Monday, December 10, 2018

ADVENT: THE SEASON OF BECOMING - A Homily


This homily was delivered at Christ Episcopal Church, Yankton South Dakota on December 9, 2018
+ In the name of our gracious and life-giving Lord, who was, who is, and is to come.  Amen +
Originally, I was scheduled to give the homily last week, but winter weather in our beloved state has a way of changing plans. So, I’m going to attempt to merge last week’s homily with this week’s lessons as a way to connect some theological dots found in this season of Advent.
Advent is my favorite season of the Church Year; in part, because Advent invites one to ponder one’s personal existence as an expression of God’s wholeness, God’s completed creation, in the light of a series of discrete events that took place some two thousand years ago.  Every new Church Year, every first Sunday of Advent begins with a Gospel reading from either Matthew, Mark or Luke in which Jesus is talking to his disciples about the passing away of everything we see – Heaven and Earth – EVERYTHING! 
Everything; that is, except the words of God, the creative utterances of God, God’s creative energy.
On the first Sunday of Advent, we also ponder the coming of Jesus, the Son of Man as the risen Christ, the King of Glory, who comes to bring about the new creation of which this risen Christ is called the first fruit by St. Paul.  If we go back to the Sunday before last, to Christ the King Sunday, we hear these words, “’I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, who is and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” [1] 
When you put this all together what one finds is that right now we’re in the middle of God’s creative now; that we’re encapsulated by this Alpha and Omega, or to put it into Paul’s borrowed definition from the ancient Greek and Cretan poets, “For in Him (God) we live and move and have our being.”[2] 
Given that God, that Christ is the Alpha and the Omega, the total completion of all that is, then the passing away language of scripture is not about a dead end, but about a transformative journey towards completion, on this side of life. 
The Jesuit priest and paleontologist, Pierre, Teilhard de Chardin described the destination of this journey; the destination of the cosmos towards completion as the Omega Point[3] – a point, according to scripture, that already exists.  But just as we cannot see the curvature of the earth from where we stand on the earth, we cannot see the totality of life, of God’s completed creation from our transitory situation on this side of life, in our current existence.
So Advent isn’t just about what came or what’s coming around the bend, it’s also about our becoming, our journey to completion in the here and now.  And if that leaves our minds spinning and if we find it hard to wrap our heads around all of this, God helps us out by giving us something, or better yet, someone we can relate to and not only wrap our minds around but our hearts also – a small, vulnerable baby boy, born in a barn, named Jesus who came into this transitory world as the enfleshed source of our being.  
It’s in Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection that we can see the light at the end of this journey, the light of salvation – the completion, the Omega Point.
Now that’s a lot of theology in a few short statements, but that’s where Advent begins - So back to where we are today on this Second Sunday of Advent.  In today’s Gospel, we are reintroduced to our friend, the prophet, John the Baptizer, best known as the prophet who sees Jesus for who he is, the Son of God. 
The role of a prophet is largely to point out the ignored obvious, to speak truth the powers of this world, and to help us clear away the clutter in our lives in order to make our journey easier.  As our reading from Baruch this morning points out, prophets carry out God’s order “that every high mountain and the everlasting hills be made low and the valleys filled up, to make level ground, so that Israel (all of us) may walk safely in the glory of God.”[4] 
Every true prophet, from the likes of Moses and John the Baptizer to Martin Luther King Jr. have the ability to see the trajectory of this transitory life leading to and completed in the Omega Point of salvation.  Every true prophet, in every generation, becomes a voice crying out in this wilderness called life a message of hope that prepares the way of the Lord or, as our Presiding Bishop, Michael Curry likes to call it, “The way of Love” so that all flesh, all of God’s children can see the salvation of God; can see our completion in Christ.
John certainly played that role, and it is John, who in the case of Jesus, was able to see something that wasn’t so obvious, something that was forgotten, something that was unthinkable at the time; the intimate nearness of God – God with us – God in us – God through us – as experienced and witnessed in the person of Jesus; in the personhood of Christ, what Jesus called the Kingdom or Reign of God.
God sent forth prophets like John in times of need, even when we’re not personally cognizant of having a need.  The prophet’s call to repent is to wake us up, to see our derailment from the way of love, to straighten out our act, to turn to the source of our being, to embrace the humility that comes through the recognition that we are part of and dependent on something much larger than ourselves.
The prophet’s voice gives voice to God’s loving, creative utterances that embrace us and keep us safe.  The prophet reminds us to walk with the God who walks with us and to exercise a justice that is grounded in God’s love for all creation.
Advent reminds us of these things as we call to mind the prophet, John the Baptizer.
Jesus, too, is a prophet.
As Jesus reminded his disciple, when talking about the passing of all things and the tribulations that every generation endures, not to fret; not to get bothered by them, but rather to exercise patience (often easier said than done) because Jesus says that patience deepens us, makes us more soulful.[5]
This short season of Advent is a pause between what is coming and what has been, to put us for a brief moment in the creative now of God, to still us and to deepen us through patience on our journey, led by Jesus to the point of completion.  Most importantly, Advent provides us needed time to reflect on our becoming, both as individuals and as a church – to see in the birth of Jesus and the coming of Jesus, the Christ, the immense embrace of God’s complete love for all of us. 
The birthday of Jesus is, in many ways, the birthday of us all, as our Creed reminds us, “Through him all things were made.”  So while we wait to celebrate the birthday of Jesus this Advent season, allow me to close with a poem I composed on Christmas Eve, ten years ago:
                                                 
Now the waiting time is done,
Earth’s long winter overcome,
Light illuminating darkest skies.

Weary people, now arise and
Greet this time, it has no end
Alpha-Omega enters in.

Let hearts be filled with Christmas light
For in the Child’s approach this night
It is we who arrive, Love’s greatest delight.[6]

Amen.

* * * * * * * * * * *
Until next time, stay faithful.


[1] Revelation1:8 and referenced again as Christ in Revelation 22:13
[2] Acts 17:28
[3] A term first coined by Teilhard de Chardin in his book “The Phenomenon of Man.”
[4] Baruch 5:7
[5] References King James translation of Luke 21:19 – “In your patience possess ye your souls.”
[6] Composed December 24, 2008 as I was waiting to play the organ between a 5 PM and an 11 PM service.


Wednesday, October 31, 2018

LEX ORANDI, LEX CREDENDI - THE HUMAN FAMILY

I have taken a little hiatus from blogging and am happy to be back at it.  I suffered from what could be called blogger's block.  To get me back into blogging, I am returning to my series on prayer, "Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi."

At the present time, the small Episcopal church I attend has an interim priest, so I'm off the hook preparing Sunday homilies for awhile.  During this interim period, I thought it would be interesting to continue this series as a way of keeping in shape.

I'm continuing with one of my favorite prayers in the "Book of Common Prayer," the prayer "For the Human Family:"

"O God, you made us in your own image and redeemed us through Jesus your Son:  Look with compassion on the whole human family; take away the arrogance and hatred which infect our hearts; break down the walls that separate us; unite us in bonds of love; and work through our struggle and confusion to accomplish your purposes on earth; that, in your good time, all nations and races may serve you in harmony around your heavenly throne; through Jesus Christ our Lord.  Amen. " 
("The Book of Common Prayer,"The Church Hymnal Corporation, New York. Pg. 815)

RECLAIMING THE IMAGE OF GOD

This prayer cuts to the chase in identifying the dysfunction evident in the whole human family, but it does so by first declaring that we are made in God's image and that this image has been reclaimed and proclaimed in the person of Jesus Christ.  We need to spend some time with this declaration.

