Tag: U.S. Constitution

Posted on

The Fallacy of a Golden Age

Fresno Bee February 02, 2025

Trump’s ‘golden age’ dream is a fallacy, and the golden chariot is already stuck in the mud.

In his inaugural speech, President Donald Trump said, “The golden age of America begins right now.” Really? History is haphazard. Human beings are flawed. Powers rise and fall. Every action provokes a reaction. There never was — and there never will be — a golden age.

The White House marketing department would beg to differ: It described Trump’s first 100 hours as “Historic Action to Kick Off America’s Golden Age.” On the official White House website, a large, dramatic picture of Trump includes the motto “America is Back.” Under the motto it says, “This will truly be the golden age of America.”

But the golden chariot is already stuck in the mud. Chaos ensued immediately after Trump’s initial frenzy of executive orders, firings and funding freezes. Critics lambasted the January 6 pardons. A federal judge said Trump’s plan to end birth-right citizenship was “blatantly unconstitutional.” And pundits howled about authoritarianism, fascism and the like. In The New York Times, columnist Jamelle Bouie said Trump “wants to remake the government in his image. He wants to be king.”

Maybe that royal fantasy is at the heart of all the golden age rhetoric. Trump likes glitzy, gold-plated regalia. But I’m not convinced there is any grand strategy behind Trump’s gilded dreams. It seems more like he is throwing stuff against the wall to find out what sticks.

And that’s pretty much politics as usual: You try something. You see what you can get away with. The opposition pushes back. The lawyers get to work. And, in four years, we do it all over again.

The greed, graft and grime of humanity reduces any talk of a golden age to absurdity. In proclaiming a utopia, you will provoke inevitable backlash. Human beings are contrarian. If you say it’s perfect, I’ll say it’s flawed. We nay-say out of spite — or just for fun. Politicians turn this dialectic into performance art.

At any rate, the world is more complicated than Trumpian alchemy admits. Human lead cannot be turned into gold. The philosophers tell us that the crooked timber of humanity cannot be made straight. Applying gilded paint to crooked wood cannot conjure up a golden age.

The Founding Fathers understood this. The Constitution is designed for flawed humanity. As I explained in my book, “Tyranny from Plato to Trump: Fools, Sycophants and Citizens,” the Framers understood that human beings were not angels. They wanted to prevent the apotheosis of any mortal human being as tyrant or king. That’s why they instituted the separation of powers. As James Madison explained, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.”

The Framers also warned against the naïve fantasy of a golden age. Alexander Hamilton suggested it was a “fallacy” to ignore the “imperfections, weakness and evils” of humankind. He asked: “Is it not time to awake from the deceitful dream of a golden age, and to adopt as a practical maxim for the direction of our political conduct, that we, as well as the other inhabitants of the globe, are yet remote from the happy empire of perfect wisdom and perfect virtue?”

Trump is pushing the limits of Constitutional checks and balances. But those safeguards are already pushing back. Let’s hope they are sturdy enough to withstand this onslaught. It can help to study Hamilton’s claim that the gilded pipe dream is devious and dangerous.

The hallucination of utopia is at the root of many evils. It can lead to complacency or fanaticism, but none of us is perfectly wise or virtuous. And in the real world, there is no substitute for humility and hard work.

Hamilton warned that unwise leaders cause chaos when personal ambition runs amok. As he puts it, leaders “have, in too many instances, abused the confidence they possessed; and assuming the pretext of some public motive, have not scrupled to sacrifice the national tranquility to personal advantage or personal gratification.”

Which leads us back to the present pandemonium. It is ironic that the muck of the moment was introduced by Trump’s ambitious plan for a golden age. One hopes the president realizes that leadership is not marketing. It requires prudence and expertise. In a democracy, it also depends upon compromise and consultation. Wisdom humbly admits imperfection, and virtue is more substantial than any gilded dream.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article299445559.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on

The Second Coming of Donald Trump and The Temptation of Hyperbole

Trump 2.0 will no doubt be as chaotic as Trump 1.0. But despite the hyperbolic effusions of the political class, the country will likely stumble along, divided among red and blue partisans and another third who simply don’t care (as I discussed in a recent column). The American Republic will not collapse with Trump’s political resurrection. Nor has the messiah returned with Trump’s second coming.

