Republicans Discover a Right to Privacy

Many Republicans have attacked the idea that the Constitution provides a right to privacy because the principle was used in the landmark case of Roe vs Wade (guaranteeing a woman's right to obtain an abortion before viability). Folks who adopt this position are quick to point out that the right is not explicitly spelled out in the text of the U.S. Constitution.

Nevertheless, in an article for Live Science, Tim Sharp pointed out that "The right to privacy often means the right to personal autonomy, or the right to choose whether or not to engage in certain acts or have certain experiences." In this connection, he went on to point out that "Several amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been used in varying degrees of success in determining a right to personal autonomy:

The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs

The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers

The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches

The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information

The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment"

Sharp also pointed out in his article that a right to privacy has been explicitly protected by various statutory laws (like the Privacy Act of 1974, the Financial Monetization Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, HIPAA). Moreover, in addition to Roe, Sharp mentioned a number of other decisions by the Supreme Court which have established this right (like Griswold vs Connecticut, Stanley vs Georgia, and Lawrence vs Texas).

Now the principal argument that Republicans have employed against almost all of the Supreme Court's decisions in terms of a right to privacy has been their tendency to "undermine traditional values." In other words, they don't like any decisions which would undermine the morality which they would like to impose on society. Never mind that imposing one group's moral values on the whole of society could be said to establish a state religion (which is clearly unconstitutional). For many of these folks, the state has a compelling interest in the perpetuation of these values (the standard which the courts have used to limit the right to privacy).

Along comes Covid-19, however, and all of that stuff is thrown out of the window! Years and years of arguing against what Justice Louis Brandeis characterized as "the right to be left alone" has suddenly become sacrosanct to Republicans. It is amazing just how many of these folks have developed an attachment to this concept almost overnight! When it comes to public health requirements relative to Covid-19 (like wearing masks, social distancing and vaccination mandates), Republicans have finally embraced the fact that they have a right to be left alone - to make their own decisions. And, they've also suddenly decided that other folks' right to life should NOT stand in the way of their right to be left alone and make their own decisions. As usual, however, most of these folks see absolutely no contradiction in their new position.

Here We Go Again!

With or without Trump, Republicans seem determined to destroy American democracy. The GOP's House Leader Kevin McCarthy is currently following the example of the Great Orange One in his attempt to openly obstruct justice. On his official Twitter account, McCarthy made the following statement about the  decision of the House committee investigating the January 6th insurrection at the Capitol building to review the communications of Republicans connected to those events: "Adam Schiff, Bennie Thompson, and Nancy Pelosi's attempts to strong-arm private companies to turn over individuals' private data would put every American with a phone or computer in the crosshairs of a surveillance state run by Democrat politicians. If these companies comply with the Democrat order to turn over private information, they are in violation of federal law and subject to losing their ability to operate in the United States. If companies still choose to violate federal law, a Republican majority will not forget and will stand with Americans to hold them fully accountable under the law."

In other words, just as Trump told his associates not to cooperate with investigators and openly threatened those who did, Kevin McCarthy has decided that his own personal interests and those of his party are clearly superior to those of protecting the rule of law or American democracy. Of course, these blatant attempts to undermine justice are always cloaked in the language of protecting everyone's rights. To be clear, it isn't just inappropriate to interfere in a lawfully constituted investigation, it's ILLEGAL. It isn't just inappropriate for someone to suppress evidence or try to influence others to do so, it's ILLEGAL. Is McCarthy ever likely to face any repercussions for these crimes? No, because like Trump before him, he has committed them in broad daylight and has wrapped himself in the blanket of protecting political discourse.

Add to all of this, the purposeful obstruction of the current president's agenda by Republicans both in and out of government, their open interference in foreign policy decisions which are normally the prerogative of the current occupant of the Oval Office, and their continued support for Trump's false narrative about the 2020 election, and it is clear that Republicans have given up on the notion of democracy. After all, in a representative democracy, the folks whom the citizens have chosen to represent them are the ones who are supposed to set priorities and policies. Yes, the opposition is expected to continue to try to influence and shape those policies, but they are not expected to usurp those powers. In a democracy, the people decide who takes the helm at any given time, and the only legitimate way to change or modify that is by another election. In other words, Republicans have given up on waiting their turn - acceding to the will of the people. In their view, the end clearly justifies any means (including undermining or overturning long established laws, traditions and norms). And, for the record, these trends do not bode well for the survival of this republic!  

One of the WORST Foreign Policy Decisions in History?

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky recently characterized President Biden's decisions relative to the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan as among the worst in our history (see Biden’s Afghanistan decisions among worst in history). Really? Is it possible that the senator is engaging in just a little bit of hyperbole in these remarks?

To be sure, the deaths of thirteen service members and the injury of numerous others in the suicide bombing attack near the airport in Kabul was tragic; but how does that compare to the thousands of American and Afghan lives lost in Afghanistan over the last twenty years of war? How does that compare to George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq over non-existent weapons of mass destruction? How many U.S. personnel lost their lives in that conflict? McConnell said that Biden's Afghanistan withdrawal was even worse than our exit from Saigon after the victory of the North Vietnamese. How many U.S. service members did we lose in that war? The worst foreign policy blunder in American History? What about the Bay of Pigs? What about Iran-Contra? What about Obama's red line in Syria? What about Trump's trade war with China or his decision to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens?