While this prefatory declaration addresses God, its main purpose is to remind us of the one thing that makes us a family; our shared spiritual DNA; being made in God's image and our reclamation of that truth through Jesus Christ.  God needs no reminders about who we are.  We do.  It is this recognition that permits us to ask God to look upon the whole of us with compassion which God already does.

So why are we petitioning God as if God forgets to be compassionate?

As mentioned when I began this series, there are many forms and types of prayers.   Prayers are not meant to be benign acts, as having no effect or no impact on the person or people praying it.  In part, this prayer is didactic; telling us something about ourselves and reminding us about God's caring love for us. As a corporate prayer, it is also confessional; forcing us to admit an uncomfortable truth about our collective selves.  It directs our attention to the symptoms of our family dysfunction; our proclivity towards arrogance and hatred that is apparent in our building walls to keep the other out and distancing ourselves from those we perceive to be different from us and our own.

You might be thinking at this point, "What?  Me being arrogant?"  "I don't hate anyone?" "How presumptuous to lump us all together like this. I'm not arrogant and hateful.  That's just not me."

Hmmm... .  If that (or something like it) has crossed your mind even for a second, I'm sorry to disappoint you, but you are part of that lump, as we all are.  We are lumped together whether we like it or not, whether we want to admit it or not, and whether we engage in such behaviors actively or passively.   In the cosmic scheme of things, we are responsible to each other, responsible for each other, and culpable for wrongs done on our behalf.  There's no escaping this collective sense of responsibility and culpability in the eyes of the universe we inhabit. God sees it all, and if we're honest, we see enough to know it's true.

In the corporate confession of sins said in some Episcopal churches is the confession of sins "done on our behalf;" the sins of nations, corporations, church bodies, religions, and any collective body that one belongs to or identifies with.  Hermits are not exempt. No one is.  Everyone is infected with and affected by arrogance and hatred.  Left untreated, it can blind us to our own nature and the nature of God.

So God chose one of our lot, Jesus, to be God's son, to demonstrate God's parental link to us, to show that amidst and through our struggles and confusion God (always the Creator who is creating) creates a purpose that we cannot comprehend. This is demonstrated in the most poignant way possible through the calculated murder of God's chosen son by the collective us (not God) and the subsequent resurrection (reclamation) of Jesus (by God), the first-fruits of a new creation, as Paul defines him in his first letter to the Corinthians.  Jesus, the son of Mary and Joseph is recreated by God as God's son, who, in that re-creative act, becomes the Christ of God and the Christ of us.  All of this is packed into the opening lines of this prayer. 

HATRED AND ARROGANCE

The result of our hatred and arrogance is to struggle with and be confused about life.  Hatred and arrogance are not randomly selected terms.  They are closely related conditions which are deeply embedded in us ("which infect our hearts").  As such, we may not be consciously aware of them.  We may not see our arrogance and hatred played out personally, but it's there and one does not have to go far to find it.  Arrogance is hatred's sophisticated and twisted twin, whose infectious demeanor will cut one off, cut one out, or cut one down.  Arrogance is hatred delivered with a smirk.

Arrogance and hatred are symptoms of a deeper condition I mentioned many times in my earlier blogs as fear of the different; especially, the differences we perceive in our own kind, in our fellow humans.  Early on, I referred to it as the differentiating paradigm of religion - the differences that cause us to lump together into groups and build walls, real or ideological.  I do not say this to be judgmental of religion, but rather as an observation of human nature.

Humans, after all, are religious animals.  We group together physically, mentally, and spiritually or any combination of these three for a multitude of reasons.  As the poet John Donne reminds us, "No man is an island."

This prayer addresses not only the overt actions we identify arrogance and hatred but also their deeper infestation of the heart as the underlying cause of our struggles and confusion.  We see this condition dramatically demonstrated in today's world, especially, here in the United States where we have become so politically polarized.  Fearmongering and overt acts of hatred and arrogance abound.  It is so tempting to blame one side more than the other as being more hateful and arrogant, but this prayer reminds us we're all in this together.

THE BONDS OF LOVE

There is only one solution to the confusion and strife we experience, and that is the bonds of love which I have described as the Impulse of Religion, the fact that we need each other.  It is hard to imagine the need we have of people we totally disagree with or fear.  It is even harder to think of them in terms of love.

The only way I know of doing this is to step back, sometimes way back, and to consider that the Love that loves me also loves the person and people I totally disagree with or fear.  Only then can I disarm myself of the hatred I feel and the arrogance that infects my heart - only then can I awaken to the deep compassion of God.   Even then, I realize how difficult such rare moments are to maintain, and that is where this prayer proves helpful.

This prayer teaches me that the struggle and confusion I am experiencing isn't about me, it's about the whole of us.  In a sense, this prayer directs us to let go of our personal attachment to the struggle and confusion we feel and rely on the life-giving compassion of God who raises the dead and dying to life.

We are responsible for the strife and confusion we cause, but only the creative power of God can and will create a purpose from the chaos we are engaged in.  God knows how to make goodness from the  dirt we live with.  We're living proof of that.

COPING WITH THE PRESENT

The key teaching of this prayer is the petition in which we ask God to work through our struggles and confusion to accomplish God's purpose on earth.

The concept of God's purpose is easily misunderstood as God planning bad things to happen; as in the misguided belief that when tragedy occurs, it's all part of God's plan.    As I have stated before, God does not need a plan because God is the plan; in that, God is a spontaneous creator. God works with whatever and whoever is available.  God works through our struggles and confusion, creatively.  God does not cause struggle and confusion. We do. Only God can take our struggles and confusion and work with them so that they don't become a dead end in themselves but rather that they serve a purpose on earth.

That thought comforts me immeasurably as I continue to struggle and experience confusion with things I can't make sense of; like sending pipe bombs to perceived political foes or killing black people in a church or Jewish people in a synagogue simply because they're black and Jewish.

These hateful acts, committed by people immersed in fear and the arrogant response by some in leadership positions are difficult to see as having any potential for good.   By themselves, they are nothing more than the dirt and grime of our humaness.  What good we see is in the immediate aftermath of such events; the outpouring of love to the victims' families and their community by those who know love's healing balm.

God certainly did not intend these tragedies, nor did the vast majority of us who witness them, but it is easy for us to succumb to hate and to act from fear rather than love.  This is where God steps in (metaphorically speaking).   As we step in to comfort the broken-hearted, God is there with us; as close as our collective breaths, healing all of us.   God works along side us when our actions proceed from faith, are delivered in hope, and performed with love in our hearts.   It is God who can take the muck of our tragedies and create that which is good and purposeful.  It is God who ensures that a life taken by hate is not a life taken in vain, as the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus illustrates.

* * * * * * * * * * *

This prayer does not call upon God to act in our stead, but rather for God  to work God's purpose through our actions. Regardless of our intentions, we cannot predict or see the ultimate outcome of our struggles and confusion we encounter.   We must continue to cope with struggle and confusion, just as we must deal with the hatred and arrogance that infects our hearts

It is through the bonds of love that connect us one to the other and to the source of our lives that we occasionally see, on this side of life, the clouds of confusion part to catch a glimpse of the whole human family gathered around the heavenly throne in our midst.  Occasionally, on this side of life, the struggle eases just enough to let us know we're not alone in it; that God has faith in us, hopes with us, and loves us with a love that will not let us go.

