Are Liberals Destroying America's Ideals?

In the opening paragraph of the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, it wrote, "America is now divided between two opposing forces: woke revolutionaries and those who believe in the ideals of the American revolution,"  

What a perfect example of fake news.  By taking on the mantle of American values and attacking their opponents as destroying those values, the Heritage Foundation has done what Trump and his allies always do: they accuse their opponents of doing what they themselves have actually done.  In truth, it is the MAGA-Right that perverts and destroys our founding values.

This distorted view of our founding documents was formalized in Matthew Spaulding's 2009 book, We Still Hold These Truths.  Spaulding is a former Director of American Studies at the Heritage Foundation.  In the book, Spaulding faults liberals for perverting the vision of the Founding Fathers.  Liberalism is the enemy.

For example, in speaking of the "certain unalienable truths" proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, he states that liberals have "rejected the idea of self-evident truths and enduring principles."

How bizarre.  It is liberals, i.e. Democrats, who embrace the words of the Declaration of Independence.  Given the MAGA-Right's assaults on immigrants, LGBTQ, people of color, and women, it is clear that it is the MAGA-Right that has rejected these truths.

The position that support for conservative arguments can be found in our founding documents is not without basis, as I stated in my 2004 book, We Still Hold These Truths: An American Manifesto. But the MAGA-Right disavow traditional conservative positions. 

What they advocate instead is the dismantling of the Federal government to comport more with the Anti-Federalist view—a weak and limited national government—that was the basis of the Articles of Confederation, rather than the view that was adopted by the Founding Fathers after the failure of the Articles and was the basis for the Constitution—a strong and multi-faceted Federal government with proscribed checks and balances.  

True, some of the Founding Fathers, such as Jefferson, were concerned that a strong federal government would constrict the rights of citizens and so he proposed what became the Bill of Rights.

But for the MAGA-Right, there is no recognition, appreciation, or tolerance in their point of view of the rights of others.  For example, as MAGA Christians in what they consider a Christian country, they believe they can forbid gays to marry and demand that women act in accordance with MAGA beliefs. This is not protecting MAGA freedom of religion. This is imposing MAGA's religious views on others, violating others' rights.  They pursue the denial of liberty to others. 

If you read Spaulding's book—if you didn't read it carefully—you could come away thinking he is a reasonable man who respects our founding documents and history.  He has, for example, a section on equality and equal rights that is a powerful exposition, which one would think would presage support for all civil rights legislation as well as the DEI efforts of government.  He certainly talks the talk.  

But when it comes to the implementation, to the interpretation, of these words, he doesn't walk the walk, but distorts their meaning to suit his own political ends.  He and the MAGA-Right have a one-sided view of liberty.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are profoundly liberal documents for their era that depend on the balancing of powers and of rights. What the MAGA-Right is attempting to do, and in the short-term are succeeding, is to destroy that balance—whether it's between the branches of government or the rights of people. Their goal is to create a government and system of laws that is a radical departure from our historic ideals and values.

This destruction of American ideals can only be stopped by the people, by their realizing what the Trump administration is doing, and how it affects them and their children.  It is only by their votes that this perversion of America can be stopped.

Given the massive misinformation campaign by the MAGA-Right, for this to happen the Democratic Party must mount a counter-campaign to inform the public what America's true ideals are—what our founding documents and the Founding Fathers said—how the Trump administration cynically perverts those ideals, and how that perversion impacts us all.  That is the focus of my book, We Still Hold These Truths: An American Manifesto.

The MAGA-Right and Spaulding speak of equality, of freedom of religion and speech, and liberty being dependent on a respect for both rights and responsibilities—these are indeed America's ideals—but they just mouth the words; their implementation of those concepts limits and perverts the Founders' meaning.  And that meaning comes from the Enlightenment—the words were aspirational—not from the facts on the ground at that time.

For example, in saying that all "men" are created equal, the Founders meant that all mankind have certain unalienable rights.  Their "self-evident" came from the fact of creation—that "we were all of the same species; made by the same God"—not what they saw looking around them. These rights don't belong just to white men or the MAGA-RIght.

The traditional meaning of "balance of rights and responsibilities" is that someone in the exercise of his rights has the responsibility not to thereby interfere with the rights of another.  But the MAGA-RIght's interpretation is that others have the responsibility not to interfere unjustly with the practice of their rights; for example, by regulating business.  Whereas they aggressively interfere with the rights of others because, again, they do not acknowledge the rights of others.

But beyond this information campaign, the Democratic Party must rediscover the source of their policies and communicate that source to the people.  This source is not "liberal" thinking, or progressive "woke" thinking.  Instead, the foundation of all their policies are the words of the Declaration of Independence. 

