THE RISE OF FASCISM IN THE UNITED STATES

Throughout human history, authoritarian governments were the norm.  Emperors, empresses, kings, queens, and dictators of all types ruled their realms with iron fists.  Within these dictatorships, however, were those handpicked advisors who advised at the will of the ruler.  The voice of the people were rarely considered, but every dictator knew that to disenfranchise the ruled could lead to their overthrow should someone powerful enough could rise up and defeat them in battle or through court intrigue.  

Democracy existed in form, if not in name, within the substrata of power throughout most of human history; such as, royal councils and tribal gatherings.  Pure democracies; such as, ancient Athens proved to be weak and untenable.  As a large decision making body, it lacked cohesiveness and was vulnerable to infighting and intrigue. 

With the Enlightenment, however, the democratic idea reemerged.  The flaws of a pure democracy created by unruly aristocrats gave way to the notion of the the ruled having a direct say in making the rules, regardless of aristocratic status.   Out of this understanding the United States was the first nation to develop a constitutional republic comprised of three co-equal branches of government to limit the chaos created by a pure democracy.  If not in fact, at least in principle the U.S. Constitution rights to individuals and minorities to be heard and recognized.   It must be noted that the founding fathers of the United States were keenly wary of pure democracy and the tendency of its electorate to move towards totalitarianism; such as, the rise of fascism in the twentieth century and its emergence within the United States today.  

What leads to fascism is largely connected with a nation's economic concern and the close connection between wealth and power.  Democracy plays a limited role in fascism and is utilized to give a fascist state validity by being the choice of a given nation's electorate.  Let us examine the reasons an electorate would vote in a fascist regime within a constitutional republic that relies of democratic principles.

CAPITALISM AND FASCISM

Where fascism has an opening to garner support is within capitalistic economies; especially, where unfettered capitalism creates economic inequality and instability.  Since the early Twentieth Century there has always been a tendency towards fascism due to the economic fluctuations caused by unfettered capitalism and the Great Depression.   I googled fascism and capitalism to illustrate the link between the two:

"Fascism and capitalism often converge during economic crises, where fascism acts as a protective, authoritarian shell for private property and capital. While fascist regimes in Germany and Italy allowed private ownership and profits, they suppressed labor unions and intervened heavily to align corporate interests with nationalistic state goals.

Key Aspects of Fascism and Capitalism:

Support for Capital: Fascist states generally protect private property and the profit motive, often forming a close merger between state power and large corporate interests.

Suppression of Labor: A core feature is the destruction of independent labor unions and the restriction of workers' rights to prevent threats to capitalist profits.

State Interventionism: While supporting private enterprise, fascist regimes often direct the economy through subsidies, state contracts, and national priorities, sometimes replacing market mechanisms with state planning.

Response to Crisis: Fascism frequently emerges when traditional, democratic, capitalist systems fail to manage extreme inequality or economic instability, leading to a shift towards authoritarianism to stabilize the system.

Complex Relationship: While fascists often use anti-capitalist rhetoric to attract support, they generally protect the structural existence of the capitalist class while eliminating its autonomy from the state.

Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were prominent examples where private firms, such as Volkswagen and I.G. Farben, flourished, and in some cases, saw increased profit, despite state control."

From Google Search, an AI Overview

Does any of the above sound familiar?  

Does the above help to explain why so many multi-billionaires and corporate executives are supporting the Trump regime?

UNDERMINING THE CONSTITUTION

As with all totalitarian governments, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, the right to protest against the government, and freedom of religion as stated in the First Amendment are currently being attacked by the Trump Regime. 

Read it for yourself:  

The First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Under the Trump regime's use of ICE  and its Border Control agents to go after both legal and illegal immigrants has resulted in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments being openly ignored. 

The Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Under the Trump regime, citizenship is being questioned; in particular, people of color and increasingly anyone who is openly opposed to President Trump's handling of the immigration crisis that his regime has created in sanctuary cities in the U.S..   His regime has attacked the clear meaning of both the Fourteenth and the Fifteenth Amendments.

The Fourteenth Amendment:

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Fifteenth Amendment:

Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

President Trump's legal team and the regime's Justice Department are muddling the clear meaning of "All persons born or naturalized in the United States... are citizens of  the United States.., "nor shall any State deprive any person... due process of law," "nor deny to any person ... equal protection of the laws."   President Trump has urged Republican state legislatures to gerrymander voting districts to favor MAGA candidates in the upcoming mid-term elections based on race, ethnicity, immigration status, and voting statistics.  

With regard to the rise of a fascism in the United States one must realize that while fascism can be the result of a democratic process that elects fascist leaders, it has nothing in common with the United States Constitution.  Once elected to power,  fascist will be an attempt to discredit democratic elections and institutions as in the Trump regime's attempt to "federalize" elections.  Should that come to pass, it will make it easier to manipulate election outcomes.  

THE SECOND AMENDMENT

GUN OWNERS BEWARE.   The handwriting is on the wall.  President Trump has already given notice that limiting privately owned guns from being carried in public is being questioned.   He recently made a statement that guns have no place in public protests, due to Alex Pretti having one on his person as the reason he was shot ten times.  Alex had a license to carry his gun on his person and was within his rights to do so while protesting  against ICE and Border Patrol agents in Minneapolis.  The pretext that he was killed because he had a gun on his body caught the attention of gun owners nation wide  and organizations like the NRA.  President Trump has opened the door to question private gun ownership.