Until next time, stay faithful.

Thursday, August 23, 2018

TRUMPISM - Prelude, Interlude, or Postlude?

My wife and I have just returned from a three week vacation in Europe that included a river cruise through central and western Europe.   On this cruise we were provided guides who were well informed and gave us an overview of their nation's history.  Implicit in their narratives was a common theme of being dominated by foreign influences they had no say over.  In Austria and Germany, we heard about Nazism, and in their rhetorical questioning how a person like Adolph Hitler rose to power was an implicit question about who we elected as our president - a warning that such a phenomena as a Hitler is possible anywhere.  Their implicit question was not lost on me and made me ponder our current political environment in the United States.

We can give the phenomenon we're coping with a label - Trumpism, named after our current president whose rise to power and the presidency, to put it in his own words during his May 2017 interview with NBC's Lester Holt, "shouldn't have happened." Nevertheless, it did happen and the reason it happened extends beyond the machinations of the Trump Campaign and Russia's interference.  Undoubtedly these are serious cause for concern and scrutiny, but in doing so we tend to overlook that some 63,000,000 voters voted for Mr. Trump, giving him enough votes to win the electoral vote.  So what appealed to these voters?  What gave shape to Trumpism?

TRUMPISM

Let me be clear from the onset Trumpism isn't a true "ism."  It has no identifiable ideology of its own  In fact, it appears on the political and social stage as an anti-ideology that is largely dependent on vacuous rhetoric and feeding a neurotic attraction fueled by turmoil. Some have described Trumpism as a movement.   As such, Trumpism has become a magnet for the discontented who can insert their own ideological beliefs as those being held by President Trump.  As a result we see a mix of white nationalists, neo-Nazis, KKK, along with right-wing evangelicals, and people who don't want change, social conservatives who are anti-progressive, anti-Obama, and anti-Clinton which lead many on the opposite end of the spectrum to reasonably conclude that Trumpism is fundamentally racist and sexist.

Ask most average Trump supporters why they support  President Trump and one hears a vague litany of similar responses, " He's better than Obama. He's better than Clinton. He tells it like it is."  Rarely, does one hear them go beyond such vague reasons to explain why Mr. Trump is better than Obama or Clinton or in what way he "tells it like it is."  That's the mystery of  his appeal; the ideological vacuum that sucks in the fears and frustrations people have but cannot be explained other than to place blame for their personal grievances on an identifiable personality or social condition; such as, Clinton, Obama, immigrants, homosexuality, abortion, and the generalized other.

Currently, President Trump has been able to capitalize on these vague fears and frustrations by offering vague solutions, but one has to wonder how long such storefront appeals will last if there is nothing of substance in the store.  At some point, the market for being anti-Obama and  anti-Clinton will lose its appeal as there is nothing new to keep his consumers interested.  The remedy, thus far, appears to be creating chaos; to keep the presses rolling and the news media tuned in.  As much as President Trump claims to despise the news media, he knows there would be no President Trump without it.   Fake news, the news of his making, is the lifeblood that affirms his base's vague sense of reason.

At some point, Mr. Trump will have to own his presidency, something he really hasn't done.  As for telling it like it is, he's a marketer reminiscent of the hawkers who sold snake oil in the nineteenth century to a wanna-believing public.    He's transparently artificial and nonfactual who will tell a lie boldfaced that appeals to his base, "his people," who  will believe it because it reflects the confused anger they feel, but there comes a point that lies are not sustainable and when people realize there is no cure in the snake oil being sold them.

To discount Trumpism as a political or sociological fluke, however, would be a mistake.   Its emergence is telling.  Ironically, the fact that we are having to cope with it says that things aren't great in the U.S.; that the racism and sexism  exposed within the Trumpist framework is for a large segment of voters "the way it is."

Whether those who are in this segment  (nominally identified as "my people" by President Trump) actually see themselves as racist or sexist is hard to tell, but there is an implicit toleration, if not acceptance, of racism and sexism that hitherto has been considered un-American or contrary to what most Americans value. Generalized Xenophobia, unspecified would be a diagnosis one could attach to Trumpism and Trumpists.

If Trumpism can be identified as such, can President Trump be identified as such?

If one is honest, it would be hard to say with any degree of certainty.  Mr. Trump is not an ideologue and that is why it is hard to pin down what he exactly believes about any situation.  He appears to believe what he says at any given moment, and at any given moment he can change what he believes. One would think that all of his contradictory remarks and the one-time popular accusation leveled by Republicans on Democrats of  flip-flopping,would be a turn off to a base who desires certainty. What seems to make him appealing to his most ardent followers is his angry demeanor - the one constant emotional feature on display which his base seems mesmerized by and relates with.

As intriguing as Mr. Trump's persona is, Trumpism can take on a life of its own and can be viewed useful to those who find in its vacuous state a staging area to launch their agendas.  I believe this is at least one of the reasons why most Republicans in congress are reluctant to take on this president.  It's not that they're afraid of him (although some appear to be), but rather find his ability to distract useful.

It may also be that their silence is due to the Mueller investigation; that they see no reason to address the President's antics at this time, to let Mueller's findings give them cause for doing so.  After all, the Republican party still have an ace in the hole; the Vice President, Mike Pence. They see no need to rattle President Trump's supporters during the midterm season because without them, they will surely lose the House and possibly the Senate.

While their silence is disconcerting to the press, I do not get a sense that their being silent is being particularly helpful to the President.  There's a sense that they may be giving him enough rope to end his presidency because he is (in many ways) his biggest liability.  Or...  it may be that no one can really talk to this president or that no one is  trying too hard to curb his self-destructive behaviors.

The question is what happens to Trumpism when President Trump leaves office.  Will Trumpism remain? 

In other words, is Trumpism a prelude for more of the same, an interlude that serves as a break or diversion from the trajectory our nation and world is on, or does it serve as a postlude, the finale to a mindset and culture of desperate racism and sexism that has run its course?

PRELUDE

Trumpism as a prelude does not bode well for our Constitution,  for liberty, or for our nation.   As much as I personally don't want to consider the possibility of it being such, one has to consider what many fear will become the new "normal."  As a prelude, Trumpism could open the door to more defined and stringent forms of nationalism.

As it stands today, Trumpism appears to be testing the waters; seeing how much nationalism Americans will tolerate. So far, the results have been mixed and fall along the divide between Trump supporters and the majority of people who are not.  Even with 63,000,000 votes, one can't assume that all of those votes represent his die-hard base; that a large number of voters voted for him because they didn't like the alternative.   If polls are accurate (always a questionable thing where President Trump is concerned), then one can assume that some of the President's base are not completely on board with him.

Even if that is the case, instead of backing down President Trump tends to double down in order to wear his opposition down and affirm the rightness of his momentary position with his base.  To some degree this has been effective, but as the legal issues seem to be mounting, he is beginning to show signs of wearing down himself, if not melting down.

If President Trump's presidency ends up being termed out, Trumpism will be legitimized, if not normalized.  It could be considered an effective political tool by the major political parties.  The differences between parties will narrow as they resort to tactics that will result in one or both of the major parties being controlled by a like minded oligarchy of political elites.

Should that happen, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution will become targets in an ever increasing game of power grabbing as the focus is on the notion that who holds the White House, holds the country, if not the world.  The free press will be pressed to conform to the new order and cease to be free or find itself tied up in lawsuits, its journalists jailed for contempt.  In such a scenario, the First Amendment will be the first to go.