Of course, since we are still in the midst of watching the implementation of Biden's policies in Afghanistan, it is probably a little too soon to be trying to engage in any serious or meaningful evaluation of the consequences of those policies! I've said it before - the withdrawal of our personnel and friends from Afghanistan could almost certainly have been handled with greater finesse and grace. Even so, we are still a very long way away from designating that effort as a failure - only time will fully tell that story. McConnell and his allies should be rooting for Biden's policies there (and around the world) to succeed. After all, the successes and failures of any occupant of the Oval Office are the successes and failures of our entire nation (the president is supposed to represent and defend our interests before the rest of the world). In other words, maybe it would be prudent to dial back the rhetoric a little? What do you think Mitch? A little over the top?

Biden's failed policy in Afghanistan?

Tucker Carlson NEVER disappoints my expectations of him. He is ALWAYS reliably partisan and can be counted on to utter some of the most outrageous claims with a straight face! In an opinion piece posted on the Fox News website, Carlson argues that We must hold someone accountable for what is happening in Afghanistan. Any guesses as to who that someone might be? The intrepid reporter wrote: "So rather than just complain about it, let's hold somebody accountable for it for once. Half the Biden State Department had a hand in our failed Afghanistan policy, yet they're still employed there." To be fair, he does mention Pentagon leadership (General Mark Milley in particular) as sharing in culpability for the disaster, but he trains most of his criticism on President Biden for promising that we wouldn't see another fall of Saigon debacle from the American embassy in Kabul.

To be clear, in the 2020 presidential campaign, both Trump and Biden advocated for ending America's longest war in Afghanistan. The rationale went something like this: Our original mission (dislodging Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda from the country) had been accomplished, and nation-building was NOT a realistic or legitimate exercise for U.S. armed forces. In other words, Afghans should be responsible for what happens in their own country.

Fast forward to August 2021, and we are witnessing the rapid collapse of the corrupt regime formerly propped up by the United States, and the re-establishment of the Taliban. For me, this is proof positive that Biden made the right decision to end our long involvement there. After the expenditure of billions of dollars and many lives lost, the country seems to be no better off or more prepared or disposed to prevent the return of the Taliban than it was twenty years ago. Hence, I think that it is a legitimate question to ask: How many more billions of American dollars and lives lost would it take to secure Afghanistan's future? Would a longer U.S. military presence in that country serve to secure it from the reactionary forces which seek to dominate it? If so, how long?

No, I'm sorry - it is clear that America can't fix Afghanistan, and that we have no business trying to. Our interests are clearly tied to making sure that Afghanistan never again becomes a sanctuary for exporting terrorism to the rest of the world. I wish that Afghans would treat their women and religious minorities better. I wish that Afghanistan was a democratic republic that ensured the rights and freedoms of all its citizens. That, however, is the responsibility of the Afghan people. We have a very large beam in our own eye right now. In other words, the United States has quite enough on its own plate to deal with at present. It is disheartening to see the Taliban sweep over the country so easily, but I'm not willing to lift a finger to stop it (and I think that I'm probably not alone in this feeling).

Law and Order?

As I watch the testimony this morning of four of the police officers who defended the capitol building, the emotions of what happened on January 6 of this year came flooding back. The physical and emotional abuse which those men endured that day at the hands of Trump's supporters was recounted in vivid and graphic detail. Those men are national heroes! That a police officer and a former veteran would be subjected to beatings and the epithet of "traitor" or "nigger" is an outrage. That ANYONE would attempt to minimize what happened that day is a disgrace!

I support the work of the House Committee to investigate what happened that day, and I am particularly proud of the two members of my former party (Cheney and Kinzinger) who have agreed to participate in that work. Even so, we ALL know what happened that day. It is clear that Donald John Trump (the so-called "law and order" president) instigated a violent insurrection against the seat of government of these United States of America and attempted to prevent the certification of a lawfully and democratically conducted election and subvert our form of government. May he and his supporters be forever tainted/tarnished by the events of that infamous and horrendous day! 

Infrastructure 2021

In reacting to a rash of recent ransomware attacks across the United States, Reuters reported today: "The U.S. Department of Justice is elevating investigations of ransomware attacks to a similar priority as terrorism in the wake of the Colonial Pipeline hack and mounting damage caused by cyber criminals, a senior department official told Reuters."

Talk about critical infrastructure! Isn't this proof that any legislation dealing with the nation's infrastructure should include a significant boost in funding for cyber security? Sure, the President can address the issue when he talks to Putin, but I'm thinking a more aggressive approach to securing our cyber networks might yield better results. Shouldn't that be the kind of infrastructure spending that EVERY American supports? What do you think?

