MIA: POTUS

You stand up in front of a large crowd, walk to a podium, place your hand on a holy book of your choice and say:

     "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."*

This is an oath, a solemn promise to carry out a set of actions on behalf of the Constitution and the people of the United States of America. You do not--you can not--walk away from it, abrogate it, deny it or ignore it. 

These are the most important thirty-five words you will ever utter. You are making a covenant with all Americans--not Latino, not African-American, not white, not Asian, not Native American, not male nor female--but all of us; every single one of the 331 million citizens of this sovereign country.

Your duty is clear and your job has only two requirements: 1): Execute the office to which you were elected, regardless of what it throws at you, always keeping in mind the welfare of those 331 million people who expect you to lead them; and 2): Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, every word and phrase of it, with honesty, fairness, and decency toward all. That is what you have sworn to do.

From ancient times oaths have been considered a special kind of promise. They are frequently taken in life-or-death situations and sometimes include a plea or reference to a deity. Merriam-Webster defines oath as: "a solemn attestation of the truth or inviolability of one's words."

And it was words that Americans came to hear, in person or remotely. They enjoyed the fireworks and the spectacle, followed the parade, gossiped about who was wearing what at the inaugural balls, but they came to witness the words that make this nation unique in the world, words that have provided peaceful transition of power for 231 years.

You said: “I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

If you have determined that you are unable to carry out your duties, you have two options. You can invoke the 25th Amendment, take a break and place the vice president in charge temporarily; or you can resign. 

Make a decision. Respect your oath, or in the name of God, go!


--- Diogenes, for the American people, 5/9/20

* Original spelling and capitalization. The phrase "So help me, God" is optional.

Were We Not Paying Attention, Or Did We Just Not Care?

Here are two comments about Trump's "The Apprentice," picked at random from the Internet Movie Database. I've made no edits or corrections.

"I used to like the show, but its become Donald Trumps own ego fest. Granted its his company you'll be working for, but come on! some of the things says "You're FIRED" is just insulting.

"after watching the show, I would not want to work for him. not because he is arrogant, pompous or such. Its just that the show is unrealistic and the way he handles things makes me just squirm. Good Entertainment? YES, but tiring as the back stabbing gets so tiring.. its not team work, its not personal, its just business. watch your back jack."  2/20/07

"I was at my friends house watching this, and it was the worst show I have seen in a long time. Uneventful, and lacking of any drama, I could easily slept through this. After I watched a couple of episodes I demanded my money back, which is crazy since I didn't spend any money to watch it. I wouldn't wish this on my enemy. I give this a 2, just for the fact that it gave Conan some material to make fun of Trump with. If your idea of a good time is to watch people act like they are the center of the universe, then this is for you. Otherwise this is a complete waste of time, not to mention money. Personally I would rather have a colon exam then watch this show again."  8/26/04

More than ten years before the ludicrous specter of a Trump presidency reared its obscene head, people were talking about the same atrocious behavior that troubles us today. Some of us may have echoed these volunteer reviewers at the time, or chuckled about them when jokes were made of them elsewhere on TV.

Why should we have paid attention to the antics of a boorish Manhattan real estate developer making a fool of himself trying to be a TV star? It was just Trump being Trump.

Then there it was: Against all odds, a Trump candidacy. Along with too many other Americans, I thought it was a joke.

I was a strong supporter of Bernie Sanders. I was sure he would be nominated, because he was the only potential Democratic candidate who could match Trump punch for punch. Either the DNC didn't take Trump seriously or their heads were so far up their collective backsides they couldn't see beyond Hillary. They put their bets on her and lost the race.

And we didn't know it until the end. The media continually told us, and probably told Hillary and the DNC, that a Trump win was impossible, even unthinkable. He was a political nobody. She was a former U.S. Senator and sitting Secretary of State with an immense following and inside knowledge of Washington. We convinced ourselves it would be an easy victory. We lied to ourselves.

In the final analysis, Hillary Clinton could not have won the 2016 election. Because she is a woman.

That is not a sexist statement but a matter of realpolitik. No one, including the DNC and the Clinton team, was prepared for the kind of blitzkrieg Trump launched, nor for the violence it fomented. Bernie had the chutzpah to match it, but Hillary was always playing catch-up.

Yes, she won the popular vote, but too few of us had been watching closely enough to see that she needed more to get past the Electoral College. 

Trump managed to tap a deep vein of machismo that infects a sizeable percentage of white American men and to release the anger, racism, xenophobia and sense of disenfranchisement that flows through it, riding it to victory.