Congress will be diminished to being nothing more than a rubber stamp for an imperial presidency under the control of an oligarchy or oligarchies of competing business and military interests.  The courts will become the court of the Presidency.  The Constitution will be viewed like a Magna Carta in which constitutionally ordained processes will become mere court formalities that have no real meaning.  Elections will be held and presidential appointees will be readily approved by Congress consisting mostly of those who favor the president in office. 

If Trumpism becomes ideologically a more stringent form of ultra-nationalism, the trajectory of things could see right wing extremists who find an affinity with the Trumpism of today employed as bureaucrats or imprisoned if considered too radical and unstable.  The Second Amendment will be the second thing to go along with Due Process.  The U.S. could find itself aligned with other dictatorships.  NATO would likely collapse or result in a much more unified European coalition aligned with other free nations, such as, Canada, who will fill the void left by U.S. withdrawal from its former commitments. 

Of course this is all highly speculative and there are other factors that will come into play if Trumpism is a trajectory that will take hold in the United States.   Such a scenario seems an impossibility where the U.S. is concerned, but is it?  After all, 60,000,000 people elected Mr. Trump to be our President regardless of the illegitimacy of who or what influenced those voters.

President Trump has been testing the waters ever since he took office. He has made statements favoring a presidency for life. He has taken immigrant children away from their parents. He openly fawns over dictators, wanting a military parade just like they have.  

One thing should be clear in everyone's mind by now:  President Trump does not joke.  He desires. 

He says what's on his mind to see if people will bite.  What seems likely is that if he is given an inch the mile will soon be his.  If Trumpism is legitimized, this speculative outlook could become realized in short order.

INTERLUDE

If President Trump is voted out of office after one term, the effectiveness of Trumpism will be questioned and there may be a backlash against the tactics that are currently being employed.  In terms of progress it will be seen as one step backwards in the two steps forward - one step - backwards model of progress. 

As an interlude, Trumpism exposes much work to be done in stabilizing the political and social environment of  this nation.  Racism, sexism and xenophobia are realities that must be dealt with, along with a crumbling infrastructure and foreign intrusion into our electoral system.  As an interlude, Trumpism will pass on to something else and, in the short term, will serve as a wake up call to our political leaders.  The extreme pendulum swing of our current polarized political system must be addressed.  Loyal opposition must become the goal of politics, and the politics of personal destruction must be curtailed and ended.  

It will also prove likely that Trumpism has hurt the office of the President. To some extent Congress has played a role in allowing this damage to occur by becoming obstructionist. No doubt there will be a move to curb presidential powers and restore the balance of power between the three branches of government.  As an interlude, Trumpism may result in meaningful election reform.

If the Mueller investigation proves corruption has taken place that helped Mr. Trump to the presidency and President Trump is able to escape personal liability, he will be chastised by a one term presidency and the Republican Party can look forward to a purge in leadership. 

As an interlude, Trumpism has sown a great deal of distrust amongst reliable allies and trading partners. The U.S. will need to demonstrate that its political processes are stable. America will have to rebuild its old alliances and trading partners. The news media must also stick to verifiable reporting and avoid the temptation of ratings wars.  Sensationalism in the form of "reality" programming and entertainment does not belong on our national news networks.  The First Amendment is too vital to toy with.  If Trumpism has proven anything, it has proven how vulnerable our constitutional rights are.

POSTLUDE  

Trumpism could be a flare-out of a dying era; the era of a white, male dominated, flag worshipping, fearmongering culture that thrives on conspiracy theories and distrust of all things new.  Let me be clear that any flare-out is a dangerous event like the collapse of a star.  What marks a flare-out is erratic behavior that effects the gravitational stability of an entity. 

For example, as President Trump is the gravitational center of executive power in the U.S. and as he consistently acts in an erratic fashion, he will likely cause the core of his base to shrink while at the same time  causing this core to become increasingly cohesive and irrational in defending the indefensible.  On the other hand, there will be those who voted for him but end up feeling betrayed by his erratic conduct.  As a result, they are likely to spin off into the nether-world of the disillusioned were they will likely remain silent.

The difficulty is that voters who vote for someone who turns out to be a bad choice find it difficult to admit their choice was wrong and will for some time stick by their choice in the hope that he will turn things around. Trump supporters strike me as being particularly prone to stick by their decisions and engage in creative rationalizing when things aren't going the way they thought; initially blaming his opposition or engaging in various conspiracy theories.  If and when they decide it's not others but the President, they will feel betrayed and affirm their beliefs that politics corrupts absolutely and disengage from the democratic process. 

Should President Trump's presidency end as a result of impeachment or resignation, Trumpism as associated with Mr. Trump will end, but not necessarily fade quickly away. Populism has emerged in its ascendancy; having political appeal to both Democrats and Republicans. As I have noted in other posts, populism is fraught with its own problems and is often short-sighted in its goals and aspirations.  What is likely is that Trumpism will become a political liability to any politician who has attached her or his star to Mr. Trump.

The fallout will likely send ripples in any number of directions should the flare-out effect become extremely bright and hot. A Trump impeachment or resignation will have a damaging effect on any organizations that have supported him, especially, those that ardently supported him like the evangelical Christian Right and the NRA.  Civil disruption and disobedience may well emerge in its wake, especially if politicians who supported Trump give a figurative or an actual call to arms in response to such endings, an unthinkable but real possibility. 

While political and social flare-outs burn bright and hot, they cool quickly after a firestorm and a certain amount irrational ash settles. What is to be hoped for is that after the ash settles there is something left of the structure and fabric of what was before Trumpism became a thing; for people to see that they are still standing and the apocalypse that they had feared or hoped for has not happened; that they begin to question what led to this momentary phenomenon and the  madness that ensued and seek meaningful answers to heal the wounds that occurred.

**********

POSTSCRIPT

As I am writing this post, there are some dramatic changes that have taken place.  Both President Trump's one time campaign manager, Paul Manafort and his one time personal lawyer, Michael Cohen have been convicted of crimes related to President Trump's campaign.  This does not bode well for President Trump as the Mueller investigation is likely to become more aggressive in determining if there are dots to be connected between the findings of those convictions and Russia's interference with the election.  Speculation is that Mueller already has the connections and is only waiting to secure unrefutable proof of those connections and any personal link that can be made to the President himself.

Apart from the Russia investigation, there is a growing mountain of evidence that the President was engaged and continues to engage in obstruction of justice.  While this does not look good for President Trump, I am reluctant to say that his presidency is doomed or that Trumpism is soon to be a thing of the past.   How this all plays out will determine if Trumpism is a prelude, interlude, or postlude.

What is certain, as I am writing this post, is that the United States is at a critical juncture.  So I will end this post by offering some thoughts based on these recent events:

SOME PARTING THOUGHTS

If there is good news to be derived from recent events, it is that the legal system appears to be functioning as it should.  What is uncertain is the ramifications it has on the presidency and what impact it will have on the political process moving forward.  Much of the political process involved hinges on Mueller's investigation, and there are growing concerns about what President Trump will do regarding it. The question is what will happen if the President decides to fire Mr. Mueller, the Attorney General, and the Assistant Attorney General, an increasing likelihood as the personal pressure rises on the President.  Will the Republican led congress step up to the plate should this happen before the mid-term elections?  Will they do so if such an event occurs after the elections and they retain control of both houses of Congress?

