Category: Uncategorized

During the early years of the Nazi era in Germany, it was decided to “purify” German universities which taken as a whole at the time were probably the world’s best, particularly in science. The ethnic and political purge of German Universities that followed brought an end to Germany’s rein as the global capitol of the sciences and led to a corresponding rise of America’s scientific reputation. Germany’s share of Nobel Prize winners plummeted and contemporaneously the proportion of American Nobel Prize winners rose rapidly, with immigrants comprising a growing portion of its Laureate. In 2016, all 6 Nobel Prize winners from the United States were born in other countries.

However, the attitude of the current American administration toward diversity has moved the center of gravity of the entire Republican Party – the governing party at present-toward immigration restrictionism. As Michael Gerson pointed out on May 18, 2018 in the Washington Post, “Mainstream attitudes toward refugees and legal immigration have become more xenophobic. Trump has not only given permission to those on the fringes; he has also changed the Republican mean to be more mean.”

General George Washington, in leading America to a successful outcome in the Revolutionary War, was always short of troops. He had to rely on recruits from many ethnic groups and several religions. At one point 25% of his Army was composed of African Americans that had been freed from slavery. They were among his best fighters. This experience, among others, would cause him to say in 1783 “…America is open to receive not only the opulent and respectable stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all nations and religions….” He was the father of our Country and this principle that he enunciated, among others, must still guide our Country.

-John Jay

The current President of the United States, Donald Trump, has taken an extremely combative position verses our free press and generally expressed a disdain for traditional American principles. He has expressed admiration for bloody and cruel dictators around the world such as Duterte in the Philippines, Putin in Russia and Xi in China. While in China, he expressed great admiration for XI’s authoritarian state. There are differences between China and the United States however. While Xi has virtually suppressed the news media in China, Trump despite all of his harsh efforts has failed to discredit our free press and has actually made it stronger. The rule of law has always been a weak restraint on leaders in China but here institutions built up over the past 2 ½ centuries have continued to be able to restrain Trump for now. As Thomas Friedman said in the New York Times on May 9, 2018, “But they will have to hold for at least another 2 ½ years, and that will not be easy with a President like Trump who was surely not 100% joking when he said in March of President Xi ‘President for life…I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll want to give that a shot one day.’”

Our founders had some things to say about people like President Trump.

“A dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidding appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of Government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of the republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and ending tyrants.”
– Alexander Hamilton, 1788

“Some boast of being friends to Government; I am a friend to righteous government, to a government founded upon the principals of reason and justice; but I glory in publicly avowing my eternal enmity to tyranny.”
– John Hancock, 1774

“Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God”
– Benjamin Franklin, 1787

“I have sworn upon the alter of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, 1800

“The fundamental article of my political creed is that despotism, or unlimited sovereignty, or absolute power, is the same in the majority of a popular assembly, an aristocratical counsel, and an oligarchical junto, and a single emperor. Equally arbitrary, cruel, bloody and in every respect, diabolical.”
– John Adams, 1815

John Jay

On March 4, 2018, Sergei Skripal, a former intelligence agent for Russia, who was an informant for the British Foreign Intelligence Service and his daughter Yulia, were subjected on British territory to a nerve agent attack, which many believed was instigated by Russia.  Mr. Skripal and his daughter had been living in Great Britain since he was exchanged in a spy swap some years previous.  This attack, attributed to Russia, has been strongly denounced by the British Prime Minister.  In addition, on March 12, 2018, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, described the attack as an “egregious attack” and said that it clearly appears that it came from Russia.  Mr. Tillerson said that, “….this is very, very concerning to me and others…this is a pretty serious action.”  “It’s almost beyond comprehension that a state, an organized state, would do something like that…”

President Trump has often complimented Vladimir Putin, the Russian leader, while as over time, Secretary Tillerson has become increasingly critical.  The day after Secretary Tillerson made these remarks he was fired by President Trump, making it appear that he was, in part, fired because of his comments.

Subsequently the US Administration supported the British Prime Minister in her position but did not use language such as Secretary Tillerson.

