Broken Government
“There is no week nor day nor hour when tyranny may not enter this country, if the people lose their supreme confidence in themselves. -- and lose their roughness and spirit of defiance. Tyranny may always enter -- there is no charm, no bar against it -- the only bar against it is a large resolute breed of men.”
-- Walt Whitman
In 1973, former Kennedy White House historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., published one of the most important books of the past century: “The Imperial Presidency.” It was at the time that many people believed this nation was at the beginning of a constitutional crisis, involving President Nixon, both Houses of Congress, and the US Supreme court. Schlesinger provided readers with the frequent attempts by the executive branch of the federal government to grab additional powers, with claims of “national security” during times of war.
A significant part of this book focuses on impeachment. This, of course, was Schlesinger’s advocating the impeachment of President Richard Nixon. The above Whitman quote, which Schlesinger used to close the book, is an accurate indicator of his views regarding the struggle with Nixon. When some of the Congressional Committees that studied presidential abuses of power made their reports (partially) public in the post-Nixon 1970s, thinking people were able to combine that information with Schlesinger’s book, and recognize the very real threats posed to our constitutional democracy.
In the years that followed Nixon’s resigning in utter disgrace, there have been two US Presidents who should have been impeached: Reagan, for Iran-Contra; and Bush, for the purposeful lies that resulted in the invasion of Iraq. Obviously, the impeachment of President Clinton was politically-motivated nonsense. When there is a high-profile, showcased nonsense, it suggests other things are quietly being accomplished.
For a brief but accurate description of the events that were “hidden” from public view -- or, at least what happened while the public was watching and debating President Clinton’s trial -- one should read Thomas F. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein’s, “The Broken Branch: How Congress is Failing America” (Oxford; 2006). The authors document how a group of politicians, led by Newt Gingrich, purposely “broke” the legislative branch of the federal government. It would be difficult to claim, with a straight face, that Congress has been repaired, or healed, in the time since the book was published.
The US Supreme Court, while on occasion returning surprising decisions, has proven to be a reliable advocate for corporations and for executive powers relating to “national security.” In 2001, Vincent Bugliosi published his classic, “The Betrayal of America,” which documented the US Supreme Court’s theft of the 2000 presidential election. As the author notes, their decision was not based upon the Constitution, or constitutional law. Instead, it was an authoritarian clamp-down on democracy. Their decision, Bugliosi proves beyond any doubt, was 100% rooted in four of the (in)Justices’ political and economic (re: corporate) interests.
Fast-forward to 2015. Early in the republican primary contest, it becomes evident that their party was experiencing a grass roots’ discontent with career politicians. This includes a rejection of the republican machine’s preferred candidate, Jeb Bush. But it goes much deeper than that: for a period of time, the three most popular candidate -- Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina -- are political outsiders …..at least to the extent that none of the three had ever held elected office.
Two of the three would implode, when the republican voters came to recognize them as unfit for office. Carly Fiorina was exposed as a liar, something forgivable; however, when she refused to admit that her horror story about abortion was false, her numbers did a nosedive. Carson proved to be beyond a lying creep; his delusional “religious” belief system offended even his republican audience.
The third candidate, Donald Trump, has been on a campaign of lies, insults, racism, narcissism, nativism, sexism, and hatred. Despite previous predictions from most political journalists, being exposed as an ass-clown has not damaged Trump’s campaign, in any meaningful way. Often, it’s just the opposite: the republican grass roots rewards his most vulgar behaviors.
In the past few days, while discussing Trump’s most recent proposal to refuse to allow people of the Islamic faith entry -- or re-entry -- into the United States, a growing number of people have recognized that Trump’s proposal is unconstitutional. It surely is serving to make the rest of the civilized world question what the United States has become. It definitely puts Americans abroad at higher risk, including the military. Some have pointed out that Trump may be violating the law in making such statements.