We can not, must not, shall not, let that happen again. Never Again!

--- Diogenes, 5/8/20

The Clown Prince

I have no interest whatsoever in knowing the Great Pretender's reading habits. (I sometimes envision the White House bookshelves lined with hundreds of copies of the ghostwritten The Art Of The Deal.) But I digress.

Whatever his reading habits might be, someone at some point in his life must have told him about Nicolo Machiavelli. The Italian diplomat and writer is best known today for his book The Prince, which many people associate with the concept "divide and conquer."

In The Prince, written in 1513, Machiavelli discusses ways in which the ruler of a government, whom he calls simply "a prince," might govern his land, offering different approaches to princes who have come to power in various ways, from the affirmation of his people to crookedness and villainy. (What might he have thought of an ex-host of a wretched TV "reality" show?) Sorry, digressing again.

He does have some blanket suggestions for all princes:

     "A prince ought to have no other aim or thought, nor select anything else for his study, than war and its rules and discipline; for this is the sole art that belongs to him who rules, and it is of such force that it not only upholds those who are born princes, but it often enables men to rise from a private station to that rank." *

That last idea would certainly resound with the unpresident.

Machiavelli's ideal prince is:

     "[A man who] deems it necessary in his new principality to secure himself against enemies, to gain friends, to conquer by force or fraud, to make himself beloved and feared by the people, followed and reverenced by the soldiers, to destroy those who can and may injure him, introduce innovations into old customs, to be severe and kind, magnanimous and liberal, suppress the old militia, create a new one, maintain the friendship of kings and princes in such a way that they are glad to benefit him and fear to injure him." **

This ideal prince shows different faces in different situations and speaks with a forked tongue. This is, in a sense, one way of dividing and conquering: set different sides at odds by telling them different "truths."

To the best of my knowledge the actual phrase "divide and conquer" does not appear in the original The Prince. Nor do I believe it to be in his later book, The Art of War.

Machiavelli was a soldier and strategian who knew war, which raged in greater or lesser conflicts all over Europe during his time. Today we're not talking a violent war, although the Clown Prince seems to think of himself as a generalissimo in the war on an invisible enemy (Movie: Superclown vs. The Virus From Outer Wuhan). But I digress yet again.

Machiavelli's ideas can still be applied, not in terms of actual war, but in the ideational struggles of our time: politics, corporate takeovers, stock market shenanigans, more politics.

This we know about the Clown Prince: The press is told one thing, the people another, then both stories are denied. At a public appearance one set of plans is proposed; at a meeting of people who can lend megabucks to a campaign something else is said; governors hear yet another swindle.

Fears about COVID-19 are raised, disputed, then argued some more. Qualified experts are touted, then denigrated when they start telling the truth. We get lie upon lie, hoax upon hoax, disrespect upon disrespect. It's the oldest con trick in the book: Keep your mark off balance.

"Deceive, Inveigle, Obfuscate." I've used that line from "The X-files" elsewhere, but we're seeing it everywhere now as the unpresident pulls out every dirty trick imaginable finagle re-election. 

I know I'm preaching to the choir, but shall we not put down our music books and pick up bullhorns? 

 --- Diogenes, 5/7/20

* Machiavelli, Niccolo: The Prince, tr. Luigi Ricci. Oxford: The Oxford University Press, 1909, ch. 14.

** Machiavelli, Niccolo: The Prince, tr. Luigi Ricci. Oxford: The Oxford University Press, 1909, ch. 7.

On The Booboisie

I'm bringing out my man H. L. Mencken for an encore.

A couple of days ago I noted that Mencken called the American species Boobus Americanus. He refined that tag for "plain folk," as he called the middle class. He referred to them as the Booboisie, and wrote this about them:

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. No one in this world, so far as I know--and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me--has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby."*  [My emphasis]

Yes, that is harsh. Mencken was a snob, but he was also an astute observer of human behavior, and he called them as he saw them. An unfortunate fact of today's American society is that so many of us have become so politically correct we no longer actually say anything. We prevaricate, hedge, circumlocute and tergiversate** all over the place in our attempt to avoid insulting anyone.

I'm going to adopt Mencken's straightforward approach temporarily and do some generalizing.

Most of us have asked at one time or another who voted for Trump. Some of us have found the answer, which turns out to be what we expected, but for those who haven't yet got there, here it is, based on four independent studies of voting patterns.*** Most of these traits are found in a majority, but not the totality, of Trump voters.

