The World Without Tremendous Trumpery

By Bob Travica

There is little doubt that Donald Trump will lose the upcoming Presidential election in the US. His mysterious "base" has shrunk down to some quarter of the voting population. When he won elections by the electoral vote in 2016, the pillar of his popular vote was white, less educated, older males. This part of the voting population has been shrinking relative to the educated colored and white voters. Latinos, who were anti-Trump in the previous election, are poised to make a significant difference in this election. Women of any background can be another voting force bringing Trump down. These points are based on various analyses and polls I looked at.

Who is still with Trump? Those white males as before, white evangelicals, arms lovers (hard to grasp in any country where arms in civilian hands are intended only for animal hunting), and various right-wing groups. The first three groups hold the banner of  MAGA (Make America Great Again) without questioning why their leader hasn't brought the greatness already in the past four years. Some of them bent the slogan into "Keep America Great" without questioning how the "greatness" squares with the huge human and economic toll of the COVID-19 pandemic that's been happening on Trump's watch. Actually, they don't believe in the pandemic numbers or even in the pandemic as such. If they acknowledge COVID deaths, they "put faith in dear God" and fatalistically proclaim that they are "ready to die if their time is up." So, they happily attend Trump's rallies without applying basic defenses against the new coronavirus and patriotically chant popular rock songs even when song lyrics send adverse messages. In a word, these voters represent a die-hard disconnect between fanaticism and ratio.  

The flocking of militant right-wingers around Trump is interesting because, again, it doesn’t make sense. These make a lot of noise and imperil public order and safety of just about anyone opposing them. Such groups make an inflammable social component that Trump manipulates in his endless political reality show that should help him to get re-elected. So, they "stand by" awaiting commands for the attack. Still, the hopeful storm troopers are a ragtag of militias, white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and conspiracy peddlers like various "Anon"-networks (anonymous "knowers" of "secrets" at the Q-level of clearance, of CIA, FBI, etc.). All these groups are at the fringes of politics and actually residing in their dreamlands of self-exclusiveness, hatred, and adoration of raw physical force. But the object of their hatred differs. White supremacists keep not necessarily a grudge against the whites in the Democratic Party. In contrast, Neo-Nazis are more exclusive, embracing some white nations and disdaining others along with all the non-whites. 

Conspiracy peddlers prefer virtual storming to street fighting and embrace anyone who shares implausible "explanations" of politics by some opaque, dark forces. For example, the "Q-Anon" network rumors that the leadership of the Democratic Party has for long been involved in a system of global child slavery. In contrast, highly qualified for the role of stormtroopers, the militiamen, take the government for their object of hate. Trump's government is as bad as any other. Ultimately, isn't he a self-proclaimed "Law & Order President?" Hell, yea, and there is nothing attractive in the social regime that a government can impose on weapon-carrying free-stylers. These differing agendas make the fringe groups just temporary, side actors in Trump's political reality even though annoying ones.  

Time of Reckoning

Although Trump's loss is "tremendously" likely (to use his favorite word), the process of the power transition may hit hurdles. As he proved to be a scruples manipulator that's exclusively centered on holding to power, Trump will try all possible to challenge, slow down and derail the departure from the Oval Office of himself and his quasi-government that his family morphed into.

Instigating public unrest, street violence and chaos that calls for governmental emergency measures is a possible scenario. Trump might end up being removed from the office by force of law enforcement officers. Today, it's not just clinging to power that drives Trump. He is on the brink of desperation as he's trying to save his wealth and even physical freedom.

Trump probably committed a federal tax fraud, which had put even the corruption tsar Al Capone behind the bars. In addition, Trump certainly offended many people that he whimsically fired and humiliated during his rule. His numerous opponents are awaiting the opportunity to take revenge when Trump's executive privileges expire. This has already started with books of the former officials as well as some relevant observers. Parts of the Republican Party are rising in opposition, including some capable young Turks.