This action does seem to be questionable.  As the headline in the editorial in the Wall Street Journal says, “Why Now?”  There is an ongoing investigation into whether the Trump Campaign collaborated with the Russian Government in pursuit of winning the election for Mr. Trump.  President Trump has made no secret of his admiration of Vladimir Putin and has been reluctant to criticize or act against the Russian Government.  For example the US Congress passed a set of sanctions some months ago against the Russian Government but President Trump refused to implement them.  All this leads to the question of foreign influence on our country.

Last month, in concert with American allies, the US Government expelled 60 Russian diplomats identified as intelligence agents in retaliation for the nerve gas attack on Mr. Skripal and his daughter Yulia on British territory.  This appeared to represent the most forceful action that President Trump had taken against Russian up to that time, but unbeknownst to the American public at the time, President Putin was informed that he will be able to send 60 “new” Russian diplomats right back in to fill those rolls.  There must have been must mirth in the Kremlin to witness again their control over Mr. Trump.

In his farewell address, September 19, 1796, President George Washington said, “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens, that the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican government.”  Also in 1788, in the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton said the following, “Nothing was more to be desired than that every practical obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue and corruption.  These most deadly advisories of Republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches for more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.  How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magestry of the Union?”

“So all American patriots, beware.”

John Jay

 

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

In a radio interview on December 6th after the passage of the Republican tax cut bill Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House was discussing what will happen when the tax cut legislation is signed by the President and becomes law. He said that the next year the target would be “entitlement reform, which is how you tackle the debt and the deficit [including the huge additional debt of one trillion dollars caused by the tax cut legislation].” He added that the Medicaid and Medicare programs “are the big drivers of debt so we spend more time on the health-care entitlements, because that is where the problem lies, fiscally speaking.” But the Republican Party objectives go beyond that. For many years privatizing Social Security and Medicare and destroying these central New Deal and Great Society programs has been the primary Republican Party goal. Ryan added in his radio address that he believes that “the President understands that choice works everywhere, especially in Medicare”—even though during the campaign Trump pledged to protect Social Security and Medicare from cuts. Or put differently as was reported in the New York Times on December 3rd, “…Republican leaders have been blunt about their motivation (for the tax cut bill): to deliver on their promises to wealthy donors and down the road, to use the leverage of huge deficits (created by the bill) to cut and privatize Medicare and Social Security.”

Paul Krugman in his column in the Times on December 5th noted: “Republicans don’t care about budget debts and never did. They only pretend to care about deficits when one of two things is true: a Democrat is in the White House and deficit rhetoric can be used to block his agenda, or when they see an opportunity to slash social programs that help needy Americans, and can invoke deficits as an excuse.”

And the bait and switch happened faster than anyone imagined that it would says Krugman citing as an example the remarks of Senator Orrin Hatch on the failure of Congress to continue the Children’s Health Insurance Program—known as CHIP—which covers nine million U.S. children. Senator Hatch asserted that he supported CHIP “but insisted that ‘ the reason CHIP’s having trouble is because we don’t have money anymore.’ ―just before voting for a trillion and a half tax cut that will deliver the bulk of its benefits to the richest few percent of the population.'”

This is unconscionable, unpardonable, reckless behavior by the leadership of the Republican Party. Everyone knows that the strength of a democracy is the strength of its middle class. Social Security has been an essential part of American life since the mid-1930s (around 80 years) and Medicare since the mid-1960s (around 50 years). An effect of this bill will be eventually to eviscerate the middle class. In the place of our vibrant Republic it would push us toward banana republic status. It is unpatriotic, un-American and contrary to our principles. The Founders of this country would not have liked any part of it. A few examples:

“This branch of Charity [health care] seems essential to the true Spirit of Christianity; and should be extended to all in general, whether Deserving or Undeserving, as far as our power reaches…The Good particular Men may do separately, in relieving the sick, is small compared to what they may do collectively….”
Benjamin Franklin 1751

“As riches increase and accumulate in few hands…the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard.”
Alexander Hamilton 1788

“Property monopolized or in the Possession of a few is a Curse to Mankind.”
John Adams 1765

“I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable…But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery in the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property… [a] means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”
Thomas Jefferson 1785

John Jay

On August 2, 2017, President Trump announced his support for a Senate proposal that would, pursuant to legislation, drastically change the legal structure of United States immigration policy to be a skill-based system–and with an emphasis on fluent English speakers–away from a family-oriented policy with a priority on bringing families together.  But the real intent of this proposed law would be to reduce immigration by 50 percent over the next 10 years–from around one million a year to 500,000 intended green card holders per year.

