Taking Back!

 Someone once said that writing is easy; finding the right words is hard. I’ve struggled with that most of this year.

I’ve written a lot of first paragraphs. Then something else sets me off. I write a new first paragraph on a different subject, and something else sets me off. I seldom get to the second paragraph.

If you can’t guess what and who is setting me off, you haven’t been paying attention.

Project 2025 called for as many massive disruptions to the government as possible, as quickly as possible. The strategy was to overwhelm the legislature, the press, citizens, and foreign allies. It is working, and that isn’t a good thing for the country, its citizens, or the world.

Where to start? 

My current lament is with three interknitted areas: Democracy, Government, and the Presidency.

We have done a reasonable job of being a democratic republic for nearly twenty-five decades. There were some not-so-good times, but we try to make the Union more perfect, even if it often takes too long to right the wrongs.

Democracies, by their nature, are not efficient forms of government; they are meant to be messy. They require constant discussion, forever disagreements, and the best-for-now compromises. The current administration doesn’t believe that axiom, and I’m not sure the out-party does either.

The current poohbah thinks he has the right to govern by fiat, executive decree. His minions do whatever they can to strengthen the role of the executive to the detriment of the legislative and judicial branches.

The Founders were afraid of such a strong leader. After all, they had just won a revolution that ousted a king. They didn’t want another one. We go back once again to Madison, who tells us in The Federalist, No. 47, that “ The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands … may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” 

Let us consider the purpose of our government. We all learned and maybe memorized the words, “…to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity …” To accomplish these great aims, Article I of the Constitution gives  the power to make laws and the power of the purse strings to the legislature. Article II instructed the President to execute those laws and spend the money as instructed. With few exceptions, a president doesn’t have the authority to spend money as s/he wishes or make laws by decree. S/He doesn’t have the power to dissolve government departments established by Congress.

It is a simple concept - the government is designed to provide services to the people. Providing for the general welfare includes having a strong public health component. It is responsible for the military to protect the nation. It should bolster the educational strength of the nation, preserve our natural resources and national parks for the pleasure of its citizens. It ensures a wide separation between religions and the state. It encourages basic scientific research, supports the arts. It encourages these institutions. It doesn’t tear them down or tear them apart. The current administration doesn’t believe that axiom.

Many of the Founders warned against strong political parties. But those that governed from the middle have been a strength for our democracy. They generally limit the ambitions of those who want to lead from the edge of the ideological wings. Calvin Coolidge told us that “It is a great advantage to a President, and a major source of safety to the country, for him to know that he is not a great man.” We miss that humility today and suffer the consequences.

While I tend to lean just a tad to the left of center, I’m registered as “No Party Preference,” but I’m wondering if that designation really fits my mood today. I might be a Libertarian for all I know, or even an Independent. The lack of a party affiliation allows me to put “a plague on both their houses,” without guilt.

The Republican Party began its takeover of the nation decades ago, mostly under the radar. They built strong alliances at the county and state levels, where election districts are formed and local laws enacted.

Donald Trump used the party to gain his first term, took over the party with threats of primary challenges for those who didn’t agree with him, accumulated successful oligarchs willing to bend a knee to change power structures in their favor, and smartly identified the angst of the middle class in the heartland who disliked the changing culture and that of the skilled tradesperson who had lost their jobs to other countries. He expertly attracted those who feared their white advantage was ebbing, to the point of carrying guns to a Capitol incursion.

All the while, the Democrat Party smothered its best and brightest in ideological quagmires that required fidelity to positions that never became vote-getting messages. They became the party of the university faculty lounge, the city elites, and the tech workforce. They forgot the farmer, the small business owner, the ones losing jobs to higher-skilled young people. They ran on issues the populist didn’t think affected them, and didn’t raise up the issues that did. The degree of loss at the Electoral College level devastated them to the point that five months later, they still couldn’t identify a leader or a message to take to the voters. They have cowered at meeting constituents in public; too scary for them.

So we are living in a dystopian era governed by a near cultlike group that tears at the strings of our institutions to unravel the very fabric of the nation only to be countered by a floundering opposition party that doesn’t know what to make of itself, whose ancient leaders won’t invite the younger crowd to the table or knows how to reclaim a vestige of recognition among the electorate.

So what are we going to do?