In the end, a fall in public disgrace will plausibly complement Trump's financial and legal losses. That's why he will try to dig his heels into the White House as deeply as possible.

Life Without Trumpery

What will our life be like without Donald Trump? Less chaotic. As I argued in my previous blog, Trump promised to drain the "Washington swamp" but he just replaced it with a spider web, where he is sitting at the center as a spider-king, shaking the net at whim, terrorizing and devouring incumbents. Lazy, corroded institutions of the American Republic have been repressed by autocratic, quasi-monarchist practices and institutions-in-making. The Senate's Republican Party segment became the President's parlor, where the distinguished political role of the US Senator gave way to a voting machine whipped by President's lieutenant McConnell (except for a few dissenting voices). The already mighty Department of Justice became an extended hand of the President under his second lieutenant Barr. The loyalism to parliamentary democracy melted down under the hard-handed boss who could never understand the differences between a political organization and his own company.

Trump has toyed with the Constitution and laws as he pleased. Lots of his moves have been plain bullying acts with no much deliberation. He tested the system daringly, bent it carelessly, and broke it at sensitive points. One breakup is in furthering the imbalance between the executive branch of government versus the legislative and judicial branches. Consequences can be long-term.

With Trump out of the White House, we can expect restoring some of the institutions and established practices even if that means refurbishing the "Washington swamp." The swamp is terrible, isn't it? Almost nothing can be done in this two-party Parliamentary system where parties lock each other into a chocking embrace over things big and small alike. Just look at the long food lines in the "richest and best country in the world." The jobless masses can't afford basic food. All the while, Democrats and Republicans are bickering over financial packages that could relieve some of the pandemic economic pain. Not good for sure! But if you think the parliamentary stalemate is the worst thing in the world, think again. Dictatorships are incomparably worse, no doubt about it!

Remember Latin American dictators that not long ago ruled by fear and terror, African counterparts that didn't shy in comparison and made millions perish in mass executions, the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, Mao's "Cultural Revolution" in China… And don't forget Europe, although hardcore dictatorships over there happened in the first part of the 20^th century with Mussolini, Franco, Hitler, Stalin…

If you think that an American dictator can’t be as bad as these historical counterparts, just think of Trump ruling in a country with no opposition party or press, no freedom of the protest, no free thought… All this complemented by policing on steroids, with FBI and the CIA turned into tools of oppressing the dictator's opponents. Think hard before replacing even an ill parliamentary system by an autocracy (efficient one or not).

Dennis the Menace a.k.a. Mr. Bean

What else can we expect with Trump's departure? Less of entertainment! Indeed, Trump is like the cartoon character Dennis the Menace. Every day, I check my Internet feed or switch on the TV in an exciting expectation of finding what some new mischiefs have the American President committed. Not that this role is to be about entertainment, but Trump made it so. His trumperies are endless and tremendous! As silly as they can get, they overcome the wildest adventures of Trump's cartoon counterpart, although it's questionable whether the real menace could outsmart the cartoon character.

Maybe Trump is more comparable to Mr. Bean, a boy in an adult body. Everything this film character does is some sort of pissing against the wind. Things that boys would do to prove they have a personality. Same with Trump. Manage the pandemic? No! Rather, prove it isn't there really and watch how believers overlook what's obvious. I've got sick of COVID? No! It was just a hiccup curable with a cocktail of advanced drugs I can get but they, my folks, cannot, ha! Accept election results? Hell, no! Make them sweat over my grim faces. Endorse America's international deals and alliances? No way, adults have no clue what fun it is to step into a muddy paddle or trample over painstakingly cultivated flowers!

