I Don’t Get Republican’s Impeachment Trial Posture

If Senator McConnell and his Republican colleagues truly believe that the Democratic case for impeachment is so weak, a sham, wouldn’t it be to their political advantage to run a proper trial, to give the appearance of impartiality, and then acquit Trump.  They have certainly prejudged the case, so that is a foregone conclusion.  Why not subpoena Mulvaney and Bolton and have them support the President’s version of things under oath?  And apparently Trump wants a real trial, not some quickie; he wants to be vindicated.

There is only one reason:  they fear that more of the public will come to support impeachment after being exposed to the facts in such a trial, perhaps even some Republican Senators.  And what if Mulvaney and Bolton support the Democrats’ charges, not Trump’s version of things?  That would really throw a wrench in things.

There is no way that McConnell will change his posture, unless Trump forces him to.  Democrats only hope is that when they challenge the process in various ways with Chief Justice Roberts, who will be the Presiding Officer and under the rules of the Senate controls all aspects of the process … although he can be overruled by a simple majority … he will side with them.  

In that case, if the Republicans overrule his decisions, that would expose the whole Republican stance as dishonest and a farce to all but Trump’s devoted base.  The Democrats will have won even if Trump is acquitted.

Make Use of Conservative and Evangelical Voices Against Trump

To the extent that they can, it is absolutely critical in light of the total subservience to Trump of Congressional Republicans that the Democrats make good use of the conservative and evangelical voices that have spoken in support of Trump’s impeachment.  This is their only opportunity to show that this not a partisan effort but rather a principled one.  

The recent op-ed pieces in “The American Conservative” and “Christianity Today” are a strong indictment of Trump.  Their readership may not be huge, but these are legitimate, well-respected publications.  There was also an op-ed piece in The New York Times written by a group of Republicans that have formed an organization, the Lincoln Project, dedicated to defeating Trump in 2020.  These expressions of conscience are all the more powerful because they know the disdain that they will be treated by most of their colleagues.

The Democratic leadership should hold a press conference together with these groups to press the point that this is not a partisan endeavor.  It may certainly be true that most Democrats have had it in for Trump from the beginning.  But that is not because he is a Republican, it is because he is in so many ways unfit to be President and has shown a lack of respect for his office and for the institutions of our democracy on an almost daily basis.  That is not partisanship, that is principle.

Some Republican Senators Have Crossed a Line and Disqualified Themselves as Impeachment Jurors

In an impeachment, the Senate’s role is to sit in judgment and vote either to convict or acquit the person charged.  The Senators are the jury.  No Senator is appointed to play the role of defense counsel.  That role is undertaken by the President’s lawyers.  

As jurors, when the impeachment trial begins, the Senators swear an oath to “do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws: So help me God.’’

Now, no one expects any Senator, certainly not in the current environment, to be impartial when sitting in judgment of President Trump.  However, there is a difference between Senators prejudging the case and Senators meeting with top White House aides, as reported recently in The New York Times, to discuss the strategy to be used for the impeachment trial.

That crosses the line between being a juror and being part of the defense team.  Their action flouts all pretense of impartiality.

There is no precedent for this.  In Nixon’s impeachment, the Republican leadership did not strategize with the White House; they (Hugh Scott, Barry Goldwater, and John Rhodes) went to the White House to tell Nixon that he faced near-certain impeachment because of eroding support among Republicans.  As for Clinton, I could find no indication on the internet that Democratic Senators met with him to strategize his impeachment trial.

I would therefore argue that when the Senators are sworn in as jurors by the Chief Justice, the House managers of the impeachment should raise an objection with the Chief Justice that because of their strategizing with White House officials regarding the impeachment trial, such Senators should be barred from voting. They have disqualified themselves.  Who are they? Senators Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Ron Johnson, John Kennedy, and Lindsey Graham.  Mind you, a majority of the Senate can overrule such a ruling by the Chief Justice; but McConnell has only 2 votes to spare.

Then there’s majority leader Senator McConnell.  He recently stated that he’s “taking his cue” from the White House on how to run the impeachment trial.  "Everything I do during this, I'm coordinating with the White House counsel." He made clear he would do everything in his power to quickly acquit the president.” 

That without question also crosses the line.  He has stated he’s going to be talking to the Democratic leader and others, but if the bottom line is what the White House wants, those other conversations make no difference.  By running the trial the way Trump wants it run, he is abandoning all appearance of independence and impartiality.  The trial must be set up to get at the truth.

Removal of these senators from the Senate jury would not likely change the result of the trial.  With 95 senators voting, 16 Republican senators would still have to vote for impeachment, assuming a solid Democratic voting bloc.  But their removal may embolden enough Republicans to vote for impeachment to at least provide a simple majority, if not the required 2/3 majority to convict.  A bi-partisan majority in favor of impeachment would gravely weaken Trump in the 2020 election.

And it would send a very clear message that even in politics, some actions are beyond the pale.  We have lost that faith under Trump.  It needs to be reasserted.

The Clear Case for Trump’s Impeachment

There has been so much information gathered regarding Trump’s abuse of power that sometime it’s hard to see the forest for the trees.  But it is critically important to keep things simple and clear.  Let’s review the facts.