This would be of course a drastic reduction in the number of permitted legal immigrants–not at all what our country’s Founders had in mind for the Republic.

“The bosom of America is open to receive not only the opulent & respectable Stranger, but the oppressed & persecuted of all Nations & Religions; whom we shall wellcome to a participation of our rights & privileges, if by decency & propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.” George Washington, 1783

This is a skilled-based policy?

“There is one principle which pervades all the institutions of this country, and which must always operate as an obstacle to the granting of favors to new comers.  This is a land, not of privileges, but of equal rights.  John Quincy Adams, the then Secretary of State, 1819

The Statue of Liberty dominates the entrance to New York Harbor and is a welcoming beacon to those who wish to be free everywhere. It represents in statue form the symbol, the manifestation of George Washington’s vision that America is open to receive not only the respectable people but the “oppressed & persecuted of all Nations and Religions.” In 1883 in connection with an effort to raise money to fund the statue  Emma Lazarus submitted a poem entitled “The New Colossus” to the authorities managing the money raising exhibit.  (The term “Colossus” refers to the Colossus of classical antiquity, a giant statue of a warrior straddling the entrance to the harbor on the Greek island of Rhodes.  This is the “New Colossus,” Liberty, instead of a warrior.) It was the first entry read at the opening of the exhibit.

The Lady Liberty statue was opened to the public in 1886. Subsequently in 1903 this poem was put on a bronze plaque and attached to the statue’s base.  Currently it has a prominent place in the museum within the statue’s base.  Some have sought, for their own political reasons, to denigrate its significance. because it was not  part of the statue’s formal opening  in 1986.  But of what importance is that? It was written prior to the opening to help raise money to construct the statue as well as to describe Lady Liberty. It was included in the statue base some 17 years later, 114 years ago.  But most importantly it completely captures our first president’s vision and the meaning of the statue.  Lady Liberty was a gift from France as a symbol of liberty and welcome home for immigrants who enter the United States especially by sea.  The second of two verses of this poem reads as follows describing a call from Lady Liberty herself:

“‘Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!’ cries she
With silent lips. ‘Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breath free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!'”

Perhaps President Trump should read this poem.  Then maybe he could devise an immigration policy consistent with American principles.

John Jay

 

 

 

On Sunday, June 11, 2017, Dana Milbank of The Washington Post submitted a column to the Post commenting on the testimony of former FBI Director, James Comey before the Senate Intelligence Committee.  In the column, Milbank, a long time observer of the Washington scene, said that for him the most “chilling” part of Comey’s testimony was his explanation of why he wrote lengthy, descriptive notes immediately after his private conversations with President Donald Trump.  It was in Comey’s words “the nature of the person, I was honestly concerned that he might lie about the nature of our meeting and so I thought it really important to document.”  Milbank later quotes Trump’s spokeswoman, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, to the effect that “the President is not a liar.  I think it is frankly insulting that that question would be asked.”  Milbank sums up his column by disagreeing with Sanders: “No, what’s insulting – to America- is that the question (whether the President is a liar) didn’t need to be asked.   Comey, until last month the nations top lawman, confirmed what we already knew.

What to make of this?   Milbank claims that the Founders of our country did not anticipate such a situation “that the President is at his core a dishonest and untrustworthy man.”  That what we have is “a defect not just of private misconduct  (which we have seen before) but of public character.”  But is this true, that our Founders in framing our Constitution did not anticipate such a development?

“The essence of the Government is power: and power lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.  – James Madison, 1829

“The whole art of Government consists in the art of being honest.”                           – Thomas Jefferson, July 1774

Nothing is more essential to the Establishment of Manners in a State than that all Persons employed in places of Power and Trust be Men of unexceptional Characters, the Publick cannot be too Curious concerning the Characters of public Men.”   – Samuel Adams, November 1775

“Enlightened statesman will not always be at the helm.”  – James Madison, Federalist #10, November 1787

“if ever the Time shall come when vain & aspiring men shall possess the highest Seats in Government, our Country will stand in Need of its Patriots to prevent Ruin. ”  – Samuel Adams November 1780

“The aim of every political constitution, is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their pubic trust.”  – James Madison, Federalist #57, February 1788

In making his argument that the Founders hadn’t see today’s dilemma Dana Milbank said, “the moral certainty that the Enlightenment broke down with the election of something more medieval.”  But do the above comments appear morally uncertain?  They had seen all that we see, in their times and in previous centuries.  Our Founders knew vain & aspiring men when they saw them.  They knew what was right and would say that what America has in 2017 is not right.  Perhaps Thomas Jefferson said it best, “the whole art of governing consists in the art of being honest.”