Free trade and open borders? Oh, c'mon, where is fun in all of that? Let's put some giant Lego blocks on our border and watch how astonished the onlookers' faces can get! Dig into racial problems of America? Whaaat? Think problem, and you start believing there is a problem; take it as a hoax, and you feel like a happy salesman spreading infectious goodwill! Commit to a Congressional hearing? Are ya kidding me? I can do whatever I want and I'll make funny, old wigs sing as I wish! Overall, folks have no idea how fun it is to sit in the Oval Office, where home pets can't find a corner to do what mother nature urges them to do!

Black Humor Standcom/Sitcom

I can understand that Trump's ambitions reach beyond Dennis the Menace and Mr. Bean. Hey, he's made a career in a reality show! He's a natural actor, isn’t he? As the President, he's worked hard to play a reality political show in the featuring role. A comedian role, alright, but an adult role nevertheless. Indeed, he's been both a standup comedian and a sitcom – a double fiat! Here are some of his standcom/sitcom references. Granted, they are more on the black humor side.

Trump catches COVID-19, a disease he publicly doesn't believe in, while taking unproven drugs all the time. He goes to a presidential debate and turns it into a drunk sailors' parlor, yelling at the opponent and pulling off fisherman stories of his own "achievements." Trump goes to an old church in D.C., his security forces cutting through scores of protesters, and then he pulls the leg of every watcher with a moment of unrealized expectations. Instead of praying or reading from an old Bible, he just holds it with a stern face put on. That black humor message is as clear as a black night. Good for a theatre of absurd. 

Note that Trump favors police jokes. For example, a police bully pushes an old man down, and Trump declares that the man acted out the fall. Then, Trump declares that a man choked to death by a policeman got happy while witnessing good stock market news from high above.

Trump keeps poking his opponent Biden for his old age and mental state. This joke is not obvious on the surface. To get it, you need to extend the thinking: "In contrast to Biden, I have four years less and much more body fat and tremendous, self-centered mind." In the past months, however, Trump outplayed even himself with COVID jokes. Here's his golden advice: If you want to clean yourself from the coronavirus, just sip some bleach or swallow an ultraviolet lamp! I've never heard any comedian cranking this joke before Trump.

Some people say that Trump is BAD - brute, arrogant, and dumb. Others counter that he is bold, astute, and dynamic. He may be some of these things and some more. But it's all irrelevant at this time of reckoning. The bottom line is, as well-known journalist Bob Woodward concluded, that Trump is the wrong man for the job.

 

Trumping the Constitution

Bob Travica

(Feb. 22, 2020, reviewed Sep. 29, 2020)

NOTE: This blog was written months ago. Before having a chance to review the draft, COVID-19 hit the world hard and my attention turned that way. Who could imagine that Mr. Trump would take a lead role in the COVID time as well, playing a bad boy, and so with no veil. But this is a story for the next blog in which I will discuss recent misdeeds of this 'tremendous golfer' and argue that he will lose the election. This one below is about his role in exposing the weaknesses of the U.S. Constitution and in furthering its undermining.

 *

The Big Chief danced vigorously around the fire, shaking wildly his headdress of heavily sprayed hair implants. When he finished his winning dance, he looked at the teleprompter and shouted: "Hey guys, you've done a really good job! Tremendous! Daddy trained you well. Come here to get your treat!" Creatures kneeling around started to inch toward the Big Chief with their mouth open. He grinned and threw a handful of small bones in the air.

Got it? If not, let's try another opening line. On February 5, 2020, the U.S. Senate relinquished its powers in order to inaugurate the first American king Donald Trump I. That's the day when the American Republic faced monarchy. This event ties into the topic of American political system I promised to address the last time I wrote about Trump (see).

CEO of USA Corp.

I previously suggested that President Trump would be impeached in the House of Representatives but acquitted in the Senate. And so it happened that the House controlled by Democrats (Dems) impeached the President for the offenses of abuse of power and of obstruction of Congress in December 2019. The Senate controlled by Republicans (I'll call them Reps) rejected both these articles. The decision was preceded by three weeks of grueling speeches in the Senate, where the impeachers wrestled with Trump's lawyers.