1.  The Main Piece of Evidence:

    Trump is on record as having said to the Ukraine president, when asked about the promised military aid, “I would like you to do us a favor though” and went on to mention his desire to have the Biden’s investigated.  This is not hearsay, this is not surmise, this is from the horse’s mouth.

       

     Republicans say that Trump did not say that the investigations were a condition to getting the aid.  How disingenuous.  If someone asks you for something, and you respond by asking them for a favor, it is understood that getting what they want is conditional on the favor being granted.  Especially in this case since, contrary to the White House’ early assertions, the Ukraine government was aware that the military aid had been put on hold prior to the telephone call.

     Republicans further say that the aid was ultimately provided without Ukraine investigating.  Yes, but the aid was released after Trump was informed of the whistleblower complaint and in response to bipartisan pressure from Congress.  So the fact that the aid was provided without the investigations taking place is not an exculpatory event. 

2.  The Supporting Evidence:

     There is ample evidence, both from career diplomats and from Trump appointees, that it was common knowledge that the Ukraine’s getting the aid and having a meeting with Trump were conditioned on them investigating the Biden’s.  Not just investigating them, but publicly stating that they were investigating them for corruption.

3.  The Legal Justification:

     Even Prof. Jonathan Turley, the Republican-requested expert, stated in his testimony that “the use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.”   It is not surprising then that he also stated that the July 25 call was “anything but perfect” and that Congress has a legitimate reason to scrutinize it.

Thus, given that we have direct evidence in the July 25 call that Trump pushed the Biden investigation and that he positioned it as a favor he was requesting in response to the inquiry regarding the withheld military aid, given all the supporting evidence that it was commonly felt that the aid and the investigations were connected, and given that the legal scholars agreed that, if proven, such abuse of power would constitute an impeachable offense, there is no reason not to proceed with impeachment articles.

Not to be forgotten, however, is Trump’s obstruction of justice.  Not only did he attempt to prohibit any Federal employee from testifying before the House Intelligence committee, although a number did so regardless.   But there is clear evidence from the Mueller report that he attempted to obstruct the Mueller investigation in numerous ways.  The House has unfortunately determined not to go there and limit it’s obstruction charge to obstructing the House in its legitimate investigation. 

Last week’s testimony by legal scholars regarding whether the crimes Trump is accused of warrant impeachment and whether sufficient evidence has been gathered left the media at least pondering whether Democrats should wait, should pursue enforcement of subpoenas in the courts, in order to obtain evidence from key players whom Trump has forbidden to testify.

While it would be great to have that testimony, there is no time to pursue a lengthy court process to obtain it given that we are only a year away from the next presidential election. By the time all the appeals would be over, the election would have occurred.  And one must remember, the only reason why that testimony has not been available is because Trump has forbidden it.  It has in most cases been requested by House Democrats.

Trump has clearly abused the power of his office and for the sake of our democracy must be impeached.  That the Senate will acquit is a foregone conclusion, but because it is a foregone conclusion, the fact will have little resonance with the public beyond his fervent base.

The Ongoing Toxic Effect of Slavery

There are many reasons why our country is dysfunctional today on so many levels.  Most have to do with the nature of our culture, the “me” perspective, and the insecurity that becomes part of our psyche during our formative years and growing up.

But there is another factor which I think has a major impact on our political life … the ongoing toxic effect of slavery.  And I’m not just talking about the continuing racism that is prevalent in the United States, although it is related to that.

When our country was founded, a deal was brokered, despite the ringing words of the Declaration of Independence, known as the “3/5 compromise.”  Under that agreement, slaves were accepted in the slaves states as a fact of life and were counted in the census as 3/5 of a person.  And so although they were slaves, not citizens, and had no rights, they increased significantly the South’s representation in the House of Representatives.

Ultimately, of course, the compromise led to the Civil War.  After the Civil War, there was never a discussion or reconciliation regarding slavery.  Reconstruction, which was to give slaves land and status, was promoted by a Republican-controlled Congress but poorly conceived.  Regardless, the effort ended quickly under President Andrew Johnson (D) and the white southern power structure maintained their old ways through the establishment of Jim Crow laws.

For the next 100 years, southern Democrats, while supporting the Democratic Party agenda in many ways, demanded a price, which was the continued debasement of African-Americans.  This unholy alliance fell apart when Johnson pushed the Civil Rights and Voting Rights laws through in the mid-1960s.  One should note that both of these measures were overwhelmingly supported by Republicans; the votes against were primarily from the South; the votes in the Senate were 73-27 and 78-18 respectively. 

The former Democrats later switched to Republican under Nixon’s Southern strategy and the South became Red.  Since that time, the Republican party, which had become traditionally conservative over the years, added a new twist in that they now, dependent on southern support, opposed measures to help the poor, who were thought of as being overwhelmingly black.  Bush II sought to change that with his compassionate conservatism, but he didn’t get very far.

The Tea Party within the Republican Party was founded in February 2009, just one month after Barack Obama took office as President.  Although the rallying cry was fiscal conservatism, the real bone was clear.  It was the perceived threat of African-Americans to the white middle-class, not just in the south, but now in the north too as the country suffered from a major recession.

