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

Decents, Deplorables, and the Conditional Mood

  F or my next trick, I’d like to indulge in a linguistic conceit of sorts. I’d like to use the current political nightmare to speculate about a matter of grammar, of all things, that has long intrigued me: Namely, why do so many languages codify the conditional mood — also known as the conditional tense — in their grammar? Why do we use ‘should,’ ‘could,’ and especially ‘would,’ in so much of our speech? Why do we hedge our conversations this way? Why is it more acceptable to say “I would like a cup of coffee” than “Give me a cup of coffee.” Why is one deferential and the other pushy? Why has history passed down this polite form to multiple language groups, in such a similar way? Why is it bad form to use “I want” in a non-confrontational situation? And why does the MAGA crowd insist on such bad form? I have a speculative answer to these questions, but first let me cavalierly divide the world into two groups of people: Decents and Deplorables . Goods ...
11 comments
Read more

Uncertainty is Ready for its Closeup

E very day, we learn a little more about the way the Trump junta operates. We might sum it up with the phrase “Shoot first, ask questions later,” but this is not entirely accurate. They do indeed shoot first, mostly with executive orders that are breathtaking in their over-reach, malicious intent, and criminal shortsightedness. But they don’t so much ask questions later, as they send stupid lawyers into court to defend stupefyingly illegal behavior. They tend to fail, but even in failure, the confusion they create works wonders for them. On what must be several dozen fronts since January, MAGA operatives looking to subvert the government have done so, first by launching whatever harebrained scheme they’ve come up with, then by watching for the fallout. The fallout could be in the form of a court ruling, or howls of protest from the victims, or even from Democrats calling them out. But the point is that they depend on that first launch to shake things up, to flo...
1 comment
Read more

Yet Another Mole in Need of Whacking

  I n a week when Israel attacked Iran, Trump invaded Los Angeles, four million Americans took to the streets, and a Minnesota legislator was assassinated, the news from the arcane world of digital advertising probably didn’t make it to your list of big concerns. By the time I’m done, it probably still won’t. But in this miasma of Trumpish distractions, it’s often hard to figure out what we’re being distracted from . It’s a constant game of whack-a-mole, and last week, we got the first inkling of yet another mole that will require whacking. Warning: This will take a while to explain, and might cause mild-to-severe boredom. Proceed at your own risk: As we’ve seen, the Trump gang has recently extorted large corporate law firms into defending its pet causes, an ongoing story still developing. Now, apparently, they are trying to do something similar with large advertising agencies. The immediate focus is on the approval, or not, of a major merger between two of...
Post a Comment
Read more