The Triumph of Ignorance

As I look back over the course of my life, I am struck by the deterioration of the political and religious discourse within America and around the world. I think about the milestones that my lifetime on this planet has witnessed (e.g. putting men on the moon, the construction of the interstate highway system, the development of the internet, etc.), and I am struck by the palpable decline in respect for science and learning which has occurred throughout that same period. I find myself bewildered by the rise of religious and political extremism, and the headlong plunge to embrace conspiracy theories and obvious falsehoods.

Moreover, what was not always apparent to me while I was living that life is brought into sharp focus as I contemplate the course of events of the last sixty-plus years. Sure, I was vaguely aware of the fact that respect for learning and science was not what it had once been, but the damage that this lack of respect was wreaking on our society was obscured by all of those advancements I've already noted. Slowly, an awareness of an approaching darkness dawned on my consciousness, and I could clearly discern the outlines of the damage which our widespread ignorance of history and science has inflicted upon our conversations about religion and politics. Even so, like the frog who starts out in a pot of room temperature water that is slowly brought to a boil, I have wondered if the realization came too late - Is a new Dark Age inevitable?

That our current situation has been long in the making is brought into sharp focus by an article that appeared in Newsweek magazine in January of 1980 entitled "A Cult of Ignorance." The piece was penned by Isaac Asimov, and it makes plain that he discerned the importance of this trend long before I did. He wrote: "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"

Asimov went on to note that during the 1960s America went through a period where the slogan was "Don't trust anyone over thirty!" According to him, the new slogan for the America of the 1980s became "Don't trust the experts!" He continued: "We have a new buzzword, too, for anyone who admires competence, knowledge, learning and skill, and who wishes to spread it around. People like that are called 'elitists.'" see A Cult of Ignorance - Newsweek

In a piece posted two years ago by Brian Ferguson of the Mormon Church entitled "The Rise of Ignorance," we read: "The problem is that our modern tools of communication allow the voices of the ignorant and the biased to be just as loud as the voices of the informed and the impartial. Sadly, a strong case could be made that ignorant voices are now louder than informed voices. One result of this is that the ignorant, the bigoted, and the dangerous can now easily find each other and band together — often reinforcing each other’s worst instincts." see The Rise of Ignorance - Insight: Seeing through the Dark Glass

And that brings us to the month of May in 2021, and the bewildering world that I can see from The Teacher's Roost At White Cedars. A world where masks and vaccines are shunned and ridiculed in the face of a pandemic which has already claimed over three million lives. A world where climate change is denied and ridiculed in the face of mounting natural weather related catastrophes. A world where people insist that evolution is a disproven theory, that the world is just over six thousand years old, and that an ancient book written by humans about God is inerrant and more reliable than archaeology, paleontology, biology, physics, geology or history in explaining earth's past. A world where intolerance, prejudice and bigotry are exalted; and love, compassion and compromise are seen as the hallmarks of weakness and depravity. For the sake of my children and grandchildren, I hope I'm wrong; but I can't help but wonder when I see what's going on around me: Has ignorance triumphed?

A response to Earl's commentary on my remarks about Trump

On Banned by HWA, Earl commented about some remarks which I had made about Trump:

"Quick thing Miller, how in the world can someone such as yourself not distinguish between bombast and actions, and sadly, the deception of Biden in hiding his real views (or having them determined by others) and in such immorality as the Ukraine/China Hunter Biden self enrichment schemes?

In what world does one identified person, one identified vote not equate to voting rights? You know what doesn't support voting rights? Not taking a reasonable effort such as picture ID to verify a legit voter. And no, I don't think it matters whether the election results would have been different for it to be wise to require voter ID.

The Dems want to court pack-- you must see the cut-throat political and immoral nature of this. Biden lied about his stance up until the election.

Are you kidding me...who has gone after whom they dislike? The Dems prosecuted and prosecuted and indicted and indicted throughout Trump's tenure, person after person associated with Trump. They continue to. Show me the line of people Trump did this to.

Free Press? When did Trump prevent the media??? Are you kidding me? The Media is left wing; this has been shown repeatedly-- look it up if you are brazen enough to doubt this. Yet, that is not enough as they continue deplatforming opinions they don't like. And, the government has done nothing against this monopoly (which I am fine with if evenhanded), but if Foxnews said they would not carry any stories about BLM (which I would disagree with) I guarantee Biden would be on them in no time flat.

There is no question which party supports government's heavy hand. I suppose you would throw out law and order, but that is one of 5 specific functions as found in the Constitution and listed in the Preamble."

Earl,

In politics, perception is often more important than reality. For better or worse, a president's words matter. And, sometimes, it is more prudent for a president to not say anything or keep his hand close to his vest. In short, it is NOT a virtue for presidents to say whatever pops into their mind or share everything that they are thinking with the public or other politicians.

As for voting rights, anything that makes the exercise of one's franchise more difficult is by its very nature anti-democratic. To pretend that people of color (because of their educational, economic and geographical circumstances) don't have a harder time acquiring official picture identification or other appropriate documentation is insensitive, disingenuous or both.

I am not a fan of court-packing schemes (and a number of Democrats share my view). Why are some Democrats advocating such a scheme? Have you forgotten the hypocrisy displayed by Republicans in the matter of Merrick Garland and Amy Coney Barrett? And, yes, I know that it all goes back to the Democrats treatment of Robert Bork back in the Reagan years, but (as the old saying goes) two wrongs don't make a right!