We would be wise to avoid hyperventilating and to keep things in perspective. On both left and right, the tendency to exaggerate can undermine critical thinking. 

Trump is among the worst of those who exaggerate and embellish. In his victory speech Trump said, “God spared my life for a reason.” And, “This will truly be the golden age of America.” Trump’s Christian followers were even more direct. Christian nationalist firebrand Charlie Kirk saw in Trump’s victory the “Grace of God.” And Trump’s former spiritual advisor Paula White-Cain said of Trump, ““I declare tonight that your victory is found in Jesus Christ! Rest in Him – He has you, in the name of Jesus!”

Among the less zealous right-wing commentary, there was a tendency to exaggerate the significance of Trump’s victory. Consider, the smug conclusion reached by Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal, who claimed that Trump’s victory meant that “America, after its long journey through the 2010’s and 20’s, is becoming more conservative again.” 

On the other side, Trump’s victory brought forth lots of dire doomsaying. In The New Republic a column by Edith Olmsted proclaimed, “Americans just elected a fascist to the White House.” Another column by Ray Marcano said democracy “died on Nov. 6, 2024. It was 248 years old.” 

Pundits and politicians are often loose with their language. Everyone can be tempted by hyperbole. But it behooves us to be more careful and precise, and to avoid the Trumpian trumpet.

I’ll leave an extended critique of the theological bluster for another column (and my forthcoming book on Christian nationalism). But suffice it to say that the American Constitution is a secular document whose First Amendment prevents the establishment of anything like Christian nationalism. I might add that God must work in quite mysterious ways to have hand-picked someone like Trump as an instrument of His will.

Now let’s think critically about the hyperbole of the secular press. Consider Peggy Noonan’s claim about the triumph of conservatism. To say that Trump’s election is a conservative victory requires lots of qualification. Conservatives like Mike Pence  and other never-Trumpers refused to endorse Trump, whose lack of moral fiber and indifference to truth is far from conservative.

The hyperventilating of the left-wing commentariat is also problematic. To say that democracy died as a result of this election is absurd. This election was fair—despite the fact that it was Trump who kept warning of rigged elections and who threatened the existence of democracy when he disputed the 2020 election. His victory in 2024 was a democratic result.

I understand the fear that Trump will undermine this system. He certainly challenged our democracy in 2020. He was wrong then. But so far, the electoral system continues to work. Trump left office then. He returned now through a legitimate process. We ought to have faith that this system will continue to operate in the future. Trump has made threats that may undermine the Constitution. The Supreme Court has offered a broad kind of immunity that might facilitate wrongdoing. And Trump will most likely prevent further investigation into his first administration. This is dispiriting. And we should remain vigilant. But democracy ain’t dead yet. 

Left-wingers also ought to be cautious in invoking words like tyranny or fascism—and the idea of “resistance” to Trump 2.0. In a post-election column Robert Reich called for “peaceful and nonviolent” resistance to Trump. He said, “We the people will resist tyranny.” And, “We will resist Donald Trump’s tyranny.”

In my book on Trump and tyranny I argued for caution with the T-word. Trump was at most a would-be tyrant with a flawed personality. But he was (and is) constrained by our Constitutional system from consolidating power into full-fledged tyranny. 

These Constitutional brakes may be wearing thin. But the system worked to prevent Trump 1.0 from subverting democracy. I agree when Reich calls for a peaceful and nonviolent response to the threat of tyranny. But it would better to describe this simply as adherence to the Constitution and its anti-tyrannical fundamentals. The separation of powers was designed to resist tyranny. This system should be embraced and strengthened. But we should be careful with loose talk about tyranny and resistance, lest our thinking become less peaceful and more extreme.

