Have We Lost Democracy?

     De Tocqueville's observation during Andrew Jackson's presidency was, "The nations of our time cannot prevent the conditions of men from becoming equal, but it depends upon themselves whether the principle of equality is to lead them to servitude or freedom, to knowledge or barbarism to prosperity or wretchedness".  My contention, after events on Charlottesville, VA is that servitude, barbarism and wretchedness are winning.  We may have already lost our democracy and simply  do not know it!

     The crisis in our democracy extends to our foreign relations, being degraded by our own president, whose right wing fringe of supporters have no problem with entertaining first strike policy in dealing with North Korea.  As Edward Luce points out in The Retreat of Western Liberalism, "we have put arsonists in charge of the fire brigade".  I can only conclude that the origin of this absurdity is a president who does not understanding the meaning of the term "nuclear winter". But there is precedent here, is there not?  Witness Lyndon Johnson conspiring with Robert McNamara and the US Navy to start the infamous Vietnam war, staging a phony  attack in the Gulf of Tonkin. The erosion of democracy is not a sudden single event.

     One of the greatest forces in this erosion is money. The Supreme Court in Citizens United case (5-4) five years ago decreed that, "Spending is speech, and is therefore protected by the Constitution — even if the speaker is a corporation" This led to creation of the super PACs, which act as shadow political parties accepting unlimited donations from billionaires, corporations and unions and use it to buy advertising that buys elections.  Couple this with the enormous concentration of wealth in the 0.1% and it spells control of democracy by the super-rich, not the people. It means corruption of the legislative branch of government at all levels.
     One of Luce's central contentions is that an example of our failing democracy was the financial crisis of  2008, specifically due to failure of the regulators.  This was coupled with a degradation of corporate treatment of employees, indignity and lack of respect.  Certainly the desire to take back control of their lives was a theme in the recent presidential election. Luce notes that nearly 60% of the workforce is now paid hourly. The disparity in incomes and the contraction of the middle class is a critical failure of the rich.  He sums by saying that the rich need to emerge from their post-modern Versailles. The failure of  democracy to maintain a balanced income between haves and have-nots is why the people have lost faith that their system can deliver.
     We know there is no way to measure the health of a democracy-- no litmus test, but we do know what forces are at work to destroy it.  The concentrated power of lobbies for example.  We the people seem powerless in the face of the NRA [National Rifle Association] and the big Pharma lobbies. Even after the killing of  20 children and 6 adults at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the senate refused to pass even the most common sense gun control legislation.  The power of big Pharma is evidenced in the congress preventing the government bargaining the price of drugs.
     The most egregious example of loss of democracy and polarization is gerrymandering--the practice of fixing district boundaries to protect the political interests of incumbents.  "Fixed seats" means no compromise and is the core of the Tea Party.  This condition together with the effort of Republicans to infringe upon voting rights of blacks and minorities may prove irreversible. Indeed, the Republican Party as Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein note in  It's Even Worse Than it Was, has become ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional under-standing of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of legitimacy of its political opposition, all but declaring war on the government."
     Let me stress that neither party is without blame.  The tampering with senate rules by playing majority voting against 2/3s, the dissolution of process--witness absence any healthcare reform hearings in this congress, and the poor record of congressional oversight of intelligence and national security agencies is sickening.  But the crowning force tearing down democracy is the lack of constructive effort by the two party system.  The Republican Party is primarily to blame. As David Brooks pointed out in a recent editorial in the NewYorkTimes, (Aug 29th) "..the Republican Party has changed since 2005. Their party has become a vehicle for white identity and racial conflict".  "It's ironic that race was the issue that  created the Republican Party and that race could very will be the issue that destroys it".
     It has been said many times that democracy is an experiment, which like any experiment may very well fail.  More depressing is the  absence of a force that will turn it around.  At this point in time, I just don't see it happening; not while the Koch brothers are running the show.
     

     

     

     

What is Extreme Vetting and What Does It Mean?

     The Executive Order temporarily banning immigration from seven Muslim countries,which has ignited a major legal skirmish, was based on a campaign pledge to prevent immigration of Muslims who are national security risks.   In candidate Trump's words, to be placed, "Until we know what the hell is going on".  Translated, this clearly inferred to the public that we are unsafe now under current vetting procedures, and that what we needed was to find security against Islamic terrorism by developing "extreme vetting".  Putting aside the hasty incompetence of the White House legal staff in the preparation of the order and fast forwarding beyond whatever legal outcome evolves, the question remains. What is extreme vetting and what will it mean to national security?