As for the rule of law, Trump's disdain for the independence of the Judiciary and Department of Justice is legendary. Over and over again, he sought to squelch and/or interfere with investigations of him and his administration. Over and over again, Trump attempted to have the folks whom he regarded as his minions to investigate and/or prosecute his enemies. And, as his final act as president, he attempted to overturn the results of a lawful election and have his vice president subvert the procedure for certifying those results. He openly encouraged a mob to storm the capital - a move which resulted in the death of some of his supporters and a capitol police officer.

The fact that the news media has a liberal bias is certainly NOT a new development - it's been that way for years. Even so, this does NOT justify attacks on the press or efforts to curtail their access to information or the seats of power. Moreover, for the last 25 years, conservatives have had Fox News and talk radio to give voice to their views and advocate on behalf of their policies and candidates (so it's hard to argue that conservative views have less representation today than they did 40 or 50 years ago).

As for the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, there are six broad areas listed (1. to form a more perfect union, 2. to establish justice, 3. to insure domestic tranquility, 4. to provide for the common defense, 5. to promote the general welfare, and 6. to secure the blessings of liberty) as the reasons for promulgating the document. Each one of them covers a whole lot of territory. The promotion of the general welfare alone justifies a great deal of activity on the part of the government. We have argued over the scope and reach of the federal government since the foundation of the republic, and I don't see that argument going away anytime soon. Moreover, if there was a clear answer, the question would have been resolved/settled long ago.

Finally, as a former Republican and someone who still holds many traditionally conservative positions on a number of issues, I respect your right to promote the priorities, policies and candidates which seem to you to be the most efficacious for this republic which we both obviously love (I served honorably in the United States Army - Infantry). Neither my disdain for Trump or your support for him are grounds for either one of us to question the other's intelligence or patriotism. We are the republic, and the occupant of the Oval Office (Democrat or Republican) is a temporary occupant who works for us. 

Logic, Capitalism, Family Values and A Strong Military?

The modern "conservative" movement in the United States trumpets its logic and support for capitalism, "family values" and a strong military. Unfortunately, their leading figures do not reflect these principles in their backgrounds or personal lives!

What do Donald Trump, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, Jeanine Pirro, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and Mitch McConnell all have in common? They've all been divorced at least once (some of them more than once) and NONE of them have served in the military. Tucker Carlson has the distinction of being the husband of one wife, but (like the others) never served in the military. Of this august club, only Pirro, Levin and McConnell can boast advanced degrees (all in law) and Hannity, Beck and Limbaugh were all college dropouts. Moreover, with the notable exception of Senator McConnell, every one of them has exhibited a penchant for conspiracy theories.

And, although they are all strong advocates of capitalism, every one of them has either inherited their wealth or made their fortunes in the media (or government service in the case of McConnell). In other words, NONE of them can legitimately lay claim to being a self-made businessman (including Trump, who inherited his wealth and real estate business from his father).

Hence, when one looks at the backgrounds and personal life stories of these prominent "conservatives," we are forced to conclude that their reputation for supporting logic, capitalism, family values and a strong military is undeserved. In fact, their own life stories make a mockery of their public reputations, and the moniker of "conservative" is shown to be an illusion. 

Cancel Culture - Everybody's Doing It!

Let's talk about what's trending - At the moment, it's CANCEL CULTURE! Unless you've been living under a rock for the last five years, I'm sure you've heard the term used when anyone discusses our "culture war(s)" or the polarization of our society in more general terms. What is Cancel Culture? According to Dictionary.com, "Cancel culture refers to the popular practice of withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. Cancel culture is generally discussed as being performed on social media in the form of group shaming."

At first, this seemed to be associated with the #MeToo movement and was usually linked to folks on the left of the political spectrum. More recently, however, it seems that both sides (left and right) are engaging in the practice. Whether we're talking about removing Confederate statues and flags or censuring Republican congressmen and senators who voted to impeach and convict Trump, it seems that both sides want to get in on the action. It seems that folks are no longer merely interested in defeating their opponents or punishing wrongdoing - these days they want to permanently exclude or excommunicate each other from polite society.

And, perhaps most importantly of all, cancel culture doesn't solve anything. In fact, it's more like pouring gasoline onto an open flame! When some folks hear that six of Dr. Seuss' books have been discontinued, it drives them crazy! Moreover, instead of accomplishing the diminishment of racism, it only exacerbates it. In removing the books of an author whom they regard as a positive influence on children (someone whom they associate with reading bedtime stories to their own children), you've alienated them from ever entertaining your arguments about the racism expressed in those works. We need more engagement and discussion, NOT LESS! 

I'm thinking that some of these folks need to read Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, see Arthur Miller's The Crucible, or familiarize themselves with the history of Hollywood blacklisting and McCarthyism. It's too bad that the folks who engage in this behavior seem oblivious to the practice's impact on the exercise of our First Amendment rights under the Constitution (freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly) - not to mention what it does to someone's right to the pursuit of happiness! When we seek to make someone a pariah just because we disagree with them, we are actively engaged in the business of suppressing rights and character assassination.