Which brings me to the F-word. During the 2024 campaign each side accused the other of fascism. The term has become a catch-all pejorative divorced from its original significance. Fascism is an authoritarian political movement that desecrates fundamental liberties in the name of ethnic-nationalist ideology. It is militaristic and state-centered. And it is dependent upon fanatical true-believers and ideologues.

It is true that Trump called his opponents (including the press), enemies of the people and that he hinted at violence and threatened his enemies with revenge. That essay in The New Republic that said a fascist has been elected to the White House lists a long litany of Trump’s dangerously transgressive language. There may be some MAGA true believers who want to see Trump embrace violent ideas that even he described as “dark.” And some Christian nationalists do in fact dream of overthrowing our secular system.

But I doubt that the majority of the Americans who voted for Trump are fascists who would support a Trump regime that tore up the Constitution, fomented violence, and persecuted religious minorities. There are Christian nationalists in our country, as well as sexists, racists, and other sordid characters. There always have been. But it is hyperbolic to suggest that the majority of Trump’s voters would support or tolerate the creation of a MAGA gestapo or the overthrow of the Constitution. 

I could be wrong. History and human nature are unpredictable. In a symposium on my Trump book, a number of my critics suggested I was naïve and overly sanguine in my analysis of the Trump era. With Trump’s second coming, those critics might prove to be right. So let me conclude by saying that while I think we ought to be moderate and careful in our language, we also ought not be naïve. The danger of tyranny is as old as Plato, who pointed out that the moronic masses can end up voting a tyrant into power. This problem is real. No democracy lasts forever. Nothing human does. 

But there is stability in the American system, which was designed to prevent tyranny. It also helps to know that many conservatives agree with liberals that Trump 2.0 will be dangerous. I suspect that those conservatives would also agree with me that the theological fervor around Trump is both blasphemous and un-American.

Democracy is not dead yet. But we must remain vigilant. 

Posted on

The Wrath of God and the U.S. Constitution

Fresno Bee, March 10, 2024

Alabama has crafted legislation that will allow in vitro fertilization (IVF) to commence again, in response to a February ruling of the Alabama Supreme Court that shut it down. That’s promising for folks who want to use IVF technology to become parents.

But the court’s reasoning reminds us of the need to reaffirm the basic idea of separation of church and state.

In his concurring decision, the chief justice of the Alabama Supreme, Tom Parker, cited the Bible, as well as Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and other Christian theologians to support his claim that “all human beings bear God’s image from the moment of conception.”

He concluded, “Human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God, who views the destruction of His image as an affront to Himself.” And “Even before birth, all human beings bear the image of God, and their lives cannot be destroyed without effacing his glory.”

Some Christians will agree. Various Christian communities, including the Roman Catholic church, teach that IVF is wrong, along with abortion. One concern is that IVF results in extra embryos, what the Alabama high court called “extrauterine children.” If they are destroyed, the court suggests that this is murder.

IVF also violates “natural law” teaching about sexual reproduction. Natural law ethics holds that reproduction should only occur within loving, conjugal relations. But IVF involves masturbation and technological manipulation that supposedly violates the nature of sex, love and procreation.

Of course, not every Christian agrees with this moral analysis. Christians are not universally opposed to the procreative use of technology. Nor is every Christian opposed to masturbation, abortion or to methods of birth control that prevent fertilized embryos from implanting in the uterus.

Christians don’t all agree that life begins at conception. Indeed, Thomas Aquinas himself claimed, following Aristotle, that the soul is only present in the embryo at 40 days (for male children) and at 90 days for females.

The world’s diverse religious traditions teach different things about sex, genetic humanity and human reproduction. There is also a sizable and growing number of nonreligious Americans who don’t accept natural law ethics or the idea of a wrathful God.

That’s why invoking the wrath of God in a legal argument seems astonishingly un-American. The American government is the result of a social contract. It is a grand compromise created by “We, the people.”

Moreover, the Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees the right to religious liberty while prohibiting the establishment of an official state religion. The only other mention of religion in the Constitution is found in Article VI, where religious tests for office are prohibited.