These people had a fanatical energy.  And so John Boehner, then Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, decided to use them rather than fight them.  That empowering of the Tea Party ultimately led to Trump winning the Republican nomination for President in 2016 and winning the election.

And the fanaticism and loyalty of that base is what has given Trump his power to change the Republican party from a conservative party to an authoritarian, nativistic party, full of hate and anger.  Which has brought forth the same kind of energy in the Democratic Party base.  The combination of which has resulted in an almost total erosion of civility in political discourse and a weakening of American democracy.

Can the country be brought back to a place of reason and civility, an agreement to disagree?  Only time will tell, but the present does not bode well for the future.  In April 2019, I wrote a post, “We Need a National Discussion on Race and Racism.”  For our country to heal these deep divisions that we see, this must happen.  But I fear it will not, I fear it is too late.

What About Protecting Children?

During the past year, we have seen the #MeToo movement bring public awareness and public acknowledgement of the degradation suffered by countless women at the hands of countless men.  And for those men who were called out who were in positions of power, many of them have fallen.  Some have even been the subject of criminal action.

This was something which was long overdue.  No human being should be treated in this way.  And so women now join the list of people who are not just protected by law, but because they feel comfortable coming forward, are empowered to make use of those protections.

There remains, however, one significant category of person who, while protected by the law, is virtually unprotected in reality.  Both because they have no voice and because the injury they sustain is not acknowledged by society … children who are subject to sustained psychological abuse in their homes.    

We are slowly becoming sensitive to the bullying children are subject to in school and the damage caused by such bullying, including even suicide.  Although there are many adults, especially the parents of bullies, who respond, “Children will be children,” and fault the victim for overreacting.  

We have not, however, acknowledged the bullying and other forms of psychological abuse that children suffer at home and the terrible and lasting damage this does to them.  Why?  

The American Academy of Pediatrics defines emotional and psychological abuse as exposing “a child frequently and repeatedly to behaviors that impact his or her psychological well-being, including blaming, threatening, yelling at, belittling, humiliating, name calling, pointing out faults, withholding emotional support and affection, and ignoring a child.”  Shockingly, we see examples of this in public frequently, at which point I cringe; imagine the frequency behind the closed doors of the home.  

Pediatricians are required by law in many jurisdictions to report evidence of abuse to the authorities, including psychological abuse.  But despite their responsibility, doctors underreport evidence of physical abuse as well as psychological abuse.  Most often reported are cases of neglect.  

Why don’t they report?  One of the reasons why are “accepted cultural practices.”  Unfortunately, the list in the AAP definition above are all things which are pretty much accepted cultural practices by parents, especially if a child is “difficult.” Another is that doctors are less likely to report abuse when they have a positive relationship with the family.  

The generally accepted norm by both doctors and the public is that such things are going to occur in the home.  As with bullies, the reaction is that parents will be parents.  They have to have a free hand in raising their children.  They can’t be micro-managed.    Parents don’t intentionally harm their children.  And so children are not protected.

Perhaps the worst example of child psychological abuse unrelated to sexual abuse or other forms of physical abuse is the abuse suffered by children of a parent with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (Narcs).  This rather benign sounding psychological disorder is actually very malignant.  

According to the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, this is a sociopath who is dangerous to themselves and others:  1) has significant impairments in personality function such as exaggerated self-appraisal and requires excessive admiration to support self-esteem; 2) impairment in interpersonal function such as a lack of empathy; relationships are largely superficial and exist to serve self-esteem; little genuine interest in others; exploits others for personal gain; 3) pathological personality traits such as antagonism and grandiosity, believing one is better than others; condescending, arrogant, haughty; excessive attempts to attract the attention of others.  

Such parents see children as objects who they use to satisfy their needs, robbing them of all sense of self and self-esteem.  They have and show no care or love for their children.  The result is major damage to a child’s psyche.

Children of course, as opposed to adult women, do not have a voice vis a vis adults.  They are totally dependent on their parents for their welfare.  When asked, not only are children ashamed that they have received such abuse, but they know what will happen if they report on their parents.  Also every child wants desperately to believe that they are loved by their parents.  For all these reasons, they often hide the truth.

The only other person in a position to speak for a child is a relative or neighbor who is well-acquainted with the family dynamic.  However, these people will also usually not say anything for the same reasons as doctors … accepted cultural practices and closeness to the family.  There is one other.  If the parent is a Narc, close relatives or friends are typically enablers.  They have been brought into the Narc’s web of influence through various means and so see the Narc as a good person, not someone who is destroying their child.

Where does that leave the child victim?  Totally defenseless.

Why is this such a important topic?  If one cares about human beings, clearly one wants to prevent the psychic destruction of people, certainly children.  But beyond the individual, there are pressing social reasons to change this dynamic.  All of the dysfunction we see in the world … and it is everywhere … in the family, in the workplace, in the nation is a result of the suffering and insecurity that people experience as children.  (See my posts, “The Root of All Abuse and Violence - Insecurity,”  and “Insecurity as the Cause of Social Conflict and International War.”)  