Fascists love their guns.  What they don't like is anyone else having them.  It is easy to predict that if the First Amendment is ignored, the Second Amendment will be history because, as a fascist see it, there will be no need for state militias or militias of any kind unless directly controlled by the federal (fascist) government.  Any opposition to handing over one's guns will likely result in their forcibly being taken.  Any opposition to the government will be largely impossible since owning a gun will likely be considered an act of insurrection.  All totalitarian governments prohibit the vast majority of their civilians possessing guns.

This may sound like utter nonsense to those who see private gun ownership as sacrosanct to the American way of life, but is it?  It is only to the extent that the current constitutional rule of law remains intact.   Should the entire bill of rights, along with the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments are rendered mute, no legal means will exist to protect the gun ownership as Congress and the Supreme Court will act as  a rubber stamp to whatever the regime dictates.  This is not fantasy, it is happening in real time as conscientious, constitutionally-minded republican legislators and senators are resigning or refusing to run in the upcoming mid-term elections.  

I have heard people defend the shooting of Alex Pretti because he brought a legally owned gun to the protests in Minneapolis.  If you take away the right to bear arms as a protestor, the only guns allowed at a protest will be by fascist law enforcement agents  Truly something to consider, no matter what one's political views are regarding guns.  

DARVO

DARVO is a term every voting citizen should be aware of.  DARVO is defined as a manipulative, three-stage defense mechanism—Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender—used by abusers to avoid accountability by turning accusations back on the victim.  Coined by Dr. Jennifer Freyd, this tactic is common in intimate partner violence and narcissistic abuse to create confusion, induce self-doubt, and discredit victims. Key responses include recognizing the pattern, maintaining focus on the original action, and seeking support to counter the gaslighting effect."  Google Search.

We have seen the recent use of DARVO in connection to the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti as Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, within in minutes of their being killed, stated they were domestic terrorist without any investigation of the facts.  DARVO is used in a cases involving rape; especially, those involving women.  The release of the Epstein files have resulted in the "unintentional" release of the names of those women who were raped.  One need not speculate too hard to find suspicious reasons for such an inept thing to have happened.  

If people think that revealing salacious material about President Trump will remove him from office, I seriously doubt it.  The MAGA branch of the Supreme Court will bail him out as long as he is the current president; citing that such personal untoward behavior, while unbecoming of a president in office, is not in the national interest to pursue during his current time in office, or something to that effect.  

These victims hope for justice will be best served once Donald Trump is removed from office and faces justice as a private citizen. 

Beyond the Epstein files, President Trump continues to bamboozle the citizens with his not too veiled attempt to rename the United States  TRUMPLANDIA or something to that effect.   His obsession of renaming historical structures and building edifices to glorify his person is something reminiscent of the Roman emperor Nero's building his golden home, the Domus Aurea, on the burned out ruins of the fire he likely had a hand in starting.     

Congress is the only branch of government that currently has the ability to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States by removing Trump and the fascist elements of his regime.  I personally have hope they will because as long as Donald Trump continues on using the office of the President to take personal revenge on real and perceived enemies both at home and abroad, the United States of America in harms way both domestically and from abroad.  All members of Congress know this.  The question is how many of them are complicit with Trumps regime or willing to do their duty, if not?  

Norm 

L' ÉTOILE DU NORD

Minnesota's state motto, "L'Étoile du Nord," "The Star of the North" is a true metaphor for a state that is showing us that as a nation we are off course, once again.  It is not ironic during the month in which we commemorate Martin Luther King Day, that amidst the callous disregard for human life by ICE agents who are themselves the worst of the worst, we hear the optimism of Dr. King's voice,"We shall overcome."   I sincerely hope that is the case.

The deliberate murder of George Floyd in 2020 by a law enforcement officer and the murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti this month at the hands of ICE agents who believed they could and can act with impunity has shocked many in our nation into a reality many do not want to believe.  But believe it we must as the Trump regime is quick to excuse such murderous behavior by accusing the victims of being domestic terrorists as a rationale for depriving them and the nation of the justice we are all constitutionally entitled to.    

The Trump regime is denying due process of the law simply because due process is a threat to this regime, as it consistently violates its constitutional responsibilities by creating  national emergencies that have no basis in fact as a cover for the President Trump's illicit past.  The Trump regime has been getting by with this simply because the Republican controlled Congress has largely turned a blind eye to court rulings that have attempted to block Trump's regime from its abuse of power. 

* * * 

DAVOS

At the World Economic Conference in Davos, Switzerland this past week, we saw how weak the Trump regime truly is.  Yes, the United States has great military power and can push its weight around as demonstrated by the capture of the Venezuelan President Moduro and his wife, an act of pure dictatorial theater to impress upon our allies the futility of denying President Trump's claim that the United States must have Greenland for its national defense and threatening, if the U.S. could not purchase it from Denmark, it would take it by force.  Added to this, he threatened to impose tariffs on any NATO nation opposing his desire.  

That was before his appearance at Davos.    

Before Trump landed in Switzerland, it was clear that European democracies and Canada were having none of it.  Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney's speech made it clear that the Trump regime has created a "rupture" in the NATO alliance; that the United States can no longer be trusted as an ally.  Carney's speech will probably go down as one of the most important speeches of the 21st Century. It has all the makings of a game changer in world order.   It should have a chilling effect on any conscientious American citizen.  Our most trusted and faithful allies are turning against us.  

Can we blame them?

* * *

FEAR

Fear is a great motivator.  Currently there is enough fear in the world to threaten its existence.  This is not hyperbole. As our allies are giving up on us and seeking ways to forge alliances that exclude us, we are facing domestic terror the likes we have not experienced since the Civil War.  