I don't have any problem calling out behavior which I find objectionable, but I do get very uncomfortable when someone tells me that a person is unworthy of acceptance, love, kindness or common courtesy. We don't have to agree with each other, but we damn sure have to live on this planet together - whether we like it or not! 

Trump is finished!

The House impeachment managers presented overwhelming evidence that Donald John Trump incited an insurrection against this republic. Unfortunately, most legislative Republicans were afraid of their constituents (who still support the Great Orange One) and did not support convicting him. I want to say that I applaud the seven Republican senators who had the courage to join all of the Democratic and Independent senators in voting GUILTY. Unfortunately, however, the United States Constitution requires a two-thirds majority for conviction.

Nevertheless, when the vote was finished, the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made plain that Trump was responsible for what happened on January 6. Moreover, history will record that the 45th President of the United States was impeached twice by the U.S. House of Representatives. That stain can never be removed and is unlikely to ever be equaled. And, although Trump's supporters have proven to be loyal and unyielding, it is now very clear that a solid majority of Americans regard him as unfit for the office he held for four years. In other words, it is a fairly safe bet that Trump's political career is finished - that another run for the White House would not be successful. 

Something I never thought would happen

Although I have always supported Civil Rights and have taken pro-environment stances on issues, my political beginnings were in the Republican Party. Why? Because I also believed that capitalism represented the best of the systems which humankind had devised to deal with the distribution of wealth. I also strongly believed in living within one's means. I was against deficit spending. I believed in lower taxes - in people being able to keep more of their money and to spend it as they saw fit. I believed in limited government. I believed in the principle of free trade, and a strong military in dealing with our friends and foes around the world. I believed strongly in the First and Second Amendments to the United States Constitution, and I was strongly pro-life (anti-abortion). Finally, above all, I was very patriotic (even serving as a soldier in the United States Army).

My political heroes were Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower. I supported Ronald Reagan and both Bushes for president. Moreover, I was strongly against Bill Clinton and firmly believed that he had disgraced the office he held. In short, I was a registered Republican with a solid record of support for my party, and there was never any thought that I would ever be anything other than a loyal supporter of the GOP.

Over time, however, my party began to evolve into something which I no longer recognized. I remembered that Ronald Reagan, who had been a Democrat at one time, explained his switch to the Republican Party by claiming that it wasn't so much that he had left his old party - that it was more accurate to say that they'd left him. Republicans became more and more overtly anti-environment, anti-immigrant and less committed to the economic notions which had defined them for half a century. Over time, Republican policies had led to the concentration of wealth in the hands of an elite slice of the American population. I also noticed that Republican support for working with our friends and allies within the frameworks of the United Nations and NATO had deteriorated over time. And, by the time that Ronald Reagan had left office, Republicans had welcomed with open arms the old white Southern racist Democrats into their ranks.

Hence, although I had always admired John McCain as a true patriot and independent thinker, by the time that Barack Obama came along, I found that I was willing to entertain the possibility that I would vote for a Democrat for president. At first, I wasn't willing to abandon the label of Republican. I told myself that the Republican Party would eventually return to its roots and the core principles which had motivated its policies for so many years. Unfortunately, that never happened.

Instead, Republicans became less tolerant of their opponents on the other side of the aisle. Democrats weren't just advocating bad policies - they were baby killing demons. Democrats were unpatriotic. They were the enemy! It was no longer a matter of an honest difference of opinion about when life began and the moral implications of the decision to terminate a pregnancy - anyone who supported abortion rights was a minion of Satan! I also noticed that Republicans only opposed government spending when it was for things they didn't like - they liked to spend money just as much as Democrats did! The only difference was that Republicans had different priorities for their spending.

Finally, after the partisanship and obstructionism on full display during the first four years of the Obama Administration, I decided that I could no longer in good conscience remain a member of the Republican Party. I made the decision to become an independent voter. Even so, the thought of becoming a Democrat never crossed my mind.

And then Donald Trump threw his hat into the ring on the Republican side. I instantly knew that this man's character, temperament and experiences made him ill-suited to be the standard bearer of the Republican Party - let alone President of the United States. He was not a conservative in the traditional sense, and he was clearly not anchored to any strong moral or democratic principles which I could discern. As the CEO of a large business, he was used to getting his own way and crushing anyone who got in his way. In other words, he was NOT good leadership material for a democratic republic which demanded compromise and conciliation.

For four years, I was appalled by the support of other Republicans for Trump's policies and outrageous behavior. How could these folks support his trade policies? How could these folks support his deficit spending? How could these folks support or deliberately overlook his outrageous and unpresidential behavior? It became clearer and clearer to me that my old party had devolved into a cult of personality surrounding this dangerous man - that my old party was firmly in the grips of Donald Trump. In fact, they didn't even bother to adopt a platform in 2020! If all of that wasn't enough, most Republicans embraced Trump's lies about winning the 2020 election, and many of them supported his efforts to overturn the results!