If we truly want to make this world a better place for our children, then we must start by protecting our children.  The only way out of this terrible dynamic is to bring the subject of child psychological abuse out into the open.  It can no longer be a taboo subject.  Just like one never used to talk or hear about incest until a prominent person (a former Miss America) came out and told her story, prominent people need to come out and tell their story of being victims of child psychological abuse.

When people feel it is ok to talk about this subject, whether regarding their own experience or that of others, they will be empowered to free themselves of the suffering caused by denial by speaking the truth.  Then, hopefully, doctors, relatives, and friends will come to the rescue of children.  Adults who were victims as children will speak the truth.  We will be amazed at the prevalence of this tragedy.  Millions of children will be freed from their prison of suffering and countless adults will begin healing their trauma.

Have You No Shame?

During the 1954 Army-McCarthy hearings, Senator Joe McCarthy (R) was finally stopped by the question of Joseph Welch, attorney for the Army.  Welch said, “At long last, sir, have you left no sense of decency?”  The quote is often paraphrased as, “Have you no shame?”

After watching the actions of Congressional Republicans since Trump took office, but especially since the whistle-blower complaint, the White House release of a “reconstructed” transcript of Trump’s Ukraine phone call, and the many corroborating witnesses both regarding the call itself but more importantly about Trump’s insistence that the Ukraine commit to investigating Hunter Biden as a condition to releasing security aid funds that had been allocated by Congress, I would say to them, “Sirs, have you left no shame?”

Congressmen and Senators take an oath of office in which they commit to supporting and defending the Constitution.  Their oath is not to defend the President, their political party, or anything else.  They represent many constituencies but their oath is simply to support and defend the Constitution.

Since Trump’s takeover of the Republican Party through the fervent loyalty of his base, Republicans in Congress have become a craven lot, except on foreign policy matters.  How have they conducted themselves during the questioning of Trump’s abuse of office?  Have they defended the Constitution?

The Constitution prohibits government officials from receiving anything of value from foreign governments without the consent of Congress.  Knowingly receiving the value of Russian interference in the 2016 election would be a violation of this clause and was thus a key part of the Mueller investigation.  Receiving election aid in the form of Ukraine investigations of political rivals would also be an example of receiving something of value.  The obstructing justice charges don’t concern this Constitutional clause but concern a violation of Federal law and thus would be impeachable.

Already with the Mueller Report, despite all the evidence of Russian contact and knowledge that Russia was interfering in the election (including his infamous public request to the Russians to find Clinton’s missing emails and publish them) and of obstruction of justice, they supported Trump’s view that he had been shown to do no wrong, and that by not indicting him, Mueller had exonerated him.  

Never mind that’s not what the report said, that’s how Trump and they interpreted it, aided and abetted by A.G. Barr’s summary.  Just recently, we learned that testimony at the trial of Roger Stone showed that Trump spoke directly to Stone during the campaign about WikiLeaks possible disclosure of Democratic emails obtained by Russia, despite his having said in written testimony that he remembered no such conversation.  If not legal collusion, this certainly smells like an impeachable offense.

Regarding the June telephone call with the President of the Ukraine, despite the background and Trump explicitly asking for a favor,  they still say Trump did no wrong.  When Lt Col. Vindman who was on the call and thus had direct knowledge said that the “transcript” omitted an important reference to the Bidens and other desired investigations, they cast aspersions on him and discounted his testimony.

When one career diplomat after another came forward and testified under oath that the President was holding foreign policy hostage to personal political gain, their response has been that this is all hearsay.  No one heard this from the mouth of the President.  

The last statement is true, but when you have so much evidence regarding the President’s policy from various sources and stemming largely from his own personal lawyer, Giuliani, the evidence cannot be simply disregarded because it is hearsay.  Especially when those with direct knowledge of the President’s position have been prevented from testifying by the President’s edict.  And few with direct knowledge who have testified, such as Lt. Col. Vindman, have been vilified.

Republicans point to the fact that the President told several people that there was no quid pro quo.  Given that this President lies constantly, even when there’s something real at risk, his statements clearly cannot be accepted at face value.

Except for a single utterance by Senator Romney regarding this matter, no Republican has even ventured tentative support for the idea that perhaps this might be an impeachable offense and should be looked into.  The one representative who did reversed himself when it came to a vote in the House.

Senators and Representatives fume about Trump’s foreign policy actions in the Middle East, how harmful they are to the country’s interests.   Here they stand up to Trump.  But since they otherwise approve of his policies, they apparently see no “duty to country” reason for opposing him.  

They don’t see that a man like Trump at the helm of this country is dangerous.  And that he has over and over again abused the power of his office.  He has even clearly stated that the Constitution lets him “do whatever he wants,” and he referred to the Constitution’s “phony” emoluments clause.

Why does Trump have such power over members of the House and especially the Senate, whose members are traditionally more independent?  Because they all want to be reelected … that is clearly their main imperative, not service to the country … and his control over the party’s base is so solid that they dare not buck him or else they know they’ll find themselves with a primary challenger to Trump’s liking.

