I considered a number of topics to discuss with you in this ongoing exchange with you, my reader. So many have been covered in recent weeks, addressing what I believe is the singular issue of our time. That issue is not an “issue” in terms of the debate we Americans have as to the merits of many ways of living. You know “the issues.” Abortion, death penalty, taxes, the respective roles of the federal government and the states, immigration, homelessness, farming subsidies, tarrifs, relations with other nations, war and peace. And that is just a sampling of the matters our citizens have debated since America was declared an independent nation in 17776.
What do I mean by “debate” in what our Founders hoped would be a Constitutional Republic based on democratic principles of self-government? My answer is fundamental to everything I understand about my place within the American citizenry. The Founders envisioned that The People would largely govern themselves through elected representatives in their cities, counties and states. Only as to matters of principle addressed in The United States Constitution and then dealt with through legislation that Congress may enact do we as a whole nation debate those matters. The debate is to be resolved through elections, wherein candidates for office to represent the people take a position on “the issues.” The winnng side gets to govern. The losing side in the debate is supposed to lose gracefully, shake hands with the winner and then come back next time, having refined their positions so that they might win at the next election.
So what happened? Over the course of our history, we have at times had an American society that acted in the best traditions of our founding. But in far too many chapters in the American story, the loser does not lose gracefully. In many cases, they develop the idea of The Lost Cause (see today’s Los Angeles Times, an op-ed by history professor David W. Blight, Yale University).
We are in such a time now. Why? The reasons are complex and I cannot possibly cover all of them here. But “Why?” is the question I cannot stop asking myself. Why are there seemingly intelligent, decent human beings, law abiding by nature, who we are now calling “MAGA Republicans?” Why are they unable or unwilling to see what I see, recognizing that I SEE THEM, when it comes to a world-view with which I disagree but acknowlege and respect?
There are literally scores of books and articles you can obtain that speak about the “Alt-Right”, the White Supremcist, and the “MAGA Republican.” Go ahead, take a look, the alarm bells are incessant and worrisome to a degree simply not the case with the so-called Far Left. And believe me, I have no patience for The Far Left, for excesssive “woke;” for those who want to take down statues of Washington and Lincoln because they were not perfect when it came to their views on race. But it is intellectually dishonest to refuse to observe that there is a growing Far Right movement that has had enough with American Democracy.
My small contribution to the Democracy debate today addresses something simple about what has happened to the American voter. Here, I will focus on Trump because he is the most obvious example. But in truth, the Far Right started to become more than fringe long before Trump. And there is one way and only one way I know to simplify the crisis in American citizenship.
Somewhere along the way, an alarming number of people with “conservative” ideas and right wing philosophies came to believe that left leaning folks, Democrats, progressives, were not just wrong, but dangerous and had to be stopped at all costs.
One often hears about a desire for naked power. And perhaps that is the guiding force behind MAGA lawmakers who will say in prviate to colleagues that Trump is a mentally ill, “nutcase” who should never be allowed near a position of authority. But in public, their desire for official power overwhelms any other rational thought. So “power” is not the issue. In fact, if the Far Right were to eventually suceed and drive out of representative government every moderate and liberal elected official, they would have achieved their goal of ridding the nation of the dangerous views of the Democrats, progressives, etc. Take them at their word when they say this is their goal, not merely power for power’s sake.
It is my view that millions of American citizens have lost their way “as” citizens, starting with what I call a “standard of care” for voting in a Democratic society. That is, the overwhelming motivating factor for living among others in community ought to be a basic standard as to who will get my vote. That standard should not be issue positions or even the ability to negotiate budget deals, etc. The heart of the standard? CHARACTER, DECENCY, AN INATE ABILITY TO REACH CONSENSUS.
I take the phrase “standard of care” from a jury instruction in civil medical malpractice cases that attempts to lay out a basic understanding regarding the proper practice of medicine. Here is that instruction:
“A doctor is negligent if she fails to use the level of skill, knowledge and care in diagnosis and treatment that other reasonably careful doctors would use in the same or similar circumstances. This level of skill, knowledge and care is sometimes referred to as “the standard of care.”
OK, nice words, platitudes, generalities. How do we apply those words to real world situations? Well, in medical legal cases, we rely on experts, but in truth, we rely on juries to give meaning to the words in the cases before them. Ought not that to be the guiding principle for voting?
What we should do in America that we do a poor job of doing is teaching children and young people from a young age what it means to go into a voting booth, in private, and decide who should represent me when it comes to the laws and policies that will guide my life.