What is less apparent, in my opinion, is that regardless of the undeniable fact that Donald Trump has abandoned any respect for the Constitution, if he were to be elected President, those Constitutional restraints upon Executive power do not guarantee that his behavior would be harnessed by the House, Senate, and/or US Supreme Court. If it were as simple as a president going mad in office, those restraints might be enough to protect our society. The US survived the very real challenges that Nixon presented. But those of us old enough to remember know that it was a struggle.
The dynamics in our country have changed significantly since then. No serious person could argue that Congress or the Supreme Court are as functional today as they were when Schlesinger wrote that book. It would be realistic to think that the Constitution plays a significant, much less healthy, role in America today.
It seems safe to say that not only are the Americans who support Donald Trump the most angry, potentially violent, pro-authoritarianism of the population -- but internationally, the only people who want Trump to be elected are of the ilk of ISIS. Thus, it seems increasingly likely that individuals and groups within the pro-Trump movement will look for -- if not initiate -- the types of incidents that will increase the levels of the toxins of rage, paranoia, and violence in a way that they believe will increase Trump’s chances for victory.
This, of course, would be the environment needed for Trump -- or even a Ted Cruz -- to do further, severe damage to this country. This is not to suggest that this is definitely going to happen, or even the single most likely outcome of the 2016 presidential election. I’m not recommending that we begin a mental measuring for curtains in the FEMA camps. And I haven’t seen any black helicopters around my house ….or any drones, though I guess they aren’t highly visible.
But history teaches us that nations can be vulnerable, under certain circumstances. The Whitman quote provides a valuable insight into part of those circumstances. Indeed, it would require that Good People believe themselves to be helpless to stop the machine, and hopeless about the future. It would require another portion of the population to hold the same feelings of hopelessness, but to look to a “leader” to “save” them. And a bunch of spineless cowards, compromised by their own unethical behaviors, to over-populate the House and Senate, plus an authoritarian majority on the Supreme Court.
Look around you today …..watch the news, listen to the radio, read the internet …..and think about the current environment in America today. What do you see?
Peace,
H2O Man
= new reply since forum marked as read
It's much appreciated.
I'm probably in your age group and that's why I follow you and others who have lived through.."Trying Times" in America. My first vote, when I was able to vote, was for John Lindsey for Mayor of NYC. If I had been able by just one year I could have voted for JFK.
So glad you liked those links. Sometimes many of us post and don't think anyone reads or cares. So, it's good to know you thought those posts were interesting enough to follow through to read.
I see an America that has been courting fascism by name since the 1920's - at times, more obvious than others - due to the opportunistic introduction of supporting ideas during key events in the country's history, as well as the slow introduction of certain authoritarian principles that allowed people to adapt to, incorporate into, and shape how they see America and what America means.
It could be argued that it goes back further, just without the label, where opposition to Marxist philosophy became right-wing ideology.
Nationalism (and all that entails) was the key weapon used against Communism. Nationalism demands an adherence to authority; a duty to state that requires citizens to see themselves and their country as exceptional to all others. Better, stronger, and divinely blessed - with an obligation to be the guiding light of the world. The example by which all should follow. Because, you know, we're right!
Which meant branding dissent as un-American by whatever label was playing well at the time. (Bolshevik!, Commie! Hippie! Outside agitator! Terrorists supporter! Muslim!) - to include being called un-American and traitor.
Can be argued that it goes back to the ever present authority and its desires v. the people and their desires. The dawn of government, by whatever form it went by at the time.
Where authoritarian power needs the people to yield. More so, it needs the people to yield willingly. Otherwise, the state isn't the final authority. Appeals to authority, fear, prejudices, nationalism - even patriotism, where nationalism is all too often dressed up as simple love of country with reinforcing rituals and symbols that aren't all that harmless. All part of the arsenal of power; of authority.
Appealing to the fears of people is not quite as old as time but close. It works. Appealing to their fears is most successful when directed at an enemy. You can fear the dark but if there's nothing lurking in the shadows, it won't go far as a motivator. Place a Commie or a Muslim or an Outside Agitator in the shadows and you now have somewhere to direct all that fear, resulting in a powerful tool of manipulation.