The Need for Mass Outrage, Civil Disobedience

There was an opinion piece in The New York Times recently that criticized President Obama for wagging his finger at the younger generation who get off on being judgmental and insist on purity.  “That’s not activism.  That’s not bringing about change,  If all you’re doing is casting stones, that probably won’t get you far.”  The opinion writer was very offended and criticized the older generation’s way of doing things.  She embraced the power of social media.

This is a hard one. We, young and old liberals/progressives, want to effect change. That's the bottom line. The question is how best to get there. 

There are situations where a zero tolerance approach is appropriate, where we should express our outrage, en masse. In the street, not just on your screen.  Sometimes, enough people expressing outrage can by its own power effect change, either by toppling those in power or having those in power accept change. 

More frequently though, the world is so complex and resistance to change so strong that even masses expressing outrage in public protest will not in and of itself effect change. But that mass expression of outrage is still important, for only then can people with access to power follow up by arguing for change, at least incremental. 

Indeed, I would argue that we need more mass expressions of outrage, such as we had against the Vietnam War.  And it can’t be just once and done.  There must be an extended series of protests.  Those in power must see that the opposition has staying power; that they haven’t spent all their energy on one demonstration and then it’s back to business as unusual.

Now when it comes to negotiating with those in power, you have the best chance of success when they don’t have their backs up.  The problem with many young progressives and some older ones too is that they don't just state the facts, they don’t just argue, they bully and are full of hatred. 

That is not the way to influence people. A good example of this is Rep. Ilhan Omar. I agree with much of what she says, but as I've said in previous posts, she often says it in a way which is counter-productive. She is her own worst enemy, in terms of being effectual. 

Obama's point was not to castigate those who argue for change. His point was that one needs to do so in a way that will effectuate change. Sometimes, perhaps often, that will require compromise. And that should not be a dirty word. You do not sell out if you compromise. Rather, if you insist on purity, you will almost never effect change and thus truly betray your cause.

Republican Flimflammery

Not surprisingly Republicans have put on their witness wish list Hunter Biden.  But his testimony is irrelevant to the issue at hand … whether Trump is guilty of abusing his power.

Even if Biden was guilty of conspiracy, that would have no bearing on whether Trump committed an impeachable offense by withholding foreign aid unless the Ukraine investigated a political opponent, Biden.

And so the witness request should be denied, for this clearly stated reason.  If Republicans really want to pursue the matter, they should refer it to the Justice Department, which is the appropriate forum.

OMG, Could Republicans Not Care About Abuse of Power?

I just had a startling thought.  I have always thought that the reason why most Republicans in Congress were dismissive of the Democrat’s push for impeachment was that they just didn’t think there was iron-clad proof of Trump’s abuse of office and obstruction of justice.  No matter how clear it seemed, they just wished away the facts.

But I just thought, what if it isn’t a matter of proof.  What if they don’t feel that any of the actions Trump is accused of, even if proven beyond a doubt, would constitute an abuse of power, an impeachable offense?  What if they felt that even if Trump was using foreign policy for personal political gain, even if there was a quid pro quo, that that would be ok.  As Trump has said, he did nothing wrong.  What if they felt that even if Trump was obstructing the justice process, since he claimed he did nothing wrong, he didn’t have the mental state of obstructing “justice.”

If that’s true, then besides fearing the wrath of Trump and his base, they feel the impeachment process is a sham because they don’t think the actions Trump is accused of rise to the level of an impeachable offense.  If that were true, that would explain why no Republican voted in favor of the public impeachment inquiry resolution in the House, despite satisfying all their demands:  open hearings, the right to subpoena witnesses, and due process for Trump.  Forget about making any comparison to the charges against Clinton; reason here would have no value.

If that is the case, then there is no hope of getting more than a handful of Republicans to vote for impeachment, and other than Romney, no Senator will vote to convict.  It will end up appearing to Trump loyalists, and probably most Republicans, as a partisan effort.  This would be very bad for the country, for our democracy.  Trump has been saying that the Democrats are just trying to undo the results of the 2016 election, to thwart the will of the people, and that is precisely how it will appear to many.

If that’s the case, Nancy Pelosi was right about not wanting to move forward with impeachment.  

It is now really up to the American people.  They must call and write their Republican representatives and say that they are disappointed if not outraged that they wouldn’t even endorse a public and fair inquiry into these serious allegations.  For the good of this country, this cannot remain a partisan matter.

How to Move Republicans on Impeachment

As  the evidence mounts regarding Trump's abuse of office, the big question isn’t whether Trump has committed impeachable offenses, the record is clear on that, and will become even clearer and inescapable in the upcoming hearings.  The question is how many Republicans in the House will vote to impeach.

On the vote to authorize the impeachment inquiry today, not one Republican, not even those on the three committees that have been investigating, not even Francis Rooney who had said he was open to impeachment, voted to authorize the impeachment inquiry.  To do otherwise would have invoked the wrath of Trump which they clearly don't have the guts to do.

But looking down the road, how can Republicans be moved to vote, yes, on impeaching Trump?  Certainly, it is critical that the hearings be as fair and open as possible.  The process should provide Republicans with no cover whatsoever.  