The saving grace seems to be the millions of people who are taking to the streets to protest the tearing apart of the government that they witness daily. It seems there is a big difference between voting for change and seeing destruction. The rise is an effort to remind those who support autocratic and oligarchic style government that, in the end, this is a country of and for We The People.

The Democrats don’t control any branch of the government, so they must rely on the people to rise up and for the judiciary to do its job. The opposition is filing one case after another each day that questions the legal authority of the president’s actions. They are winning most of them. Many cases are already at the appellate level. From there, they will move to the Supreme Court for final determination. Many of the administration’s actions are designed specifically to evaluate the limits of presidential power and seem to assume that SCOTUS will validate their efforts.

But we have this annoying thing called the Constitution, designed to rein in the bad actors in the executive branch and bad laws drawn in the legislative branch. Marbury v. Madison told us that the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says. Its power is derived from the willingness of the people to follow its rulings. It doesn’t have an army. But …

If SCOTUS hands down a decision and the executive branch doesn’t obey it, we will have lost our democracy for sure and may never reclaim it. That is a bridge too far, but the first months of the current administration have caused an upheaval unlike any since the days of Andrew Jackson or the Civil War. They want to test the limits of presidential power.

For the generations who lived with the notion that you get up in the morning to face the world and make it better, their ideals are being destroyed before their eyes. 

Where to start?

 Lawmakers listen to their constituents. Let’s make sure that we are heard. They will listen –

·         Especially if they are in the streets. That’s how the civil rights movement succeeded. That is how we can save our democracy.

·         We can pressure the legislature and the administration to change their methods. That involves demanding change and attending town hall meetings with Members of Congress.

·         We can pressure our aged leaders to give the reins to those who can relate to the younger generation’s needs.

·         We can demand that leaders are active on the social media that younger folks use.

·         We can insist that members of Congress hold live Town Halls.

·         We can fill the Letters section of newspapers, digital or pulp, with information about our aims.

·         We can attend opposition rallies.

·         We can  gather in small groups to keep like-minded folks informed and to gin up enthusiasm for action.

 

We the people haven’t been in the streets since the sixties and seventies. Most have forgotten how to do it, and at least two generations have never experienced rising up to demand better from our government for our nation. It will be a steep learning curve, but we can’t let the destruction continue much longer. Nor can we allow the destruction of our economy and the world order to continue.

 

 

 

It's Official!

Taylor Swift has spoken. A few minutes after the presidential debate last week. the most famous diva of our time, the headliner of The Eras Tour, posted her endorsement of Harris for President. It included a picture of herself with a cat – The Childless Cat Lady. Thankfully, her tour doesn’t take her to Springfield, Ohio. J.D. Vance says cats and dogs don’t stand a chance in that town. Anyway, it’s official now. The candidates can begin the campaign.

Does Swift’s endorsement really have an effect on the electorate? That depends to whom you speak. She has 284 million followers on X. Four hundred thousand responded positively within one hour of her posting. The November vote count will tell us.

The debate was a runaway win for Harris, but Trump thought it was his best debate. One wonders if it will have any effect on the final vote count. It is possible both candidates made some inroads with the undecided voters of the country, although only a little movement, based on network interviews just after the debate. So why bother?

The 2020 election was decided by less than one hundred thousand votes. Some pundits suggest that it will be even closer this year. That means the election comes down to a few precincts in a few states. All of the polls are within the margin of error.

Pope Francis said recently that we should do two things – vote and vote for the candidate we think is the lesser of two evils. That doesn’t give a lot of people a lot of comfort. He spoke from the point of view of the leader of the world’s largest Christian denomination and as an Argentinian, which gives him a different perspective on U.S. politics. So what are we to do?

Most voters believe they have an easy decision; nearly fifty percent want Trump again and nearly fifty percent want Harris. Half of the voters will be disappointed with the results. The candidates represent two different views of America. One wants to go back to a time when rural life and conservative values permeated the nation; the other wants to move forward to a more perfect union. One has been remarkably successful as the stormtrooper for those who consider themselves the forgotten, the passed-over, the regular folks. The other is seen as the representative of the coastal elites. Two things are true about those thoughts: only 17 percent of the U.S. population live in non-urban areas so their needs are often forgotten or unrecognized by the 50 percent who live within fifty miles of the coasts and/or the 83 percent who live in urban areas.