To this end, I have proposed a domestic Mission statement for the Democratic Party:

"To build a country of greater opportunity for all where:

• each and every American has a real chance to experience the promises made in the Declaration of Independence … ‘that all men [mankind] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights … Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness;’ 
• government meets its responsibility as set forth in the Declaration … ‘to secure those rights’ … within the constraints of fiscal responsibility; and
• all citizens have a shared responsibility to support the government’s efforts to secure those rights and promote the public good, each according to their ability, and to not, through the exercise of their rights, impinge on the rights of others."

This statement is the moral philosophy, the heart, the soul of American democracy. This is, or was, America’s common faith. 

I believe that this is the path out of the abyss of Trumpism and back to a government and policies that will truly make America great again—government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

 

Lessons To Be Learned from the Election

There is a lot of finger pointing going on in the Democratic Party.  But the lesson to be learned from this election is rather simple:  when you know something is a problem, you must deal with it in an effective manner.

Problem #1:  Trump and most people connected the Vice President with the actions/record of the unpopular Biden administration.  It's hard to disassociate yourself with the actions of an administration you are part of, even if the Vice President has little power.

But, when Kamala Harris was asked during a televised interview what she would have done differently from Biden, she answered that she couldn't think of one thing that she would have done differently!  This was a gift question, and she totally blew it.  And of course the Trump campaign immediately used the footage of her own words to nail her as being no different from Biden.  

She knew that this was a major issue for many voters, and yet she made no effort to distance herself from Biden, beyond saying that she was her own person and would have a different administration.  This was taking loyalty to Biden beyond any reasonable expectation

Problem #2:  People felt they would be better off financially under Trump; that he would be better on the economy.  Harris tried with some success to counter this feeling by stressing her various plans to make life easier financially for middle-class workers.

But the main reason people felt the way they did was not because of an appreciation of policies.  They knew prices were lower and things easier when Trump was president, and they knew prices and interest rates were higher when Biden was president.  The old incumbency affect.

What the Vice President needed to do was say, yes, prices and interests rates were lower when Trump was president, but it had nothing to do with his policies; it's just the way the world was at that time, pre-pandemic.  And yes, things are higher now, but again it has nothing to do with Biden's policies; it's a function of the post-pandemic world.  

So past experience here has no relevance.  She should have said that the only way to think about which candidate would be better for you financially is to look at each candidate's plans.  She had definite plans to help.  Trump had none, and the plans he did have for raising tariffs will definitely increase prices.

Problem #3: A large segment of White workers felt neglected by the Democratic Party for years and were angry.  What Harris needed to do was a sincere mea culpa to these workers, preferably during a speech to the nation on Fox, buying the time.  She certainly emphasized her understanding of the plight of workers and her plans to improve things, but she never apologized for the Party not focusing on their problems for decades.

There's no way of knowing whether these statements would have won Harris the election, but they sure would have helped draw more voters to her.  For the record, I emailed the Vice President with these thoughts during the campaign.

Workers - Trump Has Deceived You

There are two things going on in the Republican Party that workers need to be wary about. 

The first is that Republicans in the Trump era call themselves the party of the people, the party of the workers.  They, or at least Trump, make impassioned speeches about how workers have been wronged and vow to help them. 

But when they are elected, Trump has not followed through with his promises and has done nothing to help the worker.  That is because he and  his fellow Republicans are hypocrites.  The Republican Party has always been the party of big business and the rich, and that still is where their hearts are. 

Their electoral base now may be to a significant extent white working men, but that is not reflected in their actions.  They are using you to increase their chances of getting elected because without the support of working men, they would lose many more elections. YOU HAVE BEEN USED AND DECEIVED!!

The negative influence of Republicans on workers’ well-being is especially clear in the National Labor Relations Board’s decisions on complaints brought by unions against corporations and in their rule-making.  Whenever there is a Republican majority on the 5-member Board (members are appointed by the President for fixed terms), the Board tends to vote in support of corporations and against unions.

The second is that there may well be individual Republicans who honestly want to support workers at least on occasion.  The problem is that when the Republican leadership in Congress presses for a unified front against Democrats, those individual Republicans typically fall in line rather than risk a breach with the leadership and its support.

Some workers and union leaders feel that Democrats have come to take them for granted and have not fought for them.  It may be that for some time, the focus of Democrats has not been on workers or the middle class, but Democrats have nevertheless continued to push legislation that is friendly to unions - like the PRO act - and that supports workers.  

What Democrats in Congress have little ability to impact are the wages that workers are paid (apart from raising the minimum wage) and the price of goods, including food.  These are the result of dynamics that Congress has no control over.  We do not live in a Communist system where both prices and wages are controlled by the government.

Bottom line, workers shouldn’t trust Republicans and should continue to vote Democratic.  