Also, if the public sees the hearings as being very fair, then Republicans outside of Trump’s solid core base will lean more towards impeachment.  Emboldening more Republicans to vote yes.  

Hearing from the public will be of critical importance to Republicans on this issue, just as it was on Obamacare.  Even after today's vote, it is critical that Republican reps be called or written regarding people's outrage that they would not even vote to authorize public hearings, given the safeguards for due process that were built into the resolution.

Finally, while keeping their prospects for reelection out of the equation is not realistic, their oath of office and civic duty must be called upon.  That can only come effectively from fellow Republicans.  To date, the sole Republican standing up for his country and justice is Mitt Romney.

Regarding the subpoena power, one thing that Democrats cannot allow is for Republicans to muddy the focus of the hearings by questioning whether Biden or his son did something improper.  That is irrelevant.  

Even assuming for arguments’ sake that they did, that does not change the fact that Trump used foreign policy for his own political gain.  If they charge the Democrats with protecting Biden from corruption charges, Republicans should be directed to the Justice Department which I’m sure would be happy to look into those allegations, if they aren’t already.  That is also the proper forum.

Enabling China’s Totalitarian Government

Mighty American companies, one after the other, bow down and sell their soul to China in exchange for a fistful of dollars.  The latest being the NBA’s acquiescence to China’s demands as noted in The New York Times, “American Basketball,”  October 13.

How sad it is that American companies are so hungry for ever greater profits from ever greater sales that they will sacrifice their principles in order to please the Chinese Communist government and thus have access to the huge Chinese market.  

The Chinese government is not evil on the scale of Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s Cultural Revolution.  But they are every much as totalitarian.  Anyone in China who dares to buck the Chinese government is treated like a criminal and taken into custody by the government with no rights.  

The fate of a democracy activist, or a religious activist, or a persecuted minority such as the Uighurs, is not that different in today’s China from what it was in fascist Germany or Russia.  They perhaps don’t fear death, but imprisonment at will is the norm.

Our opening up to China has in retrospect been a huge mistake.  We thought that exposure to Western products and ideas and increased prosperity would slowly bring a soft revolution in China; that people would demand not just economic freedom but political freedom.  

But while China has embraced a type of capitalism, our role in the economic transformation of China has created a monster that threatens our economy and our geo-political interests around the world.  American companies and farmers have become enablers of China’s totalitarian government.

It is past time to rethink our engagement with China, not for the reasons given by Trump, but because we are enabling a totalitarian government.  The dream of a soft revolution is just that.   What to do at this point is a huge question that requires careful and knowledgeable thought, so I am not going to make any suggestions, except to say that Trump's trade war is not the answer.

The Delusional President

President Trump is known for thinking that he has exaggerated talents and abilities.  But in a recent tweet he has topped himself.  In responding to criticism of his decision to withdraw troops from Northern Syria and allow Turkey to conduct a military operation there to get rid of the Kurds, he said the following:

“As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!),”

“In my great and unmatched wisdom” is so over the top, it would be laughable if the speaker wasn’t the President of the United States.  It sounds like something the Wizard of Oz would say, or Mussolini.  Totally delusional.  This is certainly not an impeachable offense, but it does show why Trump is unfit for the office and should have been removed through the 25th Amendment procedure.

But there’s more delusion.  He will totally destroy and obliterate the Turkish economy?  And he’s done it before?  This is truly scary stuff.

But beyond the evidence of delusion, what’s disturbing about this episode is that it is being reported in the press, including The New York Times, as evidence that Trump pivoted on the issue after receiving a barrage of criticism from Republicans and Democrats in Congress.  

But he and his administration didn’t pivot.  His statement is just blather.  How can anyone take it for a substantive statement?  And all the Defense Department said was that they and the President made clear to Turkey that the U.S. does not endorse a Turkish operation in Northern Syria and will not support one or be involved in any such operation.  

Note, they did not say that they would stop any Turkish operation, against the Kurds or otherwise.  And now that the Turkish military operation is underway and openly aims at wiping out the Kurds, all Trump said was, “It’s a bad idea” and that we can’t have these endless wars; and the Defense Department just reiterated what they had said previously.  We have abandoned our allies.

We are in uncharted territory.  All one can do is pray, God preserve the United States.  Follow through with impeachment.  And if that fails, vote Trump out of office in November 2020.

What are American Values?

Politicians of all stripes are talking about American values these days.  That they should be voted for rather than their opponent because they will preserve and protect American values.  But what are American values?

I have never written a post defining American values because they have always been so clear to me that the thought didn't occur to me.  Talk about begging the question.  Obviously this is a topic on which there are deep divisions.  You have fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives in their perspective on our founding documents.  And certainly what individuals define as American values is not only changing, it probably never had the clarity that I find in our founding history.  Perhaps that's because I have always focused on the aspirations of the Founding Fathers and our founding documents, not all the compromises that were necessary.  And the values of individuals are greatly affected by the values of the society they keep.

First, “American values” must be distinguished from the values of the American people.  To me, the term connotes something larger than us, grounding, permanent, of lasting meaning.  The values of people instead change as the times change, as the culture changes, as the political temperament changes.  And so there have been numerous articles reporting how American values have changed, citing polling data.  This is important information, but not the definition of American values.