The final straw for me was what happened on January 6. The Trump mob's attack on the Capitol Building in Washington D.C. was outrageous and clarifying. Trump had clearly incited the mob, and the vast majority of Republicans appeared to be OK with what had happened. It was now apparent to me that there was much more at stake here than mere policy differences. There was now only one party that stood for small "d" democracy, and that was the Democratic Party. For me, there was only one possible course to pursue - In January of 2021, I became a Democrat!

Trump's Legacy

Even if one is irreconcilably opposed to Biden's agenda, one has to admire the flurry of activity surrounding his first week in office. There is no disputing the fact that the new president "hit the ground running." Another feature of the new administration that hasn't received as much attention from the news media, but is arguably even more important than Biden's actions, is the relative peace and quiet that has emanated from the White House. There haven't been any divisive tweets, statements or incitements to riot.

Nevertheless, over this new beginning, it seems as though a dark cloud has been hanging over the entire nation in the form of one question: How are we to deal with the man who just vacated the Oval Office? The Congress of the United States has been grappling with the question of whether or not to hold Donald Trump accountable for what happened on January 6th, and the great lie which inspired it all - that he was the real winner of the 2020 election. For now, the answer to that question (How are we to deal with him?) seems to be different depending on the party affiliation of the person whom we are asking. Democrats generally demand accountability, and Republicans generally offer excuses and justifications.

Historians, however, have a tendency to examine the evidence and arrive at something approaching a coherent evaluation of a president's tenure in office. The distance of years and the cooling of the passions of the moment tend to produce a more objective assessment of the subject, and they also tend to result in something approaching a consensus opinion about the legacy of the person (or the consequences of his/her actions/policies). And, while I wouldn't count on Democrats and Republicans reaching anything approaching a consensus about what should happen to Donald John Trump, as a historian, I think Trump's chances for receiving high marks in that inevitable future assessment aren't very good.

As a matter of fact, I find myself in almost complete agreement with Mark Updegrove's verdict in the article, Donald Trump and the verdict of history: Analysis. In the article, Updegrove cites Claire Booth Luce's thesis that historians tend to summarize - and that their conclusions are very often distilled into a single sentence. What would that sentence be for Trump?

Updegrove cites the two great crises of Trump's presidency as the most likely sources for that answer. He wrote: "Given the patterns of history, it is likely that Trump will be remembered primarily for the central crises of his administration. The first is the COVID-19 pandemic, the worst health calamity to befall the nation in over a century. While Trump can't be blamed for creating the pandemic, he will be held to account for allowing it to spread unchecked with no coherent plan in place as he played it down for fear of it putting a damper on a roaring economy, ignoring science and insisting that the virus would magically go away."

The second crisis was the final act of his presidency. Updegrove wrote: "But even more so, Trump will be remembered for the other crisis of his administration, one very much of his own doing: baselessly challenging the integrity of a presidential election that led to the seditious siege on the Capitol on Jan. 6. The commander-in-chief stirred up a mob to take down the federal government as lawmakers convened to certify the election in an attempt to overturn the will of the people and, antithetically, "take back our country," resulting in the deaths of five people including a police officer who was bludgeoned to death with a fire extinguisher. The attempted coup is a black mark that even the Teflon Trump can't dodge."

Like Updegrove, I'm confident that Trump and his supporters would like for him to be remembered for the nation's economic performance prior to the pandemic, his judicial appointments, tax cuts and deregulation. Nevertheless, I'm afraid that his abject failure in handling the two most important crises of his reign will blot out any memory of those things. Indeed, I find myself in complete agreement with Mr. Updegrove's speculation about the future historian's one sentence about Trump: "he divided the nation and fought democracy -- and democracy won."

Democracy has survived!

This morning, Donald Trump shamefully slipped away before his successor could be sworn into office. After a shameless attempt to overturn the results of a democratic election, he simply could not bring himself to face the man who had defeated him and symbolically transfer the reins of government into his hands. Even so, without his assent or participation, democracy triumphed. The peaceful transfer of power to Joseph R. Biden happened anyway. There is something very reassuring about that. Our republic endures, and we are reminded of Benjamin Franklin's statement so long ago: Will we be able to keep it?

Just forget what we said

It's amazing how quickly things change when legal action for false and defamatory statements is threatened! One of the chief conspiracy theories related to the 2020 General Election being fraudulent was the charge that Dominion Voting Systems had manipulated vote counting in favor of Joe Biden. Notice this retraction from American Thinker:

"We received a lengthy letter from Dominion's defamation lawyers explaining why they believe that their client has been the victim of defamatory statements.  Having considered the full import of the letter, we have agreed to their request that we publish the following statement:

American Thinker and contributors Andrea Widburg, R.D. Wedge, Brian Tomlinson, and Peggy Ryan have published pieces on www.AmericanThinker.com that falsely accuse US Dominion Inc., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and Dominion Voting Systems Corporation (collectively “Dominion”) of conspiring to steal the November 2020 election from Donald Trump. These pieces rely on discredited sources who have peddled debunked theories about Dominion’s supposed ties to Venezuela, fraud on Dominion’s machines that resulted in massive vote switching or weighted votes, and other claims falsely stating that there is credible evidence that Dominion acted fraudulently.