At the Senate trial, the impeachers struggled to prove that Trump abused power when he tried to exchange Congressionally approved military aid for Ukraine for the favor of digging political dirt on Democrat Joe Biden, a contender in the American presidential election this year. Prompted by an anonymous whistleblower who traced a call between Trump and the Ukrainian President, the House conducted an investigation. Trump refused cooperation and blocked executive officials from testifying and releasing documents; the impeachers qualified this as obstruction of the Congress. Battling back, Trump's defense struggled to minimize the importance of the incriminatory evidence, offer an alternative story on delaying the aid ("Trump was concerned with corruption in Ukraine"), and to discredit the impeachment on a procedural basis. But all that was rather a show trial with no witnesses or new documents brought in because Republican senators blocked these. It reminded me unpleasantly of the Nazi or Stalinist-era fabricated trials. In the final act, just one Republican senator dared to drift from the party line voting for removing Trump from office.  

The acquittal vote was the end of the Dems' long chase which included a two year-long "Russian Probe," the impeachment-driving Ukrainian case, some conspiracy theories, the U.S. intelligence community, most of the mainstream media, and millions of dollars and works hours.

----

The plan of the self-proclaimed challenger of the "Washington swamp" became clear: replace the Washington swamp with a Trump-spider web.

----

During this period, Donald Trump revealed his true colors. He stirred internal and foreign politics according to his populist ideology of "Make America Great Again" (MAGA), undoing the laws and international agreements of preceding Democratic administrations. He intensified fighting with American liberal mass media and the intelligence sector. His drunken sailors' grudging and aggressive Tweetomany persisted as well as the character of his public statements spinning relentlessly fact and fiction. The executive branch has remained unstable under Trump's leadership as he kept disturbing it by frequent firing and hiring. He just couldn't get rid of the role he had played in the reality show "The Apprentice", which made him broadly famous.

If the first half of Trump's tenure indicated that the real estate baron's transition to a top politician was uneasy, the following period proved that he could not learn, not even how to act presidentially. As in "The Apprentice" and in his business career, Trump has been capable of playing just a single role, that of a hard-handed boss. He's been running the country as the CEO+Chairman+President+owner of a business corporation. In a word, the plan of the self-proclaimed challenger of the "Washington swamp" became clear: replace the Washington swamp with a Trump-spider web.  

And then again, as oddly as it can be, Trump's clumsy moves have been blowing up the carefully maintained covers in America's realpolitik. The covers supposed to obscure that politics is akin to manipulation rather than "serving people," that politicians' lie routinely, that America is a plutocracy where politicians serve special and their own interest, and that America's foreign policy is driven by cold cash rather than hot morals. Most importantly, Trump's trampling (a.k.a. trumping) over untouchable institutions revealed that "something is rotten in the state of 'Denmark'." The soft spots are at the very heart of the American political system.

Dream of Separating and Balancing Powers

The American political system is officially based on a separation of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government, combined with mutual checking and balancing of each other. The model was novel when introduced after the war for independence from the British colonial rule in the 18^th century, and its basic ideas still shine. Each part of the government is supposed to have its realm of authority, which includes protecting it from intrusions by their counterparts. Legislators make laws, executives manage within the bounds of the law, and judges apply the law to rule on socially appropriate behavior. A division of labor as in a business firm but without a boss on the top. This is different from other political systems at that time and still today. Monarchies of the past gave way to political systems in which the executive branch is partly bestowed with legislative power (the United Kingdom, Canada), or which have a Parliament wielding legislative power plus controlling the executive branch by the right of voting on confidence in the government.

----

Trump: I can do anything I want because I'm the President.

Sun King Louis XIV: Anything we do is legal because we wish so.