This is the description of a ship adrift at sea, not a grounded fortress.  I would therefore argue that “American values” instead refers to the values inherent in the very existence of this country as stated in our founding documents … the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  Those values are our grounding; the source of America’s stability and greatness.

That, however, does not answer the question, for depending on how you approach those documents, whether you are a conservative or a liberal, you can pretty much find what you want … up to a point.

For example, the Heritage Foundation scholar Matthew Spaulding wrote a book in 2009 titled We Still Hold These Truths: Rediscovering Our Principles, which sees our founding documents as decidedly conservative.  He finds that the Progressive (Republican) movement of the late 19th century, FDR’s New Deal, LBJ’s Great Society, and the new progressives have eroded the principles of our founding documents.  He finds that what many consider to be the maturation of the principles contained in those documents, the concept of a Living Constitution, our becoming truer to the ideals of the Founders, to be instead examples of the perversion of our founding principles. 

There is no question that there is plenty of language in our founding documents to support a conservative interpretation.  In my 2004 book, We Still Hold These Truths: An American Manifesto, I stated that while the words of the Declaration of Independence were and remain revolutionary, and are profoundly liberal, “in their interpretation lies the core of both the Liberal and Conservative ideologies  that have run through American political life and the tension between them.”

Perhaps never has the tension been greater than now.  The main problem stems from the conservative emphasis on the rights of each individual, especially as granted by the Bill of Rights, whereas liberals stress the concept of equality and the implications of each person having equal rights.

There can be no question that in our legal system no rights are absolute.  No one, by exercising his right to pursue life, liberty, or happiness can infringe on someone else’s right to do the same.  All of our laws and regulations, both civil and criminal, are examples of proscribing action that would harm an individual or the general good.  That is the impact of our system of equal rights.  

For example, everyone has the right to drive, but you must pass a test to prove that you can drive a car safely so as not to injure other people or yourself.  The automobile is a potentially deadly machine.  The same reasoning should apply to gun ownership.

Even the hallowed right of free speech is not absolute.  For example, not only can you not cry “Fire” in a crowded theater, but you cannot slander another person.  False advertising is illegal because someone depending on such claims could be harmed.

But conservatives keep acting as though rights, at least those conferred in the Bill of Rights, are absolute, whether it’s freedom of religion, or free speech, or the right to bear arms, which only recently was held by the Supreme Court to apply as an individual right rather than the right of states of have militias.  But that perspective is totally opposed to our history and our system of laws.

So, given that “American values” means the values that are the essence of our founding documents and given the explanation above of the American legal perspective on rights, what are the core American values?

Note: These values, like equality, are clearly aspirational.  They may not have been true at the time of our founding or be true on the ground now, but they have enabled people to have faith and hope and accomplish what otherwise would have been impossible.

Equality:  We all know that the belief in equality was enshrined in the Declaration of Independence although its practice was significantly restricted in the Constitution.  But the concept was there, and it was that light that guided us towards the ending of slavery, the emancipation of women, the civil rights movement, and same-sex marriage.  We still have far to go, but that light is still guiding us.

Indeed, it is this central aspiration of equality that drives the other key American values/elements of American democracy.

     Equality of Citizenship:  We are all equal citizens of the United States.  Certainly that wasn’t true at the start, when voting was limited to males who owned property.  But over the years, America moved more towards the ideal.  Today all adult citizens, whether you were born here or immigrated, have the right to vote.  The concept of one “man,” one vote is central, though attempts by some States to restrict voting rights is still very much with us.  

     We are also equal citizens in that we have equal rights, and we each have the right to pursue these rights.   That is why if exercising your right restricts another person’s right, you cannot due that.  No right is absolute.

     Upward Mobility:  We have no caste system in this country.  From a structural standpoint, there isn’t anything that anybody cannot do.  Someone from the poorest layer of society can rise to become President or head of a powerful corporation.  And this mobility is not just theoretical; it has been seen as a reality countless times in all areas of commerce, the arts, the professions, and politics.  Again, this is true for native born and immigrants. and more recently people of color.

     E Pluribus Unum - Unity with Diversity:  Although the latin phrase refers to the 13 colonies, the sentiment applies more broadly.  The United States has been from its very founding a country of immigrants.  And as one would expect, there have been disagreements from the start between different factions or groups of citizens/immigrants.  One immigrant group vied against another.  And as immigrants became established, they had problems with the next wave of immigrants.  Often even those from the same country.

     Yet despite the animosity and distrust and at times violence between groups, when the country called, all felt that they were Americans.  They may have been hyphenated Americans, they may have felt that they weren’t getting their fair share, they may have felt discriminated against, but they identified as American and were proud of it.

     This shared sense of shared citizenship led to what’s called the American social contract.  Under that contract, in exchange for the benefits of citizenship, all citizens agree to obey the laws and to share the burden of government, whether through the paying of taxes or by answering a military draft.  Under this social contract, we are not just responsible for ourselves; we have a distinct responsibility for the welfare of the whole and thus for all Americans.