But in Alabama things seem otherwise. In a recent interview, Chief Justice Parker said, “God created government.” The founders would disagree. They viewed the government as the result of a social compact that aimed to produce domestic tranquility. John Adams said that the American states were “founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretense of miracle or mystery.”

One important reason to reject Chief Justice Parker’s theopolitics is the fact of religious diversity. This diversity includes a wide variety of Christian faiths. Adams himself had unconventional religious beliefs. He did not accept the doctrine of the trinity and was doubtful about the divinity of Christ. In a letter to his son, he claimed that the idea of an “incarnate God” had “stupefied the Christian world.”

Americans of the 18th and 19th centuries disagreed about religion. These days, Christians disagree about whether “extrauterine children” bear God’s image. And even in Alabama there are non-Christians. According to the Pew Center, 1 % of Alabamans belong to non-Christian faiths and 12% are non-religious. So, it is bizarre to claim, as Justice Parker did, that “the theologically based view of the sanctity of life” ought to guide the law of the land. This is a religiously diverse nation.

The founding social contract created a secular democracy that guarantees religious liberty and seeks to prevent the creation of an established state religion. This idea allows Christians to follow their consciences with regard to IVF, sex, abortion, and everything else. It also ought to prevent the government from imposing a religious doctrine on any one of us.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article286440505.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on

The Trump Indictment: On Lying, Fraud, Incompetence, and Delusion

Fresno Bee, August 6, 2023

Trump’s indictment spotlights the nature of lying and duties of leadership 

The recent Donald Trump indictment should cause us all to worry about the stability of our democracy.

The leading Republican candidate for president is charged with three conspiracies: to defraud the United States, to obstruct official government proceedings, and to deprive people of their right to vote. It is undisputed that Trump actively attempted to overturn the 2020 election. But Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said in response, “President Trump did nothing wrong!”

The indictment claims that Trump “knowingly” lied in the conspiracy to overturn the election. The indictment uses the word “knowingly” 36 times. It declares that Trump’s claims of election fraud were false, and that “the Defendant knew that they were false.” The indictment is full of examples purporting to show that Trump knew he was lying, or should have known. Among these is an interaction in which Trump said to Vice President Mike Pence, “You’re too honest.”

I have no idea whether Trump will be convicted, or what will happen in 2024. But the case prompts difficult questions about lying, leadership, and the future of our country.

Lying involves deliberate deception, which assumes that the liar knowingly tells falsehoods. But if an accused liar is confused, stupid, or out of touch with reality, is he really lying? The most convincing liars never flinch. Some liars lie to themselves. And pathological liars believe their own lies.

It’s not really lying if a person is brain-damaged or brainwashed. Mentally deficient folks lost in delusion are not lying. Nor are those caught up in conspiracy theories or cults really lying. These dupes inhabit a self-reinforcing web of falsehoods that sees the truth-tellers as lying enemies.

Punishment is misplaced for people lost in delusion. It also seems cruel to punish a brainwashed cult member. We might forgive these folks and offer them compassion. But we should not put them in positions of power

We expect our leaders to be intelligent, honest, and virtuous custodians of truth. There are no guarantees that truthful people will be elected. That’s why we have a system of checks and balances, and regular elections.

The Trump indictment accuses the former president of subverting that system. But what if he really believed the election was fraudulent? If Trump knew the election was legitimate, then he is a liar and a danger to democracy. If it was not legitimate, then Trump is a heroic truth-teller and champion of democracy.

Many loyal Trumpians believe that the election was actually stolen. Recent polls from Monmouth and from CNN show that about a third of Americans, and two-thirds of Republicans, believe the 2020 election was fraudulent. This explains why Trump’s defenders think the Justice Department has been “weaponized.” Trumpians do not think Trump is lying about the election. They see the current indictment as an anti-Trump conspiracy.

The indictment shows how claims of fraud were systematically refuted. So, it seems obvious that Trump is wrong to claim otherwise. But the Trumpians won’t believe the facts laid out in the indictment.

And what if Trump believed his own lies because he is pathological, delusional, or brainwashed by the right-wing echo-chamber? This question is important both because it is connected to possible punishment and because it tells us something about the character of the man who is likely to be nominated for the presidency by the Republican party next year.

