Category: Uncategorized

75 Years Later

They met in the July hot sun. It was dusty, but the campgrounds were better than before; there was clean water, and plenty of food. It was 1938, and the remaining veterans of the battle at Gettysburg, both Blue and Gray, gathered one more time. It was seventy-five years later, and time to say goodbye. Of the 160,000 Americans who had fought there, only 1,845 remained.

President Franklin Roosevelt spoke, dedicating a new monument on the battlefield, right at the place where Confederate General Rodes deployed artillery when he arrived from the North on the afternoon of July 1^st. Roosevelt’s speech, praised the courage of both sides, and congratulated the old men who were camping together, North and South. The Peace Monument was dedicated, overlooking the entire field, recognizing the hope for peace with an eternal light.

The old veterans spent three days there, just as they had seventy-five years before.  Those in Gray reenacted that last attack, Pickett’s Charge into the Union lines on Cemetery Ridge.  Old, faint, echoes of the famed Rebel Yell came from the fields.  But this time, as they climbed the low hill up to the Ridge, instead of blasts of rifle and cannon fire, old veterans in Blue came out to shake their hands, and offer an arm to the top.  It was the end of the last reunion, the last living memories of the blood and carnage of the worst battle fought on American soil.

Three years later, America was in a whole new war, one that had battles almost as brutal. As the last Civil War veterans passed on, an entire new generation of battle hardened Americans was created. This time it wasn’t the hills of Pennsylvania, but a world scene; from the beaches and jungles of the Pacific, to the sands of North Africa, and the mountains of Italy.

And 75 years now again, those veterans returned to the most famous battle of World War II; the beaches of Normandy, scene of the D-Day invasion.  The Allies, led by American forces, landed on the beach and parachuted behind the enemy lines, 156,000 strong, almost the identical number to that of both sides at Gettysburg.  Yesterday the few remaining old veterans, most in their nineties, came to walk that beach, and view the cliffs, and remember the struggle, one more time.

There were speeches from world leaders, marveling at their sacrifice,  even the German Chancellor, Angela Merckel, was invited to participate. And while there were no German hands to offer an arm up the slopes, these veterans returned not out of hate, but out of respect. Respect for the comrades they lost on the beaches; and respect for the innocence so many of them, only eighteen or nineteen years old, lost on those first days in June of 1944. 

It’s been 75 years since the D-Day invasion, the beginning of the final chapter of war against nationalism and hatred.  It would be another eleven months until the war was over, but once the Allies gained that foothold on the beach, the result was inevitable.

As those old veterans, ones like my parents, fade off into memory, it is concerning that what they fought for fades away as well.  We now live in a time where nationalism, hatred and bigotry are available in our pockets.  We need only pull out our phones or computers to be exposed to the multiple new versions of what those old veterans had hoped to eradicate on earth, seventy-five years ago. 

We need to remember the lessons of Gettysburg, and D-Day, and all of the other bloody battles we fought for our nation.  As we gather our daily dose of hatred and lies, we need to turn away, and nurture the flame of peace.  The Civil War was fought to make a divided nation, one; World War II was fought to make a world divided a safer place for all.  

But we are in a world today where division is rife.   And it’s not only the President, he is but a result of the success of division. It’s not only the Russians, our enemies with a will to make us hate.  It is our choice.  We have abandoned civility, respect, and acceptance for a philosophy that states “I am right, that makes you wrong.”  It needs to change.

Before the Civil War, Abolitionist John Brown led a “raid” with the hope of starting a slave revolt. Some of his men were killed, and Brown himself was caught, tried, and sentenced to death. Before his execution, he wrote a final statement. In part he said: “I am now certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood.”  We too should heed his warning.

The eternal light on the Peace Monument didn’t go out during World War II.  It’s still lit today, a beacon on the hill Northwest of Gettysburg, just past the railroad cut on the edge of the woods.  But our constant access to the flames of lies and hate; Republican and Democrat, black and white, men, women and children: that hate threatens to make the results of sacrifice fade.  If that happens, as it did three years after they met at Gettysburg, we will be doomed once again to offer up blood to put out the all those consuming flames. 

D-Day – Seventy-Five Years Ago

Mom was born in London, Phyllis Mary Teresa O’Connor. As the baby of her family she was nicknamed “Babs,” a name she used her entire life.  She was British, and educated in England and later in Belgium.  She married Donald Lee Dahlman of Cincinnati, an American soldier who was part of the vast US Army preparing to invade Europe.  They were joined on March 27^th, 1944, in a civil ceremony in England. 

He was a finance officer, making sure the troops were paid.  Mom supposedly worked in the Old Age Pensions Office in London, but was actually a part of the SOE, the Special Operations Executive.  They were an elite unit who carried on the fight against the Germans in Occupied Europe, slipping into France on small aircraft to plot espionage attacks and communicate with the Resistance.

They were supposed to be married in June, but moved their wedding date up because they received orders to report to their units. It was clear that the invasion of Europe, D-Day, was coming.    Babs’s mother got all of her friends to pitch in part of their sugar rations for the cake, and her brother Leslie contributed champagne he had managed to get off the beach at Dunkirk during the evacuation.  

Don’s cousin and friend from Cincinnati, Buddy Levine, served as best man, and the two were married. It was a civil ceremony because Babs was Roman Catholic and Don was Jewish. The Church wouldn’t accept their union unless Don promised to raise any children as Catholic, and he wouldn’t. In the end, the British end of the family had less trouble with the religious differences than those back in Cincinnati.  

As part of her secret life, Babs spent time in the “War Rooms” in London.   Those were the secret underground headquarters of Prime Minister Winston Churchill and his generals.  SOE was a small group, developed and used by those top leaders to carry out their particular missions.  She became acquainted with some of the commanding Generals; the telegram congratulating them on the wedding from Omar Bradley still remains in their scrapbook. She adored Bradley, but didn’t have much good to say about Eisenhower, who disparaged her “uniform.” The SOE was improvisational in much of what they did, both in Europe, and in their uniform choices.  Babs didn’t appreciate criticism from a “Yank General.”

Like most British citizen, Babs adored Field Marshal Montgomery, “Monty.”  He was their “winner;” the man who drove the Nazis out of North Africa and led the successful invasion of Sicily.  She had a sketch of Monty; a small color drawing done by a friend during a planning meeting.  It was on the wall of their home for sixty-six years, and it’s hanging in my family room today.

After the wedding there was little time for “honeymooning,” just a couple days of hiking in the countryside.  Then Don reported to Southampton, the debarkation point for much of the Army heading to Normandy.  He would say he hit the beach “…with the third wave of WACs (the Women’s Army Corp).” He spent the next several months in France, making sure the GI’s got their pay checks, and trying to deal with the complications of French, Nazi, and Occupation currency.  

Babs left their wedding to report to headquarters, and was soon flying out of RAF Base at Tempsford, on a small single engine plane called a “Lysander.”  The plane could land on a short farm field, only 600 yards, and was designed to fly low and close to avoid enemy radar.  Agents were dropped off in the night, often met by French Resistance operatives who put flashlights out to outline the “landing strip.”

She was dropped into Normandy, where she helped prepare Resistance plans for D-Day.  Phone lines were cut, rail lines disrupted; the Resistance did everything they could to confuse and delay German response to the invasion. She was in town just days before the Allied paratroopers arrived in the night.  A Resistance cell she was working with was captured and killed.  She escaped.

The D-Day invasion, the greatest amphibious invasion in history, took place during a lull in the storms on June 6, 1944.  156,000 men hit the beach or parachuted behind the lines.  Ten thousand died, but the Allies gained a foothold in Europe, that ultimately led to the defeat of Nazi Germany. 

It would be ten months before Babs and Don would see each other again.  Her missions would take her from France to Yugoslavia, and his work would follow the invasion across France into Paris.   They only were reunited at the end of the war, when Don was transferred back to London. They spent several months together there, while he arranged for their passage back to America, and a life in Cincinnati.  But that’s another story.

Choice of the Heart

There are twenty-three candidates running for the Democratic Party’s Presidential nomination: twenty-three.  That’s a full football team with an extra punter/kicker!! 

Opportunity or Dilemma

Democrats are faced with an opportunity, and a dilemma.  

The opportunity is that there is a wide variety of choices:  young (37) to old (77 – Sanders even older than Biden); black, white, Asian, Pacific Islander; men and women; gay and straight; Governors, Congressmen, Senators, Entrepreneurs, and a self-help book author.  Republicans may see all of them as “lefty’s,” somewhere from moderate to the “S-word” (socialists), but Democratic voters hear a great deal of differences among the proposals offered.

The dilemma:  could Democrats get into the same trap that Republicans fell for in 2016.  With so many candidates, will one gather a large minority vote that ends up dominating the scene.  Donald Trump won 44 primaries or caucuses, but he failed to win a majority of any election count in February or March.  In those first thirty-two elections, Trump only broke over 40% ten times.  It wasn’t until April, when most other candidates dropped out, that Trump actually start “winning” a majority of the votes.

Trump had a solid minority (somewhere around 38%, similar to his approval ratings today) and the rest of the Republican voters split among the other eleven candidates.  Could Democrats be faced with a similar dilemma, and nominate a candidate with a strong but small base (doesn’t that sound like Bernie Sanders)?

Or will Democrats follow a more traditional path, coalescing around four or five candidates who then will battle it out for the nomination?

There are candidates who are uplifting, intelligent, and exciting.  But there is the ongoing question that every Democrat needs to contemplate.  Whatever candidate Democrats choose, that candidate needs to defeat Donald Trump. And that puts the Party in a difficult choice, the choice between the head and the heart.

The Progressives

Pete Buttigieg did a town hall meeting hosted by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Monday night.  Of course, a town hall audience is a friendly one, but in this fragmented Democratic environment, tough questions are asked by the spectators, and even by the host.  Buttigieg handled each question, and questioner, with grace and intelligence. He didn’t avoid any, and didn’t “spin” the answers to another subject either.  He put forth his plans, clearly and eloquently. He is a strong, passionate, progressive Democrat.