----

Authors of the American Constitution (the framers, founding fathers) decided to untangle the bundle of monarchic powers and allocate these to separate branches of government without any of these towering others. Whether this was realistic in a culture that highly valued individual ownership and governance, is a question for Constitutional and cultural studies. The fact is that the Trump period shows clearly an imbalance of powers in favor of the executive branch. For example, Trump has been using extensively executives orders to introduce new legislation that's been controversial for the most part. Also, he has increasingly ignored the Congress that worked within its domain of power, and pushed executive officers to do the same. Examples include Attorney General Barr, head of the Judiciary Department, who manipulated the release of the Mueller investigation of the foreign involvement in the 2016 elections ("Russian Probe"). Then, in testifying before the Senate, Barr coolly drove a legalese slalom through questions to respond or not as he pleased.

It's very interesting that all these daring President's moves are within the Constitution and its interpretations by the Supreme Court. Specifically, powers of the executive order and of executive privilege of non-disclosure draw on interpretations of the Constitution. However, in current mulling in Washington, the constitutional institution of the presidency has been kept out of criticism, at least publicly. Doesn't it stand to reason that a bossy style of this (or any) President should not be able to make executive power dominant if the Constitution guarantees a separation and balance of three powers? 

Isn't it peculiar that a distinguished professor of Constitutional law interpreted the Constitution at the Senate trial by assuring that "a President can do anything he wants but commit a federal crime" and still not be removable from office? While he supported his oratory with aid of lots old, dusty books, his words merely echoed Trump's recent public statement ("I can do anything I want because I'm the President"). All this buzz is spookily similar to maxims of the 17^th century French "Sun King" Louis XIV. He ruled long with absolute power, pontificating that what was good for him was also good for France, whereas anything he did was legal because he wished so.

----

If a President can do anything he wants but commit a federal crime, is there something wrong with the U.S. Constitution?

----

All things considered, it seems that the revered U.S. Constitution does not preclude, if not even supports, the domination of executive power. So, the Constitution needs to be put under lenses if we want to understand why the American political system now appears broken under Trump's feet.

Executive Bias

The American political system has some peculiarities. These start with the terminology. It refers to "administration" to what is usually called "government" elsewhere; the heads of the areas in the executive branch including commerce, finance, transport, agriculture, interior affairs (managing government land), foreign policy, and defense. The term "government" is used in the U.S. in reference to the legislative, judicial, and executive parts (branches) of the nation-state organization; this is called "state" in the rest of the world. The federal policing function, which in most countries is identified as a domain of interior affairs, is within the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the U.S.

DOJ is part of the executive branch and includes FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies as well as intelligence agencies (CIA is one of them). DOJ has some judicial prerogatives since it can initiate a review of court decisions. This is again different from the rest of the world, where the notion of justice is associated with courts of law, the judicial branch being clearly separated from the executive branch. Unless there is a police/military regime in place, it is unusual in most countries that the head of police or security gets involved directly in daily politics as the current head of DOJ, the U.S. Attorney General, does. And it's all legal unless the Supreme Court rules differently.

The U.S. President heads both his administration and the state. These two roles are separated elsewhere. In some countries, the President of State has a stronger power position vis a vis the Prime Minister (e.g., France). In other countries, the President is rather a figurehead representing the state internationally, while the Prime Minister holds larger executive power (typical of Europe). As no such a separation exists in the American political system, the U.S. President wields more power than any president or a prime minister in other countries. (Presidential systems exist in Latin America too.) 

----

American President wields more power than any president or a prime minister in other countries.  Presidential power increases when a President's party dominates Congress.

---- 

One of the presidential powers is hiring (and firing) the heads of organizations making the executive branch. The President appoints officials of an administration or nominates these (like the U.S. Attorney General), while the Senate approves the appointment. The President also nominates the Supreme Court Justices and Associate Justices, while the Senate approves them. This is equivalent to an owner's or CEO's powers in private business. This authority can be used for expanding executive power as the former Presidents and the current one prove. By putting loyalists in leading positions and threatening them by firing, Trump is able to direct the workings of the executive agencies.

