Although I’ve been tied up with other pursuits the last couple of weeks, ongoing events have caused me to consult my American Heritage Dictionary.  It defines “shock” in part as follows:

“[An] unexpected blow … A severe offense to one’s sense of propriety or decency; an outrage.…”

I would suggest that although our institutions are so far holding fast, they are under the greatest internal strain since the civil war.  Every day, President Trump assaults our basic foundations purely for his own self-aggrandizement.  His enablers support him to protect their own interests.  It’s no longer unexpected; the time for outrage is past.  I would submit that every citizen has a duty to think critically about where we are going as a country … and what s/he is going to do about it.

Mr. Trump lies chronically – indeed, promiscuously.  I assume that even those that support his substantive policies recognize this. Truth – what is – is more important than the substance of any issue.  Our republic cannot indefinitely survive breathing the carbon dioxide exhaled by the President.

The President and his allies engage by turns in an unceasing and unwarranted attack on the courts, law enforcement, and the mainstream media.  While clearly none are perfect, the rule of law and freedom of speech have supported our way of life over this nation’s history.  The President seeks to trample them for his own purposes, with his sycophants shamefully and cowardly abetting him.

Mr. Trump incites racial and religious hate.  Using broad strokes to label immigrants and Muslims as our enemies manifests a malevolent disregard of what this country stands for.  The vast majority of Americans – including him – are descended from immigrants.  The right to freely practice one’s faith is a cornerstone of this Republic.  His constant reference to gangs such as M-13 when discussing southern migrants seeks to create an inference of a general criminal invasion that the relative numbers show is absurd.  Separating parents and children at the border is inhumane.  Making children pawns in a legislative negotiation for his border wall is monstrous.  He stokes his followers’ fears and encourages their darker emotions because it helps him, not them.

A transgression that to me is as destructive as those above is the way the President is letting his own supporters down … and they seemingly don’t recognize it.  I would offer that the way he manipulates the millions that believe in him is as cruel as his treatment of his adversaries.

• His massive tax cut predominantly benefited big corporations and the rich, at a time when unemployment was already steadily dropping and The Wall Street Journal was reporting the U.S. economy to be in the forefront of worldwide economic growth. Economists unanimously expect the tax cut to aggravate deficits that will in turn more quickly endanger entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  This threat won’t much matter to Mr. Trump, his family and friends – they’re rich.  It will matter to the great percentage of the President’s supporters who do and will rely on these programs.

• His attempt to protect legacy industries such as coal mining and certain of our manufacturing segments are as if Theodore Roosevelt had attempted to protect horse buggy manufacturers while slapping tariffs on materials Henry Ford needed to build cars. Through his phrases, Mr. Trump assures his financially desperate supporters that it isn’t their fault that their fortunes have deteriorated over the last decades.  While a serious physical condition may not be the patient’s fault, there is no return to health by blaming others or administering outdated care plans.  He’s lulling them with a pipe dream.  Challenges created by automation, globalization, an aging population, etc., etc., aren’t going away.  Instead of alerting his followers to their and our nation’s need to focus on the industries, technologies, and opportunities of the future, he’s giving them Leave it to Beaver.

• Perhaps the most remarkable: It is now undisputed that the President dictated the statement that Donald Trump, Jr., initially issued in the summer of 2017 indicating that Trump Campaign officials’ meeting with Russians in the summer of 2016 did not involve a campaign issue.  It would have taken no prescience for the President to realize that if the truth came out – which it did, in a matter of days – the false statement would be putting a bull’s eye on his son for an obstruction of justice charge.  Who endangers one’s own child?

Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan summarized some of the challenges we will be facing in the coming months in a piece she published in May, 2017:

“The question, at bottom, is whether Donald Trump has demonstrated … that he is unfit for the presidency—wholly unsuited in terms of judgment, knowledge, mental capacity, personal stability.”

Although I obviously consider Mr. Trump to have shown his unsuitability in the areas listed by Ms. Noonan, I would offer that he has demonstrated his unsuitability in two areas that matter even more:  his apparent lack of moral compass and his selfish disregard for the well-being of the people he has sworn to serve.  It’s no longer unexpected; the time for outrage is past.  Although I will give the President credit in the future when I think he deserves it, now is the time to devote energy, within the bounds of law, morals, and ethics, to the electoral contests ahead.