“Mayor Pete” is the leader of South Bend, Indiana, a middle sized town best known as the home of the University of Notre Dame.  He is young, only thirty-seven, and he is veteran, having served in Afghanistan. His academic background:  Harvard and Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, is impeccable. He is also gay, married to his husband Chasten.

I have also heard town halls with Kamela Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, and Kristen Gillibrand.  All of them have tremendous minds, terrific ideas, and articulate their views clearly. They are all from the more Progressive (that’s MY END) part of the Party. All of them and Pete, seem to be prepared to be President; all of them seems ready to lead.  And any of them would be better than Donald Trump.

The Moderates

I’ve also heard Senator Michael Bennett interviewed multiple times, and Governor’s Inslee of Washington and Hickenlooper of Colorado.  Bennett and Hickenlooper are from the more moderate part of the Party, both emphasizing the need to work to reunite the nation.  Inslee has staked his candidacy on environmental concerns, but hasn’t moved from that niche to a more general candidacy.  If the Democratic goal is to reach towards the more moderate Republican voters repelled by Trump, these guys would serve that role well. And any of them would be better than Trump.

The “B’s”

I haven’t mentioned the three “B’s;” Bernie, Beto and Biden.

Bernie Sanders is not my candidate.  I have two main complaints with the Independent Senator from Vermont.  First; while his goals are appealing, I constantly feel that Bernie promises “the moon,” without dealing with the practicalities of how to get it done.  I know that politicians do that, but Bernie seems worse than most.  His answer for achieving his plans:  we need a “revolution” to replace the Congress. It’s quite an idea, but seems “pie in the sky” to me.

My second contention with Bernie is his determination to remain outside the Party, except to use the Party machinery to gain a Presidential nomination.  It wouldn’t alter my view, but I would be a lot more comfortable if Senator Sanders was the Democrat from Vermont.

Beto O’Rourke is young and dynamic.  My problem with Beto is that he speaks oratorically, and often doesn’t answer the questions that are asked.  Beto always gets back to his campaign “line,” and it seems that he doesn’t have clearly articulated plans.  From what I’ve seen so far, Beto O’Rourke is not my candidate either.

But either one of them, would be better than Trump.

And then there is the former Vice President, Joe Biden.  Biden is a traditional Democratic moderate, and brings a world of experience in government to his campaign.  He has the advantage of eight years with President Obama, in what was clearly a strong administrative role (not a “Dan Quayle” Vice Presidency.)  Biden appeals to the middle, and, at least today, looks to be the best bet to defeat Donald Trump.  

And of course, he would be better than Trump.

The Choice

So there is the dilemma. Should Democrats go “with their heads;” and chose a more moderate candidate who can appeal to the middle Republican voter, the suburban “soccer mom” repelled by Trump’s personality and the Republican vendetta against women’s rights.  Biden is the prime example, though Bennett, Hickenlooper, and maybe O’Rourke fit this “safe” model to win the election.

Or do Democrats go “with their hearts;” and choose a nominee that represents the heart of the Party, the progressive (liberal) values that the younger, more active center of the Party believes.  Warren, Harris, and Buttigieg seem to be leading in that category.  That election model will require the Party to reach out to the young progressives to show up on election day, and won’t depend as much on the disenchanted Republican vote.

My heart:  a young progressive from Indiana who could lift the country, bringing it back to the dignity of the Obama years, and heal the wounds left by Trump.  

My head:  if you’re going to the middle, than the middle is Biden. Please Joe, it’s a “big f**kin deal,” don’t screw it up.

The Power of the President

The current President of the United States is claiming more and more “executive” power.  He bragged last week, that he hadn’t even used his “Article II” authorities yet.  He is backed up by an Attorney General who has an extremist legal view of the Constitution, one that says there is little to no check on the actions by our Chief Executive.  

Using “executive” power, those powers delineated in Article II of the US Constitution, is nothing new to the Presidency. The Founding Fathers understood both an executive too strong, and too weak.  The basis of the American Revolution was what the colonists consider an overreach of executive power by the King George III of England.   In the listing of complaints in the Declaration of Independence, the part we don’t quote quite as often as the “…all men are created equal” part, Jefferson is very specific.  

“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”

Jefferson then follows with thirteen separate complaints, all preceded by the word, “He,” referring to the King.

So anti-executive power was one of the foundations of the United Colonies becoming States.  But too little executive power was a flaw the Founding Fathers experienced as well.  The Continental Congress, later codified in the Articles of Confederation, the first organizing document of the United States, specifically provided for there NOT to be a “chief executive.”  Executive decisions were made by committee, each state having a single vote.  It took nine votes of the thirteen to agree.

The Articles of Confederation, a weak federal government by committee, didn’t work effectively.  The leaders of the United States gathered together in Philadelphia five years after its ratification, to try again.  With both examples clearly in front of them: too much executive power, and too little; they wrote the Constitution of the United States.

Specifically, they placed the following powers in the Presidency:

• Commander in Chief of the US military
• Can require the opinions of the leaders of the executive departments about any subject relating to their duties
• May grant reprieves and pardons for offense against the United States
• Make treaties (with advice and consent of the Senate)
• Nominate officers and judges (with advice and consent of the Senate)
• Fill vacancies when the Senate is not in session
• Convene both or either House of Congress on extraordinary occasions
• Faithfully execute the laws.

Those are the actual “Article II” powers that President Trump is warning us about.  The Founding Fathers wrote a document that carefully circumscribed Executive authority.  The vast majority of the “powers” of the Government are granted to the Congress.

But like the Articles of Confederation government, Congress found the need to reach a majority in the House of Representatives (218 out of 435 votes today) and either a majority or two-thirds majority in the Senate (51 or 67 out of 100) so cumbersome, that they had difficulty governing.  They have, over the years, ceded authorities to the Executive Branch in order to get things done.

So when President Trump threatens to raise tariffs on Mexico, Congress has given him that authority. When he threatens to send troops to the Middle East, Congress has given him that power.  When he decides to take money from funds already earmarked for certain projects, and declare an “emergency” and try to spend the money on a border wall, Congress has given him that power as well.  

All of those powers were given in order to make the government function more efficiently. And all of those powers were also given with an “unwritten understanding” of the norms and limits of Presidential actions, “norms and limits” that no longer are accepted by the President, or expected by the American people.

George Washington well understood a limited President.  The one Chief Executive who could have claimed kingship (he was offered the title by his officers in the last days of the Continental Army) he acted carefully to establish the power of the Presidency, and restrict that power as well. His most famous example:  walking away from the Presidency after his second term.

Lincoln had the view that he needed to exercise whatever power was necessary to maintain the Union. He took his power as Commander and Chief and prosecuted the Civil War.  The resurgence of a powerful Congress after the Civil War was a direct reaction to Lincoln’s expansion, even while Lincoln himself became an American deity.

Franklin Roosevelt took much the same view, that existential crisis gave the President almost existential power.  The Great Depression threatened the core structure of America, and World War II threatened the core structure of the world.  Roosevelt not only expanded executive power, but violated Washington’s norm of leaving after two terms.  While American’s placed FDR in high esteem after his death, the Congress and states passed the 22^ndAmendment to the Constitution, restricting the President to two terms.

Richard Nixon had an expansive view of his powers as President.  While we remember the “Watergate” abuses, using the intelligence agencies to cover-up criminal actions, fewer remember the wage and price controls that Nixon imposed on the United States in 1971.  Congress reacted to his expansions (and his criminality) by arranging for him to resign.

George W. Bush was faced with the 9-11 attacks.  His response was an enormous expansion of the intelligence community; including legal opinions allowing the collection of electronic data on almost every American, and the rendition and torture of our “enemies.”  Congress and the Courts have pulled many of those “powers” back.

Lincoln, Roosevelt, Nixon, Bush:  in all of these cases the President took more executive powers, and Congress took them back in reaction.  Today with President Trump, Congress has not reached a consensus to re-balance our governmental structure; yet. 

Like Nixon, Trump has found legal basis for his questionable actions.  He has found an Attorney General who will “investigate the investigators” for him, stifling any questions about his actions.  And like Bush, he has found those who will create a “legal underpinning” for his expansions of power.  

It will ultimately up to Congress to check his excesses.  They could use the Article I Impeachment powers, or they could simply get enough of a majority together to take their powers back.  It will take the will of Congress, and the will of the American people, to get that done.  2020, here we come.

Taking on Jim Jordan

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller does not want to testify in the House of Representatives. He believes he has said everything that needs to be said in his two volume, 438 page report with thousands of footnotes.  It is complete, carefully worded, and legally sound.  What more could the country want?

Democrats want Mueller to tell the story of his investigation in public, because it is such a compelling account of the actions of Russia and of the Trump campaign and Presidency.  Democrats recognize that most Americans can’t or won’t take the time to read the Report, and, as one of commentators, Chuck Rosenberg said, “…if they won’t read the book, they need to see the movie.”  The “movie” would be a televised hearing with Mueller “on the stand,” testifying and answering questions from a Congressional committee.  Even if Mueller constantly referred back to the Report, his presence, and the visual presentation of his results; are the most effective ways for Democrats to tell the story.

Surprisingly, some Republicans, including the White House, seem to want Mueller to testify as well. The President’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani stated:

“If they allow [GOP Reps.] Meadows and Jordan and few of the others there, they’ll eviscerate him more than they did Michael Cohen,” “…it would be emotionally satisfying {to have Mueller testify} and in terms of the politics of it, I would love to have him testify. I think he’s afraid to.”

Jordan, Meadows, and the rest of the Freedom Caucus posse are looking forward to their opportunity to “eviscerate” Robert Mueller?  While former Trump lawyer and convicted felon Michael Cohen was a soft target, even he told a compelling story of Trump’s criminality to the Judiciary Committee.  Jordan and the boys faired so badly against other public targets, like James Comey, Peter Strzok, and even Hillary Clinton; they moved their other hearings behind closed doors.  They controlled and cherry-picked information that was released about Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohrs and Glenn Simpson (of Fusion GPS.)

I don’t think he needs it, but I can give Mr. Mueller some advice on how to take on Jim Jordan.  I have some experience with that exact problem, though in a somewhat different setting.