•   John Jay

On May 9, 2017, President Trump fired the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, James B. Comey.  The White House explained the decision as being prompted by Mr. Comey’s poor handling last year of the investigation of candidate Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server during her tenure as Secretary of State.  But this claim, as many have said, is extremely difficult to accept.  Shortly before the end of the campaign last year Mr. Trump praised Mr. Comey and the time to fire Mr. Comey for this reason would have been President Trump’s first day in office not after more than 100 days on the job.

The only investigation Mr. Trump mentioned in his letter to Mr. Comey dismissing him from office was Comey’s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign organization and the Russian Government, during the election, saying that he was grateful that Mr. Comey three times told him that he was not himself under investigation.

The New York Times on May 10th reported that reaction to Mr. Trump’s firing of Mr. Comey was “swift and fierce”.  The Democratic Senate leader, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York said that Trump’s action would make Americans believe that there was a coverup.  Many Republicans attacked the President for his action as well.  Representative Justin Amash, Republican of Michigan, said that he now supported an independent commission to investigate Russia links to Mr. Trump.  He was reported to have referred to the President’s claim that Mr. Comey had cleared him as “bizarre”.  Senator Flake, Republican of Arizona, reportedly said, “I’ve spent the last several hours trying to find an acceptable rational for the timing of Comey’s firing.  I just can’t do it.”  And the first grand jury subpoena for records from a Trump advisor, General Michael T. Flynn, were recently issued.

The New York times in an editorial said on May 10th: “The obvious historical parallel to Mr. Trump’s action was the so-called Saturday Night Massacre in October 1973, when President Nixon ordered the firing of the Special Prosecutor investigating Watergate prompting the principled resignations of the Attorney General and his deputy.  But now, there is no Special Prosecutor in place to determinate whether the public trust has been violated, and whether the Presidency was effectively stolen by a hostile foreign power.  For that reason, the country has reached an even more perilous moment.”

Also on May 10th rumors began to circulate in Washington about who the President might select to succeed Mr. Comey  which were focused on Rudolph Giuliani and Governor Chris Christy, both Trump campaign officials.  Whether these rumors are based on fact or not, their existence reveals what the public thinks of Mr. Trumps actions – that he appears to be trying to organize a coverup which of course would be assisted by his earlier firing of all US Attorneys around the country.

The founders of our country has some thought about issues like this:

Alexander Hamilton may have said it best:

“Nothing was more to be desired than that every practical obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally be expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter but chiefly in the desire of foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.  How could they better gratify this then by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union.  – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers 68, 1788.

“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations ought to be to have as little political connection with them as possible.  So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled – with circumspection but with perfect good faith.” – George Washington , Farewell Address, 1796

John Jay

 

David Remnick, in his comment in the New Yorker Magazine of May 1, 2017, addressed the first hundred days of President Donald Trump and said: “This is the brand that Trump has created for himself—that of an unprincipled, cocky, value-free con who will insult, stiff, or betray anyone to achieve his gaudiest purposes. ‘I am what I am,’ he has said. But what was once a parochial amusement is now a national and global peril. Trump flouts truth and liberal values so brazenly that he undermines the country he has been elected to serve and the stability he is pledged to insure. His bluster creates a generalized anxiety such that the President of the United States can appear to be scarcely more reliable than any of the world’s autocrats. When Kim In-ryong, a representative of North Korea’s radical regime, warns that Trump and his tweets of provocation are creating ‘a dangerous situation in which a thermonuclear war may break out at any moment,’ does one man sound more immediately rational than the other? When Trump rushes to congratulate Recep Tayyip Erdoğan for passing a referendum that bolsters autocratic rule in Turkey—or when a sullen and insulting meeting with Angela Merkel is followed by a swoon session with Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, the military dictator of Egypt—how are the supporters of liberal and democratic values throughout Europe meant to react to American leadership?”