These statements are completely false and have no basis in fact. Industry experts and public officials alike have confirmed that Dominion conducted itself appropriately and that there is simply no evidence to support these claims.

It was wrong for us to publish these false statements. We apologize to Dominion for all of the harm this caused them and their employees. We also apologize to our readers for abandoning 9 journalistic principles and misrepresenting Dominion’s track record and its limited role in tabulating votes for the November 2020 election. We regret this grave error." 

TRUE Christians Stand Against Insurrection!

Conservative Christian commentator David French recently posted an article entitled "Only the Church Can Truly Defeat a Christian Insurrection." In the piece, he points out that Christian involvement in (and support for) the recent insurrection against the government of the United States of America is not consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ. That's fairly straightforward - should be self-evident - right? Sure, Christian's have resisted and opposed government throughout the history of this republic when they have felt a moral principle was at stake. We call it protesting and civil disobedience, but most Christians have always shunned engaging in sedition or participating in violence.

However, when Trump's supporters recently stormed the United States Capitol building and many folks were injured (and five lost their lives), we had the unfortunate spectacle of a not insignificant number of Christians participating in the melee or supporting it from afar. I've heard "Christian" pastors justify this action by pointing out that Christian pastors led their congregation's participation in the Revolutionary War and the Underground Railroad and Civil War.

In answering such an attempt at justifying this behavior, we should point out that the American Revolution began as an act of civil disobedience which the British government decided to suppress by employing their armed forces against the native civilian population, and that the Underground Railroad was firmly within the tradition of civil disobedience (and the South initiated armed hostilities against the Union). In other words, in none of these instances did Christians initiate violence or attempt to overthrow or overturn anything by violent means - and any attempt to use those instances as a justification for this current insurrection is inconsistent with what actually happened in the past.

So, what has actually motivated Christian participation in this sedition and insurrection? David French succinctly answers that question in the piece referenced at the beginning of this post. According to French, "The problem is that all too many Christians are in the grips of two sets of lies. We’ll call them the enabling lies and the activating lies. And unless you deal with the enabling lies, the activating lies will constantly pollute the body politic and continue to spawn violent unrest."

French then goes on to explain exactly what he's talking about and give concrete examples of how these lies apply to the current crisis. He wrote: "What’s the difference between the two kinds of lies? The enabling lie is the lie that makes you fertile ground for the activating lie that actually motivates a person to charge a thin blue line at the Capitol or take a rifle to a pizza parlor. Here’s an enabling lie: America will end if Trump loses. That was the essence of the Flight 93 essay in 2016. That was the core of Eric Metaxas’s argument in our debates this spring and fall. Here’s another enabling lie: The fate of the church is at stake if Joe Biden wins. And here’s yet another: The left hates you (this sentence sometimes concludes with the phrase “and wants you dead.”)"

As French points out, it is the belief/acceptance of these lies that motivates and allows Christians to forget the clear teachings of Jesus Christ about loving one's neighbor and turning the other cheek and embrace violence. French wrote: "when the stakes are deemed to be that high, the moral limitations on your response start to fall away. After all, when people believe our national destiny hangs in the balance, they often respond accordingly. Or, as I said in a December 4 newsletter warning about potential violence, “if you argue that the very existence of the country is at stake, don’t be surprised if people start to act as if the very existence of the country is at stake.”"

Unfortunately, French is absolutely correct in his assessment of this phenomenon within the Christian community. Too many Christians have gotten swept up into believing the partisan political propaganda of Trump and his supporters and have forgotten the very fundamental principles which are supposed to be motivating their thoughts and actions: love, peace, patience, kindness, humility and meekness. They have forgotten Christ's and Paul's admonitions to submit oneself to the governing authorities and to live peaceably with all men (even ones whom you believe to be evil, or who are actively persecuting you and your faith).

This is not complicated. Christians should not be supporting or participating in insurrection. Even if you believe the lie that the election was stolen from Trump - Even if you believe that all Democrats are evil pedophiles - As a Christian, YOU ARE NOT JUSTIFIED/AUTHORIZED TO ENGAGE IN VIOLENCE - period!

Hold on Liberals!

In the aftermath of the horrendous events at the Capitol, I have been discouraged by some of the commentary on the left. While I understand the impulse to criticize those who are currently abandoning Trump as being too late and opportunistic, I believe it is unwise to berate these folks. Are we trying to discourage folks from abandoning their loyalty to Trump? Do we want to permanently alienate these folks from the body politic? Will our desire for vengeance only widen the dangerous rifts which we have decried as poisonous to the body politic? Shouldn't we be welcoming folks back into reality and sanity - even at this late date? Isn't it wise to provide folks with an off ramp when they are racing toward going over the cliff? Are we trying to restore faith in our institutions or permanently exclude folks who disagree with us? Do we desire the restoration of the ability of folks on the right and left to have civil conversations and reach reasonable compromise solutions to our problems? OR Are we trying to create yet another group of folks who are permanently aggrieved? Yes, let's condemn and isolate the folks who continue to support Trump's wickedness, but we should welcome everyone who is willing to abandon him! 

