Author: Alexander Hamilton

President Trump’s term in office is coming to an end, and it cannot come quickly enough. On January 6, 2020, the day that Congress was set to certify the votes of the Electoral College and confirm the election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, Trump and his minions descended into violence and an attempted coup. People will disagree on what to call this: coup, riot, insurrection, mob violence, sacking (the term “putsch” might work). But the actions are clear: Donald Trump called for a rally on January 6; he and other speakers that day called for action to be taken to stop Congress; he directed the crowd to go to the Capitol and put a stop to the election certification; and then people stormed the Capitol and stopped the Congressional action while it was in process (though only for a few hours; Congress certified the vote later that night).

It’s dishonest to sugarcoat the storming of the US Capitol building as the work of protestors or demonstrators. They are insurrectionists, criminals and domestic terrorists who sought to stop the process of certifying the vote count. They were sent by the President. Democracy was attacked. People died.

This has now led to Trump’s impeachment by the US House of Representatives. He now has the historic distinction and dishonor of being the only President to be impeached twice. The Senate will end up holding its trial after Joe Biden and Kamala Harris take office. One can only hope that the Republicans in the Senate will vote for conviction, just like several members of the GOP in the House of Representatives voted for impeachment.

Since election day, Trump has been spouting the lies that he won the election, that the Democrats engaged in fraud and stole the election. And millions of people are buying what he’s selling. He tried stopping the count of mail-in ballots. He tried going to court to get ballots tossed out. He tried holding press conferences (the famous Rudy Guiliani hair-dye fiasco was the most notable, but the Four Seasons Landscaping debacle was a worthy second place). He encouraged unofficial “hearings” to espouse the lies. He tried applying pressure to state and local officials in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and most brazenly in Georgia with his hour-long call to the Georgia Secretary of State asking him to “find” another 11,780 votes.

And when none of that worked, Trump told Pence to reject the electoral votes in Congress, which Pence – to his credit – said he had no authority to do. In the midst of this Trump called for a rally on January 6, the day that Congress certifies the electoral college vote, saying it was going to be “wild.”

With his failure to pressure Pence to reject the electoral votes or to gum up the works, Trump spoke to the crowd in DC and then sent his people to storm Congress, right in the middle of the vote count, to keep the vote for Biden and Harris from happening. It was an attempted coup/insurrection that failed. Because this was a Trump operation, it had no strategy, no plan, no organization, no thought, and therefore no success. It failed, but it was still Trump’s show, his attack on the Constitution, on American democracy. He is now undoubtedly, the traitor-in-chief.

The President is inciting the hatred and violence. He is telling lies, made up and imaginary things, and he’s convinced a lot of people to live in his same made up, imaginary world. But this has real-world consequences. Many people, including Republican members of Congress, have been saying since the election, “Don’t worry. We can humor Trump. Let him rant on Twitter. There’s no harm. January 20 will come soon and Joe Biden will be inaugurated.” How wrong those people were. We’ve learned for four years as a nation that there’s no such thing as rock bottom where Donald Trump is concerned. The Republic is not safe while he’s in office, and it will take a lot of work to make it safe once he’s out of office.

The political polarization in the country has now reached a level where there has been violence in the US Capitol building, and we don’t know what’s next. What’s worse is that the far right-wing extremist groups that have been a key part of Trump’s support, that formed a significant part of the group that came out to Washington DC to protest the election, and whose actions long pre-date Donald Trump, scored a big propaganda victory on January 6. Many of the participants that day were members of militia movement groups and white supremacist and white nationalist groups. They will be bragging about this for a long time. And this may very well mark a milestone that portends even greater right-wing violence, perhaps encouraged or prompted by a Donald Trump who, once out of office, will have no political restraints and no responsibilities.

In a just world, Trump would have resigned immediately on January 6 or been thrown out right away by Mike Pence and the Cabinet using the 25^th Amendment. Once he’s out of office, he should be convicted by the Senate and barred from ever holding office again. He should also face criminal prosecution for inciting violence and insurrection, and for what is likely to be the illegal calls and meetings he held and directives he gave to others to try and overturn the free and fair election he lost. He may also face criminal charges from the state of New York for his financial dealings prior to serving in office. If this happens, this will be justice.

Maybe the events of January 6 and Trump’s second impeachment will change the minds of a growing number of the people who have supported, enabled, aided and abetted Trump for the past several years. Maybe the “Trumplicans” have burst their own balloon.

Wouldn’t it be nice…

Alexander Hamilton

I don’t get the Republicans in Congress. This is true in a number of ways. As the originator of a view that has come to be known as “Hamiltonian,” I’m a supporter of open markets and trade, but not laizzez faire. Strong government is needed to achieve policy outcomes that serve the national interest in peace and prosperity. My views largely align with the center in contemporary American politics, though the scope of government is far greater than I would have imagined possible when I served as Secretary of the Treasury.  Still, I find much of the Republican policy preferences to be puzzling. For example, I’m not sure why wanting environmental protection is such a partisan issue. To me it seems absurd to prefer more coal plants to more wind farms, now that we know the health and environmental impacts of coal.  And I can appreciate that  health care has come to be seen by many over the years as a basic human right — like life and liberty, freedom of religion and speech — as opposed to a service delivered entirely through market transactions.   Nonetheless, these are common policy questions these days, and the Republican party controls Congress and passes the laws it wants. The Democrats will have to win the elections in 2018 and 2020 to change or block some of these things.