It’s time to Make America … America Again …

Ever persistent, I just emailed the following Letter to the Editor to The Wall Street Journal in response to Sen. Hatch’s cited article:

While asserting in “Protect Mueller, but Not Like This” (Opinion, April 25), that a bill being considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee to constrain the president from firing special counsel Robert Mueller is unconstitutional, Sen. Orrin Hatch indicated in several ways that he believes that Mr. Muller’s investigation should be allowed to run its course.  Mr. Hatch went so far as to say that if the president dismisses Mr. Mueller, it would “trigger … possibly even impeachment.”  He concluded with a ringing affirmation that the rule of law cannot be protected by “… violating the supreme law of the land.”

About 20 years ago, conservative commentator Ann Coulter argued in one of her books that the Founding Fathers did not consider grounds for impeachment in the American system to be limited to legally criminal behavior, and that the standard was simply that the official “behave amiss.”  Sen. Hatch is presumably as aware of these authorities as Ms. Coulter.  The senator’s expressions would have had a greater ring of sincerity – and potentially a greater impact on the president’s behavior — if he had concluded his essay by stating that if President Trump does dismiss Mr. Mueller without cause, Mr. Hatch will vote to impeach Mr. Trump if an article of impeachment citing the dismissal comes before the Senate while Mr. Hatch remains a member.

What is set forth below is a Letter to the Editor I just forwarded to the Wisconsin State Journal; I have categorized as “U.S. Domestic Policy” rather than “Politics” because I consider the discord that currently exists and is being sown amongst our people to have risen from a question of politics to a substantive domestic issue:

In your editorial expressing support for Judge Dallet’s victory, you mentioned Gov. Walker’s subsequent tweet – in which he said, in part, “The Far Left is driven by anger & hatred.”  Such vitriol seems intended to send a message to his supporters that those that oppose him are angry at and hate them.  I am no fan of the Governor, but what I detest is any implication that my deep disagreements with his stewardship in any way equate to any ill feelings toward his supporters (some of whom are beloved family members).  No party or group is the font of all wisdom and virtue nor the pit of all ignorance and depravity.  Although obviously not the first to make this point, I suggest that this should be our central theme in the coming electoral cycle:  whether we Wisconsinites are Republican, Democrat, or other, most of us are Packer fans, appreciate fish fries, cheese and beer, enjoy our beautiful seasons, and would prefer our politicians to compromise rather than confront.  No matter our substantive views, we all need to recognize and reject any attempt by any politician of any stripe to sow venom in order to gain political advantage.

What follows is a note I wrote in mid-July, 2017.  As I say at its conclusion:  “Opinions are easy; we’ll see what’s borne out”; but if there is evidence that implicates the President and/or his close associates in wrong doing, a graceful withdrawal seems a less available path now than it may have been then …

As all are aware, A.G. Sessions has been under increasing pressure from the President, in large part due to Mr. Sessions’ decision to recuse himself (undisputedly in accord with DOJ rules and procedures) from the Russia investigation.  It’s hard to contest that the President’s irritation with Mr. Sessions arises from the President’s belief that Mr. Sessions could have controlled the Russia investigation, and his concern that Mr. Mueller’s probe is, from the President’s point of view, expanding in an unacceptable manner.

As perhaps all are aware, if the President was to get rid of Mr. Sessions, get rid of Mr. Rosenstein (the Assistant A.G. that appointed Mr. Mueller), and then fire Mr. Mueller, a number of legislators of both parties have indicated that Congress would reinstitute a Special Counsel law, place Mr. Mueller in that role, and have him proceed.  I had wondered whether there was actually sufficient support to bring that about.  What has brought the President’s predicament home to me is the fact that 7 Republican senators – Barrasso, Hatch, Grassley, Graham, Shelby, Tillis, and one on the video I didn’t recognize – went on record yesterday as supporting Mr. Sessions.  Together with 48 Democrats, that’s but 5 short of overcoming any attempt to filibuster the bill.  It is hard for me to believe that those five votes couldn’t be gathered from Sens. McCain (if he’s around – VERY sad), Burr, “Never Trumpers” Flake and Sasse, Collins and Murkowski, “Little Marco” Rubio (what goes around comes around), and Paul.  Sen. McConnell himself is obviously no fan of the President, and wouldn’t want to be “on the wrong side of history.”  Although the House isn’t as easily weighed, it’s pretty hard for me to believe that there wouldn’t be a sufficient number of Republicans that “wouldn’t want to be on the wrong side of history” to vote with Democrats for the Special Counsel law; supporters of the measure could all claim that they weren’t voting against the President – simply voting that “the truth should come out,” or some such.

