4/6/17
Those
who hoped President Trump would be different than Candidate Trump, are
now faced with the reality. As I wrote to a friend,
"You obviously have friends from around the
world, especially the country of your birth, Germany. I imagine just how enraged
those people who didn't even get to vote are this morning, as the man
we put into office, went from synapse to action in seconds, this time
not a bizarre tweet, but by giving an order, proverbially pressing the
button. This time it unleashed 50 cruise missiles with a few hundred
thousand pounds of explosives. But, ominously, it showed that when he,
as Commander in Chief, does order an attack, the chain of command
follows though. Orders are orders, and if another time that button was
for a similar number of explosive power, except not in pounds but
Megatons............
I
don't have to finish the story, as few would be around to worry about
it if, God forbid, he were to be so inclined. Things are moving too
fast for my usual essays, as by the time they get from idea, to draft to
final polishing (as if they were to be read by more than my handful of
fans) our commander and chief has revised his fantastical
accusations/proclamations. A few weeks ago our country's greatest
concern was that Trump was too close with Putin, and this was somehow,
outside of legitimate concern on his influence on the election, a bad
thing. One of Trump's rare reasonable statements was to the
effect,"what's so bad about the U.S. having better relationships with
Russia?"
The
problem of having someone in this awesome position of authority with
zero experience is not evil intentions but a mercurial nature with a
disinterest in understanding consequences. "Nobody knew that health
care was so complicated" he stated. Ironically, had he replaced
"nobody" with "I" it would have been heartening, meaning I really need
help here; but what he said was compounding his ignorance by the phrase
being reasonably restated as, "I have as much knowledge about health
care as anybody." O.K. destroying the level of health coverage we have
achieved with ACA will "only" cause death and suffering to some
additional tens of millions, but his firing missiles at a country we are
not at war at, that happens be allied with a country that can match our
thousands of H-bombs ..........
The LA Times is publishing perhaps the longest editorial in history, so far in six parts under the rubric "Our Dishonest President" Here's my letter to the editor that they just printed.
-------------------
To the Editor:
This
editorial series will not be read by the one third of the population
who still admires and supports President Trump. While this demographic
can be demeaned or ridiculed by those who applaud this editorial, there
is the harsh reality that the structure of the United States
Constitution allows a minority to choose a President, which over
the unimaginable expansion of this country now has the plenary power to
do what Donald Trump is doing.
There
should be no comfort in explicating the depredations of President
Trump, as if such an articulation will inherently lead to his downfall.
His power is what was given the leader of a weak country with no
military that was closer to the stone age than what our world has
become. Mr. Trump is reveling in this power, with his acolytes sharing
vicarious pleasure in destroying the intellectual-technical
infrastructure that had provided hope for weathering the immense
challenges that face our world.
Al Rodbell
------------------------------------------------------
Addendum 4/10/17
------------------------------------------------------
Addendum 4/10/17
Hi Ron
If you choose, please forward this to Justin, whom I can safely assume is no longer with the Dept of Justice
I just came across this interesting this article in Politico,
that describes how Judge Merrick Gardner could have a more immediate
effect in his current position than the one he was nominated for. In
his position as Chief Justice for the D.C. Court of Appeals he can, at
the least, impede Trump's* scorched earth campaign against the
administrative agency efforts over the last half century to provide for a
healthier and more humane world. *(I learned from their editing my
last L.A. Times letter that he can be referred to as Trump or President
Trump, but not "Mr. Trump.")
I
spend more than sixty hours absorbed in the Gorsuch Judiciary Committee
and then Floor discussion, including researching media articles and one
decision of his that was never mentioned in any of the media or during
the hearings. Republicans didn't have to work that hard beyond glowing
generalities, since they knew he had the votes; so Democrats took the
role of prosecutors, making the case that he was an extension of
existing conservative Justices, while some implying he was Trump's
stooge.
It was this dissent, which can fairly be described as an extension of
the Miranda decision written by another man whose entire identity before
being on the Supreme Court was as a mainstream Republican, whose
specific job as California Attorney General was to apprehend and convict
criminals. If one reads this full dissent, we see an argument inimical
to the "law and order" mentality that usually is associated with
conservative ideology.