During the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962 when the world was close to nuclear war and complete destruction, President John F. Kennedy sent former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to seek the support of France.  In his meeting with President Charles de Gaulle, Acheson offered to show him the CIA’s surveillance photos of Russian missiles in Cuba. De Gaulle waved them away saying, as JFK Counselor Ted Sorensen reported in a new memoir, Counselor: A Life at the Edge of History,  “I don’t need to see pictures of the weapons of mass destruction.  The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me.”

Not with this president.

Remnick points out in addition that Freedom House, a non-governmental organization that researches trends in global liberty, has recently stated that there has been an eleven-year decline in democracies around the world and has produced a list of countries to watch.  The ones that concern Freedom House the most at this time are: South Africa, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan, Ecuador, Zimbabwe and, a new addition, the United States.  This new addition is there, says Freedom House as reported by Remnick, because of Trump’s “unorthodox presidential campaign” and his “approach to civil liberties and the role of the United States in the world.’”

On the other hand, Francis Fukuyama in an article in the Washington Post on April 28, 2017 writes that while “President Trump’s election provoked extraordinary fears that he would become an American strongman in the mold of authoritarian leaders he admires such as … Putin of Russia and … Erdogan … of Turkey… the very robust set of institutional checks and balances” that exist in the U.S. appears to be holding and that therefore “Trump is more likely to go down in history as a weak and ineffective president than as an American tyrant.”

In much the same vein on April 28, 2017 David Brooks noted in the New York Times that Trump has become “smaller and more conventional” and that though some still act “as if atavistic fascism were just at the door… the real danger is everyday ineptitude.”  Brooks argues that Trump has “hired better people and has shifted power within the White House to those who are trying to at least build a normal decision-making process…. His foreign policy moves have been, if anything, kind of normal.”

But is this entirely true?  First, there is the immense damage Trump has already done to the Republic.  He has ceded the economic leadership of Asia to China by withdrawing the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement and the global leadership in new energy technology development also to China by receding from leading the fight against climate change. Does anyone really believe that this American president—as a result of Trump’s feckless leadership―retains even close to enough credibility to evoke the same response as did JFK from a French president at a time of great crisis, “The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me”?

Anne Applebaum on April 30 in commenting on the inclusion of Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter in a group of women leaders consisting of the Canadian Foreign Minister, the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund and the Chancellor of Germany at a high level meeting in Germany on “Women in the Workforce” asserted that there are  “are sinister precedents here. Daughters have long been used cynically to ‘humanize’ thuggish men.”  Trump appears, in Applebaum’s view, to resemble the brutal dictator of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov, in his governing style. Karimov used his daughter to make him appear to be a milder and more beneficent man. “One of the things that distinguishes rule-of-law democracies from personalized dictatorships is their reliance on procedures, not individual whims, and on officials — experienced people, subject to public scrutiny and ethics laws — not the unsackable relatives of the leader.”  Seen from this vantage points Trump’s refusal to fill some 200 top Executive Branch positions, in the State Department and elsewhere just below Cabinet level, speaks volumes.

Margaret Atwood, the great Canadian novelist, in an interview with Politico on April 25 in commenting on how quickly society could slip into totalitarianism, said, “More of the people interested in having those kinds of things happen are in power now.” But she added “Give America credit. It’s very ornery as a country. It’s very diverse, and you have already seen that people are not just going to stay at home for all of these things…. The danger would be that people get burnt out and tired of watching the whirligig and trying to figure out what’s going on, and they give up on it.”

Remnick in his article cites John Adams’ letter to John Taylor in 1814 in which he said, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”  But the Founders said many other things about the strength of democracy, such as:

The very definition of tyranny is when all powers are gathered under one place. James Madison, The Federalist No. 47, 1788

If it be asked, What is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be, An inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws — the first growing out of the last…. A sacred respect for the constitutional law is the vital principle, the sustaining energy of a free government. Alexander Hamilton, 1794

The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing. John Adams, 1765

A lady asked Franklin: “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” Franklin replied: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”  Benjamin Franklin, 1787

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. John Adams, Letter to Abigail Adams, 17 July 1775

John Jay