Thus, the advice:  Mr. President, you aren’t going to be able to get rid of Mr. Mueller.  If there is something illegal in your past – either with Russia, or in your other business dealings – Mueller is going to find it.  So if there is, get out now.  Those adoring crowds won’t be able to save you.  Furthermore, if the conservative media – Fox, Breitbart, Limbaugh, etc. — turns on you (there has been little discussion about the fact that the result of your departure will be Mike Pence – whom the conservatives like better than you), it will feed your base in a way that will ultimately cause it to desert you.  Make up a pretext – health, whatever – resign, and go back to the life that you clearly liked considerably better than your current life.  The appetite to continue investigation of your activities if you’re out of office – particularly while Republicans control both chambers – will be zilch.  It very likely gets both you and Don, Jr. off the hook.  Although you’ll leave dangerous loose ends behind – Flynn, for example – you have a reasonable shot of getting clear of this.  Go back to New York, start your own network that appeals to your base, whatever.  If you stay, and if there’s something to find, you’re lost …

Opinions are easy; we’ll see what’s borne out.

If you are researching impeachment issues, I recommend as one source conservative commentator Ann Coulter’s 1998 book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors:  The Case Against Bill Clinton.  I bought the book assuming that Ms. Coulter had argued that the bar for impeachable behavior was pretty low.  I wanted to see whether she and the conservative commentators who lauded her scholarship when applied to President Clinton would try to distinguish her arguments if applied to President Trump.  Four impressions emerged.

First, Ms. Coulter asserted persuasively that the Founding Fathers considered grounds for impeachment in the American system to be primarily related to a moral standard, not necessarily linked or limited to legally criminal behavior, and that the standard was simply that the official “behave amiss.”  She also flatly declared:  “Lying is an impeachable offense.”  An argument can fairly be made that according to the standard Ms. Coulter outlined, a number of Mr. Trump’s undisputed actions in office would be grounds for impeachment.

Second, her exhaustive allegations of inappropriate behaviors of President and Ms. Clinton stirred lost memories.  Ms. Coulter’s accuracy has sometimes been assailed, but if but half of what she recounts is accurate, even those who don’t vigorously oppose the Clintons gain a better appreciation as to why their activities – and their apparent ability to get away with them — so infuriated conservatives.

Third, Ms. Coulter’s recitation of the methods used by the Clinton White House to defend itself seems a literal playbook of the approaches now being used by President Trump and his adherents:  aggressive attacks against officials whose careers had theretofore been above reproach; assailing investigators’ alleged motives as a manner to distract from the strength of the evidence they uncovered; decrying leaks; sudden reversals in accounts supported by a cohort of advocates; claims that The New York Times and The Washington Post were biased against the president, etc.

Finally, Ms. Coulter makes a number of declarations about Mr. Clinton that have ironic and disturbing resonance given the circumstances in which we find ourselves today:

• “Instead of reflecting Americans’ virtues and aspirations, President Clinton reflects the country’s dark side.  He has debased the White House, the administration, and the entire country, not only by what he has done but also by how he has defended himself …. Clinton has done worse than lie:  he has told lies that no one can believe, and forced those around him to lie as well.  And then he and his cronies have denied not only the facts but even basic standards of decency …. Clinton’s legacy is that he has no shame, no sense of duty or obligation to the country, and no concern for his own reputation.”
• “Clinton’s [behavior] has led directly to monstrous ‘factions’ of hypnotized zombies spouting the absurd…. [H]is own lack of integrity has infected the nation …. People who used to say controversial, but not preposterous, things are now having to twist themselves into pretzels to defend him.  The line of defense shifts away from protests that the president is innocent to charges that the accusers have bad motives.  (Even if their accusations happen to be true.)”
• “Ruthless political gamesmanship has overtaken the law and finally overtaken the truth.  Politicians are allowed to reshape our understanding of facts and truth, because it’s all just political spin.”
• “Clinton draws on every sick theme of our culture to win politically …. Under Clinton the country has grown accustomed to believing that there is no truth.”
• “One of the most terrible things [Italics in Original] Clinton has done to the country is to make it respectable to lie.”
• “It may sound trite, but truth is all that separates us from the cave.  People cannot communicate if they cannot assume that most of what they hear is true.  Truth is prerequisite for a society to survive, for capitalism to flourish, and for a system of law to dispense justice, rather than raw power.”

The last quoted passage in particular contains good words, seemingly written from a real sense of outrage (even if the outrage blazed more brightly due to Ms. Coulter’s substantive policy differences with Mr. Clinton).  Although I suspect that most presidential historians would indicate that President Clinton was not the first president that may have twisted the truth and it seems pretty indisputable that he hasn’t been the last, what matters now is how and whether we as a people can escape our cycle of tribalism, distortion, and recrimination.  As our mothers taught us, two (or more) wrongs don’t make a right.  It’s time for us to stop.