I can appreciate that there have been eight years of pent up demands and desires for repealing Obamacare, rolling back regulations, cutting corporate taxes, getting conservatives on the judiciary, and cutting (non-defense) spending. I get it – the Republicans really, really want these things. However, it is terribly disappointing that they’re willing to look they other way with regard to President Trump’s words and deeds, and simply hope for the best, hoping he doesn’t break anything valuable, while Congress addresses a handful of policy matters such as tax cuts and Jeff Sessions, Scott Pruitt and Betsy DeVos change policy via regulations.  I didn’t think Congressional Republicans would be as willing as they are to harm their own country and their democracy to get the policies they want.

The President of the United States is entirely unfit for the job. He knows little of policy and government, he profits financially from his office, he inflames international conflict with his statements and tweets (even seeming to goad North Korea toward nuclear war), he has talked about the “fine people” supporting white supremacy whose rally resulted in murder in Charlottesville, he repeatedly lies to the public about things that are blatantly false and easily debunked by the facts, and he even invited a foreign power to interfere in the US election during his campaign. Numerous other offenses are not definitively proven, but enough evidence exists to suggest corruption and the appearance of corruption: He has seemed to obstruct justice by trying to end the FBI investigation into electoral interference and collusion, paid off a porn film actress with whom he had an affair to keep her from talking to the press, bragged about sexually assaulting women, and too many other offenses to keep track of.  Looking at the newspaper headlines on any given day reveals his unfitness for the job. And this seems to be a view held by millions across the political spectrum in the US, though far more on the left and center than on the right. It is even the stated opinion of several Republican members of Congress. And if the reporting coming out of Washington is to be believed, far more members of Congress hold this view privately, including the Congressional Republican leadership. In short, it appears that most members of Congress are not fans of the President.

This is the part about the Republican party that baffles me the most, especially Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. I can understand that they and other Republicans who believe the President is unfit are scared. They’re scared of the President, of voters who support him, of losing their jobs and their majority in Congress. Politicians acting in this way – refusing to own up to the public and reveal their real views – is quite common. But the level of fear and cowardice that Ryan and McConnell have demonstrated is particularly disappointing, and remarkably stupid.

They’re willing to risk our democracy, nuclear war, becoming a banana republic, to get a tax cut, deregulation and Neil Gorsuch. I cannot believe they think it’s worth the tradeoff. What’s more, they’re so scared they don’t even see the obvious way out of their predicament, the way forward to avoid the tradeoff altogether: impeachment.

As it was stated in Federalist 65, impeachment is not about criminal behavior per se. Rather, it should be used to address “those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” To think that impeachment is only warranted by proof of criminal wrongdoing – the purview of the FBI investigation – is to miss the point.

Imagine that Ryan and McConnell said to their Republican colleagues that it was time to remove the president, and that they had to do this quickly, like they did with tax legislation. With their characteristic speed, serious pressure on rank-and-file members, and total disregard for public input or opinion, I think they could get a majority in the House and a two-thirds majority in the Senate to remove the President from office. At the point Ryan and McConnell started the impeachment proceedings, the long knives would come out. There would be a flood of stories from party insiders, White House aides, and others ready to abandon, embarrass and denigrate the President with accounts of his erratic and dangerous behavior. Public support of the President would drop even further, making the job of removing him from office even easier.

If they did this, then the Congressional Republicans would have Mike Pence in the White House – one of their own. They could have their tax cuts, regulatory rollback, conservative judges and conservative ideology – all without the trouble of Trump. What a bargain! Then they would have some time to focus on 2018 primary challengers without Trump in the White House, and they would not have to worry as much about the possibility of a massive anti-Trump vote costing them their majority. Plenty of people in the center-left and left of the political spectrum might actually be relieved and appreciative of this. By the time 2020 rolled around, Trump would be both discredited and old news.  Pence or another nominee could run, confident that they could capture the votes of the vast majority of those who voted for Trump.

And even if the Republicans were to lose the White House and their majorities in Congress, they could still feel good about having done a great service for their country.

It all seems pretty logical and straightforward to me. But then again, I just don’t get the Republicans.

Alexander Hamilton

We’re having a problem with freedom in the United States. We can’t agree on what it means and how to pursue it. And this is making our politics and society increasingly divided and hostile.