Although the bookish definition implies that the executive branch makes no law, the U.S. President is entitled to issue executive orders that come automatically into effect with no approval of other branches of the state. That's the law as well. It is most visible in foreign policy, where presidents can start wars without the approval of Congress. President Obama initiated a whole war by drone against persons that his administration designated as terrorists. The war also targeted U.S. citizens abroad who were on the wrong side, and so without charges, due process, or trial. Both Obama and his predecessor G.W. Bush managed massive surveillance operations abroad, including spying on the U.S. allies in Europe. Bush's presidential resume also includes ratcheting up interrogations techniques that security agencies could carry (e.g., torturing prisoners by waterboarding).

As for President Trump, some of his foreign policy moves have caught by surprise adamant cold warriors and other traditionalists in the U.S. foreign policy, thus indicating again huge presidential powers. He also killed single-handedly international agreements the U.S. was part of (NAFTA, the international nuclear deal with Iran, and the international climate accord). Further, Trump antagonized Iran in several ways and went into a trade war with China. To be sure, presidents do not tailor the foreign policy in solitude with no influence of corporations, the military-industrial complex, and other powerful players. The point is that presidents can move the security, intelligence, and military arms of the state without the approval of Congress. And the Congress should make laws of such a magnitude, shouldn’t it?

In domestic politics, presidents also rule via several legislative instruments. Previous presidents expanded surveillance over the citizens, changing dramatically "the land of the free." Trump's executive actions include restrictions on immigration, expanding the Mexican border wall (he proclaimed it a national emergency), re-organizing the executive branch, meddling with taxes, health care, and a bunch of "America first"-orders.

 Presidential power is increased when a President's party dominates the Congress. This loss of power balance is inherent to any two-party system. In the U.S., it surfaced visibly when the Republican Party controlled both the House and Senate from the 2016 presidential election until the midterm Congress elections in 2018. Even controlling solely the Senate by the President's party is sufficient to screw the Constitution. This showed up in Trump's impeachment trial. The Senate's Republican majority leader rejected the possibility of a true trial even before it began, and the final acquittal vote was 98% partisan.

Framing the Framers

It appears that the American strong Presidential model collides with the idea of separation of powers. The Constitution provides no means of curbing executive power even when it takes apparently wrong turns. The mechanism of checks and balances is deficient. Since executive power towers others, mutual balancing of powers is hard to achieve. Small children do not balance the power of parents. Yes, they may run some checks but these are toothless due to power asymmetry.

Sure enough, taking on the Constitution equals blasphemy. Both the pro- and contra-Trump camp swear allegiance to the Constitution and the framers. But when the politicking and legalese travesty is put aside, a common-sense question remains: How is it possible that two diametrically opposite sides find anchoring in the same document? Is it perhaps too broad, imprecise, underdeveloped, inconsistent, obsolete, incapable of preventing interpretations that counter its own assumptions? Wouldn't it be wise to take a realistic look at the Constitution in its historical time and contrast it with the complexities and needs of the present time? While the debaters in Trump's impeachment strived to divine what the framers did and did not want, it may be wise to remember that those founders of the independent American state tried to solve problems of their time based on contemporary knowledge.

 ---

It appears that history exposes the inability of the Constitution to ensure removing any President from office.

----

The historical period of the framers was undoubtedly different from the present. So for example, when the framers started the Constitution with words "We the people," they didn't refer to the black part of the population because the framers themselves were slave owners. Or, the framers worried about governing over militias born uncontrollably in the War of Independence. Granted, there are still militias in the U.S., but these are self-styled groups that pile up weapons and exercise shooting, banking on the Constitutional "right of the people to keep and bear arms." Indeed, the changed historical conditions convolute past institutions.

