civil rights, including the right to vote or serve in office.  In fact, the old Confederacy returned to a white dominated society, and remained that way for almost a century.

Many believe today that if we don’t fully reveal the illegalities of the Trump era, we are doomed to repeat them.  They look back at the Civil War, and the hope for Black Americans that the Reconstruction Era created.  They see the possible re-election of Trump, or a Trump-like President, as the same kind of “corrupt bargain” that was struck in the Hayes/Tilden deal.  A triumph of Trumpism to them represents a step back into a white dominated society of the United States of the 1940’s and 50’s, just as the ending of Reconstruction put the South back into a “slave-like” era of the 1830’s and 40’s.  

Joseph McCarthy

Others look to the McCarthy Era of the early 1950’s as the historic example.  Joe McCarthy, a Republican Senator from Wisconsin, used the post-World War II fear of Communism to gain national power.  McCarthy falsely claimed that the US Government and other institutions were filled with Communist agents of the Soviet Union.  His assertions put the entire nation on edge.  Even the Cincinnati Reds baseball team became the Cincinnati “Red-Legs” for several years:  the “Reds” were Communist!!  

McCarthy wasn’t  particularly interested in the “facts”.  His willingness to tap into American fears altered the Nation.  Books were burned, government officials required to take “loyalty oaths”, and many banned from jobs and careers; all to “purge America” of Communists, that didn’t really exist.  Today’s “Don’t Say Gay” laws are echoes of the “Anti-Red” laws of the 1950’s.  

Even Republican President Dwight Eisenhower was unwilling to step into the controversy.  It took the courage of many, including the lawyer Joseph Welch (“Have you no decency, sir?”) and the CBS News Commentator Edward R. Murrow, to change the course of the Nation.  But the damage done lasted decades.

Trumpism

Is Trumpism just another version of McCarthyism, or something worse?  Is the nation on the verge of retreating from all of the social advances of the last sixty years?  Does Donald Trump represent the popularism of Andrew Jackson, with all of the dangers releasing “the mob” might bring?

History can inform us what we did – but it can’t tell us what we must do.  That is our choice.