On the one hand, there is a view that freedom means that the reach of government is limited. The achievement of freedom, in this view, entails continually striving to block the expansion of government into people’s lives, whether this comes in the form of taxes, health insurance, regulation, and even at times law enforcement. Along the political spectrum in the United States, there can be selective application of these views. The Republicans are supportive of restrictive laws and regulations that have a significant impact on women’s reproductive health and their freedom from government interference in this realm. They also have sought to ban same-sex marriage, another example of government hindering people’s freedom. At the same time, the Democrats currently find themselves in the unusual position of championing the concept of states rights when it comes to the adoption of laws legalizing recreational marijuana usage in a handful of states. (Democrats, however, don’t use the term “states rights,” which is too closely connected to slavery and the Civil War, and more recently to upholding laws and practices that permit racial discrimination and the violation of civil rights).

In spite of these selective applications, it is the conservative movement and the GOP that overwhelmingly subscribes to this view of freedom as the curtailment of government powers and programs. This view is manifested in the Tea Party movement, the Freedom Caucus in the House of Representatives, and numerous legislative proposals to cut or privatize government programs, even popular ones like Medicare and Social Security.

At the same time, there is a second view of freedom in the United States that gains wide acceptance. In this view, freedom means that individuals have the right to equal protection of the laws to pursue their interests. In practice, this means that the populations that have been most vulnerable, marginal and discriminated against – in both public policy and their private lives – are in need of government action to secure their political and social equality. This includes racial, religious and ethnic minorities, women, people with disabilities, and those whose sexuality or gender identities are seen (by themselves and others) as being different from the majority of the population. Those who subscribe to this view of freedom see the need for greater government action, policies and programs to rectify the sins of the past and present, and to secure the ability for all to be free from political and social discrimination and marginalization. This view also tends toward supporting public policies that regulate and police business and market activities (minimum wages, workplace safety, financial regulation), and that redistribute wealth toward the poor and the elderly, with the aim of diminishing the burden of poverty, and ensuring that those with higher levels of income and wealth are not able to unfairly exploit those advantages at the expense of those with less income and wealth.  The common theme in the support for this range of policies and government actions is seen as the protection of vulnerable populations. This is the territory that Democrats overwhelmingly occupy.

These two understandings of freedom, and what the American ideal of freedom means in practice, have increasingly come into conflict with one another in our political discourse. One view necessitates that the scope and reach of government be reduced, or at least limited. In theory, this sounds reasonable. Who wants government extending deep into their lives? But as critics point out, in practice this seems to mean that those with power, wealth and status are better able to preserve those privileges, and to do so at the expense of limiting and withholding things from others with fewer of these advantages. The second view of freedom, by contrast, requires that the role of government is necessary to maintain or even extend in many realms. In theory, this also sounds quite reasonable. Who doesn’t want equality of all enshrined in the law? (Unfortunately, it looks like plenty of people in the country these days.) But as critics point out, equal rights also tend to look like special privileges and rights, when employers and universities take race, ethnicity and gender into account in hiring and admissions. The supporters of each of these views are quite adept at highlighting the inherent goodness of their theoretical ideals, while criticizing the practices and impacts of the other side. This is both a common, and perhaps effective, debating strategy. (As he often did in many ways, that great philosopher and catcher for the New York Yankees, Yogi Berra, captured this paradoxical dilemma when he said, “In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.”)

What do we do about this political and social divide? Are these irreconcilable differences? It is now our tragic fate in this country to have the Democrats and Republicans try and wrest control of the federal government to enact the policies that privilege one view over the other, only to revert back again when the opposition controls the government? This situation, as George Washington pointed out, seems itself to be a form of tyranny. As our first president said: “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enemies, is itself a frightful despotism.”

I’m not sure of the answer to these questions, but I do believe that freedom is not a “finite good,” limited in the amount that can be achieved. Some things can be used without being used up, and freedom is one of those things. It should be possible for a white, straight, wealthy man to be free from undue government interference in his life and business without necessarily taking something away from a poor, gay, Latina woman. By the same token, a lesbian couple should be able to marry, an immigrant should be able to get a job, a black man should be able to gain admission to college, and a poor or unemployed person should be able to get health insurance without necessarily diminishing the freedom of others to access these same opportunities and their own freedom.

This ideal suffers from the same defect I pointed out above in others, because the disconnect between theory and practice is likely to be significant. Nonetheless, at its best, the wisdom of our political system is that it seeks to foster compromise, not dogmatism or taking one’s ideals to their (il)logical consequences. A big, diverse country such as ours tends to require a number of cross-cutting political alliances to achieve big political and social change. When we find a way to come to agreement to get some of what we want, even if we can’t have all of what we want, we tend to see broad support for such changes, at least over time. This isn’t universal. Sometimes political change means fighting and winning, beating the opposition, not finding middle ground. But we should be aware of the limitations and impacts of always using the clenched fist over the outstretched hand. Our current political dysfunction in Washington is clear evidence of this.

Perhaps an example of a path forward comes from our foreign policy. During the Cold War, if the United States or the Soviet Union had taken their competing ideologies to their extremes, they would have fought one another to the death. But they didn’t. Instead, they found a way to stay relatively true to their ideologies, interests, goals and ideals, without ever giving up their opposition to one another. Each gave up something of their ideal world to maintain a world in which we could all live. If Russian communists and American, democratic capitalists could do this, certainly Republicans and Democrats can.

Alexander Hamilton