More pertinent to Republican led congress's political worries is whether they can keep President Trump from taking such action or from issuing a pardon to Paul Manafort before the election.  Regardless of the political protections Republicans in congress can offer the president (even should he end the Russia investigation), the legal jeopardy the President personally finds himself in is that while he might not be indicted for criminal activity as President, his family members and his businesses can.  To what extent is he willing to see that happen?  This is Mr. Mueller's, the AG's, and Ass't. AG's ace in the hole.  Nevertheless, the likelihood that President Trump will take matters into his own hands at some point is all but certain.

Ending the investigation will not end President Trump's legal problems.   As yet, there is no political solution to the legal issues, and if the Republicans in Congress are committed to the Constitution and the rule of law none will be offered. The question is whether President Trump has the personal fortitude to wait that long or whether he will gamble on avoiding impeachment by keeping the House and the Senate in Republican hands after ending the Russian investigation.  My guess is that the Republicans in Congress are hoping he has the fortitude to do so.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are also playing it safe, which leads one to wonder if they have learned anything from the 2016 election.  Silence was not helpful then and it is questionable whether it is helpful now.  I respect that they do not want to jump to any conclusions regarding whether to run an impeachment campaign without having Mueller's investigatory findings. That is wise and they should not jump to any conclusions.  While I agree with that approach, they should be talking up a storm about protecting  Mr. Mueller and the investigation, which is constantly under attack by the President and his supporters.  I'm not hearing much chatter by Democrats in the news media about that.  Perhaps part of the reason is because the Democrats believe they don't have to explain or underscore the obvious; that they fear doing so will somehow arouse Mr. Trump's base or worse turn off independent supporters.

Regardless of the Democratic approach to Trumpism, Trumpism is largely a problem created by the Republican Party and a problem which the Republican Party should resolve.  Thus far, the Republican Party has suffered from what appears to be severe short-sightedness.  The party is factious and fractured as its leadership is obsessed with control issues.  As such, congressional Republicans appear to be neglecting their constitutional duties by playing political parlor games while the nation is increasingly facing a constitutional crisis. 

To stay viable in the short term,  the congressional Republicans appear allied with the vacuous anti-ideology of Trumpism for the moment.  In so doing, they demonstrate a lack of constitutional responsibility.  For the sake of this republic and their own viability, they need to embrace their constitutional duties or risk irrelevancy and impotency down the road.  I am not a Republican, but I see the need for a Republican party that is strong in its honest convictions, and sincerely loyal to the Constitution and the Republic it created.  

I don't believe the vast majority of Republicans in Congress are truly devoted to President Trump.  Those who are, are likely to be similar to him; self-absorbed and self-protecting.  In other words, if the proverbial handwriting appears on the wall, I feel they will abandon him quickly.   For the present, during the mid- term election period, they are remaining silent and acting supportive. I understand such reasoning even though I feel it risks perpetuating Trumpism.

If the Republicans lose the House, the handwriting will become clear and I suspect things will happen quickly. Some  Republicans will take comfort in the fact, that they can feign loyalty if Trump is impeached and place the blame on the Democrats which could prove useful down the road if things turn sour thereafter, but Republicans are known for eating their own and Trump could be easily discredited as a Republican, which he truly is not.  Mr. Trump could find himself chewed up and spit out quickly by members of the party he nominally leads; especially, members of the Republican old guard who will see opportunity to regain control of the party in his fall from favor. 

At this point there is so much that is unknown, but time will tell.

Until next time, stay faithful.

Saturday, July 14, 2018

DEMOCRACY: THREATENED OR THREATENING? PART III - Establishing an Electoral College

Whether people know it or not, the United States Constitution is not being threatened by foreign entities (at least not directly at the present time) and not by home-grown vigilante, terrorist, or militant group. 

The Constitution is being threatened by apathy.

Few people have read it.  Fewer still possess a rudimentary understanding of it.  This is the biggest threat to the Constitution.  It is the biggest threat to the republic it established.

"OUR DEMOCRACY"

The term "Our democracy" is all everyone seems to reference and care about when it comes to the mess we are currently coping with related to the last presidential election and Russia's meddling in it. To say, "Our democracy is being threatened" is dangerously inaccurate.  What is being threatened is not democracy. What is being threatened is our republic via the democratic process we in the the U.S. have been using to elect our leaders.

"AND TO THE REPUBLIC..."

 "Our" democratic process is being used to destroy the Republic - to undermine the very Constitution that defines democracy's use.  Like so many ideologies that have been subjected to a type of fundamentalist redefinition, democracy is being treated concretely as an entity on par with the Constitution and the Republic.  Democracy is not the Constitution nor is it the Republic.  It is a tool of the Constitution and the Republic - a tool that can be used to undermine both if we are not careful.  As Winston Church said, ""No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise."  Yet we talk about it as if it is.

The best defense against democracy becoming a tool by which to threaten our Republic is the Constitution itself.  Democracy, as noted in my past posts lends itself to demolition and devolution into oligarchy and tyranny by the masses if not defined, filtered, and structured which is what the Constitution is set up to do. 

THE MASH AND SLUDGE OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

As mentioned in my last post, the weakest filter of the mash and sludge of the democratic process defined in the Constitution is the election of the President and Vice President.  To review what I have written about it click here

I am under no delusion that anything I will say here will be readily accepted, much less cause people to take to the streets and demand its implementation - a thought that simply horrifies me.   What I hope to do here is offer an idea or provoke other ideas as to how the Constitution, itself, can remedy the extreme polarization that infected our politics and has allowed presidential elections to run amuck in recent years.

It is time to return the Constitution and mine it for the  seeds of wisdom that our forefathers  planted in it.  When it came to defining the process of  electing the President and the Vice President, it established the role of elector, but left those roles undefined.  Over the years, these electors have been  identified as the Electoral College, but that is not a term found in the Constitution nor does such an entity exist.  In fact, the elector's role does not involve anything coming close to collegiality and working together to select those most suitable to hold these executive offices. 

Being that a state's electors match the number of the senators and representative sent to Washington D.C., and given that most states have taken a mandatory winner-takes-all approach to awarding electoral votes being cast advantage or disadvantage certain segments of  each state's voting population. The result is that a 51% to 49% popular vote in a state will award all the electoral votes to the nominee with 51%.  In such a scenario, nearly half the voters' vote in that state are discounted.

Was their choice wrong?  Was the majority's vote right? 

This is why electoral votes mindlessly ends up electing a president that has in fact lost the overall nation's popular vote which grates against the "common sense" of most voters.   Is that what the framers of the Constitution had in mind?

Perhaps, but I'm not an originalist when it comes to interpreting the Constitution.  What interests me is the structure it presents in shaping government.  I don't believe the framers had all the answers and I don't believe they could foresee the outcomes of what they started to construct and I don't think they were naive to believe that democracy by itself would lead to perfect and all-wise decisions.   

What they possessed was a faith in Providence; that acting with integrity gave good reason to hope that the foundations they laid would take shape through trial and error to form a perfect union.  They knew that what they conceived was not perfect, but rather a process aimed at perfecting what they started.

As such, it seems that the possibility of electing a rogue president; a president who answers to no one, says what he wants and does what he wants with impunity has been waiting to happen for a long time and now the time has come when it is happening as I write. The last election ended with such results and has left many asking, "How did we elect such a president? Who do we blame?" I have asked the same questions over and over again which prompted me to take a closer look at the Constitution and there I found an answer.  By no means is this a clear and obvious answer, but it makes sense to me, at least.