Democrats Must Vote in Person November 3, or earlier

There is substantial concern about what might happen on election night, assuming that a huge number of voters cast their ballots by mail and that they won’t be counted for days after the election.

The fears cited are that Trump voters are more likely to vote in person since they as a group seem to have little fear of the virus, don’t wear masks, don’t bother with social distancing, etc.  Thus the results available from election day voting could very likely favor Trump and show him leading.

If that is the case, the assumption many journalists are making is that Trump will declare victory that night.  And that as mail ballots are counted over the next few days and his lead shrinks or disappears, he will declare fraud and will refuse to abide by the election results.

This scenario does not seem far-fetched given the President’s personality.  Also, note that these articles are not written by left-wing activists.  Even David Brooks wrote an op-ed fearing this result.

There is only one practical way to avoid this nightmare scenario.  People should be urged to vote in person, being assured that if they wear a mask and social distance, they can vote in person, in safety.  This advice is in keeping with testimony recently presented by CDC Director Dr. Redmond.  As many people as possible must vote on election day to avoid the imagined catastrophe.

Weeks ago, I wrote this same basic post, sent it to the DNC, and sent an op-ed submission to the New York Times.  But no one gave my thought any notice.

There is still time.  While many people have already mailed in their ballots, many haven't.  The Democratic party needs to flood the airwaves and print media immediately with the positive message that if you wear a mask and social distance you will be safe voting in person, even if you are older.  And making the point that if you do not vote in person, there’s a good chance that the nightmare scenario will occur.

Democrats have only a week or two to make this appeal.  They need to start now. 

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.

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 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.

My Takeaway from the Mueller Testimony

The New York Times and other major media depicted Mueller’s testimony as being a loss for the Democrats.  Nothing new was revealed, no existing facts were heightened or sensationalized.  It was nothing more than a regurgitation of the Report.  Certainly nothing happened that caused any Republicans in Congress to give second thoughts about whether to stand behind Trump.

However, when Mueller was asked in his morning appearance whether he didn’t indict Trump because of the standing Justice Department opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted, he responded, “That is correct.”  When a Republican representative followed up to clarify, he confirmed what he had just said.

But in his opening statement for his afternoon appearance, he backtracked and said that opinion kept them from even considering whether Trump had committed a crime.  That revised statement was a disappointment for the Democrats.

But wait, something doesn’t make sense.  Mueller did find that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to sustain a charge regarding collusion with the Russians.  So while he couldn’t indict, he could exonerate.  The fact that he didn’t do the same on the obstruction charge leads to the inescapable conclusion that he felt Trump committed obstruction, as he indicated in his morning testimony.  But no one asked that question.

Since it now is clear that the Special Counsel felt he could not determine whether Trump had engaged in an obstruction of justice, but just laid out the facts, it is up to the House to determine whether he engaged in obstruction and thus engaged in an impeachable offense.

The Mueller Report and the AG’s Decision

The long-awaited report has arrived and, at least as it’s been summarized by the Attorney General, Democrats are very disappointed.  

Regarding Russia’s interference in the election, Mueller found no collusion or coordination.  Given the information that has been made public over the course of the investigation, this is not a surprise, or should not be.  Knowledge of  Russia’s dirty tricks, and hoping to benefit from the dirt, is not the same as colluding or coordinating.

Regarding obstruction of justice, the Special Council declined to make a “prosecutorial” decision.  He has just presented evidence for and against.  Why he chose to not make a decision is beyond me.  

Without question, Trump acted to obstruct, he had the intent to obstruct, and it pertained to an ongoing proceeding, namely the investigation.  So it would seem that the Attorney General’s three requirements for prosecution were met.  One of course needs evidence to prove all three points, but just from Trump’s own Tweets, one would seem to have sufficient evidence on all three points.  

The fact that the report exonerated Trump and the campaign from collusion with Russia should not in any way impact the obstruction charge.  Perhaps most people would not try to obstruct a proceeding if they knew they were innocent.  But Trump is not most people.  He obviously was obsessed by this investigation.  The mere fact of it roiled him.  So not only should the exoneration on collusion not be determinative regarding the obstruction charge, as the Attorney General said in his letter, it should really have no impact.

As for the Attorney General’s decision to make the decision his and say there wasn’t sufficient evidence, it is unseemly and reeks of politics.  Mueller, after months of deliberation, was very careful to say that while he wasn’t recommending a charge, the report did not exonerate the President regarding obstruction.  

Yet the Attorney General did just that, although actually what he said was that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to charge the President.  Now, insufficient evidence does not mean not guilty.  But for the public, and certainly for Trump’s supporters, that is a distinction without a difference.

Congress and the American people clearly need to see the entire report.