If Trump lost, but he really believed the election was stolen, then he did not knowingly lie — and there is no deliberate fraud. Maybe he just couldn’t believe he lost. Maybe he is a pathological liar who believes his own lies. Maybe he was caught up in a cult-like world of right-wing conspiracy. Or maybe he is a senile old man, unable to discern the truth. But these excuses mean that Trump should never be elected again.

If Trump knowingly lied, then he is corrupt and culpable. If he didn’t know he was lying, then he is deluded or incompetent. And in either case, if we assume that the 2020 election was legitimate, Trump seems to lack the virtue and honesty we expect of our leaders. Trump loyalists see things otherwise, which is why our country is on the verge of disaster.

Read more at: https://www.fresnobee.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article277966113.html#storylink=cpy

Posted on

January 6: American Democracy and the Challenge of Tyranny

Fresno Bee, January 9, 2022

The American political system remains in crisis, one year after the Jan. 6 riot. A recent poll shows that 40% of Americans believe that the 2020 election was illegitimate. The same poll indicates that a majority of us fear the future will bring more political violence.

This is alarming. But polarization and distrust are par for the course in the American system. This dysfunction is a feature of the system, and not a bug. Conflict was hard-wired into a system that was set up to safeguard against tyranny.

I explore this idea in more detail in my forthcoming book, “Tyranny from Plato to Trump.” The American founders were focused on preventing tyranny. They were less interested in efficiency than in preventing the consolidation of power.

The question of whether our system is working depends upon what we think this system is supposed to be doing. If we think the government is supposed to respond to the will of the majority, we will be disappointed. But if we think that the American system is intended to prevent tyranny, then the virtue of its dysfunctional design becomes apparent.

The problem of tyranny is an ancient one. In the ancient world, political power was often consolidated in the hands of a strongman. Sophocles warned against the hubris of Oedipus. Plato warned that tyrants were predators who preyed upon their own people.

The American founders studied ancient philosophy and literature. They accused the British king of behaving tyrannically. When they set up the American system of government, they were interested in preventing tyranny by establishing the Constitution’s separation of powers. James Madison defined tyranny as the “accumulation of all powers” in the “same hands.” The solution is a system in which divided powers limit each other. As Madison put it, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.”

The good news about the American system is that its checks and balances worked to prevent Donald Trump from consolidating power. Local officials refused to comply with Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election. The House impeached the lame duck president. The courts provided independent confirmation of the integrity of the election. Members of Congress certified the election, led by Vice President Mike Pence. And when the Capitol was assaulted by an angry mob, those insurrectionists were arrested, put on trial and convicted.

All of this is part of a slow and messy process. This is the way the American system is designed to work. It moves slowly and incrementally. It is not easy for a strongman to take control in this system and purge his enemies. Nor is it easy for democratic majorities to enact radical change. There is too much friction built into the system for quick and radical solutions.

Some people don’t like this sluggish system. Some long for a nimble system that can react quickly to emergencies. A number of people even seem to desire a savior who would ride to the rescue with a flaming sword.

But the people’s desire for a savior can be exploited by would-be tyrants. In response to emergencies, the people are often willing to sacrifice ethics in the name of expedience.

History teaches us that there are no saviors. It shows us that when power is concentrated, corruption is sure to follow. Atrocities occur when reaction outpaces rationality.

The U.S. Constitution is not perfect. It was flawed at the start, since it permitted slavery. A civil war was fought to eliminate that peculiar form of tyranny. Other corrections and improvements followed.

It took centuries to improve this system. More work remains to be done. One obvious problem is the inordinate power of small states. Citizens of small states such as Wyoming and Rhode Island have much more representational power than citizens of California. And citizens of Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico have no real representation.

We ought to continue to improve the system. But this is tedious work. Progress will be slow in coming. And there will be no perfect result.

This will bother those who dream of utopia. But utopias do not exist. The human condition does not permit perfection. There are no political saviors. And the dream of a savior can easily become a tyrannical nightmare.