First, I would like to suggest that blaming someone is a waste of time.  Blaming people, engaging in conspiracy theories, and demonizing ideologies one doesn't agree with only serves to keep us in the "swamp" of misinformation, falsehoods, sleight of hand, and the political drama that the current administration has enlarged and likes wallowing in.  Addressing the problems that the current administration poses to our republic lies squarely within the realm of  Congress' constitutional duties.  The question is whether there is a enough collective will by its members to address the issues that are arising with integrity.

PART OF THE PROBLEM

The  problem is that the constitutional system has been weakened and democracy is part of the reason why.  The system has become too unbalanced, the legislative pendulum has been swinging too far left and too far right for too long.  Congressional leaders appear stuck in preserving their seats in congress and have succumbed to obstructionism, listening to the money interests (needed for reelection) instead of defining and refining the ideas that come to them through the constitutional pipeline and being vigilant in the defense of the  Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  Congress as a whole has resorted to playing partisan parlor games; threatening to shut down the government, and threatening to fight everything they don't like to enhance their image and manipulate the political power grid, the will of the people.

How is this done? 

Through information.  Democracy runs on information.  This is why the Bill of Rights, protects freedom of thought (religion) and a free press.  If the will of the people is to be filtered through a constitutional distillery, the people must do their own distillation of the information they receive. The press must do it's job, report with integrity so that people can distill and process accurate information.  It's not perfect. The press and news media are themselves awash in a sea information and misinformation.  True democracy is always a case of distillation and discernment.

ELECTING ROGUES

Dealing with an administration gone rogue  makes it clear that how we choose our President and Vice President must change.

Why?  One only has to backtrack to see how the current administration came into power to understand the need to do so.  Russian meddling exposed a weakness in the Constitution's process of electing the President and Vice President.  It was able to manipulate the information targeting key populations whose state's were pivotal in garnering enough electoral votes to put the current administration in office.  They did this by spreading  misinformation to a vast number of voters via the internet creating enough bad mash to distill a misinformed result.

Many are probably tempted to say that if we went to a strictly popular vote the likelihood of a foreign or domestic entity to do the same would be lessened.  The fact is, if it can be done on the scale it was done theoretically proves it could be done on a national scale, just as easily.  What is even more at risk is the computerized voting system that can be hacked into.  The popular vote is at even greater risk of being  hacked and manipulated by a hostile entity.

There are some simple solutions that will seem antiquated to most.   The saying, "Haste makes waste,"  has proven never truer than in a presidential election. While we in the U.S. have the longest election season in the world, we hurry up to tally all the votes making the election results among the speediest in the world.  Major televised news networks are prone to give their predictions as to the outcome before the full count is tallied. It's as if we can't wait to move the news cycle post election. We can do this because everything is computerized - voting and counting ballots in most states. This computerized approach is vulnerable to being hacked, which could throw an election into chaos.

WHAT IF?

What if we, in the U.S. resorted to going off the internet grid  and slow things up when it comes to elections; retreating to the paper ballot that is hand counted?

That still leaves the misinformation problem, which could result in trying to filter what is said on the internet, which raises First Amendment concerns.  Part of the misinformation problem being linked to the internet is in part a result of having such a long election season.

What if we would reverse the democratic process by constitutionally shortening the election season to three months, for example? 

In this scenario the popular vote would occur in all the state's on the same date, the second Tuesday in June; meaning no political ads, no candidate debates,  no door to door campaigning before March 1st.  The political parties would then have to hold their conventions before June 30th and submit their nominees to a constitutionally defined and real entity which we call the Electoral College.

Such an approach would  require clarifying the role of electors as vetting agents to determine which political nominees  are best qualified to take these positions.  This would be a Herculean effort involving constitutional rewrites for all fifty states and amending the U.S.Constitution - no small task.  The impetus for such an undertaking would require  a collective congressional sense of urgency and a groundswell of voter approval to push such a move.  It would define and refine  the presidency and would  result in  immediate campaign reform.

Would it result in less partisanship, misinformation, and meddling?

Yes, but it would not eliminate it.

It would  narrow the process, distill it towards the essential message each party wanted to give.  Most essential is that after the people chose their candidates there would be the gruelling confirmation process and the actual choice of who would be the best  persons to serve the nation.  Would the electors be immune from partisanship and meddling?

No, but they would be less likely to fall for meddling and certainly open to liability if caught being unethical, and if they could not agree or come to a split decision, the Constitution actually has a process in place addressing such a scenario.

Popularity and populism would be curtailed.

Electors would and should be keen observers of how potential candidates run their campaigns.  Are they truthful? Did they conduct themselves honorably?  How did they respond to the people?  Were their party's platform  realistic with regard to what their nominee could actually accomplish under the Constitution if chosen? Most important, would the nominee be the President of all the people, not just the party that nominated her or him.

If the President demonstrated extreme partisanship during the first term, the President would not likely see the next; in that they would not only face a troubled public, but would face an Electoral College that could remove a current President from consideration of another term.

It would also temper how Congress would interact with the executive branch. Obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism would likely have less political appeal on a president who, after being selected President by the College is more likely to be seen as above the fray of ordinary congressional politics. 

Of course, a President could be removed as a party's nominee during the next election cycle,which would almost make a President a one term president unless the President was popular enough to win a second term as an independent which would  serve as a check on party politics

The tone of presidential elections would undoubtedly change dramatically and so would much about being a President change.  Obviously, in this short post one cannot think, much less address all the possibilities and contingencies such a change in the distillation process would bring about.  It may seem impossible that such changes could happen, but if not mentioned it would be impossible.  My purpose in writing a post is not to say what is popular, but to say what is on my mind.  Otherwise, there would be no reason for me to take the time to write.

 Until next time, stay faithful.

Thursday, July 12, 2018

DEMOCRACY: THREATENED OR THREATENING? - Part II - Presidential Electors

These posts are not concerned with the U.S. Constitution in its entirety but rather with the distillation effect it has on its democratic process. In this post, I will consider  the inherent vulnerabilities in the democratic process found in U.S. Constitution as they relate to presidential elections.

In my last post, the U.S. Constitution was likened to a distillery in which the voice or will of the people is refined as it moves through the various levels of government.  I also noted that while the Constitution acts as a refinery that defines the democratic process, democracy has a way of shaping the Constitution itself.  This is both necessary and problematic.

I am not a fan of constitutional originalism.  Treating the Constitution as if it is the inerrant Word of God is constitutional blasphemy.  Trying to concretize every word and punctuation mark in the articles and in the amendments of the Constitution as the infallible and unquestionable meaning of the text neuters the Constitution's fecundity.

The intent of the Constitution is clearly stated in the Preamble. It is the Preamble that serves as the touchstone by which anything in the Constitution and any issue related to the Constitution must be tested.

Having said that does not dismiss the value of considering what the framers intended  by the democratic process they defined by creating the Constitution.   The value of such consideration is  whether within the original ratified format there is something pragmatic to be garnered from what appears ambiguous in its historical context that has more application today then it did when  conceived.

It is obvious the framers did not have all the answers nor could they foresee all the pitfalls that would arise over time.  Their brilliance is that they didn't try to do the impossible but rather intended to give shape to something that would take shape, and therein lies the Constitution's strength and durability.