Jim Jordan may be a whole lot of other things, but here in Ohio he is a high school wrestling legend.  He, and his brothers (and now their offspring) dominated wrestling from St. Paris Graham High School for decades.   Jordan himself was undefeated through three seasons of wrestling, including three state championships, going into his senior year.  Not surprisingly, he was heavily favored to win on a sub-zero night at the finals of the Licking Heights Invitational, against a lesser-known opponent from Watkins Memorial High School named Rob Johnson.

Johnson was a two-time state-placer in his own right, but Jordan was the undefeated clear favorite.  Jordan wrestled with confidence, but Johnson wrestled like a man who had nothing to lose.  It was that reckless abandonment, that willingness to chance all, that led to an enormous upset. Johnson beat Jordan, ending his undefeated high school career.

Jordan went onto to win the state championship in Division II, while Johnson won in Division I.

So, as one of the coaches that helped Johnson that senior year, here’s my advice to Mr. Mueller.

Answer the questions honestly and openly.  Mr. Mueller, you are not a politician, you are a man known as a “straight-shooter.” You know your job as Special Counsel, and your mandate as an investigator.  Don’t let the “posse” lead you into their mythological world of “traitors” and “intelligence coups” created to distract from the very real cooperation with Russia you found in the Trump Campaign.  

You discovered the indiscretions of Strzok, and you removed him.  You took the investigation started by Comey and McCabe, and you continued it (and it may still be going on, for all we know.)  You of all people, know the truth of what happened in the 2016 campaign, and it is your willingness to be open with the American people that will defeat Jordan, Meadows, Goetz and the rest.  

Of all people in American government, we know that the words “reckless abandonment” has never characterized your work.  You are best known for methodical hard work, pushing your staff and yourself to achieve. You turned around the FBI after 9/11, changing it from primarily reactive to pro-active.  But you have the truth, something that the President’s lawyers and the Freedom Caucus have little familiarity with.  

Don’t be afraid to use it. 

Just One More Tax

Dear Mr. President:

I know how proud you are of the tax cut law passed through Congress.  It was one of the big events in your first years as President, and one of the only major pieces of legislation you were able to achieve. That tax cut really didn’t impact many people, unless you were making millions of dollars.  The wealthy and the corporations did great – the rest of us pretty much broke even.

But now you seem bent on raising our costs again and again.  You are engaging in a trade war with China, and Canada, and today you tacked on Mexico.  I know you think that the tariffs you are applying to goods from these countries cost “them” money, but it doesn’t seem to work that way.  You see, while the tax may be collected at the “border,” it’s really not the manufacturers that are paying for the increase.

Chinese, Canadian, and Mexican importers, many of them American companies, aren’t “eating” the cost of your tariffs.  They are doing what you would probably do as a businessman as well; they are pushing the costs onto the consumers.  

So your tax on Chinese goods, and now Mexican imports; isn’t really a tax on those countries – it’s a tax on us.

I know, you want us to “BUY AMERICAN.”  I think that’s a good idea too, supporting American workers, and purchasing goods that are made here in America.  But you see, unless I go to the grocery store and buy fresh food (and even then I have to check) there really isn’t that much made here in America with American parts anymore.  

I’m writing this on a computer, made by a company in Cupertino, California.  But it was manufactured in China (I remember watching its progress on my online order.)  I bought it eight years ago, but to upgrade to a new one, I will have to pay your tax.  It’s the same with my phone, also an Apple product.  Where could I find an “American Made” computer?

And I was looking to buy a “Made in America” washing machine.  I grew up in Dayton, Ohio; just up the road from the Frigidaire plant, so I thought that would be a good one.  But Frigidaire is now owned by a Swedish company, Electrolux, and I don’t know where their products are made.  So I went for a Whirlpool; they must be made in America.  

Well, some are, and some aren’t and some are made in America with parts from other places.  To get a “Made in America” washer, I needed to buy a “Bosch;” a German company that has washer factories in South Carolina and Tennessee.  Now will they get a tariff on them?  They are German, but their stuff is made here.

So you see, Mr. President, it isn’t just about buying American.  That “shipped sailed” a long time ago, along with Frigidaire plant in Dayton.  We are in a world market, where my shoes come from Vietnam, my computer China, and parts for my GMC Yukon from Canada (though it was assembled in Janesville, Wisconsin; near Paul Ryan’s house, I guess that plant closed a few years ago.)  I know you want to “Make America Great Again,” but the world you are trying to go back to doesn’t exist anymore.  

Taxing me, and the rest of the people here in the United States, to punish other countries just doesn’t seem fair.  And it particularly doesn’t seem fair when the tax cut you are so proud of makes rich companies (like Apple and GMC) richer, and doesn’t encourage them to stay in the USA at all (check out the GM Lordstown plant, closing down.)  It seems like they, and the very rich, get all the benefits, and we “regular” folks, get to pay more taxes.

I know you’ve got a lot on your plate.  But I’m getting less on my plate, less because I’m paying more for the everyday goods I need to have.  So it would be nice, if you could figure out a way to punish those other countries, and encourage manufacturing back here in the United States, without punishing me and the rest of the “regular” folks.

Thanks – Marty Dahlman

Trump is Embarrassing

You’d think if you were President of the United States, you’d know the Constitution.  President Trump Thursday morning warned in his “press briefing,” held almost literally under the blades of Marine One, that he hasn’t even started using his “…Article II powers.”  At least he knew where the powers of the Presidency lie in the document.

But then he said he would go to the Supreme Court if the House of Representatives tried to impeach him. His argument:  that he has never committed, “ treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors,” the Constitutional reasons for impeachment. You can’t blame him for seeking a more favorable venue than the House.  He appointed two justices to the Supreme Court, and there are three more who come from a Federalist Society background that Trump feels favors him. That’s five judges out of nine, a lot better odds than he has in the House of Representatives.

His problem is that another portion of the Constitution, Article I, Section 2, states that the House “…shall have the sole power of impeachment.”  A Federalist Society justice, committed to the original meaning of the Constitution, would have a difficult time trying to tell the House how they are to use their “sole power,” not talking about the four “more liberal” justices.   Clearly it’s a power that doesn’t include the Courts, and allows the House to interpret their authority as they choose.

What high crimes and misdemeanors were to the founding fathers was based on English Common Law. High crimes were crimes against the state, as opposed to “common” crimes that were crimes against individuals.  Kill a neighbor: a common crime, kill the King, a High crime. High crimes were not necessarily felonies, and not even necessarily crimes in the statutory sense. A President who fires an employee like the FBI Director, or directs another employee to lie to Federal investigators, may be acting within his authority, but may still be committing an act in the “impeachable” sense if that act abuses his powers and injures “the state.”

The classic “government class” scenario, is that the President shoots someone, say on Fifth Avenue. He cannot be arrested or charged (though I expect the NYPD would still try), he would have to be impeached and removed from office first.   The impeachment would be for the “high crime” of conduct unacceptable for the President of the United States. Then the common charge, murder, could be brought in Court.  President Andrew Johnson was impeached for breaking a Congressional law, the Tenure of Office Act, which had no criminal penalty attached.  The House determined he had committed a “high crime;” that was enough to bring on impeachment.

And one last “government class” reminder:  impeachment is the process of bringing the President (or other Executive or Judicial branch members) to trial in front of the Senate.  It is the House of Representatives’ duty, passed by a majority vote of the members.  The Senate then determines whether the accused is “convicted” with the penalty of removal from office, and requires a two-thirds majority vote.

So, surprise, President Trump doesn’t know the Constitution, even when it directly affects him.  You’d think all of those high-priced lawyers working for him would clue him in.  He probably doesn’t listen; he’s too busy tweeting.

It’s embarrassing.  

There’s a mythological concept called “drunk truth.”  It goes that if you say something when you’re drunk, it’s more likely to be true because – well – you’re drunk and less likely to be careful about your speech.

President Trump might have a different “truthiness disability” called “pre-dawn truth.”  In a 4:57 AM tweet storm Thursday, he sent out the following:

Russia, Russia, Russia! That’s all you heard at the beginning of this Witch Hunt Hoax…And now Russia has disappeared because I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected. It was a crime that didn’t exist. So now the Dems and their partner, the Fake News Media,…..…say he fought back against this phony crime that didn’t exist, this horrendous false accusation, and he shouldn’t fight back, he should just sit back and take it. Could this be Obstruction? No, Mueller didn’t find Obstruction either. Presidential Harassment!

Oops!!  Did he really confess that Russia helped him get elected? The tweet was soon denied (thank you internet for saving everything) and Trump reversed it to the media under Marine One,  but there it is.  And our President has made it clear; he is a VICTIM!!! A VICTIM of Presidential Harassment! Talk about a “snowflake,” I guess this harassment is waking him in the pre-dawn hours, making him sit up in bed in his expensive silk underwear and tweet; forcing him to tell the truth.

But the VICTIM is on the attack, back against Robert Mueller again.  

And it’s embarrassing, that the President of the United States lies to America like a sixth grader caught with a cigarette.  He tells lies, about why Mueller went to the White House (to advise the President on who to select for FBI Director, not get the job), and about the “thirteen angry Democrats” in the Special Counsel office, and about just about everyone else who has the courage to stand up against him, including Congressman Justin Amash, a conservative Republican from Michigan who actually read Mueller’s Report.  The lies are recognized by most Americans, and has become so common that little is said.  The Washington Post  (certainly not Trump’s favorite) keeps count: 10,111 lies in 828 days since Trump assumed the Presidency.

A President who doesn’t understand the Constitution or the law, who has “pre-dawn honesty syndrome,” who claims victimhood, attacks our most outstanding citizens, and constantly, consistently, and pathologically lies.  

Trump is embarrassing.

The Last Word of the Honorable Robert Mueller

Robert Mueller, Special Counsel for the Department of Justice, resigned yesterday.  He was appointed to investigate the “Russia” matter in the spring of 2017, after the firing of FBI Director James Comey, the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and the panicked meetings when wearing a “wire” to Presidential meetings was discussed. For the first time since he was appointed Special Counsel, Mueller spoke.