A Letter to the Editor I have just forwarded to the Wisconsin State Journal:

While I strongly believe that our representatives should be collegial and collaborative in governing, the stalemate over gun violence in our society has gone on years too long.  If I were President – recognizing the gauntlet I’d be throwing down to Congress — I would go on TV and read, state by state, the names of the Congressional leadership and all Senators and Representatives that as of the night I spoke were unwilling to vote for aggressive background checks for gun buyers and a ban on the sale of assault weapons.

I would conclude with this:  “When one of these horrific incidents happens again – and it will – I’ll be back, reading the names of the Congressional leaders and the members of the Congressional delegation of the state where the incident occurred that refuse today and were refusing on the day of the next incident to support background checks and an assault weapons ban.  And then … I’m going to do the same after every future incident until we get appropriate background check and assault weapons ban legislation in place.”

Although President Trump will obviously never do this, we need an approach that will scare legislators more than the NRA.

As noted in the correspondence below, I believe that the Senate should consider only two factors in considering a judicial nominee:  Is s/he highly qualified?  And if so:  Is there an objective reason why s/he should not be confirmed (criminal record or indictment, substantiated drug abuse problem, etc.)?  The candidate’s substantive views should not play a role.  The Constitution gives the President the power to nominate and appoint; the Senate should discharge its duty … consenting to qualified nominees, withholding consent from those that are not.  Below are edited versions of letters I sent to Sen. Charles Grassley in March, 2016 and Sen. Tammy Baldwin in February, 2017.  Alas, neither agreed with me.  In between, there is edited text of an email I sent to a friend in July, 2016.  Not being any sort of Constitutional lawyer, I have no idea whether the noise I spouted in that email would have had any legal merit; in any event, Mr. Obama didn’t try it.

March, 2016

In re:  Senators’ Consideration of Judge Garland for Supreme Court

Dear Senator Grassley:

I am writing to express my extreme disappointment at the current refusal by you and your Republican colleagues to carefully consider the nomination of Judge Garland – or indeed, any nominee put forth by President Obama – to the Supreme Court.  This letter comes from me, not as part of any initiative by any lobbying group.

Both parties talk about “doing the people’s business,” and the Republican Party particularly stresses the need for judges that will abide by the “plain meaning of the Constitution.”  I have actually gone back and read Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.  As you well know, it grants the President the power to “…nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate … appoint … judges of the Supreme Court [Emphasis Added] ….”

I see nowhere in the section any language limiting the President’s powers of nomination and appointment to the first three years of his/her term.  Although a time frame for the Senate’s consideration isn’t specified, I doubt that even a strict constructionist would question the drafters’ intent that the Senate consider the qualifications of a candidate for a position at the top of the third branch of the government promptly and impartially.  Republican comments I’m hearing about “letting the people speak” are an unfortunate avoidance of duty; the people did speak — in 2012.  I’m confident that you would concede (albeit ruefully) that the Republican Party made the President’s power to appoint Supreme Court nominees an issue in the last presidential campaign.

Realizing how naïve this sounds, I truly believe that the Senate should consider only two factors in considering a judicial nominee:  Is s/he highly qualified?  And if so:  Is there an objective reason why s/he should not be confirmed (criminal record or indictment, substantiated drug abuse problem, etc.)?  The candidate’s substantive views should not play a role.  We elect a President; the Constitution gives him/her the power to nominate and appoint; the Senate should discharge its duty … consenting to qualified nominees, withholding consent from those that are not.

Based upon the position currently being taken by you and your Republican colleagues, any objective observer will conclude that the Republicans like the Constitution when they agree with it … and are just as willing as they claim Democrats are to discount the Constitution when they don’t agree with it.  I have no idea whether Judge Garland is qualified; that is for the Senate to determine.  However, if he is well qualified and has no other objective impediments, he should be confirmed.   [Very truly yours]

July, 2016

There’s an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal this morning by the President of the United States, decrying the Senate’s unwillingness to hold a hearing on Judge Garland.

Am wondering whether the President could sue the Senate on the theory that the Senate has violated the President’s constitutional right under Article II to appoint Supreme Court Justices by its failure to provide any advice or consent (i.e., no hearing) within a reasonable time after the President made his nomination.  No matter what the disposition at the lower court levels, it would obviously (and wildly interestingly) reach the 4-4 Court … and it seems [at least to me  😉 ] that there would be some chance that either Roberts or Kennedy (or both) would find that the Senate does have a duty to hold hearings and vote on a President’s nominee within a reasonable time …

Doesn’t mean Garland would be confirmed — he almost certainly wouldn’t be; and at this late date, by the time the claim wound its way through the court levels, the issue would be moot … but am disappointed that Obama didn’t bring the claim …

February, 2017

In re:  Standard for Assessment of Judge Gorsuch

Dear Senator Baldwin:

Although I have limited hope that you will heed this request, I am compelled to make it:  please review the qualifications of Judge Gorsuch fairly and impartially, and base your vote to confirm or reject upon objective criteria rather than upon the nominee’s substantive views.