The framers were foremost interested in preventing the ousted colonial power Great Britain to conspire with the U.S. government officials, including the President. Therefore, treason was defined as the top reason for impeachment, followed by bribery. However, the framers also opened two other boxes for impeachable offenses (borrowed from Britain, as was the whole idea of impeachment) – "high crimes and misdemeanor." Opened them and left empty for the future generations to fill in the content. All three American Presidents impeached by the House (A. Johnson in the 19^th century, B. Clinton in 1999, and D. Trump now), as well as R. Nixon who resigned before his probable impeachment, were charged on these bases. All three were acquitted by the Senate.

It appears that history exposes the inability of the Constitution to ensure removing any President from office. The Congress has such powers on paper but is rather toothless in comparison with Parliamentary systems that can knock down the government (administration) by a vote of no confidence. The empty boxes for impeachable offenses are left to the mercy of political maneuvering, lawyers' intellectual gymnastics, and random circumstances of a given historical period. Perhaps the framers never really meant that a President should be removed from office but rather should be kept in check by such a possibility? They raised the bar for the guilty vote as high as to two-thirds of the senators present. True, in the Johnson trial the vote came to just one below the bar, but the number of the voting senators was just 54 (in the other two trials, it was 100).

Nobody is Above the Law… But the President

The Dems battling Trump keep shouting that "nobody is above the law!" The law implied is the Constitution. The Reps don't deny this publicly but rather through behavior. The Constitutional law professor mentioned above (otherwise known for playing devil's advocate or perhaps apprentice) offered Reps a parachute. He added to the Dem's "nobody is above the law" an appendix: "but the President!"

From the ethical perspective, the combatants follow two incompatible ethics. "Nobody is above the law" implies a rules-based ethic that has been a staple of Western liberal democracy (civil liberties, equality before the law). In contrast, "Nobody is above the law but the President" implies a utilitarian ethic that presumes good for a majority of people as the core ethical norm. In a nakedly partisan manner, the President's men and women brush off universalism in favor of particularism. Are they missing the boat? Not quite.

A significant pool of Americans feels safe under the President's wing; the populist ideology MAGA stir the masses and institutions; The Republican party must ensure another presidential mandate and (tacitly) protect the backing corporate interests; and what is always crucial for the American voter - the economy hums assuredly. Sufficient reasons for being utilitarian. Ah yes, there is also a hefty dose od pragmatic ethic on the Reps' side: good is what works at the moment and assures the survival of the individual politicians involved.

Although the opposed ethics may be ultimately responsible for incompatible interpretations of the Constitution, the implication again is that this document allows for such incompatibilities. The President can be above the law if he is daring enough and his party and voters comply. Fascination with the dated constitutional basis represents a puzzling paradox in the American culture that heavily invested in the present historical time. Even though America has been making its own way in many respects, it can't escape core social regularities that played out in the world's history. Indeed, threatening omens of the past have been bursting as the rule of the first American king, Trump I, unfolds.

One of Trump's defenders in the impeachment trial invited Dems to drop the impeachment ball and join Reps under the economic mastermind of Donald Trump. He screamed: "One nation, one people!" Sounds familiar, although the complete historical blueprint reads: "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!"

 

Pandemic of Foolishness

By Bob Travica

How do you feel about the way your political and public health leaders are treating you in this COVID-19 pandemic? To be honest, I often feel like a kid being put through toilet training. Stay at home, don't wear a mask, wash your hands, self-isolate, keep a distance, put a mask on, drink bleach, take hydroxychloroquine, don't get tested if you aren't sick, don’t take hydroxychloroquine, get tested, get to work, work from home, the situation is under control, we're in the midst of the pandemic!…

As he's grown a beard and a few silver hairs, the Canadian Prime minister resembles a musketeer from Alexander Duma's stories and he commands via government-paid ads: "Go home and stay at home!" After healing the nation with chlorine bleach and other ingenious medicaments, the American President shouts: "Reopen business, reopen schools, come to my rallies, goddammit!" As he put all his intellect in explaining COVID as "little flu", the Brazilian President eventually caught that "little flu" and said he felt fine because he was taking hydroxychloroquine. This is after his thought-leader, the American President, stopped taking this malaria drug.