What does it mean to evaluate a person running for office to see if they have the level of skill, knowledge and care to do the job, as we would want the best among us to follow if they were running for office?
I believe that the secret sauce for the voter ought to be the simple words I used above, character, decency and the ability to forge consensus among competing values.
And I believe that the singular place where such a standard of care for voting is most critical in America is the one office that all Americans are asked to fill: THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES.
And here, let me remind one and all: The PERSON who is elected is NOT the “Office” of the president. The person elected is asked to apply certain principles that will make “the office” respected in America and around the world. Perhaps more than any other trait, that is Trump’s greatest failing. Put aside all of his obvious character faults that one does not need a psychiatrist to identify. It is simply not open to discussion that Trump believes the OFFICE of the president is his, to do what he wants with it.
A significant number of those who have voted for Trump on either or both occasions, including loving members of my own family, will usually and privately acknowledge his deep moral failings and his incredible narcissism. But for them, he represents a wing of political thought that is so much more palatable than liberal, “progressive” thought.
I get it. But that reason for voting for such a human being is not only deeply flawed, but itself is dangerous. Why?
Because in modern America, it matters that the POTUS is our nation’s representative in the world. And it matters that in modern America, only the POTUS has ultimate power over our nuclear arsenal. And finally, in my view, a basic obligation of citizenship is to vote only for the candidate with the highest possible presented levels of character, decency and capacity to forge consensus.
Have Americans always done that? I have taken the time to look at just about every election for POTUS in our nation’s history. And almost without exception, our nation has chosen a leader worthy of the office.
That does not mean that in other eras of our nation’s history, the people armed with more information might have voted for the other guy as possessing superior character, decency and ability to forge consensus. Woodrow Wilson was an avowed racist but most folks did not know that at the time. FDR fooled around outside his marriage as did famously JFK and Bill Clinton. Richard Nixon toyed with the rule of law on a regular basis and thus George McGovern in 1972 might have been the candidate with superior character. Same for Jimmy Carter in 1980.
But for the most part, armed with what was right in front of us, we voters usually made the right choice for the right reasons.
In 2015, I wrote in another blog post that the United States Republican Party was about to nominate as its standard-bearer the first obviously mentally ill, clearly unqualified person to be POTUS. Did I have a unique insight absent in others? Of course not. But for reasons I cannot now explain and may never be able to explain, what I saw was not disqualifying in the minds of millions of voters.
Those voters had another agenda and superior character, decency and ability to forge consensus was not on that agenda.
It is also important to say this. If the voter is offered a “lesser of two evils” choice, among candidates who lack what the voter believes is the level of character, decency and ability to forge consensus, then do not vote for either.
The only way for my test to be consistent is to apply it consistently. So when MAGA people poke their finger in my face and say “Clinton,” (referring to Hillary or Bill or both), my response is “you’re right,” don’t vote for either. And in the case of Bill Clinton, I will go out on this limb. What he did was not impeachable, under the Constitution’s “high crimes and misdemeanors” test. But once he admitted to lying in a civil deposition, he had forfeited his claim to our support as a nation and he should have resigned his office.
And so we come back to Trump. But in reality, we also come back to the folks in Congress with names like Stefanik, Gaetz, Green and so many others. Trump himself and those who slavishly follow his every command are validating behavior, conduct, beliefs and values that do not exhibit the character, decency and ability to forge consensus that in my view are the hallmarks for a “standard of care” for the vote we exercise in our democracy.
At the end of the day, America will only survive in its present form if one day, we ALL wake up to the understanding that Donald John Trump might just be the most dangerous, sick, demented person to ever earn votes in America; truly no different than those in our past (Hitler, Mussolini) who similarly managed to convince people of their bona fides. And those who support such a person as a leader of others has no more of a right to their own positions of power and responsibility. Whose fault was that? Whose fault is that? Despite the tendency of many to have the weakness of personality to join a cult, I believe the vast majority of Americans have the capacity to resist cults and to make rational decisions based on the values that ought to define us as human being.
I come back to words I have often quoted, from Shakespeare, but most eloquently spoken by the legendary newsman Edward R. Murrow, speaking about the 1950’s demagogue Sen. Joseph McCarthy:
“The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his. He didn’t create this situation of fear; he merely exploited it — and rather successfully. Cassius was right. “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.”
Food for thought in the eve of the Iowa caucuses.