At Davos, Trump had a woke moment. Once he became aware of the opposition he was facing from our NATO allies, he quickly changed his rhetoric and said he would not use force to annex Greenland nor would he impose tariffs.   Instead, he claimed there was a deal be had sometime in the "infinite" future.  While President Trump's political supporters were glad to hear it, the rest of the world knows that such rhetoric is a face saving ploy.   For the moment, Europe can take a breath, but we here in the United States cannot as ICE agents are acting like Trump and Noem's Gestapo; going door to door in Minneapolis asking people to point out their immigrant neighbors and arresting protesters or spraying them with pepper spray while protecting their neighbors.    

Americans have a lot to fear right now.  The Constitution is being ignored.  President's Trumps threatens to enact the Insurrection Act of 1807 to quell peaceful protests against ICE in Minnesota by employing the  U.S. Military to do so.  This prompted  Senator Mark Kelly and others senators who served in the military to make statements with regard to the fact that members of the military owe their loyalty to the U.S. Constitution and not to the President.  As a nation we need to understand what made them speak up.

* * *

LOYALTY TO THE CONSTITUTION

The following is a plaque posted at West Point Military Academy which may help the reader understand Senator Kelly's and others concern about the use of military force to do the President's bidding:

"THE UNITED STATES BOLDLY BROKE WITH ANCIENT MILITARY CUSTOM OF SWEARING LOYALTY TO A LEADER.  ARTICLE VI REQUIRED THAT AMERICAN OFFICERS THEREAFTER SWEAR LOYALTY TO OUR BASIC LAW, THE CONSTITUTION.

WHILE MANY OTHER NATIONS HAVE SUFFERED MILITARY COUPS, THE UNITED STATES NEVER HAS. OUR AMERICAN CODE OF MILITARY OBEDIENCE REQUIRES THAT SHOULD ORDER AND LAW EVER CONFLICT, OUR OFFICERS MUST OBEY THE LAW.  MANY OTHER NATIONS HAVE ADOPTED OUR PRINCIPLE OF LOYALTY TO THE BASIC LAW.

THIS NATION MUST HAVE MILITARY LEADERS OF PRINCIPLE AND INTEGRITY SO STRONG THAT THEIR OATHS TO SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION WILL UNFAILINGLY GOVERN THEIR ACTIONS.  THE PURPOSE OF THE UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY IS TO PROVIDE SUCH LEADERS OF CHARACTER 

* * *

THE INSURRECTION ACT OF 1807

"The Insurrection Act of 1807 empowers the U.S. president to call into service the U.S. Armed Forces and the National Guard: 

• when requested by a state's legislature or governor, if the legislature cannot be convened, to quell an insurrection against that state (§ 251),
•  to address unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion in any state, which renders impracticable the enforcement of the law (§ 252), and 
• to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, in any state, which results in the deprivation of constitutionally secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights (§ 253). "  From Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia

The Insurrection Act was utilized during the Civil War.  In 1871 the Act was modified by the Enforcement Act to protect Black Americans against the Ku Klux Klan and the Civil Rights Movement 1954 - 1968.

"In 2016, Public Law 114-328 was amended to include Guam and the US Virgin Islands under the jurisdiction of Chapter 13; §252 indicates that the “Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority:   Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State, by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary, to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion."

From Wikipedia Free Encyclopedia

* * *

I believe it is important to understand where the Constitutional battle lines are being drawn.  The Insurrection Act of 1807 is not in the Constitution per se, but it is a law enacted under the auspices of Congress' constitutional duty to make laws as it deems necessary.  The spirit of the Insurrection Act is to protect the Constitution in which the right to public assembly and to protest government action is embodied within its Bill of Rights.  As noted above the insurrection can be employed where such rights are being deprived.  It would be the highest form of hypocrisy to invoke this act on those exercising their right to protest.

Peaceful protest that is loud and boisterous is not rebellion nor should it be considered an act of insurrection.  In fact, the Justice Department's exclusion of civil and state authorities in investigating the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti on the streets of Minneapolis must considered in the light of obstructing justice at the local and state level where such acts occurred.    

Senator Mark Kelly is within his constitutional role as a Senator and as a retired military officer to remind those serving this nation within the military of their obligation to protect the Constitution by following the law rather than following orders.  The case being made against Senator Kelly is that as a retired service member he does not have a First Amendment right to publicly voice his opinion even though he is a Senator who serves on the Armed Services Committee.  In voicing his concern to those serving in the military, especially the military leadership, of their oath to defend and protect the Constitution from those who would usurp its authority, he was in no way sharing state secrets nor inciting members of the military to engage in an insurrection.  That the current regime reacted as if he and others did is, in itself, telling.

The biggest threat to the United States is the increasing disregard of our Constitution by Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court; all of whom have engaged in meaningless parlor games over the decades regarding its authority.  If we survive the miasma of Trump's swamp, we need to consider changing our motto from "In God We Trust" to "No One Is Above The Law."  Fear of the law is obviously more effective than fearing God; especially, when it comes to the current regime.  

* * *   

EN AVANT

Governor Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Frey have preempted the need for military force as Governor Walz has called in the Minnesota National Guard to protect the streets of Minneapolis.  Both Governor Walz and Mayor Frey have urged calm and peaceful protest, which on the part of the citizens protesting has demonstrated immense restraint thus far, given the extreme violence leveled against them by ICE agents.   ICE should not be weaponized against President Trump's political adversaries. No President of the United States should ever expect one hundred percent loyalty from U.S. citizens.  Such expectations are totally un-American and reek of dictatorship.      