Robert Mueller hoped to get the “last word” yesterday. He made it clear he wanted them to be HIS “last words” on the subject.  His messages were simple:  Russia attacked America in 2016, and if we don’t do something more about it, they will do it again. His Report did not exonerate the President of the United States from any criminal acts, if it had he would have said so.  He didn’t say so.  

And finally, Mueller said, I have nothing more to say, everything I have to say is in the report: read it.

Mr. Mueller made it clear that Attorney General William Barr completely misrepresented the Report from the very first “summary” he published. In the matter of why the Report did not recommend charges for obstruction of justice for the President: Mueller said that that Department of Justice OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) policy that states that the President cannot be indicted, prevented him from even considering criminal charges. And, Mueller being an inestimably fair man, he could not even suggest charges should be filed, if there could be no trial to give the President the opportunity to clear his name.

Barr stated that the OLC Policy had no impact on Mueller’s finding.

Mr. Mueller also made it clear that the second volume of his Report, the section on obstruction of justice, was written as evidence for the one body that could bring charges against the President, the Congress.  Mr. Barr said that Mueller left the decision up to him.  And finally, Mr. Mueller emphasized that obstruction of justice can occur, even if the underlying “crime,” the evidence put forth in the first volume of the Report, is insufficient to charge.  In fact, Mr. Mueller made it clear in the Report that obstruction needs to be charged, as obstruction may be the reason why the underlying “crimes” cannot be charged.

Mr. Barr claimed that obstruction could not be brought if there are no underlying, indictable crimes.

Mr. Mueller, seventy-four years old, after a thirty-four year career of government service, made it clear that like an “old soldier,” he would like to fade away.  It is unlikely that the House of Representatives will allow that to happen.  As a newly private citizen, Robert Mueller is subject to Congressional subpoena. Mueller, perhaps above all else, does not want to get caught up in the “political circus” that recent Congressional hearings have become (see Peter Strzok.) But the House Judiciary Committee, led by Chairman Nadler, recognizes something that perhaps Mr. Mueller doesn’t understand.

The power of the Mueller Report is in its recitation of fact after fact, all showing the involvement of the Russians in the 2016 election, the interest the Trump campaign has in them, and the actions they took to hide that interest.  But the Mueller Report is 488 pages long, and the vast majority of the American people are not going to read it.

Mr. Nadler needs to have Mueller as the ultimate educational tool for the American people.  Just as Senator Sam Ervin told the Watergate story through witness after witness in the summer of 1973, Nadler needs Robert Mueller to tell the American people what he found, even if he just refers them to passages of the Report.  Mueller has suggested he would talk to the Committee behind closed doors, but that won’t be enough for the Chairman, or the American people.

So we will hear from Robert Mueller again.  

The Honorable Robert Mueller has called on the only legal body with the Constitutional power to act on the evidence he has uncovered, the Congress, to pick up this case.  Mueller is not concerned with the “political” consequences, he sees the Constitution as demanding that Congress act on the matter. 

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made a different political calculation.  She believes that if the House follows through with an impeachment of the President, the Senate wouldn’t give it a fair hearing, much less convict and remove him from office.  In her view, a Trump “victory” in the Senate could cost Democrats the House of Representatives and maybe even the Presidential election of 2020.  Instead of removing an offending President, the impeachment process might in fact assure four more years of a Trump Presidency.

That doesn’t mean that the Speaker doesn’t want the House to discuss the Mueller Report or the President. She wants multiple committees to investigate the President:  his actions in the 2016 election and after, his personal finances, the multiple corrupt acts of his cabinet appointees, and his abuse of the US intelligence agencies. 

The Speaker knows the power of Congressional investigation.  She knows that information damaging to the President can be dripped out of the House over the next eighteen months leading to the 2020 election.  The Democrats in the House can do this, and still provide political “cover” for members who are in political jeopardy.  

And if the hearings are able to educate the American people, as Chairman Nadler hopes, then perhaps the political environment will change, and Speaker Pelosi will alter her calculations. For that reason, yesterday cannot be Robert Mueller’s “last word.” The American people need to hear from him again.

The Rise of Nationalism

“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” is a quote attributed to Mark Twain.  While nothing in our story, the human story, is a carbon copy; the themes of our history come back again and again to influence our actions and establish our fate.

One world theme is the failure of “liberal” governance to deal with economic dislocation; the disparity between the increase in overall national wealth and the working and middle classes.  As the gap widens and those workers see the “rest of the world” move onto a higher economic plane while they struggle for the basics of life; they search for alternatives to the current governing regime.

(Note –using “liberal” in this sense is not the same as “liberal/conservative” in current politics.  Liberal governance is defined as:  governing with the consent of the governed, and equality before the law; hardly a controversial definition.)

In the “Western World,” North America and Western Europe, “liberal” governance has been the norm since World War II.  In fact, the War itself was a struggle between “liberal” governance and nationalism/authoritarianism.  And here’s where the rhyming begins.  The nationalist/authoritarians, better known as Fascists, came to power as a result economic dislocation, the Great Depression.  Working and middle class people, desperate to survive, turned to “leaders” (in Germany the “Fuhrer”) with simple solutions and someone else to blame for their plight.

The end of World War II made the world “safe for democracy” once again.  But now, seventy-four years later, we stand at the same threshold our forefathers faced in the late 1920’s.  Fascism has a new guise, the rise of “nationalism.”  It is clothed in seductive terms:  “lets go back to the ‘good old days’ when things were simple.” But the “good old days” were good for only select groups.  Our modern governments have, haltingly, worked to bring all groups the economic and legal benefits of our world.

The “select” groups are now faced with increasing economic hardships.  They are being seduced with a variation on the same general theme used in the 1920’s:  “there is not enough prosperity for all, sharing is costing YOU.” (If you don’t believe it, listen to the biggest argument against medical insurance for all in the United States:  there isn’t enough for everyone and “I’ll lose MY doctor and have to wait in line!”)It worked in Italy and in Germany in the 1920’s, and it had its adherents in the United States in the 1930’s as well.  It is the same playbook that Hitler and Mussolini used, rewritten by folks like Steve Bannon to appeal to a modern social media world.

Today it is displayed in phrases used by President Trump:  “America is packed, it is closed, turn around and go home.”  It is displayed in the ideology that sees the United States and Russia allied in a great “crusade” against the “Radical Muslim” world.  It is underlined by the theme “Make America Great Again,” as if the extension of equal rights to minority religious, ethnic and social groups has somehow made America less, not more. 

Donald Trump is not the cause of all of this.  He is a symptom, a chameleon who tapped into a dark ideology to his own benefit.  It has growing appeal, perhaps to the thirty so percent of Americans who would watch on Fifth Avenue as he shot someone. 

But it’s not just in the US. The United Kingdom’s Brexit is a similar movement, with similar support.  In the election for the European Parliament, the “Brexit” Party scored thirty-two percent of the vote.  The “anti-Brexit” parties scored thirty-two percent as well, with the remaining thirty-six percent split among the parties who are themselves split about what to do.  Other Nationalist parties in Europe didn’t do as well in the European elections as they expected, but they did gain twenty-five percent of the parliamentary seats, up from twenty.  

Nationalist parties in France and Italy, in Austria and Hungary; all are making inroads.  

Economics are the driving force behind all of this.  That will be the ultimate test for the “liberal democracies.”  Can they change the economic situation, allowing greater prosperity for all, or will they continue to allow the “one percent of the one percent” to prosper, while the rest remain stagnant.  Will the alternatives to nationalism find a way to appeal to the “better angels” of our political nature, or will the seductive forces of separation and hate win out?

History is rhyming.  We are at the point where the United States, and the world, can still make a choice between conflicting ideologies.  We can learn from the past, or we can ignore it at our peril.  We have seen all of this before, and we know where it ends.

Ohio’s NOT Clean Air Program

It’s called the “Ohio Clean Air Program.”  If you live in Ohio and watch television, you’ve seen the commercials for it.  A relatively young worker, talking about his or her job in the “clean energy” industry, worries that 2000 workers will lose their job to petroleum industry-financed forces who are against them unless House Bill 6 is passed.  It is reasonable to assume that those workers are making wind turbines, or solar panels, or electric cars.   

But they aren’t. The Nuclear industry has rebranded itself as “clean energy.”  They have somewhat of a point; they aren’t burning hydrocarbons and putting pollutants in the air.  But the “clean air program” in Ohio is actually a bailout for First Energy, the company that owns two nuclear reactors on Lake Erie; one at Oak Harbor near Toledo, and one at Perry northeast of Cleveland.  These plants currently provide twelve percent of Ohio’s electricity.  The Oak Harbor plant, Davis-Besse, started construction in 1970, while the Perry plant began in 1977.  The passage of the “Clean Air Program,” aka House Bill 6, would give First Energy a $190 million per year windfall.

They, like all nuclear plants, are “clean” energy (with the exception of thermal pollution) until they aren’t.  Standard operation produces nuclear waste that must be stored, currently onsite first in cooling pools, and then in concrete casks. With some of the byproducts hazardously radioactive for thousands of years, the ultimate disposal may be in deep mines.  Currently, those wastes remain onsite at the plants.

But the great concern with nuclear reactors is accidental release of radiation.  With both the two Ohio plants designed in the 1960’s and built in the 1970’s, fifty-year old technology is a serious concern.  Both plants are working past their anticipated lifespan.

In the meantime, the “Ohio Clean Air Program” would cut subsidies to other “clean energy” programs such as wind and solar.  In the political wrangling over the bill, when those industries refused their support, Republicans rewrote the bill to cut out what little access they had been given.  It also removes targets for clean energy production from other Ohio utilities using natural gas and coal.  And the “Clean Air Bill” would allow for coal-fired plants, the ones with the greatest amount of pollutants, to receive subsidies from their customers so they can continue to compete with cheaper natural gas plants.  

This is where the “petroleum” industry angle comes in, allowing supporters to claim that the natural gas producers are opposed to the bill because it supports nuclear and coal.  But they really aren’t. 

