Monday, May 27, 2019

"How Republics Die"

This is the title of a very distressing article I just read written by Thom Hartmann for  the online magazine Salon. 

Hartmann suggests that the beginning of the end of our own republic might very well have been the horrendous 2010 Supreme Court decision known as "Citizens United" which eliminated the cap on the amount of money individuals and corporations can contribute to political campaigns. It doesn't take a genius to realize this opens the door to undue influence into the workings of our government. In other words: any hope of calling our system of government a democratic republic is dashed; Citizens United has enabled it to become a plutocracy, a government for sale to the highest bidder.

The truly depressing part is that according to Hartmann, as effective as it has been for over two hundred years, the US Constitution is not equipped to deal with this threat to its very existence. Hartmann says:

Our Constitution, in many very real ways, is rather weak when faced with parties or persons who flaunt its norms, or won’t use the tools it provides to ensure accountability.

Quicker can you say Jack Robinson, we are now faced with a president who is more than happy to be a norm flaunter, that's in part what made him so attractive to the people who voted for him. The other is the fact that he wasn't Hillary Clinton.

Hartmann gives us a laundry list of just a few of the ways this president has flaunted the norms that have served this nation fairly well for over two centuries:
  • Calling the press “the enemy of the people.”
  • Refusing to interact with Congress as the Constitution dictates.
  • Packing the courts with demonstrably unqualified ideologues.
  • Lying to the people on a daily basis.
  • Embracing autocrats while trashing traditional allies.
  • Breaking the law and flaunting a Nixon-era “guideline” from the DOJ saying that the president can’t be prosecuted, while he runs out the clock on the statute of limitations.
  • Bragging that he’s making money on the presidency and daring anybody to stop him.
  • Putting lobbyists in charge of public lands, our banking system, and our environment.
  • Embracing violent and hateful people and movements, both at home and abroad.
Hartmann calls these acts "symptoms of a republic in crisis."

Adding to the danger of it all, we have a political party who when given the choice between defending the principles of this nation as defined by our consitution, or kowtowing to their very wealthy benefactors, in every case chooses the latter. Even more dangerous are supporters of this administration who are bombarded with questionable (at best) information spoon fed to them by news sources which are funded by the same people who fund the politicians.

In my opinion, by far the most egregious threat to our nation is that this administration is doing its best to divide the country between his supporters and the rest, who has been deemed "the enemy." This weekend, undermining a statement from his own Director of National Security, the president tweeted that he wasn't the least bit concerend about North Korea conducting tests of ballistic missles, in clear violation of International Law. It seems the president is pleased with Kim Jun Un because Kim made some derrogatory remarks about Joe Biden, as we speak, Trump's most formidable oponent in the upcoming 2020 election. In other words, Trump is backing one of this country's fiercest adversaries, a ruthless, murderous dictator to boot, over a former vice president of the United States.

It's clear whom Kim supports in the upcoming election, And Donald Trump in one fell tweet has made it crystal clear where his loyalties lie, who his friends are, as well as his enemies.

Because of the above laundry list of dangerous and/or criminal actions this president has taken, not the least of which his unwavering support of Kim and North Korea, it should be clear to any reasonable person who values our democratic republic that this man needs to stop being president as soon as possible.

But here lies the rub. The strategy of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and many high ranking Democrats in Congress is that regardless of the many impeachable actions as spelled out by the Mueller Report and by his own words and deeds, actions directed toward the impeachment of this president might be self-defeating. As there is an intransegent Republican majority in the Senate, there is no chance of an impreachment resulting in his removal from office and in addition, Pelosi and others reason that impeachment and a subsequent acquittal by the Senate would only embolden and furthur empower Trump, helping to ensure his re-election in 2020.

On the other hand, by not taking forceful action to curb this president, Congress is weakening itself in its role as a crucial check to balance the power of any president now or in the future, not to mention one with tyrannical visions for himself who thumbs his nose at any challenge to his power every chance he gets.

The words "constitutional crisis" have been bandied about quite liberally these days to the point where they seem rather trite, like the proverbial words of the boy who cried wolf. On the other hand there are several "cracies" that can be applied to the current administration, plutocracy, kleptocracy, and idiocracy are just three that come immediately to mind. Unfortunately democracy is not on the list and neither for that matter is republic.

For those of us who value the "d" word and the "r" word, I think the time to act is now to enure that Trump (who won election in the 2016 election with a substantial minority of the popular vote), not only is not president for much longer, but that the damage that he and his ilk have inflicted upon the country will not be long lasting. How to do that is the qustion of the hour.

So how do you spell constitutional crisis?

No comments: