Skip to main content

Nice Try, Founders


Who knew the Constitution was so fragile?

Who knew it could be so easily eviscerated in just three years? Who knew all it would take was a single media-savvy sociopath happy to run roughshod over any law, norm, institution, or value?

Of course, no single sociopath could pull this off alone. He needed a rogue political party willingly enabling him, gorging on his corruption, happy to trade the country’s future for their donors’ present.

Could the Founders have anticipated this? That a Trump could take over the entire party in a sort of slow-motion putsch? That he could have them jumping through hoops of gaslight and fraud, blackmailing them into doing his bidding? All for fear of triggering a tweet attack?

I’m generally an admirer of the Founders, but it’s hard to deny that they got a few things wrong, things that have gone largely unexposed until now. I’m not referring to the electoral college, which continues to be a bad idea gone wrong. Nor am I referring to the composition of the Senate, two per state, which distorts beyond reason the representation of the actual citizenry.

I refer, rather, to the checks and balances. As ingenious as the system was — and it worked fairly well for almost two and half centuries — the Founders made a perhaps fatal assumption: that if one branch of government proves to be corrupt, the other two would step in and put a stop to it.

They never anticipated that all three branches could be corrupt simultaneously.

Yet for the first time, that is what we have. A president who gives corruption a bad name. A Senate oblivious to the rule of law. A Supreme Court at least as radical and backward-facing as we feared — with a Judiciary newly stocked with unqualified imbeciles, courtesy of Mitch McConnell’s confirmation assembly line.

The Founders made it almost absurdly difficult to remove a president. Impeachment is effectively the only remedy (forget the 25th amendment), and it’s a poor one at that. Impeachment is, at root, a political action, not a legal one. As we’ve seen recently — and vividly.

Why isn’t it written directly into the Constitution that the president is not allowed to break the law? Founders? Are you there?

It’s almost unthinkable that any other presumably democratic nation, when faced with such an astonishing mix of incompetence and criminality, would not find a way to put a stop to it. But we can’t. The Constitution has us boxed in. It is no longer clear that it, or we, can protect the rule of law from these usurpers.

So it was a nice try, Founders. Not only did the Constitution seem to work, more or less, for all that time, but we also managed to sell much of the rest of the world on its perceived virtues. They admired us. They emulated us. Do they have buyer’s remorse?

I, for one, am embarrassed that my country, once held up to the world as a best practice, has so quickly devolved into a bad example.

Can we undo any of this? Can we get back the rule of law? I’m worried.

Trump’s most senior enablers — Barr, Pompeo, and especially McConnell — have gone all in. They seem to be betting their own survival on tanking the Constitution and setting up some sort of half-assed, poorly-thought-out dictatorship.  

I’m not sure they meant to put themselves in this position, where they either have to steal the next election or go to prison. But that’s what they’ve let Trump con them into. And he’s pushed them, I fear, past the point of no return. All while the virus makes it crystal clear just how irredeembably vile these people are.

Rule of law is the secret sauce of democracy. Without it, things get dicey, and fast. Which is what’s happening now, and fast. The next six months are going to be, in a thousand ways, batshit crazy.

I think no less of the Founders for having unwittingly gotten us into this mess. But I sure wish they could get us out of it.


Berkley MI

Friday 05/29/20

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Elise Stefanik Wants to be Your President

It isn’t often that The New York Times and The Washington Post do lengthy features on the same politician in the same week. So when Elise Stefanik was given several thousand words in two major papers, my curiosity was duly piqued. The two pieces ( here and here ) are similar profiles of Stefanik, age 38, and her remarkable transformation from Harvard-educated “moderate” Republican, to ultra-MAGA ideologue. The subhead of the Times article states the theme of both: To rise through the Trump-era G.O.P., a young congresswoman gave up her friends, her mentors and her ideals. So how does a double feature like this happen, especially when there’s no immediate news driving it? Stefanik was not in the spotlight, though it was clear she would soon be taking a leading role in the new GOP House majority. So it could just be the coincidence of two reporters intuitively seizing on the same story. It happens. But it could also be that Stefanik herself, working with a clever publicist, set o

The Trump-Putin Bromance is Getting Another Look

The arrest last week of Charles McGonigal, former head of counterintelligence for the FBI, may or may not prove to be a watershed moment in our understanding of the Trump-Putin conspiracy. It’s still early, and the depths of the story have yet to be plumbed. So I’m not going to weigh in on that (you can read about it here ), except to note that people who’ve been watching the Trump-Russia show for over a decade are now going back to their notes and timelines, looking at old events in light of new information. And the more we all look, the more the miasma of Russian subterfuge stinks up every narrative. If a murderous oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, could actually recruit the FBI agent who’d investigated him — which the McGonigal affair will apparently show — who knows what else was going on? There is, I think, the need for some sort of “unified field theory” of the Trump-Putin relationship. There is much that we’re missing on at least three separate tracks of that bizarre bromance: Tru

Another Rousing Comeback for Antisemitism

I was in my late twenties in the late seventies, a single man sitting in a piano bar on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. It was St. Patrick’s Day, and I was in friendly conversation with an older Irish couple, there to celebrate their history. He wore a green tie, she a green blouse. Alcohol was involved. The conversation was free flowing, as random encounters with amiable strangers can be. When the talk turned to history, which can happen on St. Patrick’s Day, I put forth the notion — stolen, I think, from a Leon Uris novel I’d recently read — that the Irish and the Jews had much in common, that their shared history of oppression bonded them, that their experience of suffering and privation was deeply imbued in both their cultures. Not an especially profound insight, but the husband — to the surprise not just of me, but of his wife as well — was having none of it. In his sloshed but strident state, he insisted that the suffering of Jews couldn’t possibly be compared to what the I