     "To appraise, verify, check for accuracy, authenticity, validity etc." is the given definition of vetting.  I can only assume that extreme vetting is pressing the current level of effort to some exertion of both in time and effort that provides a level of security deemed better or where we as a nation want to be.  Set aside again the adequacy of the present level of vetting and how well it has been working and go to the heart of the issue.
     
      The central question is this:  How can the vetting process be upgraded to prevent entry of any radical Islamic believers?  I do not know what they are doing now, so this is pure speculation but it must have to do in part with their religious beliefs.  So what religious beliefs do they have that are a security threat?  The answer must be the radical beliefs that threaten us.  And where are they found?  They are found in Koran--the extremist passages often cited by the Islamic terrorists obligating them to violet jihad or holy war. No need to quote them as any Koranic scholar can point them out.

   So the extreme vetting questioning goes like this;  Are you from (fill in the blank of which of the seven countries cited in the order are you coming from)?  Then are you a Muslim (mark yes or no)? If yes, then you believe in the Koran (confirm yes or no).  If the answer is yes then the next obvious question is do you believe in all of the Koran (mark yes or no).  If the answer is yes, then are we to believe that since there is no repudiation of the Koranic verses that are offensively radical, that exclusion is automatic?  Could be. But this is unlikely to hold legal challenge on constitutional grounds (First Amendment).  

     Lets proceed assuming the answer to the last question is no, then the respondent must detail those verses in which he or she is not a believer.  Any answer is threatening to the respondent's conscience because any believing Muslim believes that the Koran is the sacred word of God and cannot be changed or deleted.  He cleverly conceals his true beliefs and  then where does the extreme vetting go? Do we pull a Guns of Navarone (movie) and break out the scopolamine?  Time for a little water boarding Mr. Trump? No! The situation is clear.  There is no degree of vetting, extreme or otherwise that does not come down to word against word. Future behavior can only be pledged, never guaranteed.

       This is why laws governing separation of church and state are so critical.  When words are broken then the law and the constitution come in to restore the boundaries.  So the conclusion is simple.  Extreme vetting is nothing more that a scare tactic aimed at deceiving the electorate that they are unsafe and that this noxious nothing called extreme vetting is going to make them safe.  Didn't we learn anything from Senator Joe McCarthy?

      So Mr. President, you want to know what the hell is going  on!  I'll tell you.  We are paying attention!

Observations on Trump Inaugural Address

     January 20^th:  For citizens who thought that President Donald Trump would change his spots in delivering an inaugural address were disillusioned.    He began by stating that he would “deliver the power to the people” and blamed “the establishment” for the failure of our government.  He did this without clarifying what that means and further it served as an affront to all previous administrations.

2.      He then used the word “carnage” to lump all the hopeless conditions of our society including gangs and drugs.

3.      He further deprecated the previous administrations’ military preparedness and the decrepit infrastructure.

4.                 Declared without reference that the wealth of the middle class had been stolen. He gave no details.

5.         He then called for a new vision of “America First” which would protect our borders as part of “Protectionism”, a nebulous declaration that “America wins again” and that in doing so, we would “Bring back our dreams”.

6.               He inferred that now levels of employment would be reached and America would be “off welfare” because we would “Buy American and Hire American”.  “We would Shine”.

7.               His referenced  international intentions declaring that he would “eradicate Radical Islam”.

8.              He declared his love of “patriotism” and that he was convinced that we in America were “protected by God”. 

9.             He then squeezed in out of the blue, a reference to dedication to “pursuing the mystery of space”, totally out of context with any other statement.  

1          He then closed with an impassioned repeat of the theme of his campaign, that we would together make America great again.

   It was obvious that he wrote the address himself which is unfortunate but explains the ungraciousness and vapidness of it all. The address loudly proclaims that previous leaders did not have the best interest of the nation at heart. Not only did he manage to insult the previous administration and the entire Washington working force, but failed to even thank the previous president for his eight years of service.  He referred to re-uniting the country and it seems that he expects a better economy to do that for there was no other way mentioned. He wants us to believe that patriotism cures prejudice. The old campaign cliches and protectionist rhetoric adds up to tariffs and isolationism as the new international direction.  

      The address set a fearful if not a frankly selfish projection--“America First”, projecting  doubt in the minds or our long-standing allies as to where they might stand in the new Trump world. Finally, I have an abiding distrust in those who tell me I am part of a chosen people protected by God. That is the mark of a demagogue!

        But what did I expect from a walk-on president with thin skin and an aversion to truth?