So it is going to be a close call. The emotions are high. Because we are a democracy we are subjected to contrary views every day, and that is ok. What I don’t like is the obvious way in which many in the Republican Party are buying into the lies spewed by many of the former president’s surrogates and the conspiracy theories that abound. Millions are convinced that undocumented immigrants are voting in big numbers and they support new laws to keep them from voting. It is illegal in every state for a non-citizen to vote and there is no evidence of undocumented immigrants voting. Some states are creating new procedures for reviewing all votes before the results are certified based on lies about fake votes and illegal voters. It goes on.

The election should be about the character of the candidates. Trump doesn’t meet the high bar required of a president. He didn’t the first time and he doesn’t now. Did I mention that he was a convicted felon awaiting sentencing and trial for another 30-plus felony indictments?

The election should be about policies and programs. Trump’s former staff, hundreds of them, helped the Heritage Fund write Project 2025, a 900-page plan to tear down our democracy and replace it with a strong autocratic form of government. Trump has demonstrated his willingness to favor the rich over the poor in tax codes and safety-net programs. He doesn’t measure up to the needs of the nation.

The election should be about the Constitution. Trump said he would ignore the sacred document on his first day in office. He has said that he would use the military to quell protests, which is against the law. He has demonstrated that he is unwilling to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. He showed that on January 6, 2020. He demonstrated that by his friendship with the dictators of North Korea, Russia, and Hungary to name a few, all known enemies of America or its institutions. He hasn’t met the high bar required of a president.

Kamala Harris has demonstrated a willingness to support the Constitution, to fight for the middle class, to disrupt our trek to oligarchy, and protect our civil rights. She may not be the perfect candidate but she seems to be honest and focused on more than the upper one percent of the population.

What are we to do?

First, we must vote. That is what a democracy is all about. In his book On Tyranny, Yale professor Timothy Snyder references a hero in a David Lodge novel who says that you don’t know when you make love for the last time, that you are making love for the last time. Voting is like that. Consider the Germans who elected an autocratic government who then started WW II. Consider the Czechs and Slovaks elected an autocratic Tito, or the Russians who continued to elect an autocratic leader. Even if we are unhappy with our current state of affairs, we must vote to protect our democracy, to prevent the destruction of our institutions. We may not all agree on how to do those things, but we know that those who don’t vote allow bad leaders to win.

But, we have a choice. If we want to keep  America great, if we want to preserve our democracy, if we want to write a new chapter for our country, and if we want to ensure that it is not the last vote, or the next to the last vote, the choice seems easy to make. Vote for Harris.

 

Cognition?

I don’t know Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, but I’ve seen him on television news programs and Sunday-morning talk shows. He seems like a nice enough guy, but I seldom agree with his positions, on any subject. In a recent interview, however, he suggested that all older people in government leadership positions should submit to annual cognitive tests. The Senator is a medical doctor so that gives him some street cred. He is a gastroenterologist, which makes his gut feelings more valid than his musings about brain drain. But I think he is on to something. 

The Senator pointed out that we are a country led by old people. The President is 78 years old and the former President is 75 years old. The Speaker is 81 years old; the Senate Minority Leader is 79 years old, the Majority Leader is70 years old. Only 30 senators are under 60 years of age, only one is under 40 years of age. This is the oldest Senate in the history of the country. In the House 109 members are under 50 years of age; 30 are under 40 years of age. Depending on one’s party of choice, I suppose, the former president and/or the current president both exhibit cognitive problems.   

Just for comparison purposes, consider the following: in 1776 Jefferson was 33 years old, James Madison 25, Hamilton 21, Aaron Burr 20, and John Jay 29 years old. They go things done. They were on to something! 

The census bureau tells us that the average American is 38.5 years old. Why is a country of relatively young people led by septuagenarians and octogenarians? Where are the young leaders who can revive the national spirit? Where are the dreamers who see another Camelot as a real possibility? It’s been done before, so why not now? 

Teddy Roosevelt was 42 years old when he became President. John Kennedy was 43 years old on his Inauguration Day. A president is typically 55 years old upon taking office. I often suggested, in jest, that no one over the age of 45 should run for office. Now, I think I’m on to something. 