Whether nuclear power is an acceptable “environmental” alternative to wind or solar is a subject for a different debate.  As someone old enough to have lived during the Russian  Chernobyl plant disaster, not an American design, and the Pennsylvania Three-Mile Island crisis, I think there are credible arguments for not using nuclear energy.  But more importantly, the nuclear energy industry shouldn’t be using us.

First Energy is the main beneficiary of the House Bill 6, not the environment.  They have branded themselves as “clean energy,” but the Bill cuts funding for other clean energy sources.  They have picked the “straw-man” opponent of “big petroleum” as their opponent, trying to draw Ohio citizens to the conclusion that they are fighting petroleum-produced electricity in favor of the environment.

They aren’t.  The “Ohio Clean Air Program” is a gift to the twice-bankrupted First Energy, and will ultimately result in more pollution. It will remove standards first set in 2008 for Ohio’s electricity producers, and allow subsidized coal energy production, the worst offending polluter.

It’s a Republican dominated State House in Ohio, and the number of political donations from coal, gas, and nuclear energy producers is high.  It should be no surprise then, that the “winner” in the “Ohio Clean Air Program” isn’t Ohio’s clean air, or the citizens that breathe it.  Nor are the truly “clean energy” industries, the wind farms, solar, and geo-thermal encouraged to keep producing in Ohio (an estimated 112,000 jobs versus the estimated 4000 combined at Davis-Besse and Perry.)  They are left on their own, and we depend on the engineering of the 1960’s to protect us on Lake Erie. 

Not a great choice.

It’s Memorial Day Again

Memorial Day: the day to remember those who have died in the service of our nation.  As Lincoln said at Gettysburg:  “It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.” 

Generations are defined by war.  The beginnings of Memorial Day were in “Decoration Days” started during the Civil War, when both Northerners and Southerners placed flags and wreaths upon the graves of those lost.  After the War, that became a tradition for both sides to, at the beginning of the summer season, decorate graves.  In 1860 the population of the United States was just over thirty million; 600,000 died in the war, two percent.   (Two percent of today’s population would be almost eight million.)  There were plenty of graves to decorate; plenty of veterans to honor.  These ceremonies grew into the Memorial Day of today, along with the picnics and the politics that went along, both then and now.

I think of Memorial Day as a day to remember those who I personally knew earned the honor.  I think of my parents, part of the Greatest Generation, who lived amazing lives after their War. I think of my friends, who suffered from the effects of their war, Vietnam, for the rest of their lives. And I think of my “kids,” those who I taught and coached in school, who came back from their wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Many of them suffer from the physical and mental effects of America’s long involvement in the Middle East.  They all offered their lives up for their country, willing to make the ultimate sacrifice.

When I was a young teacher here in Pataskala, Ohio, there was an older man who wandered around town. He wasn’t homeless, but he was of “lost mind.”  He walked the streets talking to himself, and the young kids who saw him were scared. Older kids thought he was someone to be made fun of, but the local merchants took care of him.  There was always a cup of coffee, or a hamburger available as he wandered from place to place.

I found out his story, eventually.  He was a young man, only seventeen, when he volunteered to serve in the World War II Navy.  His ship went to the Pacific, and in the midst of battle, was torpedoed and sinking.  Somewhere between when the torpedo hit and when he was dragged from the ocean waters several hours later, he had lost his mind.

Young people go to war willing to sacrifice for their nation.  They think of death, they think of wounds, of amputations.  But they don’t ever think that they could lose what they value most, themselves, and survive.  But this young man did.

He lived with family here in town.  The kids in town learned his story, and most appreciated the ultimate sacrifice he had made, and more importantly respected his right to be left alone.  He was our little town’s Memorial Day, every day.

There are many veterans like him on the streets today. According to Government figures, there are over 40,000 homeless veterans, nine percent of the homeless population.  For some homelessness is a choice, made as a result of their service.  For most it is a combination of circumstance, disability, and substance abuse.  For all it is a lousy repayment for their record of service.  For some of us, it may be too much or too scary to directly interact with them, but as we walk quickly past with eyes averted, keep in mind, one in ten fought for us.

It’s Memorial Day. The sun is out, the burgers are on the grill, the beer is cold in the cooler.  As we celebrate the beginning of summer and the end of school; remember those we have asked for sacrifice.  To quote Hamilton (once again) – 

            “Raise a Glass to Freedom – Something they can never take away.“

Raise a glass to those who have sacrificed for our freedom.  Their service is something that “…can never be taken away.”  Then remember them as the friends they were – and drink up.  It’s what they would want us to do.  

Keeping Secrets

Julian Assange was indicted in Federal Court yesterday.  These new charges are called “superseding” indictments; they are replacing the original indictments that were secretly filed a few years ago.  We learned about those original indictments because of a mistake by an Assistant United States Attorney in the Federal Eastern District of Virginia, who copied “boiler plate” paragraphs from the sealed Assange document to an unrelated indictment, and included too much.

Julian Assange is the creator of Wikileaks, an international website that prides itself on publishing secrets.  Its first secret was released in December 2006, a Somali order to assassinate government officials.  Even in this first “secret” the United States was implicated, with Wikileaks commenting that the order might be misinformation put out by US intelligence.

Wikileaks took on other powers, including Swiss banks, Kenyan politicians, the Chinese suppression of Tibet, and Scientology.   But Assange often came back to US intelligence, including “procedures” used at the Guantanamo prison and internal Defense Department documents.  But the first big “hit” against the US came in April of 2010. It revealed unedited video of US helicopter airstrikes in Baghdad, where civilians were “collateral damage.”  One of those attacks killed two Reuters news agency staff and wounded several children.  

That information was given to Assange and Wikileaks by a US soldier named Chelsea Manning.  She leaked over 750,000 US diplomatic cables, videos, and other classified documents to Assange, most of them published on Wikileaks.  Manning ultimately was charged with espionage, confessed in Federal Court, and sentenced to thirty-five years in prison.  Her sentence was commuted by President Obama after serving seven years.

Assange went onto to publish the information stolen by National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, and, of course, the stolen Democratic National Committee emails during the 2016 election.  He was charged with sexual assault and rape in Sweden, and claimed asylum in the Ecuadoran embassy in London, where he stayed for seven years.  Last month the government of Ecuador kicked him out, and he was taken into custody by the British police.

The original sealed Federal indictment accused Assange of directly aiding Manning in stealing classified materials.  The US government had evidence of Assange helping Manning figure out the passwords to break into the system.  This indictment seemed like a clean case of aiding and abetting someone stealing classified materials.

Yesterday’s superseding indictment changed the entire legal nature of the charges.  It charged Assange with eighteen counts of espionage against the United States by publishing classified materials.  This alters the “criminal act(s)” from aiding in the theft of classified documents, to the actual publishing of those same documents.

I don’t like Julian Assange. He was a “tool” of Russian Intelligence in their attack on the US elections, and most particularly on Hillary Clinton.  And while I understand the “whistleblower” aspect of Manning and Snowden, there also was tremendous damage done to US interests by their releases.  

Wikileaks is a platform for the release of secret and often embarrassing information.  In the rapidly evolving world of information, it is hard to differentiate between “journalism” and something else.  Wikileaks claims to be a news source and a journalistic business, similar to a newspaper.  Like it or not, the Wikileaks releases, from Manning to Snowden to the Podesta emails; all ended up on the front pages mainstream newspapers like the New York Times, the Washington Post, and even the Columbus Dispatch.

The new indictments attempt to make it espionage to publish information that is classified.  The fact that it is filed against Julian Assange makes it little different than filing against the AG Sulzberger of the Times, Fred Ryan of the Post or Bradley Harmon of the Dispatch.  It also seems to be a government attempt to overturn the long established Supreme Court ruling in the 1971 Pentagon Papers case, where it was held that the Times and the Post could not be restrained from publishing leaked Pentagon documents.

For more conspiratorial readers, the new indictments may have an even more sinister intent.  Filing espionage charges against Assange for publishing will put the United Kingdom courts in their own “freedom of the press” bind.  It might well be that the UK will not extradite Assange to the US for such charges, thus keeping him out of the US Court systems.  It also will keep Assange from answering questions about the source of the Democratic National Committee emails, and whether Assange coordinated their release with official or unofficial members of the 2016 Trump campaign.

Regardless of the impact on the “Russia investigation,” the new indictments put the US on a slippery slope of First Amendment freedoms.  It is easy to argue that the Snowden releases were damaging to US interests, but it is more difficult to say that other “whistleblower” information should be stifled.  If Assange was found guilty on these charges, that would be the most likely outcome. The government could keep their mistakes secret, mistakes the public needs to know.

Chew Gum and Walk

The President of the United States walked into a meeting with the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Senate Minority Leader yesterday morning.  The purpose of the meeting was to reach some agreement on a plan to improve the infrastructure of the United States of America.  This is traditionally one of the most important roles of the Government.  From the building of the National Road, to the Cumberland Canal, the Transcontinental Railroad, the National Highway System, the Interstate Highway System, America’s system of airports and air traffic control:  all have been government projects.

Some have been done under difficult circumstances.  Abraham Lincoln, in the middle of the Civil War, was able to pass legislation to enable the transcontinental railroad.  It is a constitutionally mandated power of the Government – and it is a part of the job of being a leader of the United States.

With battered roads, aging bridges, threats to the power grid and worn out dams, it is clear that “infra-structure” shouldn’t be a punch line.  And the benefits in increased employment and more efficient transportation would add to quality of American life.

The President walked into his meeting yesterday, and instead of dealing with the very real problems confronting America today, he chose to “make his stand” over Congressional investigations of his Administration.  The President “expressed his outrage” over Democratic Congressional meetings about those investigations and the Speaker using the term “cover-up,” (some would say he threw a tantrum) and then, instead of turning to the real issues at hand, he walked out, moving to a pre-prepared press briefing in the Rose Garden.  He then said he would not work with Congress until they stop all the investigations.

Many Americans have had to do their jobs under difficult circumstances.  Some continue to work while under obtrusive scrutiny of their bosses, some are frequently audited and checked.  There is an American colloquialism for that, “knowing how to walk and chew gum at the same time.”