THE INADVERTANT WEAKNESS OF THE "ELECTORAL COLLEGE"

This brings one back to the topic at hand, the democratic process. What has proven to be the greatest vulnerability within the Constitution is in the democratic process, as it relates to electing the U.S. President.

I believe the framers of the Constitution were on to something that could have spared us the presidential dilemma we, in the United States, find ourselves in from time to time had they better defined electoral process for choosing a president.  I am not finding fault with them.  They were writing in an age when the nation was hardly a nation; when the various states had more loyalty from their citizens than the United States did as a whole.

It made sense, at the time, to allow each state to determine who their presidential electors would be.  The framers were on a tight-rope trying to hold a tenuous union together.  It proved to be a balancing act; hoping that wise minds in the various states would prevail in choosing able executive leaders.

Early presidential elections were messy affairs with the President and Vice President frequently representing opposing political and ideological views.   Presidential campaigns became partisan from the beginning and the choice of electors unfortunately fell in line with this partisan trend.

The issue of the President/Vice President divide was resolved by the creation of the party ticket in which each presidential candidate chose a running mate for Vice President. The practice of electors electing the nominated ticket winning their state's presidential election was to certify their votes by separately electing each person on the ticket as a formal nod to the Constitution's requirement.

The number of electors each state has is based on the number of representatives and senators each state sends to Washington D.C..   Currently there are 538 electors with three representing the District of Columbia. Unfortunately,electors are wedded to presidential  nominees.  With the exception of Maine and Nebraska, who assign electors based on which nominees win a congressional district of their state, all other states use a winner-takes-all approach to choosing who their electors are.

As a result, presidential campaigns are huge affairs because the popular vote in each state determines its electors.  Technically, the voters are voting for electors, but most average voters don't have that in mind when they go to the ballot box.  In fact, some states no longer require that the electors names are printed next to party's nominated ticket.   As such, the role of the elector is more a matter of form than function.

This has led many voters in the United States to advocate for the abolition of what is known as the Electoral College in favor of a strict popular vote for president.   Democracy trends towards favoring the popular or majority position regardless if that position is the result of well-informed voters or not.  This is what concerned the framers of the Constitution.  A strict popular vote for a singular executive position like  a president lends itself to populism and populism tends towards sensationalism, popularity, and the selection of a savior figure or demagogue to rule the moment.

VOICES FROM THE PAST

It's worth listening to the voices of some of our founding fathers with regard to the problems they saw with selecting a president by strict popular vote.  In the The Federalists Papers No. 68 , Alexander Hamilton expressed concern about electing someone to such a high office who possessed the qualities of being drawn to "low intrigue" and prone to exercising, "the little arts of popularity."  No wonder that the current administration has little appreciation for the musical, "Hamilton."

James Madison in Federalist Paper No. 10 was concerned with an " interested and overbearing majority" and "the mischiefs of faction  ...who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens or to  the permanent and aggregate interest of the community."

Unfortunately, the Electoral College has long ceased to have a meaningful function apart from ratifying a state's popular vote.  It does not prevent populism from dominating an election season by rising above the influence of faction in order to discern who best would serve this nation's needs and who best would protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

THE WEDDED BLISS OF DEMOCRACY AND CAPITALISM

The election of a president also provides "key" states - states with more electors  to shape the executive branch of the federal government; thus some smaller states jockey for influential primacy by holding their primaries early to set the nominee stage and give emphasis to that state's importance. This not only makes political sense, but offers a boost to that state's economy via campaign spending.

The idea of campaign reform; particularly, with regard to presidential campaigns has been a can kicked around for at least two decades.  Yet, there appears to be no incentive to do so. In fact corporate money, via Supreme Court decision, is given its own voice in fostering  campaigns.  No where else is capitalism and democracy so wedded as in a United States presidential campaign.

The reason this marriage between money and presidential campaigns is so prominent is the need to prompt the popular vote in a given state to secure its electoral votes. This results in a media blitz of information and misinformation.  Without trying to be cynical, most presidential elections are not determined by who has the best credentials to be president, but who has the best charisma, who makes the people feel most hopeful, who has the least political baggage, and most importantly (in recent elections) who is the least scary.

CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS IN THE MAKING

It would appear that the vast majority of voters have very little interest in whether a nominee is devoted to the Constitution he or she is sworn to defend.  This is not say that those who have taken that Oath of Office were not serious about defending the Constitution.  We have been fortunate, for the most part, that most presidents throughout U.S. history were.

The 2016  Presidential election, however, has exposed the vulnerabilities the Constitution has with regard to distilling the democratic process in electing the President.   The 2016 election is likely to go down in history as the election that exposed a constitutional crisis that has been brewing for some time.

If the Constitution was designed to be a distillery of the democratic process, as I proposed in my previous post, it's weakest filter was in its lack of definition regarding the role of electors in choosing the President and the Vice President. If the intent of designating electors from each state was to reduce the influence of populist passions on the holder of this high office, it failed at the state level.

Since lacking specific constitutional duties, the role of the elector has been to act as a rubber stamp in validating the selection of the ticket that won their state's presidential election.  Being tied to a political party's nominee, they really serve no other personal function than their position being tallied in determining who has won the requisite number of electoral votes to be the next president.

Yes, electors can dissent or refuse to cast their vote, but there is no true collegiality amongst them as a "college" of electors; no coming together as a group to debate or discern whether the person who  won their state's popular or indeed won the nation's popular vote merits their personal vote and most importantly no duty to ensure the most qualified nominee is selected as the President.  It is no wonder that many Americans are in favor of eliminating electors altogether and simply choosing a president by popular vote alone. As it stands , the electoral vote is seen as a manipulative device used by political parties to get around the popular vote.

What seems to have been the original intent in identifying electors is based, in my opinion, upon the democratic process that was shaped by the Constitution.  What is derived from that view would indicate that the selection of a president and vice president by electors was originally intended to be a relatively non-partisan decision.

This  lack of constitutional definition regarding the responsibilities of the electors has rendered the Constitution vulnerable and has led to increasingly unscrupulous campaign behavior by both major parties that has reached a pinnacle beginning in the 2000 presidential election where paper chads on the Florida presidential ballots resulted the election being decided by the Supreme Court.  In 2016, we have seen how vulnerable an election of the President is to foreign influence, especially when the election takes a populist turn.

It seems reasonable then that most Americans are increasingly in favor of the Electoral College's elimination and would prefer to choose presidents by strict popular vote.  The problem with the "Electoral College" is that few, if any, care whether the electors have a direct, constitutional function in choosing a president.

WHAT IF?

I, for one (and maybe I'm the only one), believe that President should be elected by independent electors whose sole job is to ensure that the persons elected as President and Vice President possess the qualities necessary to fulfill  the executive needs of the nation.  I am not advocating that the voting public should have no say in who is elected.  They must have a say to the extent that nominees are chosen, but once chosen, the public campaign should end and the Electoral College's serious work begins. Being that such work was left largely undefined now would be a good time to define the job of an elector as vetting and selecting the persons best suited for these high offices.

In my next post, I will ponder some views as to how this might work.

Until next time, stay faithful.

Thursday, July 5, 2018

DEMOCRACY: THREATENED OR THREATENING? Part I - The Constitutional Distillery

Among many things, Winston Churchill is famous for having the commented in a speech to the British House of Commons on November 11, 1947, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those that have been tried."  In that same speech Churchill also said, "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise." 