What if we amend the Constitution so that no one may run for president who will be over 45 years old on day one! I know, I know, constitutional amendments are hard to come by, so let’s just institutionalize it, make it part of our “American Way of Life.” 

An old axiom says that the military always trains for the last war. Politicians, it seems to me, want to take us back to the last three or four decades, to bygone eras. “Make America Great Again” and “Build Back Better” are just two examples. Why don’t we elect people who reach for the brass ring, and who want to take the speed governor off the merry-go-round of life? The 88-year-old senator from Iowa just announced that he will seek another six-year term. Why do we continue to elect people who can’t be effective anymore? The old-people cohort continues to grow each year and doesn’t seem to want any change, with a few notable exceptions. What if we elected young visionaries?  What if we, WE, wanted new? 

David Gergen served four presidents: Nixon, Ford, Bush, and Clinton. He knows what it takes to run a government, to motivate a populace, to inspire. In his new book Hearts Touched with Fire: How Great Leaders Are Made, he suggests that “One of America’s best hopes for the future is to pass the torch to a new generation of leaders – young people with fresh vision, a passion for change and a fierce dedication to progress.” I think he is on to something! 

Change doesn’t come easily to a nation as insular as ours is. Our institutions give credence and power to our elders. We characterize young movers and shakers as progressive, in a pejorative way. We put too much credence in the notion that if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. I think it was Tom Peters who advises that if it works it’s obsolete.  NASA isn’t reaching for the stars anymore. They leave it to younger entrepreneurs who take people on joy rides into space. The old folks aren’t pushing for improved transportation systems. China has 23,000 miles of track for trains that travel at almost 300 miles an hour. France has 1,675 miles of track for the TGV, Italy 1,467 miles of track for the Alta Volocita. The US has 33 miles of track on which the engines might get up to 150 miles an hour. Why aren’t we building a train system that can cross the country at 300 miles per hour? Is it possible that our elders have turned us into a country that doesn’t dream anymore, that doesn’t risk greatness, that can’t even agree to fix the roads and bridges; that won’t support basic health care for everyone or that won’t even save itself from a killer pandemic? We aren’t third-world, but we may be slipping out of first-world. We can’t let that happen. 

I’ve heard said that the country is safest when Congress isn’t in session. I suppose that applies to city councils, county supervisors, school boards, and library trustees as well. All of these ruling bodies are, stereotypically, warm seats for the older folks who run for office year after eons of years. It makes a strong argument for term limits. 

Looking in the rearview mirror sometimes points to the failures of an electoral system populated by people on their way to octogenarian status. They fight so hard to stay in office that they don’t govern. Half the population devotes itself to keeping the other half from winning, frustration builds and people elect other old people who are afraid to govern. Are we really afraid of change? We could use some new blood in the Halls. 

Being in your 70s and 80s is hard work, in and of itself. Ask me! Adding the burden of governing in a world whose technology is moving so quickly that it is hard to understand is asking too much of older people. It does, however, make good fodder for SNL each weekend. The younger generation gets it. 

Try to pawn off a file cabinet to 20-year-olds and watch their reactions – why would anyone need a file cabinet, there is a cloud you know. Even the FED can’t figure out how to regulate cryptocurrency in a period when other countries are planning to stop using currency altogether. altogether. 

The younger generations are asking for good healthcare, family care, better and less expensive education, and good working conditions. They learned in the pandemic, the lucky ones at least, that work doesn’t have to be what it was; why commute to an office to work on a computer when you can work on a computer at home. Essential workers are demanding better pay and an end to overbearing production quotas. Young people want to invest in the planet, to be less militaristic in our approach to world affairs, to be congenial with our allies, and at least polite to our adversaries. They want the country they know it can be. They aren’t naïve, and I think they are on to something! 

America needs a revolution, not a violent one, but one that returns us to be the dreamers we once were, to a willingness to strive for common values, and to be repulsed by hate and division. Is that hoping for a return to what was? Maybe, but for the young people who should be yearning to lead us, that would be new. They have lived through the result of old people leading them and it is time for a change. 

It is hard to imagine, but I find myself agreeing with an ultra-conservative senator from an ultra-conservative state; just this once mind you. So yes, if you are over 55 years old please don’t run for office, but if you do, be willing to submit to an annual cognition test. We are really on to something! 

Written at age 82 years, a bunch of months, a few days, and … heck, I can’t remember.