The British Prime Minister also thought of COVID as just another flu and then he spent days in the intensive care. Undeterred, he recently kicked kids back in school and allowed the soccer and rugby seasons to continue, of course, with players respecting physical distance. If all this is no sufficient insult to your intelligence, consider the Tanzanian President who "proved" that COVID tests are not to be trusted; he said that he smuggled fake samples in a testing lab, and "the lab came back with positive COVID test results for papaya, a quail, and a goat"!

The medical authorities were not shy of making blunders and blinding us along the way.  The World Health Organization (WHO) toyed with the virus name from the very start of the outbreak in China. Instead of calling it "SARS Coronavirus 2" which it is, the knowledge gatekeepers decided to omit the "SARS" part. Their reasoning: Folks can get scared, so let's keep them in blessed ignorance. With a stroke of the pen, the WHO leaders confused billions of people! It's like saying, that thing growing on your cheek is just a mole, while it's actually melanoma. But a medical lobby in Sweden took this blunder for truth. The chief epidemiologist told his folks they were specially built unlike the rest of humanity, so their body was going to beat the virus on its own. The folks cheered: Hey, we rock and we won't be locked down! It turned out the special folks were getting sick and dying just like the rest of us. Sweden tops the world on the death rate, sharing the ring with Belgium, the UK, Italy, and Spain. 

We were never told really, why it's necessary to wash hands so often. If we work from home and venture out only for essential shopping, why should we wash hands all the time? Does the virus creep under the door, fly in through open windows, parachute down the chimney? Maybe the "washing hands" order is a handy filler when not much else is being done? The authorities feel well as they kinda do something along leadership lines, and we feel well too for kinda doing something for self-protection.  

"Masks aren't necessary except in the vicinity of sick persons. Masks give a false sense of safety. Masks don't really protect yourself. Masks can do more harm than good when handled improperly… Masks are useful, necessary, everybody should wear them... The reason why we didn’t advice masks earlier is that we wanted to save the limited supply of these for health workers…"

For months, we've been subdued to this confusing saga. In fact, it's been so much of the masks-rambling that a bystander could conclude that this is the most important issue in the whole pandemic. Couldn't the health authorities just take a quick look at countries where this pandemic started and conclude in no time that wearing masks is mandatory over there? Hey, those guys got it after battling SARS years ago! Why such arrogance and mindlessness even on part of the WHO? We the folks ain't that stupid. Well, if we don’t figure it out from the TV coverage of what's going on in China and those parts, we're certainly familiar with cowboys in Western movies and their inevitable bandanas. A cowboy would put a bandana over his nose and mouth while corralling the cattle. That had to do something with breathing, didn't it? 

And who in the state of sanity would not want to protect health workers, the life-saviors? But face coverings didn't need to be taken away from them. Hey, we could make them! Whoa, what a novel concept for health experts! Instead of convincing us firsthand that we didn’t need masks, they should have taught us how to make them. Science finds that a decent home-made covering is comparable in effectiveness to the mass-sold surgical type of mask. Both filter our breath. If everybody filters their breath, everybody is protected.

"Get tested, as everybody can do it now!" No doubt that advisors up the power ladder can. But then a former White House official discovers that there's no test for his child and so we, the folks, get dumbfounded. And scared. It's not really little flu, our leaders turned rambling about things-pandemic into business as usual, and by "everybody can get tested" they primarily refer to themselves. They don't even bother to make it clear what the testing is for. For the infection? For antibodies? For the current antibodies or for the long-term ones? In official stats, they lump together all these different tests for different purposes. And we feel safer watching a growing number of tests.

When I'm given a break from toilet training, I feel like papaya from the alleged Tanzanian lab.