     In the first half of the 20th century, workers gained significant rights in their employment.  In the second half, overt forms of discrimination that had been practiced against some groups, like Jews and Blacks, became illegal.  And all minority groups benefitted from laws that guaranteed equal protection in public accommodations and other areas of commerce.  The movement always being towards more equality, more unity.  Yes, bigotry and discrimination still exist; we are still a work in progress.

     In the halls of Congress, this diversity with unity, this regard for equality, was reflected in the air of civility that existed between people on opposite sides of issues.  People agreed to disagree.   Clearly this is no longer the case.

These are the American values that politicians should refer to.  All the other values that are often cited … for example, individuality, free speech, religious freedom, the right to bear arms … are only able to be properly understood within the context of these core values.  Taken out of that context, they are a prescription for anarchy not democracy.

The American Social Contract in Trouble

In my book, We Still Hold These Truths: An American Manifesto, I noted that the Republican right wing had rejected the American social contract that has developed over time and was accepted by both political parties.  Actually, it resulted from the policies of both Republican and Democratic administrations.  

The basic idea is that as citizens, we are all equal participants in the great American experiment.   In exchange for receiving the benefits of citizenship, all Americans are responsible for contributing to the government’s work, which includes helping less fortunate citizens, each according to his ability.  It was indeed Republican President Theodore Roosevelt that initiated the progressive income tax, which is the main tool by which the financial responsibility of citizenship is implemented.

One can find no better expression of the concept than John Donne’s famous words:  “No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. … Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind.”  A predecessor of the Enlightenment movement that so influenced our Founding Fathers, these words are the essence of the American social contract.

As I’ve stated often before, the soaring aspirations of our founding documents and our Founding Fathers were indeed “just” aspirations.  But they have provided the light that has guided America and Americans forward through difficult domestic times and have enabled it constantly, although often by fits and starts, to grow, to reinvent itself, and become more reflective of its founding aspirations.

But the social contract has been under attack over the last few decades by the increasingly right-wing Republican Party.  Among right-wing Republicans, there is now a disdain for the poor in general, not just people of color.  They are against the “undeserving poor,” which includes whites.  

Mike Mulvaney, Trump’s Budget Director, said in an opinion piece, "For the first time in a long time, we’re putting taxpayers first. Taking money from someone without an intention to pay it back is not debt. It is theft. This budget makes it clear that we will reverse this larceny.”  The poor receiving assistance are viewed as thieves.  Remember when Mitt Romney was exposed referring to those benefitting from government programs as “takers,” which included those on Social Security?

But the threat facing our social contract does not just involve attitudes towards the poor.  In our increasingly polarized society under Trump, any feeling that we are all part of the American community or are responsible in any way for each other's welfare is gone.  Replaced instead with warring camps.

America must return to an embrace of our social contract.  Without that attitude, we will drift further apart.  FDR’s refrain, “My fellow Americans,” will become not just hollow in the contemporary context but a deceit.

Correcting the Perception of Poverty

Studies show consistently that most people, liberals as well as conservatives, think that most people living in poverty are Black.  More recently Hispanics have been included.  

Given the extent of racism in this country, whether subtle or violent, (see my post, “It Always Comes Back to Race/Racism”), it’s not surprising that support for anti-poverty programs is thus non-existent among the new right-wing Republican conservatives (the past attitude of noblesse oblige has disappeared along with moderate conservatives).  Liberals of course support such programs, although often one feels somewhat begrudgingly.  I must note, however, the cause of economic justice is rising among younger progressives who have grown up in a different era and are more free of any racist taint.

But this perception of poverty is fundamentally wrong.  While Blacks and Hispanics do have much higher poverty rates, there were more white people living in poverty (17 million) in 2017 than either Blacks (9 million) or Hispanics (10.8 million).  Combined they accounted for just 51% of people living in poverty.  Minorities have also historically accounted for no more of the welfare caseload than White families.

So in fact, anti-poverty programs help Whites as much as they help Blacks and Hispanics.  Why does this misperception of poverty continue?  The fault lies mainly with the media.  When it presents images of poverty, they are almost always that of Blacks or Hispanics.  The images from the depression, think the photographs of Walker Evans and Dorothea Lange, showing white Americans living in poverty, have very few equivalents in contemporary media.

Both government and the media must address this misconception.  Especially in this polarized age, having the correct facts is very important.

But it is also important that poor white Americans became more vocal in arguing for government help in bettering their lives and the futures of their children.  That should indeed be the goal of existing anti-poverty organizations, they should advocate for both people of color and Whites, that would only make their case more compelling.  When I googled to find organizations advocating for poor Whites I found nothing.

This is actually what is fueling part of the Trump base.  They are supporting Trump because no one else listens to them and no one else advocates for them.  Even though he really doesn’t.  And they have the same perception as most that anti-poverty programs are geared to help people of color, not them, even though they in fact do benefit.  And so they are against such programs, even though such action is against their own self-interest.  

Poverty should never been seen as primarily a Black issue.  Hispanics and Whites may feel more shame in accepting government help, but their poverty must be brought visibly and audibly into the public consciousness in a positive way.  If poor Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics aligned themselves in this common cause, they would present a very potent political force.