With that tool you can win hearts and minds. You can shape a nation. You can convince a people that a living wage is un-American, that a safe work environment is a Communist plot, that dissent falls from the traitor's tongue, that equality is the bane of "Our way of Life", and that Americans cease being american when they resemble the enemy of the day. That people cease being human when the government labels them the enemy, or inferior, or less.
Trump is as American as America's history.
He's the ugly underbelly we like to pretend doesn't represent the "real" America. After all, so far, for every step we've taken toward giving in to the very worst, we've managed to push against it.
The thing is, people will comfort themselves with each pulling away from the authoritarian state without also marking the gains made by those who want a nation that bends the will of the people toward obedience and acceptance of a supreme authority.
Just going from recent time, The Bush administration, for all its talk of not being at war with Islam, still rounded up Muslim men in America. They still tortured Muslim men. They still kidnapped and detained - without charges - Muslim men. They still paid bounties for the capture of Muslim men for dubious reasons. Saying you're not at war with Islam, but still torturing Muslims, and invading a predominately Muslim country for lies is like claiming you never said Saddam was responsible for 911 but forever linking his name and the country of Iraq with 911 every time you open your mouth.
You're deliberately appealing to fear and to prejudice, trying to pretend you're saying something else, while dog whistling the entire time.
And then America treated torture as a matter of opinion. Up for debate. Many Americans told themselves we've moved on, that we ushered in a new age, that we made a change.
Well, look at the response to Trump. What's changed exactly? Many Americans would still cheer torture. Look how many are cheering the mere thought of internment camps for Muslims. Torture could easily end up being a pay-per-view televised event - and mind you, some Americans would pay to see it.
It wouldn't be free because that isn't good business. Besides, many Americans salivate at the prospect of paying for their own oppression. They've been conditioned well.
We lost on torture. Regardless of what President Obama says - we lost. The U.S. government tortured people and got away with it. That's a loss, people. What we lost isn't just an abstract concept of right and wrong. That loss opened the door - and not just by a crack either. Our government openly and boastfully tortured people - then got away with it. What else might government do now?
This wasn't an aberration or some sort of crazy time in America. In case you haven't noticed, that particular crazy hasn't gone away.
It has become more acceptable. Because, you know - it's just all a matter of opinion and open for debate! And aren't we a wonderful and great country that people can disagree about torture and still sit together to break bread!
Yay, us!
But then there's Trump. Saying nothing more than what a lot of Americans have been saying for 14 years. Yes, his forum is bigger. His audience larger. Still, Trump is saying out loud what torture said with each pounding of the fists, with each bang of the head against a wall, with each bite of an attack dog - with each drop of water.
If you ever find yourself thinking Bush and Cheney were at least reasonable in some way (compared to Trump) - think again. Try to remember. Sometimes, the goal is to get people to think that the Bushes and Cheneys of the world are more reasonable.
Bush and Cheney were just the more acceptable face of Trump - and not because they aren't the same either. Because they are all three exactly the same. They just have different presentations...it's all in the framing. Some rage monsters are easier to swallow because they hide behind ambiguity and deniability. Some rage monsters lay it all out there.
Bush/Cheney torture was just Trump's hate-filled rants put into action. How could Trump not feel safe in his vitriol? America has a long history of demonizing those considered "others", and this particular other (Muslims) has been "legally" tortured by the U.S. government.
So, yeah, Waterman - America is ripe for Trump (or Cruz or some other rage monster)... and has been for years.
Doesn't matter if Trump loses - and don't gloat when he does (and I think he will) because even if he does lose the nomination and/or election - America still loses because hate, ignorance and fear were advanced.
That he was even allowed on the stage tells us just how much we've lost and how much those who favor an authoritarian state have gained.
Sure. His loss would mean we dodged a bullet - but this is America. We've got lots of bullets.
Or not. 