In Trump’s previous world, where he was the sole proprietor of his business enterprise, perhaps throwing tantrums and walking out of meetings was acceptable.  There was always another building to brand, another golf course to control, or another casino to run into bankruptcy.  It seems that Mr. Trump was enabled in his actions: when he failed to pay a billion dollar loan to Deutsche Bank and they called him on it, he sued the bank.  They then lent him even more money.

But the Congress of the United States isn’t Deutsche Bank  (hopefully they aren’t as indebted to Russia.)   Sometimes in government, and in life, you have to work with those you don’t like.  It’s your JOB.

The President doesn’t have to like what Congress is doing.  Certainly Mr. Trump is continuing to act like a guilty man, something he has done since that first meeting with the Intelligence leadership in 2016 at Trump Tower.  But regardless of his ultimate guilt, he currently holds a JOB, President of the United States.  Instead of doing that job, he is holding the well being of the American people hostage.

It is certainly possible that the Democratic leadership of Congress and the President will have difficulty reaching agreement on what needs to be done here in America, and how it will be paid for.  Negotiations are often tough, and frustrating.  But, for those who voted for Trump, isn’t that what you thought he could do?  Wasn’t he the “Great Negotiator” who was the master of the “Art of the Deal?”  So, Great Master, your JOB is to go figure out how to make this deal.

Bill Clinton negotiated with Newt Gingrich, passing multiple laws, while Gingrich was in the midst of impeaching him.  Richard Nixon signed lots of legislation, making deals with Congress, even as the Watergate noose drew closer around his neck.  They could “chew gum and walk at the same time;” and wanted to get things done as President despite the Congressional investigations.

So Mr. President, take your great deal making skills, and go make a deal on infrastructure.  Go fix our roads and bridges, go repair the damages from the extreme weather we seem to have created; you might even find a little more money for your vaunted Wall.  But please, Mr. President, do your JOB.  Get over your personal affront, and get onto America’s business at hand.  Do that, or, as President Harry Truman said, “if you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

A Matter of Noses

Democrats in the House of Representatives are faced with a stark choice.  They can follow the politically expedient path:  keep questioning the Trump Presidency, but emphasize the other, more popular aspects of the Democratic Agenda.  This is the direction that Speaker Nancy Pelosi would like to follow.  She rightly sees all of the benefits:  it contrasts a Democratic platform of helping the working class, solving the insurance issue, and stepping back from brinksmanship on the Southern Border and the rest of the world; with the scattered and terrifying Trump approach. The Speaker sees that as the best plan to keep the House, gain the Senate, and win the Presidency.

The other option is to proceed with impeachment proceedings, even though there is little chance that, no matter what is revealed, the Senate would ever even take up the matter, much less vote to remove the President.  The “nose count” is simple:  it requires twenty Republican Senators and all of the Democrats to agree to remove Mr. Trump.  Impeaching the President would inevitably become the singular issue in the House of Representatives, and seems to be exactly what the Trump Administration wants.  

“We want to be investigated by someone who wants to kill us just to watch us die.  We need someone perceived by the American people to be irresponsible, untrustworthy, partisan, ambitious, and thirsty for the limelight.  Am I crazy, or is this not a job for the House of Representatives?” (CJ Cregg in the television series, – The West Wing– air date, October 24, 2001)

The President and his strategists must have watched a lot ofWest Wing over the years; echoes of the show turn up in many of the White House actions (not that I would ever equate Trump with the fictional Josiah Bartlet.) They have reached the same political decision:  that the best move for them is to let the House of Representatives investigate, and even better, move to impeach the President.  The Trump “aura” has always been that of a victim, treated unfairly first by the Republican Party, then by the media, then by the intelligence agencies, and now by the House.  What better  “victim” image then to be impeached.  Trump will claim that the House is trying to overturn the “will of the voters,” despite losing the election by over three million votes, and try to ride that victimhood to four more years of the Presidency.

And he can make that look even better, by trying to stymie every move of the House to gather information. Regardless of the law, the President has tried to prevent witnesses from testifying and House committees from gathering information.  He has even claimed “executive privilege” over the redacted portions of the Mueller Report, and is actively preventing Mueller himself from testifying to the House Judiciary Committee.  And if the Courts overrule him, then Trump can claim to be a “victim” and then show himself to his base as a winner, fighting the unrelenting “liberals,” the “Obama Courts” and the “media.”

With all of this, why would the House even consider the “I-word” impeachment?  The answer is simple:  duty.

The House of Representatives, according to the Constitution, has the ”sole power” of impeachment (US Constitution Art. 1, §2.)  With the Department of Justice’s ruling that the President of the United States cannot be indicted or prosecuted while in office, the House becomes the only check on Presidential power, behavior, or criminality.   The President can be impeached and removed from office for “…committing treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” (US Constitution Art II, § 4.)

The House is the ultimate check on Presidential powers and actions.  If the members of the House determine that the President has in fact committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” (high crimes are not necessarily legally defined felonies, but are actions that go against the interest of the Constitution or the US Government); then they have an obligation under the Constitution to proceed. Though impeachment has seldom been exercised, only three times in US History; that rarity emphasizes its importance. 

House members have a Constitutional duty to determine if a President has committed an impeachable offense.  That determination process is through investigation; it would be dereliction of that duty if the House failed to examine witnesses and documents to determine if offenses have occurred.  With the evidence already publicly available about President Trump’s actions presenting a “prima facie” case, it is difficult to see how the House cannot proceed.

My mother used to have an expression: “don’t cut your nose off to spite your face.”  It took a long time for me to understand what she meant by that, but what I finally determined was that I shouldn’t do something, even if it seemed like the right thing to do, if it ultimately made the situation worse. 

Duty: the House must investigate the President. The best and legally most effective way to do this is to start impeachment proceedings.  Politics:  Democrats want to end the Trump Presidency and the McConnell tyranny in the Senate. The best way to do that, continue to contrast Democratic ideas with Republican actions.

So Speaker Pelosi, and the Democrats of the House of Representatives are faced with that difficult choice, political expediency, or Constitutional duty — and the nose thing.   

Field of Dreams and History

Baseball– James Earl Jones soliloquy from Field of Dreams

I was a “track” guy.  I played baseball until I was thirteen, but when I was twelve, I read the Jesse Owens story and went to a flat spot in the back yard and dug holes for my starting marks.  I didn’t know then, that there were devices called “blocks” that you used to start, but I knew I could be fast.  My commitment was cemented by meeting Jesse Owens himself when I was fifteen; about ten minutes of two “220 guys” talking shop.  I ran; Junior High, Junior Olympic, High School and College, then onto a forty year coaching career and now officiating.  I was a “track” guy.

But I went to a Cincinnati Reds games this weekend, the first one since – well, I was working for Jimmy Carter in his first Presidential campaign, and the infield was Perez, Morgan, Concepcion and Rose:  the “Big Red Machine.”  We’d sit in the high, high seats in Riverfront Stadium, drink ‘3.2’ Beer, smoke cheap cigars and watch the “Machine” take the National League apart on their way to a second World Series Championship.

Riverfront was the massive 60,000 seat stadium then, home to the Reds in summer and the Bengals in the fall. It replaced Crosley Field (I always loved Crosley, I think because Dad worked for Crosley Broadcasting), where baseball was played from 1912 to 1970, and put sports front and center in downtown. Riverfront marked Cincinnati’s commitment to keeping major league sports, and the city re-upped their allegiance in the late nineties by building two new stadiums near the same site, Paul Brown Stadium for the Bengals, and the Great American Ballpark for the Reds.

Great American is a mix of the best of Crosley, Riverfront, and Cincinnati.  The concessions are lined with Cincinnati favorites: Graeters and Skyline, Frischs, and Khans.  Sitting behind the left field wall it seems you aren’t that far from home plate; there aren’t many “nose bleed” seats among the 42,000 available.  And when you sit in the sun and watch the game, you feel the history, the story, of the Reds, Cincinnati, baseball and America.

The Reds were in the “1912” throwback uniforms, but they really didn’t look out of place in 2019.  The game was about trying to beat the Dodgers (they didn’t) but it was also about making little kids become part of “the game.”  Before the first pitch, kids from Celina, a small town in Ohio, were put in all nine positions on the field.  When the Reds starting lineup were introduced, the players went to their positions besides the kids, and autographed their hats.  One kid wanted a hug; he got it right there at second base.

It’s about kids, it’s about a game that has been played since 1869, it’s about the pride of a mid-sized city and a common thread through America.   When I sit in the outfield at Great American, I think about walking with my Dad in the early 1960’s at Crosley.  I recall long trips in the car, marveling how we could listen to the Reds on 700 WLW radio even though we were hundreds of miles away from home, waiting for announcer Joe Nuxhall to sign off, saying he’s “…rounding third and headed for home.”  

I’m a track guy, but baseball is about American history:  the grand years of the 1920’s, and the sole entertainment of the Great Depression.  It’s story includes the influence of Jackie Robinson, the man who broke the color barrier in the majors in 1947, and the place where today “old white men” (like me) listen to rap, hip hop, and Latin music, as each player has his own “theme song” coming up to bat.

I’m a track guy, and there’s nothing that get me as fired up as a tight 4×400 Relay in the hot sun at the state high school track meet.  But even this devoted track fan has to admit, there’s a whole world of history and America, out there in left field, section 104  two rows up from the wall, at the Great American Ballpark. 

It’s a Matter of Faith

I had a long conversation with an old Republican friend the other day.  We were talking about what the Justices of the Supreme Court would do with the Alabama abortion ban.  I expressed concern that the five Federalist Society Justices would move to overturn the forty-six year precedent of Roe v Wade and its related cases.  He responded with “faith.”

He had faith that the members of the Supreme Court would stay with their conservative view of the power of precedence in the law.  Faith, that they would see the Alabama case for what it was:  a challenge to the Court’s power to interpret the law.  Faith, that the Court would defend the continuity of law; rather than fall into the ideological argument over this particular case. Faith in stare decisis, Latin for “stand by things decided;” taught as the bedrock of the law from day one of law school.