I quite agree with Sir Winston's comments.  I would clarify that democracy is technically
a tool of government used by constitutional republics, commonwealths, and monarchies in determining leadership and the course of government.

Churchill is right in implying that democracy is wrought with problems of its own.  It is not perfect nor is it all-wise and yet, here in the United States, one could be led think it so.  We, in the United States, hear almost daily that Russia's attempt to influence the last presidential election is a threat to "our democracy" as if it is tantamount to a direct attack on United States.  But is it?  If it is, in what way is it a direct attack on our nation? 

Or... 

Could it be that democracy lends itself to manipulation and is prone to undermining the very governments that constitutionally define its use?

In order to explore these questions, it is necessary to take a quick course on the use of democracy by constitutional based governments like that of the United States of America in its earliest stages of existence.  Democracy, as the primary means of governance, has a short life-span. Without definition, democracy, as rule by the people (meaning the majority), tends to become quickly unbalanced,  anarchic, and devolves into handing power, the control of government over to an oligarchy or a dictator. This was evident in ancient Athens.

The founding fathers of the United States understood this very well in establishing a system of checks and balances by constitutionally creating three branches of national government.  An additional balance to the government was the establishment of a federal republic in which the various states that made up the United States had the ability to choose their own leaders  make their own constitution and laws, and send representatives and senators to serve in the Federal government.

The concept of the "majority rules," which some Americans naively believe leads to perfect and all-wise decision making, must have given the founding fathers some sleepless nights.  They were well read and well informed.  They understood that raw democracy as government would ultimately devolve into government by the few and for the few or handing the reigns of government to a tyrannical strongman.

DISTILLING DEMOCRACY

What the founding fathers believed would preserve  the liberty they fought hard for was to exercise liberty by a nation whose citizens owned the decisions distilled from their collective voice and made on their behalf.  Democracy became the means by which to distill the collective will expressed by the many into the will of one nation. The Constitution became the distillery through which that was accomplished.

Who should have a say in governing was also a concern for the founding fathers.   Democracy works best if those who have a vote are well informed or are capable of being well informed. Initially, the United States Constitution did not mention who was eligible to vote.  This was largely left up to the state's. In many of these states, however, voting was initially limited to male landowners.  The obvious thought behind this decision was that people who owned their own property were likely to be educated, could read, or had enough principled sense to make an informed decision.

Originally, on the federal level of government, the citizen voter from each state could only vote for  those serving in the House of Representatives.  Senators were chosen by their state legislators, the President was elected by electors chosen by the states to form what is known today as the Electoral College, and justices to the Supreme Court were nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.  Distilling  democracy was accomplished through a process of electing local and state officials who, in turn, selected and elected federal officials.

To keep democracy from devolving into tyranny, the office of the President and  those of Senator and Representative were given varied term limits.  The only exception was the position of a Supreme Court justice, who could serve for life, but this was balanced by having nine justices who make decisions by majority  opinion.  The process of government is democratic throughout, but the higher up the governing ladder one goes the more distilled it becomes. At least, that appears to have been the original intent.

The founding fathers didn't stop there.  Their concern with democracy extended to their fear that to get to an end product, an elixir vitae that would energize government, keep it alive, and protect the Constitution's democratic processes, required a variety of voices fermented in the tumultuous vats of politics and then carefully distilled like a fine brandy into laws of the land that would appeal to and appease the democratic palate of the masses, while protecting the varietal minorities.  This, it was hoped, would preserve the fragile unity of a newborn nation.

The value of distilling unity out of diversity is inherent in the idealism that created the United States.  While, initially, not every citizen had a right to vote, every citizen had a right to address government; a right to express their own opinions, which led to the Bill of Rights.  Liberty is quickly lost where voices are readily silenced and the will of one can be trampled underfoot by an unprincipled mob.  These are the basic seeds upon which the republic of the United States was established. 

THE TUMULTUOUS VATS OF PARTISAN POLITICS

True democratic processes require a catalyst to begin the fermentation of ideas and a delivery system to distillery of government.  That catalyst is politics.  Politics is often uncouth, divisive, generally ill mannered, and ill informed which led Churchill to observe, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."  Nevertheless, there can be no true democratic process without the mash and sludge of politics.

Partisanship in the form of  political parties is the first stage of turning crude opinion into something usable; for within the diverse opinions of the people resides a resource that can be refined to energize a cohesive nation.  As government generated by democratic processes begins to grow, it generates more political fodder for the public to chew on and ferment over.  As a result, a pendulum effect is created in the legislative process.  Legislative actions create political reactions that create increasingly similar actions and reactions.

This left/right momentum actually results in progress if there is a sense of balance and rhythm within partisan debate.  At some point, there must be a consensus or at least a temporary acquiescence to majority opinion in order to maintain civility.  If not, the pendulum of discourse begins to act erratic and tends to swing more in one direction than the other or begins swinging too far left and too far right and eventually the legislative branch of government is incapable of moving anything forward and comes to a halt, leading to civil strife or increasing the role of the executive branch to govern arbitrarily to keep government moving.

This certainly was experienced in the United States during its Civil War period and is evident in today's polarized Congress.   It takes extremely devoted leaders to the nation's Constitution to avoid its being destroyed democratically and to restore the balance needed to preserve the democratic system it defines.

While the Constitution serves as the distillery of its democratic processes, raw democracy remains the crude substance that generates political power and partisan politics.  To garner support political parties of various stripes  have attempted to manipulate the flow of this crude power source to their advantage.  Who should vote and where they should vote remains to this day a constant in political maneuvering.

HIERARCHICAL DEMOCRACY

Over time, the democratic processes are likely to shape the very distillery designed to refine it.  I believe the original intent of constitutional government in the United States was to curb the volatility inherent in what is known today as populism.   As the distillation of raw  democracy is increasingly filtered  through the legislative process to becoming the law of the land, the more elite and select the filters become.

I believe the intent of the founding fathers was to limit, as much as possible, the influence of  partisan politics on most offices held at federal level, like senators, Supreme Court justices, and the President.  These offices we're originally intended to be positions that answered to a limited constituency.  The one exception was the congressional office of representatives.  Representatives answered to their local constituents, senators were answerable to their state legislatures, the President answered to Congress, and the Supreme Court justices answered to no one. Refined as it was, the democratic process was identifiable throughout the process with exception of the President who has limited arbitrary powers as Commander in Chief of the military.

This system would change over course of U.S. history.   The framers of the Constitution allowed for change and restructuring through its amendment process.  The framers were inventing something that would have to take on a life of its own.  As brilliant as the Constitution is, it has vulnerabilities.  Although the framers of the Constitution did their best to create a balanced government that provides checks on abuse and misuse, they knew of no perfection in human endeavor that guards against human weakness and its proclivity for corruption.

This awareness is most evident in the oath of office the President takes, "to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."  It is even more evident in the oath taken by members of both congressional houses and one of two oaths sworn by Supreme Court Justices, "to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States  against all enemies, both foreign and domestic."

Such oaths recognize that the biggest threat to the Constitution is its vulnerability to abuse and misuse by the very people sworn to uphold and defend it.  It also implies that the Constitution is vulnerable to attack by the very people whose voices are protected by it.

**********
As mentioned at the beginning of this post, the purpose of this series of posts is to examine the question if democracy can be threatened or is it a case that democracy lends itself to manipulation and undermining the constitutions that guide its use.    In the next post we will examine some of the vulnerabilities  inherent in the United States Constitution. 

Until next time, stay faithful.