The typical Trump voter in 2016 was most likely to be:

• White
• Male
• Older than 45
• Conservative
• A high school graduate, possibly with some college
• Protestant or Evangelical
• A rural or suburban resident
• Earning more than $50,000 per year
• A veteran
• Primarily concerned about terrorism and immigration
• Supportive of the Mexican border wall and similar projects
• Angry with the federal government
• Convinced that Trump was honest, trustworthy, and qualified to be president. 

And there, my friends, is the Booboisie.

--- Diogenes, 5/6/20

* Mencken, H. L., Notes On Democracy, 1926
** A great word; I just learned it.
*** Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/exit-polls-who-voted-for-trump-clinton-2016-11
    CNN: https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls
    Pew Research Center: https://www.people-press.org/2018/08/09/for-most-trump-voters-very-warm-feelings-for-him-endured/
    Roper Center for Public Opinion Research: https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-2016
    

Death In Ohio

I was forcibly reminded today that yesterday was the 50th anniversary of the Kent State massacre in Ohio. To my shame, I had forgotten the date. But not the event.

On May 4, 1970, armed Ohio National Guard troops who had been mobilized by Republican Governor Jim Rhodes confronted a group of students on the campus of Kent State University in Kent, Ohio. The students were protesting the American bombing of Cambodia, a neutral country. It was a major escalation of the Vietnam War.

Members of the Guard shot four students to death and wounded 9 others for exercising their First Amendment rights. Governor Rhodes denounced the protesters as terrorists, comparing them to communists, Nazis and the KKK, and calling them "the worst type of people that we harbor in America."

Say what? These were Americans exercising their rights. But Richard Nixon was president, and protest was not well tolerated.

I am aware that the Constitution gives us the right peaceably to assemble, and that passions were high at Kent State. The mayor of Kent and officers of the university had been spooked by rumors of everything from LSD in the water supply to plans to blow up the ROTC building.

The National Guard continues to deny any order to fire. Some of the guardsmen had been pelted with bricks and pieces of concrete. Some claimed they were responding to small-arms fire, others to reports of a rooftop sniper.

In fear or anger they fired indiscriminately, and 13 people, some of whom weren't involved at all, were hit.

Most of us who were active in what we naively called the Revolution abhorred violence. Kent State shocked us deeply and changed the protest movement in America. We had to decide how we would respond to the use of force.

One of our major goals was to get American soldiers out of Southeast Asia; but now we had a new concern. If they did come home, would the president turn them loose on us?


--- Diogenes, 5/5/20

 

A Moron In The White House

I've been thinking about H. L. Mencken recently, wondering what he might make of today's political situation. I admire the irreverent muckraking, wisecracking journalist whose work for The Baltimore Sun, The American Mercury, The Smart Set, and other journals enlivened American journalism from the 1920s through the '40s.

Mencken was an archetypal curmudgeon. He disliked everything: government, marriage, religion, politicians and people. He poked the rich, prodded the poor, and disparaged the middle classes. He coined the phrase "monkey trial" for Tennessee v. Scopes and referred to the American people as Boobus Americanus.

A bit less than a century ago he wrote this as part of a piece on elected officials:

"As democracy is perfected, the office of the president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."*

We have reached that day, perhaps for this reason: "The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth."**

Mencken claimed to dislike all forms of government including democracy, but he was well aware of the value and potential fragility of the American system: "The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's good-bye to the Bill of Rights."***

Mencken may have disliked government, but he certainly had his finger on its pulse. He even anticipated Mitch McConnell: "Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong."****

Mencken was not just a complainer. He had suggestions for righting social and political wrongs, and gave us some challenges for defeating government oppression (sorry for the sexclusive language):

     "All government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man: its one permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him.  The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos."***** (My emphasis).

And he reminds us: "It doesn't take a majority to make a rebellion; it takes only a few determined leaders and a sound cause."******

We have the cause, getting rid of the moron in the White House. Let's find a few leaders.


--- Diogenes, 5/4/20



*Baltimore Evening Sun, 7/26/1920
**The Smart Set, vol. 67, 1922
***Baltimore Evening Sun, 3/13/1933
****Mencken, H. L., Minority Report, p. 282
*****"Le Contrat Social", in: Prejudices: Third Series (1922)
******The Smart Set, Vol, 71, p, 144

Apologies

My apologies to everyone who has commented on a post and received no response. The fault was mine, a mistake in setting up the program.

I knew I should have asked a grandchild to do it.

Diogenes will be back tomorrow with H. L. Mencken.


---  Richard Brown, 5/3/20