My faith in the “bedrock principles” of Republican leaders has been sorely tested in the past two years.  I have seen many, really most, abandon the principles they have avowed their entire lives, and fall into the thrall of the Trump Presidency.  The only ones who seemed to have the courage of their convictions were on their way out:  McCain, Flake, Corker, Kasich.  They stood for what they believed, then departed from the scene.

I have always believed in American exceptionalism.  I ascribe to the theory, that Americans will rise to the crisis, that a man who led no more than a platoon could rise to lead an army and a nation (Washington) or a country lawyer save it (Lincoln.)  This is what Americans do.

I was raised on the stories told by John F. Kennedy in his book Profiles in Courage; that Americans would be willing to sacrifice their careers for the Constitution and nation they served.  My favorite:  Edmund G. Ross, the Republican Senator from Kansas who turned against his party and voted to prevent the removal of President Andrew Johnson.  He had no love for the President, but he recognized that his impeachment and removal would fundamentally alter the Constitutional balance of power.  He gave up his career with his vote, but he stood for his convictions of what the Constitution, and the Country, meant.

That belief has been sorely tested in the past two years.  I have seen men that I disagreed with but admired, Republican leaders of our nation; silenced by a “Tweet.”  I have seen dedicated Americans who did their duty as they saw it, literally “flayed in the public square.”  Men like James Comey, John Brennan, Andrew McCabe, and even the terribly flawed Peter Strzok, all were faced with an apocalyptic choice. They could either investigate a possible arrangement between a Presidential candidate and Russian intelligence and risk their careers; or ignore what the evidence demonstrated, and allow the possibility of a Manchurian Candidate turned real.

There are those who have shown courage on the Democratic side:  Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Maxine Waters, Elijah Cummings, and perhaps most of all, Nancy Pelosi.  They have all been attacked, all excoriated by the President and his minions; and all have stood firm for what they believe is the good of our nation. 

There are only three paths from our current crisis.  The facts can be brought out into the light of day, as they were exposed in the Watergate hearings.  Americans can hear for themselves without the filter of Attorney General Barr or Rudy Giuliani; Robert Mueller’s unvarnished facts in cold, hard testimony.  Then the people can decide what needs be done.

That will require some bipartisanship, some breaking of the silent “red” wall.  Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina has allowed a crack, subpoenaing the President’s son, but it will take more than one to allow the American people access to the facts.

This will also require the Supreme Court to decide whether the President’s “stonewall” against all investigation and subpoenas can hold.  Stare decisis should determine their decision, but this Court has yet to be openly tested.  Of the five Federalist Society members in the majority, where will they stand?  At least one, probably Chief Justice Roberts, will need to fulfill my old friend’s expectation, his faith.

Or, as I now expect will be the case, the American people will decide themselves; educated by whatever means they have available, in the 2020 elections.  Republican voters will have to decide whether to stick with their leader, regardless of what he has done, justifying their gains in the Courts and the stock market against his personal and political behavior.  They will have to decide to exercise the courage their leaders have been unable to find, in the secrecy of the voting booth.

Or, finally; America will be unalterably changed, and the laws, norms and behaviors of the current Republican Administration becomes who we are. 

It just takes a little faith.

It Was Obama’s Fault

It is the “new” party line for Trumpsters.  It goes something like this:

1. The Mueller Report proves that Trump didn’t do anything wrong in 2016, but
2. President Obama didn’t do enough to stop Russian involvement in 2016, so
3. When Trump worked with the Russians in 2016, it wasn’t his fault, it was Obama’s fault.

So, Trumpers, now it’s time to stick your index fingers in your ears, wave with your hands and say:  “neener – neener – neener.”

Step One – The Report

The Mueller Report did NOT prove that Donald Trump, has children, or his campaign were innocent of helping and getting help from Russia in the 2016 Presidential election.  It actually proves the contrary:  that they not only were interested, but they in fact welcomed Russian involvement and help.  There are one hundred and one known contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians (Business Insider).  There are statements from the candidate (“Russia, if you’re listening, find Hillary’s missing emails”) and the son (“dirt on Hillary – love it”).  There are Campaign Chairman meetings with Russian agents in the Manhattan Cigar Bar, and phone calls from the future National Security Advisor and the Presidential son-in-law.

What the Mueller Report did say, was that they were unable to put together a case  “beyond a reasonable doubt” to bring legal charges. The Report also states that obstruction, perjury, and evidence tampering all had roles in their inability to reach that legal standard.

Step Two – What President Obama Did

President Obama took several actions prior to the 2016 election, including a warning from the US Intelligence Agencies to the American people.  That warning got lost as it was released, the day after the “Access Hollywood Tape” and the Wikileaks drop of the Podesta emails, but the warning was clear.  Obama wanted to do more, including a joint message from the Democrat and Republican leadership about Russian interference, but Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan chose not to agree.

So the President was faced with a choice:  speak out himself and risk looking like he was putting his “thumb on the scale” of the 2016 election, or work in the background against the Russian intervention. He chose, right or wrong, to avoid the perception of taking a side.  We certainly know that the Trump Campaign would have screamed from the farthest rally stage had he spoken out.  From Mr. Obama’s perspective, it was a lose-lose proposition.

Step Three – What Trump Really Did

We expect that most people who dare to dream of being President, bring with them a “norm” of patriotism.  Common sense would indicate, that working with or receiving help from a foreign power would be “de facto” unpatriotic, and unacceptable.  There aren’t “laws” written about that, because it was such a “given” that no one thought laws were necessary.  But with the advent of Donald Trump as a Presidential candidate, there were no such things as “norms.”  All of the respected rules of behavior were not only ignored, but those “norms” were in fact ridiculed and intentionally rejected.  Trump made “breaking the rules” a campaign theme.  Mueller was forced to try to stretch existing conspiracy law to fit what was clearly wrong, but didn’t fit into a neat legal statute.  

(This, by the way, is another reason Congress should investigate what happened in the Trump campaign.  Their primary duty is to write “good” laws for the United States, if the “norm” of not cooperating with foreign powers isn’t a law, then it should be.)

It isn’t President Obama’s fault, though hindsight would suggest he should have taken the chance and spoken out publicly.  What is true, is that President Trump portrayed himself as the ultimate “victim.” He was planning on losing; of being the victim of a “rigged” election.  He even threatened not to honor the election results.  When he (along with most of the rest of the country) was surprised and won, he soon claimed to be the victim of an attempted “intelligence coup” to stop his Presidency.

Step Four – “Neener-Neener-Neener“

The one thing Trump supporters get right – the right to thumb their noses at the rest of the country. They did, by hook or by crook, get the majority of votes in the Electoral College and win the Presidency; there’s no denying that.  The nation has been paying the price ever since.  But don’t buy Trump’s victimhood, and don’t buy the false narrative of the Mueller Report as proof of innocence.  And don’t let Barack Obama get stuck with the blame for Trump becoming President:  after all, it was you and me*. 

*credit where credit is due, thanks to the Rolling Stones for that phrase, and see you soon!!!!

Life, Politics and Alabama

I was wrong.  I thought that the pro-birth program to outlaw women’s choice to have abortions was a gradual one.  I thought that they were going to “chip away” at the right to choose, slowly convincing the Supreme Court to restrict the Roe v Wade decision. I thought the ultimate goal was to return the United States to a pre-1973 standing, when states would decide individually whether to restrict abortion, or ban it.

I was in good company in that thinking:  states like New York and Virginia had already altered their laws in anticipation of changes in the Court’s interpretation of the Roe case.  But the pro-birth supporters, the ones who look to ultimately ban all abortions in the United States have made a different decision. They are “going for it all.”

When a human life begins is an ethical and religious concept.  Science can outline in detail the progress of conception and pregnancy. We have absolute knowledge of the stages of development of the fetus.  What science cannot determine is at what point that potential human life becomes an actual, legal person.

Some, notably the Roman Catholic Church, believe that even contraception, preventing pregnancy, is wrong. Their view is the only moral way to prevent pregnancy is not to have sex.  They have gone onto legalize their view, joining others in going to Court to attack laws that require Catholic insurers to provide for contraceptive drugs and devices, most recently attacking the Affordable Care Act.  By the way, the Church has no problem with paying for drugs that support male erections.

Many other churches and individuals believe the human life begins at the moment of conception, the moment that the sperm fertilizes the egg.  Their view is that at that moment, the embryo deserves the legal right of “personhood.”  Personhood means that the only way that the embryonic “life” can be taken is to protect an equally protected “person;” the life of the mother.  

Some states have taken a third position for the purposes of their law:  that the “personhood” right is bestowed at the time that the fetal heartbeat can be detected.  Ohio is one of those states that passed a “heartbeat” bill, effectively outlawing most abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy.  Practically, most women don’t realize they are pregnant in the first six weeks; the legal result would be an almost total ban on abortion.

The Supreme Court in 1973, in its carefully nuanced decision, determined that those “personhood” legal rights, become an enforceable concern for states after the point of “fetal viability.”  Viability was determined as the earliest point in pregnancy when a child could be born and survive, somewhere after twenty weeks of pregnancy, or five months.

These are four differing standards of when a “potential” life becomes a legal “person.”  There is hardly a consensus view, but there are widely and strongly held opinions.  And given that those opinions are all about what an individual woman should do with her own body and her own life, it would be reasonable to assume that her individual opinion, her right to make a choice, should be protected.

But the pro-birth faction believes they can push their view into the law of the United States.  They have good reason:  President Trump’s two appointments to the Supreme Court, Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, are likely to vote to overturn the Roe decision. Along with conservative Justices Thomas and Alito, it would only take the one vote of conservative Chief Justice Roberts to change America.

The pro-birth plan had been to allow those conservative Justices the “cover” of restricting the Roe decision.  The Ohio “heartbeat” law was part of that cover; take the Roe reasoning, and change “fetal viability” to “fetal heartbeat.”  That would practically have the effect of banning most abortions, while not technically overturning the Roe decision.