If anyone is attempting to incite an insurrection, it is President Trump who, in an act of unfiltered transparency, has offered to pull back his ICE agents on the condition of  Minnesota turning over its voter registration records to the Department of Justice.   Everyone should know where that is going, given that we are nearing the mid-term election.  

That blatant act of extortion being exercised by the current regime is astounding.  Every American should be aghast at this obvious attempt to discredit the upcoming election because the current regime fears losing both the House and the Senate.  Every member of the House and Senate should be chomping at the bit to see the current regime impeached, convicted, and removed office. We need to protect our electoral system from the felonious behavior of a bamboozling liar.  The only way forward is to prevent it from meddling with the upcoming election.  Congress, do you duty!  You have more than enough to impeach, convict, and remove the current regime.   

We must stand with Minnesota and the brave citizens of Minneapolis who are defending not only their rights but our rights by demanding justice for all and a return to civility in government.  Let us keep our gaze fixed on L'Étoile du Nord.   The world is watching and waiting to see if we have the courage to correct our course.  The question is how long will they wait?

Norm

NEW LIFE - NEW TIMES

This is more of a personal post; an update, if you will, on what has occurred since I left church life.  Much has changed for myself and my family.  In retrospect, most of what has happened is positive.  I'm speaking of the birth of two granddaughters who I nickname Sweet-E and Sweet-P after the initials of their first names.  Of course, they are both adorable.  They are our first grandchildren.   They are such a joyous intrusion in what started out as depressing time in my life, as the last Sunday in October marked the first anniversary of my wife and I quitting the church we belonged to.   

Quitting the church meant giving up something I truly love doing, playing the pipe organ.  Talk about withdrawal symptoms!  

Not having a pipe organ to play everyday gave me pause and underscored the need to reevaluate my life, my beliefs, and my sense of purpose.  Grandchildren certainly help with this ongoing process. They underscore a reality that those of us of a certain age can be reluctant to face honestly; life goes on and our role at this stage of life is to help make the lives of our children, grandchildren and all children as healthy and as meaningful as we can.  So there is a greater sense of purpose in writing this blog; to take what I have learned in life and share it in meaningful ways for those who stumble upon it.

* * *

For most of my early life my dream was to become an ordained Lutheran minister and then, in my middle adult years, an ordained Episcopal priest.  Speaking of my dreams there was, in fact, an actual dream that haunted me for most of my life that occurred a few weeks before I was scheduled to begin my journey towards and ordained ministry at a Lutheran college.   I never told anyone about this dream and here I am telling the whole universe about it.  Without getting too weird about dreams being prophetic, I believe dreams can subliminally point out the obvious to the waking mind that refuses to let go of an idea; somewhat akin to the ignored obvious that prophets of old were despised for pointing out.  

The dream that haunted me utilized my obsession of building churches out of toy wood blocks when I was a child.  In this dream I was building such a toy church when suddenly it was mysteriously knocked over, after which a sinister voice said, "Three times I will destroy your church."   I woke up feeling terrified.  I could not help feeling that the devil or some dark force was not going to allow me to be ordained.   To write about this sounds ridiculous today, but it was all too real at the time and it haunted my thoughts for much of my life and it played out in my life as the dream predicted.   

Whether the dream presaged a self-fulfilling prophecy that eventually led me to leave the church I sought to serve, quitting the church this past year has awakened in me the meaning of this dream.  My obsession with building the church would lead down another path involving the church as a whole; that would lay waste to my indoctrinated beliefs that I felt obliged to hold fast - something my grandmother had drilled into me, "Hold fast to what you have been taught," she readily quoted from scripture.

Prophetic dream?  Perhaps, but I am inclined to think my subconscious was telling me something I didn't want to face because I was stubbornly holding on to entrenched beliefs about the Church, Christianity, and what I perceived as my calling.  Today, I find myself at peace with leaving the church and letting go of beliefs I can no longer hold on to and perhaps never really felt an attachment to.   Ironically, letting go of my indoctrinated beliefs has given me a deeper appreciation for the humanity of Jesus and his teachings.  I am freed me from feeling I have to believe in the unbelievable.

* * *

My life long study of church history, theology, world history, philosophy, and science has permitted me to realize that it was an act of futility to think that I could change an orthodox system entrenched in dogmas almost two millennia old.  I have learned much from my studies for which I am grateful.  They have allowed me to reflect on religion and life in a way that ordination would never have permitted me to do.  I do not seek to change the Church or Christianity.  I believe attempting to change an entrenched ideological system like Christianity is impossible to do so from within.  Consider the Protestant Reformation.  What really changed theologically from that experience?  

On the other hand, I find inspiration in Jesus of Nazareth's ability to step outside the proverbial box to help others take a look at the box they found themselves in; the box that their forebears had created and that tradition burdened them to maintain.  In his own way, Jesus exposed the boxes we create for ourselves. 

I find myself in a place to freely speak for myself without the worry of what others in a pew may think.  If there is value in what I say, I am glad to have provided it.  My hope is that it will provide meaning for those who do.   

* * * 

With all of that being said, I return to thoughts and reflections on my two adorable granddaughters, Sweet-E and Sweet-P.  They are not a year old yet and I see them soaking up the world around them as only an infant can do.  Everything is new to them and is there for their exploration and experience. My heart abounds in the joy they exude.  Having children and grandchildren reminds me why Jesus pointed to small children as the example we adult should emulate, the timelessness that free children of worrying about tomorrow because there is so much to take in today. 