I consider the Senate Republicans’ refusal to hold hearings on Judge Garland’s nomination (nor – unless unexpected issues had surfaced – to have confirmed him) a dereliction of their duty.  Furthermore, I am pretty darn confident that I would have been more comfortable with Judge Garland’s contributions to the Supreme Court than I will be with Judge Gorsuch’s.

That said, I now urge you to adopt this approach toward Judge Gorsuch’s and any future nominations to the Supreme Court that come before you:  Is s/he highly qualified?  And if so:  Is there an objective reason why s/he should not be confirmed (criminal record or indictment, substantiated drug abuse problem, etc.)?  As naïve as I realize this sounds, the nominee’s substantive views should not play a role.  We elect a President; the Constitution gives him/her the power to nominate and appoint; the Senate should discharge its duty … consenting to qualified nominees, withholding consent from those that are not.

[Even so, if I was on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I would not be able to resist asking Judge Gorsuch these questions during his hearing:  Based upon his own knowledge of Judge Garland’s jurisprudence, does he consider Judge Garland qualified to sit on the Supreme Court?  And:  Although Judge Gorsuch is a literalist, are there instances that he would apply a “reasonable time” standard to a constitutional duty even if none is expressed in the document?]

Although many are disheartened by many of the actions President Trump has taken since assuming the presidency, under the Electoral College system we use, the people have spoken.

As President Obama said toward the end of his term:  elections matter, and if a voter doesn’t like a result, s/he should “grab a clipboard” and start organizing and/or running for office.  Paraphrasing Ms. Obama:  Government needs to go high.  Process and performance of duty matter.  In the last round, he won; she lost.  Elected officials shouldn’t indulge in the luxury of letting their instincts or emotions govern the performance of their responsibilities.  [Very truly yours]

I just emailed the following Letter to the Editor to The Wall Street Journal in response to its cited editorial:

While I completely agree with the concerns regarding our military preparedness raised in your editorial, “The Pentagon’s Fading Readiness” (January 16), I find the Journal’s expressions of dismay disappointingly inconsistent with its months of cheerleading for a tax cut that virtually every economist quoted in its News and Finance sections opined would increase the deficit by a trillion dollars or more.  Our ability to invest in defense is now further constrained by the breaks we’ve given primarily to cash-rich corporations and the wealthy at a time of booming national economic growth.  You bemoan the degradation of our security that is resulting from insufficient political and financial support; but if we were indeed determined to dig a trillion dollar-deeper hole in the deficit, perhaps we would at least be more militarily secure if even half of the trillion provided to corporate interests and the well-to-do had instead been devoted to buttressing our national defense.

I just emailed the following Letter to the Editor to the Wall Street Journal in response to its cited editorial:

As a 40-year Wisconsin and taxpayer who has never been a member of a union, I was offended by the presumptuousness of your editorial, “Tax Reform Take 2:  The States” (Dec. 21), in which you dismiss certain high tax states as “liberal political cultures heavily influenced by public unions,” suggest that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker “should propose an across-the-board tax rate cut,” and conclude by urging high-tax-rate states to cut their rates in order to be “more taxpayer friendly.”

You should mind your own business.   Wisconsin has traditionally placed greater emphasis than some other states in areas such as educational excellence, quality state services, a solid support network for the disadvantaged, and safeguarding our natural resources.  Efficiency is vital, but – as with most things in life – you get what you pay for.  It is not Wisconsin’s place to question other states’ services and taxing approaches; it is not your place to question how we in Wisconsin – or citizens of other states that tax at relatively higher rates – choose to conduct ours.  The majority of people in these states would not consider the degradation of the quality and availability of their state services likely to result from a reduction in their states’ income tax revenues to be “taxpayer friendly”; these states balance their services/taxing approaches as they do because the majority of their citizens believe in them.  High-earner residents have always been able to leave these states if they wished; it’s pure speculation that they will now.  Our federal system is designed to enable the citizens of different states, across a wide swath of issues, to express their cultures and values in their own ways.  Does the Journal only stand for federalism when it doesn’t like an approach that the federal government is taking on an issue?