But the “Great State” of Alabama has decided to go for it all:  the legislature has passed and the Governor has signed a total abortion ban, with the only exception being the life of the mother.  The legislature specifically considered and rejected exceptions for rape and incest:  their goal was to present the Supreme Court with a black and white choice.

Alabama is not asking the Supreme Court to turn abortion regulation back to the states, to run the clock back to before 1973.  Alabama is asking the Supreme Court to rule that human life, legal personhood, begins at conception.  They are “going for it all;” and trying to force the ultimate question on the Court. The conceit of the conservative Justices that they can maintain precedent, restrict abortion and not overrule Roe v Wade, would not be possible should they hear the Alabama case.  

Alabama’s actions are likely to mobilize the pro-choice advocates.  Since the Roe decision, the pro-birth side has had the advantage, and the motivation, to organize and pressure for change.  Pro-choice had it easy; the law was on their side. But Alabama’s law is likely to make “choice” a major issue in the 2020 elections, bringing voters out from all sides of the issue.  

According to Gallup polling, 48% of Americans identify as pro-choice, and 48% of Americans as pro-life.  In that same poll, 79% felt that abortions should be legal under any or some circumstances, while only 18% thought all abortions should be illegal.

All of which may influence the one man who will make this momentous decision for the entire nation. With five conservatives on the Court and four liberals, it will fall to the “middle” conservative, Chief Justice Roberts, to make the call.  The fate of women in this country, and of fetuses, and of the nature of the law, will be on his shoulders.

The Battle Against Smart

We seem to be in a battle; against history, against science, against education:  our society seems to be in a battle against “smart.”  There is a “meme” floating around Facebook; a cartoon showing a street sweeper working, and a woman commenting to her child “if you don’t go to college, you’ll end up like him.”  In the second panel, a woman beside her states to her child, “that man has a job with full union benefits, and makes more money than that b***h with her liberal arts degree.”  Is this a part of “Trumpism,” or, like many aspects of America today, is the Trump phenomenon just another symptom?  

Full disclosure:  I have a liberal arts degree, Bachelor of Arts from Denison University in Political Studies, and a Masters Degree in Education from Ashland University; both “liberal arts” institutions.  As a career public school teacher, there are a whole lot of people with a whole lot of different jobs that made more money than this “b***h.” 

Sherrod Brown, US Senator from Ohio, has made the touchstone of his career representing “working people.”  Brown calls it the “dignity of work,” the importance of not only earning a living, but of contributing to society by doing something of value. Brown makes it clear that how you make that contribution isn’t what’s important.  His line is, “…it doesn’t matter whether you take a shower before work, or after…”  It’s the fact that you contribute; everyone doesn’t need a college degree.

But many Americans today seem to want to relate “liberal arts” with “liberal” Democrats.   They obviously weren’t at Denison University when I was there:  most of the faculty may have voted Democrat during the 1970’s, but most of the students were Republicans.  The faculty served to challenge their views and beliefs, forcing the students to re-think (or think in the first place) why they took a particular stand, but I know that not many political affiliations were changed.

The campaign today against “science and knowledge” seems to tie into the Trump movement.  Does the reality of climate change interfere with driving your SUV:  deny climate change.  Does the gnawing fear of autism make you crazy:  don’t get your child vaccinated.  Do the factual statements of the media conflict with your world view: call it “fake news” and keep the television on Fox.

Don’t like abortion?  Write a law requiring ectopic pregnancies to be re-implanted into the womb, a procedure that doesn’t exist, but was still considered by the State Legislature for an Ohio law.

Democracy cannot succeed unless those who express their choice are prepared to choose wisely. The real safeguard of democracy, therefore, is education.  – Franklin D. Roosevelt

We depend on educated voters to make decisions in our nation.  We have prided ourselves on the accomplishments of our knowledge; from the vaccines that some now deny, to the journey to the moon (also denied) that we now are trying to replicate. When we were confronted with the dangers of lead in our gas, or chlorofluorocarbons in our spray cans; we made the scientific and engineering discoveries and social changes that solved the problems. All these advances were made through education.

We called for more mathematicians and engineers in the 1950’s, and we got them in the 1960’s and 1970’s.  They produced the technology that we take for granted today. Americans need to be educated.  Americans need to be able to question, and to reason, and to learn:  all products of education.  

But today, in our era of unlimited information without shield or check, folks can choose their facts like they choose their socks.   Don’t like the consequences of global warming:  there’s a series on the internet that will explain how 98% of scientists are wrong.  Don’t want to be corrected about what you think; then don’t “fact-check” it, or don’t believe the results if you do.

In the 1900’s education was often a matter of literacy:  if you couldn’t read, the world wasn’t accessible.  But if you had that skill, then getting books, the “keys to the kingdom,” opened the world of knowledge.  The stories of how a young Abraham Lincoln spent his hard earned money on books and used so much time reading under a tree, or with his long legs propped on the desk, or by candlelight at night; those are the stories of how a man educated himself on the frontier.  And when the Civil War broke out, Lincoln read everything he could find on the tactics and strategies of war; he knew how to gain knowledge:  books.

Today that kind of information is as available as your laptop, or the phone in your pocket.  Anything you might want to know, from building atomic bombs to the Karma Sutra, is a “Google Search” away.  The trickle of knowledge available to Lincoln is now a fire hose of “facts.”

“Facts”:  the new education is not about memorizing dates or knowing names; it is in learning how to handle the volume of information that can be accessed. Information used to be about availability, it’s now about “vetting,” determining what is true or not.  That is the skill educators need to impart to their students.  Lincoln learned to read, opening the world.  The modern student needs to learn how to discern truth from fiction.

But to generations not equipped with those skills, it is easy to slip into the habit of finding only the “facts” that fit their political views and to denigrate those who stand up for the “real” truth.  What could be more comforting than denying those with “degrees” who bring inconvenient truths, and using the internet to provide the “facts” to do it.

There is dignity in all work.  The guy who drives the Waste Management garbage truck is important to our society.  So is the guy sweeping up the street.  But so is the professor who walks into class to discuss philosophy, and the students who participates in that discussion.  Education is not a threat to Democracy; like that introductory course in college, it is a prerequisite.  

Do We Care Why the Civil War Began?

There seems to be a “new” hot historical debate about why the US Civil War began.  I t’s been 154 years since the end of the War, you’d think that historians would have it pretty well figured out.  And, factually, they do; but current American politics, with its focus on “fake news,” has found a way to try to revise this story of America.

Fake news:  the Civil War was fought between two sovereign countries, a “War Between the States” not a technical “civil” war.  To reach that conclusion, it requires that the US Constitution be seen as a transitory document; one that could be dissolved at the “will” of a given state government.  But the founders, and the states that ratified the Constitution, did not see their “bond” that way.

The founding fathers, children of the Enlightenment era, were incredibly aware of the power of the words they wrote.  They parsed every phrase, in full knowledge that, as the musical Hamilton notes; “…history had it eyes on them.”  So when the Constitution starts with the words  “We the People of the United States…” those words were intentional.  The Constitution was an agreement among the people, a contract of the people, and as Lincoln later added, “…by the people (and) for the people.”  It used the structure of state governments to reach those people, but it specifically does NOT say that it was a contract among the states, unlike the Articles of Confederation, the previous organizing document.  The Articles of Confederation was an agreement of “…perpetual union between the states…” and proceeded to name each state.  The Constitution did not.

The Founding Fathers understood the “perpetualness” of their agreements, first with the Articles, then with the Constitution.  They recognized that the new “American people” were the union.

A contract of the people cannot be broken by the states.  This was the key argument that Lincoln made to preserve the Union, and was confirmed in the blood of 600,000 Americans on the battlefield.  

When the “states” of the South seceded from the Union, they were exercising a “right” they did not have. When the Union acted to preserve itself by going into the South to put down that War of Rebellion (as the United States government characterized the Civil War at the time) they were not “invading,” they were putting down insurrection and restoring civil government in their own nation.

The battle of interpretation started soon after the war, when Southern apologists pushed the phrase “War Between the States” to try to reassert a state basis for secession.  It was “fake news” then, and still is today.

And why did those Southern states find it necessary to try to secede?  The answer is easy:  slavery. Take slavery out of the equation, and there is no reason for Rebellion, and no Civil War.  

The United States had spent “four score and seven years” squirming under the inherent conflict in a nation, founded in the words “…all men are created equal,” enslaving millions of humans.  While just before the War, the law allowed slavery to continue in those places where it existed, the “compromises” reached in 1850 and 1854 restricted slavery’s expansion into new territories.  

The cotton growers of the South were trapped by the economics of their product.  Cotton growing and picking required massive amounts of human labor, most easily provided by slaves.  And cotton, by the nature of the plant, wore out the ground. Long-term cotton growth required new fields; if the cotton-growers were restricted to the old South, they would ultimately fail.  To those Southerners, slavery had to expand to the new territories, or their whole economic model would collapse.

They could not tolerate restriction.  Therefore, they had to either expand slavery, or rebel.  The rest of the Union, recognizing that slavery was incompatible with America’s founding principles, was not willing to allow that expansion. 

It is certainly true that the Civil War did not begin as a war to “free slaves.”  It was fought to preserve the Union, and as Lincoln said at the time:

“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

He wrote this just a few weeks before the battle at Antietam, where in one day over 22,000 men were killed, wounded, captured or went missing.  But it was right after Antietam that Lincoln authored the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing slaves in those parts of the United States in rebellion.  He did it to hurt the Rebels, and he did it to encourage the abolitionists.  But he also did it with full knowledge that once on the course of freeing slaves, there was no turning back for the United States.  He knew that Union victory and the end of the War would be the end of slavery.

In today’s politics many try to rewrite history. Some see an advantage in restricting the Federal government, particularly when it comes to expanding civil and religious rights.  To those who claim that the Southern states were simply claiming their Constitutional sovereignty by seceding, and therefore states have similar rights to ignore the Federal government today, it is simply not true.  And to those who claim that the Civil War wasn’t “about slavery,” and therefore the Secessionists weren’t fighting to maintain ownership of humans, that’s not true either.  

Political convenience today does not allow us to revise the sacrifices of our ancestors.  They knew what they were fighting for, and against, and so should we.