I welcome a second childhood with all my aging heart.  I realize my time is short, so what?  The freedom I am feeling seems new to me. A year ago I wasn't feeling joy.  I was feeling depressed and at a loss because I left a familiar turf that had become a wasteland to me.  

The world is topsy-turvy right now,   It was in Jesus' day and in such topsy-turvy times I feel called to enjoy blessings of new life rather than curse the boxes we have created for ourselves.  I continue to find joy in the music I love and the art that abounds in nature and through human creativity.  I doubt that whatever I say will fix anything, but if I don't say what I sincerely feel I will end up feeling negligent to the future that resides in my children, grandchildren, and all the children in this boxy world of ours.

Norm

 

    

 

IN THESE DISCORDANT TIMES

In these discordant times, one can only hope to say something that would offer respite from the daily onslaught of disturbing news that can neither be avoided nor dismissed.  I have no such respite to offer here.  Instead I can only offer my observation and thoughts regarding such times as these. 

The discordant cacophony of angry voices on any given day, on any give subject offers little peace of mind.  Stepping back from the daily moment to moment discord only confirms the observation that ardent ideological beliefs have led to the use of vitriol and violence.  The old childhood adage, "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me," is clearly a fallacy.  Vitriol's connection to violence is undeniable.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines vitriol as violent hate and anger expressed through severe criticism.  The use of vitriol is designed to cause fear and pain in the person or persons it is directed towards.  

There are plenty of recent events to validate this statement that I need not mentioned their occurrences.  People use vitriol for several reasons; as a defense mechanism to vent one's fear and pain, as an appeal to foment anger in order to garner support for a cause that might otherwise be perceived as weak, and as a means to incite others to commit acts of violence.  

Vitriol is antithetical to reasoning.  When vitriol is injected into a debate, reason is muted and there is no point in continuing said debate.  Those who use vitriol largely do so to end a discussion by employing a fallacy I call the argument from belief; as in,"You are not permitted to argue against what I personally believe."  This argument is frequently observed by those who currently posit some form of ideological nationalism, be it political or theocratic.  Individuals use such a fallacy to victimize victims as the cause of their victimization in the name of belief.  

* * *

Perhaps an unintended example of such a fallacy is when Thomas Jefferson penned, "We hold these truths to be self evident..." he couldn't have been thinking about women, much less, the indigenous population and the slaves in this country.  He was thinking in terms of the English aristocracy and particularly King George III as being no different than the common white male on the street.  If he was thinking about women and slaves at the time, he did nothing to change their social status thereafter.   Women were, at best, equal as women.  Indigenous people are equal as being indigenous, and slaves are equal as slaves.  It was an unspoken belief that felt true and so needed no explanation per se.  What can be said about Jefferson's self-evident truths is that they became aspirational, something that most Americans believe to be true, but have little faith in the possibility of their being realized as fact.  

Truth is an elusive concept.  Truth as a metaphysical term speaks of a complexity that it holds us rather than we hold it.  It is an ideal that is beyond our full comprehension.  

As such, many have substituted metaphysical truth with the egotistical concept of "my truth."  "My truth" is a relative term that reflects one's beliefs, experiences, or opinions, which may differ from the beliefs, and experiences of others as a personal truth.   Like the "Argument from Belief" the "Argument from (My) Truth" is a defensive fallacy used against the opposing assertions of others.  "My beliefs" and "My Truths" require no basis in fact.  They only rely on the certitude of one's opinionated perceptions.  Philosophically speaking, truth cannot be expressed with certitude, as truth is intrinsically paradoxical. 

* * *

Speaking of the Argument from Belief and the Argument from (My)Truth" is the concept of "an enemy from within"espoused by political leaders as a deliberate attempt to stir the vortex of a paranoid delusion amongst the nation's polarized citizenry.  The irony is that those who promulgate such notions are doing so for personal reasons and vindictiveness, thus exposing themselves as also being an enemy within.  

Such extreme discord may be best understood as a social psychosis, where a consensus on what is fact becomes untethered from reality by means of disinformation which borders on the delusional.  Public paranoia abounds as suppositional conspiracy theories spread at the speed of light through social media.  

So much of what we fear is a result of a discordant chaos based on these fallacies.  Fallacious thinking lends itself to self-fulfilled prophecies.  In a discordant atmosphere, certitude becomes a weapon against healthy skepticism that allows one to think before speaking, that ask questions when confronted with certitude, and encourages reason to guide one's understanding. 

* * *

There are no easy ways to get around such discordant times as these.  Vitriol threatens violence.  It is hard to fathom perceived need for the militarization of the public square and the suppression of the fundamental right to free speech by a government sworn to uphold it.  As the use of fear becomes the dominant means of discourse, it will be hard to reestablish civil discourse.  Democratic governance requires democratic discourse, where diverse opinions should be shared civilly to obtain reasoned outcomes.  Every voice matters; especially, those that demonstrate thought before speaking.   

Problem solving at a national level requires thoughtful listening to identify problematic issue properly.  While vitriol is always at the ready to shut down constructive communication, the key is to understand the issue at the heart of its use in order to tone it down.  Understanding does not mean agreement, but understanding is the first step to reaching agreement.  When leaders refuse to listen to one another and resort to threats, the hope for a peaceful resolution vanishes. This is particularly true when leaders foment discord as a means to gain a political advantage.  Deliberate polarization along partisan lines disables constructive communication.