Senator Romney Speaks the Truth!

Senator Mitt Romney of Utah issued this assessment of what happened yesterday:

"What happened at the U.S. Capitol today was an insurrection, incited by the President of the United States. Those who choose to continue to support his dangerous gambit by objecting to the results of a legitimate, democratic election will forever be seen as being complicit in an unprecedented attack against our democracy. The best way we can show respect for the voters who are upset is by telling them the truth. That is the burden, and the duty, of leadership."

see Senator Mitt Romney Twitter Thread

He's absolutely right. Donald Trump is unfit for the office he holds, and ANYONE who continues to support him after what happened yesterday is complicit in what he's done! Nevertheless, as I have elucidated in numerous posts here over the course of his presidency, there was already abundant evidence extant of Trump's unfitness.

The thing which has sustained support for Donald Trump throughout his presidency is the personal ego of each and every one of his supporters - To face and accept the evidence of Trump's glaring flaws is to acknowledge the failure of one's own judgement in supporting him. Sadly, they simply have too much invested in this guy to ever admit their mistake and abandon him.

Outrageous!

As I write, Trump's D.C. protest has turned violent, and his supporters have forced their way into the United States Capitol building! So much for law and order and supporting the police! The problem with outrageous claims and political posturing is that some folks will take it all to heart and believe that it justifies outrageous behavior like this on their part.

This is a sad day for this republic. A mob has succeeded in overthrowing a Constitutionally mandated exercise of democratic governance - the formal acceptance by Congress of the vote of the Electoral College. The mob should be immediately dispersed and forcibly removed from those hallowed hallways and chambers! This is NOT peaceful protest. The shining city on the hill doesn't look so shiny right now!

Trump continues his push to overturn the 2020 election

After attacking members of his own party who refused to cooperate with his efforts to overturn the results of the November General Election, Trump has finally succeeded in persuading twelve Republican senators to join with House Republicans in a bid to challenge the electoral votes of several states (Trump's attention has been focused heretofore on Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada). In a joint statement, the senators justified their refusal to certify the election results because "The 2020 election...featured unprecedented allegations of voter fraud, violations and lax enforcement of election law, and other voting irregularities." And The Dallas Morning News reported that Senator Cruz (one of the leaders of the movement) explained the action in the following Tweet: "There is a deep distrust in our democratic processes that must be addressed. That’s why I’m calling for a 10-day emergency audit to resolve serious allegations of voter fraud, not dismiss them out of hand." How ironic that all of those "unprecedented allegations of voter fraud" and "deep distrust in our democratic processes" originated with Trump himself! Talk about a classic case of circular reasoning!

Interestingly a few Republican senators have been courageous enough to point out the very anti-democratic nature of this effort. The Dallas Morning News quoted Senator Pat Toomey as saying: "The effort by Sens. Hawley, Cruz, and others to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in swing states like Pennsylvania directly undermines … the right of the people to elect their own leaders." In another Tweet, the Republican Pennsylvania Senator said: "A fundamental, defining feature of a democratic republic is the right of the people to elect their own leaders. The effort by Sens. Hawley, Cruz, and others to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in swing states like Pennsylvania directly undermines this right." The same paper reported that Republican Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska said: "Adults don’t point a loaded gun at the heart of legitimate self-government." Likewise, they reported this statement by Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska: "I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and that is what I will do January 6 (the day that Congress meets to accept the electoral college results)...I will vote to affirm the 2020 presidential election. The courts and state legislatures have all honored their duty to hear legal allegations and have found nothing to warrant overturning the results."

Of course, these developments would be enough on their own to set off alarms, but this is not the only angle that Trump is still working in his efforts to overturn the election results. The Washington Post claims to have obtained a recording of an hour-long telephone conversation between Trump and the Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger that transpired this last Saturday! During the call, Trump claimed: "So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state." Trump reportedly went on to say: "There’s no way I lost Georgia...There’s no way. We won by hundreds of thousands of votes." The paper reported: "Throughout the call, Raffensperger and his office’s general counsel rejected Trump’s assertions, explaining that the president is relying on debunked conspiracy theories and that President-elect Joe Biden’s 11,779-vote victory in Georgia was fair and accurate."

The Washington Post also reported that Trump threatened the upcoming runoff election for both Georgia senate seats. Apparently, Trump told former ally Raffensperger: "You have a big election coming up and because of what you’ve done to the president — you know, the people of Georgia know that this was a scam,” Trump said. “Because of what you’ve done to the president, a lot of people aren’t going out to vote, and a lot of Republicans are going to vote negative, because they hate what you did to the president. Okay? They hate it. And they’re going to vote. And you would be respected, really respected, if this can be straightened out before the election."

It is not enough to say that Trump's efforts will be unsuccessful in the end - that enough congressmen and senators will vote to confirm the vote tallies which they receive from the Electoral College to confirm Joe Biden's win. The fact that a sitting President of the United States of America is actively trying to overturn the results of an election is astounding and absolutely atrocious! I'll say it again: We simply cannot get rid of this guy fast enough!