Democracy's achilles heel resides in the very need to garner political support; especially, when doing so is done at all costs and by all means.  It is a rare trait to find a principled politician who is devoted to speaking civilly and honestly even if doing so might cost an electoral victory.  Giving people what they need to hear rather than what they want to hear can result in political suicide and there have been rare individuals who have done it for the sake of our republic and the common good.  Unfortunately the political environment we live in today does not offer itself to fostering such rare individuals.  

For too long the two major political parties in the U.S. have ignored the hard work of working together to solve the nation's problems. The focus of both parties has been securing enough political power to ensure their version of the good rather than securing the common good. At best, Congress has opted to skirt issues by passing temporary resolutions that kick the can down the road.  There is a point when such can-kicking results in facing a dead end where the common good is forgotten and where compromise is perceived as weakness and discord is the order of the day. 

In such cases, governments can undergo drastic changes.  There comes a point where discord has to be met face on as the primary problem facing the nation.   When the military is sent into major cities to quell peaceful protests, the rights of every American citizen is in grave danger.  Testing the waters of liberty to see how far authoritarianism is tolerated by the public is destabilizing.  Whether tolerated or not, such an adventure could easily lead to violence that will put the republic at risk not only from perceived enemies within but from enemies without.  

As Lincoln frequently quoted in his speeches, "A house divided cannot stand."  This statement has been repeated throughout our history.  How many times must we hear it?  How many times must we experience it before we value concord as humanity's highest achievement?

 

Norm

JULY 4, 2025 - A Poem

                                              

                                                     July 4, 2025

                                 There was a deadline to meet;

                                        Had  everyone in Washington scrambling to beat.

                                There was progress to cut, the cost of poverty high! 

                                       A debt ceiling to make; the limit, the sky.

                                                             

                                                                *  *  *

                                 The rockets red glared and bombs bursted in air.

                                       Giving proof on that night of a national nightmare.

                                Oh what can one say when dawn’s early light

                                        Shines on a land given over to blight?

                                We celebrate aspirations unmet.

                                         There’s always next year to commemorate intent.

                                                                *  *. *

                                One step forward, two steps back, 

                                          Our democracy’s tango is becoming a trap.

                                Norm 

REARRANGING THE CONSTITUTIONAL FURNITURE

 As I have mentioned in previous posts, I am not a constitutional originalist; in the sense, that what has been written needs to stay written as it currently is or understood as the framers understood it when they wrote it.  When I talk about the framer's original intent, I am seeking to fill in the blanks of things they didn't explain in order to understand the gaps in the Constitution's mortar that one would have thought was needed to hold it together or why later legislation chiseled out mortar with regard to the democratic processes the framers seemed necessary to avoid the extremes of partisanship and the tyranny of the masses.  For example, when the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified in 1913 resulted in changing the election of senators from state legislature to the people.

While few today would question what appears to be an enhancement of our democratic process with the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment,  it increased the opportunity for enlarging the partisan divide among the populace as senators vied for popular support.   Was the framer's early wisdom knowingly being cast aside when it came to how senators were elected?   Was the legislative procedure in choosing senators side-stepped to make room for special interest to play a greater role in shaping legislation.  One must remember that this Seventeenth Amendment war ratified during a time when the Gilded Age was at its apex.

I believe the framers wisdom in having senators chosen by state legislators was to limit the temptation of those seeking to be a senator for personally profit by allowing moneyed interests to  play a prominent role in being elected.  In a democracy there is no adequate way to totally eliminate such influences, but the principle I believe the framers had in mind was to free the Senate from the distraction of worrying about appealing to a moneyed constituency at the cost of doing what was best for the nation as a whole.  At the time of the Constitution's framing, most politicians were people of wealth who gave of their wealth to preserve the Republic.   How things have changed since then.

"ELECTIPHOBIA"

I believe that what led to the current partisan divide in the United States is the political parlor games that both major political parties in the legislative branch of the government have engaged with throughout its history.  Extreme partisanship is originally rooted in the legislative branch where the concept of the majority party to hold up debate and where each political caucus votes along strict party lines has resulted in damage the democratic process and has weakened the republic.  Congress has also become slack in performing their constitutional duties in order to appease moneyed constituents.  The Presidency. like Congress, is increasingly influenced by moneyed interests in promoting partisanship in order to be re-elected to a second term.  This is not say that every representative, senator, or president has fallen victim to what might be identified as "Electiphobia," the fear of losing an election, but that the fear of losing an election can conflict with duty and what is best for the nation.

How can any politician give consideration to serious matters facing the nation when they always have one eye on being re-elected?  Representatives, with a two year term, are in re-election mode the day they are elected to their seat in the House of Representatives.  There is no limit to the number of terms they can serve and thus they spend a good deal of time improving their chance of reelection in the hope that the longer they are in the House the better chance they have at accomplishing their political agenda.  

Senators have more a six year term and also have no term limits and thus are constantly engaged in parlor politics to fulfill their political agenda and a fair amount of  partisan mud-slinging in order to keep their names in the public's mind.  Where the Senate is concerned,  I would also suggest a repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment  and have state legislatures appoint a state's senators to Congress.  This would help senators in keeping their political priorities straight.  

A president has a four-year term with a limit of serving two terms. Presidents, more than any other elected official are subject to the Lame-Duck syndrome if they win a second term, which often results in more concern about a president's legacy than the nation's welfare.   

Supreme Court justices have a lifetime term.  As the Court becomes noticeably more partisan in its decision-making and has no means of enforcing its decisions,  it has become increasing wary of making definitive rulings that are too open to interpretation.  Partisan sentiments are too apparent in recent Court rulings which brings into question the Court's independence in reaching decisions being based on Constitutional interpretation and precedence. 

In my opinion, I would rather see longer terms and term limits in elected offices rather than constant elections.  For example, representatives might benefit by having a four year term with a maximum of serving for two terms.  Senators might benefit by having an eight year term with a maximum of serving two terms.  A president might benefit by being limited to serving one twelve year term.  The Supreme Court might benefit by its justices limited to serving one sixteen year term.  

Beyond that, the nation might benefit by having all elected federal officials having a maximum retirement age of 75.  I would also suggest having a limited election cycle of six months in which to campaign for the House of Representatives and the Presidency.  The hoped for effect of such limitations would be to limit campaign spending and lessen voter fatigue. It would likely place more emphasis on voting in local and state elections which suffer most from voter's fatigue and it would reduce the entertainment value that current national elections and the news media rely on.

 THE BUREAUCRACY

By its very definition, a democratic republic is big government.  The constant harangue of big government being the problem is simply a partisan ploy to limit the goods and services a republic offers its citizens.  A nation "by the people and for the people." as the Declaration of Independence says can be nothing less than enormous.  This is not to say that there is no waste.  In every human endeavor there is always the potential for waste.  

The question becomes what is being considered as waste and what effect does that consideration have on the people?   Politicians are the law makers whose laws are then carried out by bureaucrats.  Often it is the bureaucrat who knows more about how the government in a particular domain works on a day to day basis better than a politician does.   A good representative, senator, or president knows who within the bureaucracy can help them do their job.  A good bureaucrat is able to ignore partisan politics, as long as partisan politics does not threaten the bureaucrat's job and livelihood.  Without a stable bureaucracy any democratic republic would be weakened immensely.  

That being said, given today's partisan divide, a rearrangement of the Constitution's furniture seems in order.  Various governmental agencies and departments are established by Congress and placed under the purview of the Presidency with congressional oversight.  Each department is headed by a secretary who is appointed by the President and each President has the ability to appoint new secretaries at will with the Senate's approval.  

Each secretary oversees a vast array of sub-departments or agencies of which career bureaucrats make up the workforce.  Being under the executive branch of government, a president can dismiss anyone under  the President can be dismissed at will.    In the early days of the Republic, there were a limited number of departments:  The Secretary of State, The Secretary of the Treasury, The Secretary of War, and the Attorney General.  Over the years the number of departments and agencies have grown exponentially, giving the Presidency a great deal of influence and power in the running of the day to day affairs of the republic.   In addition, the President, has a number of appointed personal advisors who help advise and manage the affairs of the President.  

Recently there has been a move to reduce the size of government, by eliminating some departments established by Congress.  The wisdom of this is questionable as the United States is a large democratic republic.  This questionable endeavor begs the question of whether all departments should be under the purview of the Presidency.  

Consider the Department of Justice, for instance.  It is intended to be a nonpartisan department and. until the present time it was, at least in theory.  Unless the Presidency itself is free of partisanship (see my previous posts), any department under its purview will be subjected to partisan politics or accused of being used as such.   Although practically unavoidable in a democratic republic, every attempt should be made to limit the Department of Justice from succumbing to partisan politics.  

The Justice Department and all its law enforcement agencies; such as, the FBI should fall under the Judiciary branch of government, answerable to the United States Attorney General, who would be nominated by the Court, confirmed by the Senate, and under the purview of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  The Attorney General would be the enforcement arm of the Supreme Court.  Federal Marshalls, as House Minority leader Representative Jeffries recently suggested, would fall under the purview of the Supreme Court, as well as other national law enforcement agencies.  

The Department of Justice is one example were a move to a different branch of government would be beneficial.  Another consideration is whether a President can dismiss, at will, a secretary of a department without cause.  If an appointed secretary needed approval of the Senate, should not the Senate's approval be needed to dismiss a secretary.  

In short, as the Presidency becomes increasingly more powerful, the Congress needs to step up to the plate in a non-partisan way to oversee the day to day working of the government.  Congress must review and eliminate most of  its outdated and dysfunctional parlor games and get down to business.  The Supreme Court must become reticent in taking up cases that are clearly partisan in nature.  It should allow lower appellate court decision to stand or refer such matters to its Attorney General for review before the Court would adjudicate a politically motivated case.

These suggestion are just that, suggestions.   They undoubtedly seem to be an impossibility at the current time.  I offer them here simply as food for thought, something to consider down the road of making history.

Norm

 

FIXING THE CONSTITUTION

The Constitution of the United States is the United States' most revered document.  It has held the republic together for 235 years.   Its framers hoped that what they created would lead to a"more perfect union."   They were under no illusion that what they created was in any way perfect.  Its preamble outlined what they hoped to achieve in the pursuit of a more perfect union by identifying what they saw as necessary goals to ensure an enduring republic.  

That the Constitution was ratified at all was remarkable for the times in which it was written.  It must be viewed as a rare demonstration of the commitment and trust of the wise and virtuous individuals who ratified it on behalf of the people of the United States.  This is not to say, that the U.S. Constitution is perfect.  Paradoxically, any sense of perfection it has is in the fact the framers and ratifiers recognized its inherent imperfections that all human endeavors encounter when planning for the future.

In my previous posts, I focused on what I consider may have been the framers intent when establishing the three branches of the federal government.  Their intent appears to utilize an increasingly representative form of democracy when it came to the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court.  The reason for the emphasis on representative democracy at the federal level was to avoid partisan intrigue, something both the founding fathers and framers of the Constitution saw as a threat to an enduring republic.  

Since I have addressed what I consider the weaknesses within the Constitution in my last two, posts I will focus on how they might be remedied in order to strengthen the republic with regard to the election of the President of the United States in particular. 

AN ELECTORAL COLLEGE

If one the goals of the Constitution was to protect the republic from the corrosive effects of partisan and populist intrigue by creating a representative democracy at the federal level, it would appear that the framers dropped the ball when it came to concept of electors electing the President of the United States.  Leaving the definition of the electors' role up to each state has proven to be a mistake; in that, it opened the door to what most of the framers wanted to avoid, partisan intrigue.  One can understand why the framers allowed the states to define the role of the electors as a means to encourage the states in ratifying the Constitution, however, by  not defining the role of the electors in the Constitution, the framers opened a Pandora's box of partisan intrigue and manipulation.  

The term Electoral College is a misnomer.  There is nothing collegial about the electors, as they are selected to reflect the outcome of their state's popular vote regarding a presidential election.  The electors do not gather to vet nominees or elect the President.   Current electors are not at liberty to go rogue and vote for their personal preference without risking replacement, fines, or even imprisonment.  One might describe the current concept of an "Electoral College" as a puppet college.  The way the presidential electoral system functions has perpetuated the problem of sectionalism and partisanship that has plagued the United States throughout its history.

To remedy this situation would be to establish a true Electoral College which could reduce the extreme partisan divide this nation is currently experiencing.  My take on remedying the current divide is primarily to start a conversation on what I perceive to be one fundamental flaw amongst others within the Constitution.  Doing so requires revisiting the intent of the framers.  The exact role of the electors is very vague in the Constitution.  

In my opinion, a true Electoral College requires definition in the Constitution as to its purpose and the role it plays in electing a president.  It would seem the primary purpose of an Electoral College would be to ensure that any candidate for the Presidency is demonstratively qualified to be the President.  Article II of the Constitution lists only three requirements for a person to become the President of the United State:  The President must be natural born citizen of the United States, at least 35 years old, and has been a resident living in the United States for 14 years.  

John Jay, the author of "The Federalist 64" made the following statement with regard to presidential qualifications as "those who best understand our national interests . . . who are best able to promote those interests, and whose reputation for integrity inspires and merits confidence."  Jay's comment gives an idea of what the framers were aiming for when thinking of who would best serve as President.  The question becomes who decides "who best understands our national interest... who best promotes those interests" and who has a "reputation for integrity inspires and merits confidence?"  

The framers certainly did not think the majority of the voting populace had the required understanding of our national interests to elect someone with such knowledge and integrity which one suspects is the intent behind the notion of electors.   It seems the concept of electors was intended to debate and discern who best would meet such qualifications and then elect the President on behalf of the states they represented.  Interestingly, the Constitution currently excludes representatives and senators from serving as electors, but who better would know the national interests and the concerns of the states they represent.  

* * *

Not everyone is qualified to be the President of the United Sates.  Along side the existing constitutional requirements, the Constitution could have specified that a candidate should have experience either in governance, diplomacy, or lawmaking.  At the time, the framers they might have thought of that as a "no brainer." The Constitution might have required that a candidate served as a minimal of one term as either a member of the Congress of the Confederation, served as a diplomat, or as a governor of a state.  This was all new turf for the framers.  The thought of someone who was not educated or had not in some ways contributed to the Revolution as a leader in some capacity being the President would have never occurred to them.   

Today, this nation is in a far different place than the famers could have envisioned.  Today, it is evident that a candidate for the Presidency have governing, diplomatic, or law making experience at the Federal level.  An Electoral College would benefit by having each state's senior Senator be that state's Elector with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court serving as the Dean of the Electoral College.  

The purpose of the Electoral College would be vetting all party nominated candidates for President who had won at least one state's open primary election (received the most popular votes)*.  Failure to win a state's primary election would automatically eliminate a nominee from being a candidate.  An eligible nominee's party would ensure that their nominee would submit the nominee's financial, health, tax, and voting records, diplomatic service record, and/or legislation signed into law or vetoed if a governor of a state to the College.  The College would require a current background check by the FBI of all eligible nominees.  The nominee's party platform would also be subjected to a constitutional review by the College.

The College might also interview all the nominee's to determine their understanding of the nation's needs and their personal vision for the nation if elected.  In a closed session the College would vote on each nominee's eligibility to be a certified candidate for the Presidency by securing a simple majority of the electors' votes.  Should a tie vote occur, the Dean of the College (normally a non-voting position) could cast the deciding vote.  Any nominee who passes the electoral college's review will have her or his name added to the list of eligible candidates for the Presidency to be determined by popular vote in the national election.   Should a nominee fail to pass the Electoral College's review, the nominee would be excluded from the list of eligible candidates in the national election.  The Electoral College's ruling on eligibility would be final.

The above suggestions would require significant amendment to Constitution.  As suggested earlier in this post, there are other areas of the Constitution that need adjustment after 235 years.  I will address some of these in future posts.

Norm

* The concept of an open primary allows every registered voter to vote once for whichever potential nominee a party would allow on a state's primary ballot.  The electoral college would limit its interest to those who would or gather the majority of a state's primary election.