This dissent from a ruling that allowed
police to breach the virtual moat around the "castle that is a man's
home" shows that a headline case such as the "frozen trucker" doesn't
define a comprehensive philosophy. Here's the link
29/57 of the PDF. A search of the internet did not return a copy of
this by Gorsuch, as it was only referred to tangentially by some
articles saying he had been both for and against law enforcement.
After
reading this, I concluded that it is inconsistent for one who is
programed
to support the right wing ideology to write an expansive dissent
that would limit the capacity of the police to get evidence of a
crime. In this decision Gorsuch fits the pattern that I see in Earl
Warren, who turned out to be far different than the law and order
conservative that Eisenhower had intended to appoint.
There
was a deeper message for those who chose to use the confirmation
hearings as an advanced seminar political studies. Sadly, for the vast
majority, it was more like a sports event, where we cheered for our
team, while vilifying the messages of the opposition. I expressed this
in this letter published in the L.A. Times on their six part editorial
dissecting the pathologies of the Trump administration:
-----------------
To the Editor:
This editorial series will not be read by the one third of the
population who still admires and supports President Trump. While this
demographic can be demeaned or ridiculed by those who applaud this
editorial, there is the harsh reality that the structure of the United
States Constitution allows a minority to choose a President, which over
the unimaginable expansion of this country now has the plenary power to
do what Donald Trump is doing.
There should be no comfort in explicating the depredations of
President Trump, as if such an articulation will inherently lead to his
downfall. His power is what was given the leader of a weak country with
no military that was closer to the stone age than what our world has
become. Mr. Trump is reveling in this power, with his acolytes sharing
vicarious pleasure in destroying the intellectual-technical
infrastructure that had provided hope for weathering the immense
challenges that face our world.
------------------
The
time I spent transfixed by the Gorsuch hearing was intellectually
stimulating, but ultimately isolating. To be well adjusted is to have a
support group, friends, family or community where there are certain
shared values. Those without this often suffer, experiencing profound
depression or as a reaction, of lashing out violently against enemies.
Here's an example of the affect, defined by this imperative to cognitive
consonance, towards an important person, that is telling about the
mentality of our current political parties.
Charles Schumer is generally associated with leading the opposition
against the Hobby Lobby decision that ruled that a hand full of
followers of a religious belief could impede thousands of their
employees from obtaining contraception. Could a reasonable argument be
made that he was the primary person to be held responsible for the
federal law that dictated this tenth circuit and Supreme Court
decision. I had never heard this, before this hearing explained the
principle of the decisions, and then I did further research. It goes
like this: Hobby Lobby was decided based on the Federal Law known as
Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, a law that happened to be
described by Justice Paul Stevens as unconstitutionally breaching the
First Amendment proscription against establishing a religion. This law
was introduced in the House by Representative Schumer, and passed both
houses almost unanimously. Schumer, the prime promoter of this law, was
the major antagonist against Neil Gorsuch, who, like Alito on the high
court, explained thay were obliged to enforce this law, and not modify
it. Was this just an excuse to gut ACA? Based on reading both
decisions, I don't think so. Gorsuch even expressed some antipathy for
this law, which he stated did not give him, as a judge, the right to
modify it.
Rooting
for your political team does seem to involve a degree of willful
ignorance, such as this small sample. The current Democratic Leader
promoted the law that allowed a hand full of religious extremists to
impede ACA! Or perhaps that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, would not have voted for Roe v. Wade! Or that Hillary Clinton, only hours before the attack suggested we go further, to destroy all of the Syrian Air Force !
What adds to the sense of hopelessness, were the interviews with Trumps top officials on Sunday talk shows. First was Rex Tillerson, interviewed by Fared Zakaria. This man who never read a book on Diplomacy as trade craft was oblivious to one particular term of art, "ultamatum" or one similar in French "demarche" Equally oblivious were similar questions to the Ambasidor to the U.N. and the National Security Advisor when all were asked about the priority of elimating President Assad or the Islamic State. While each of the three were ambivalent they all said that they could all be priorities, and even when the answer evoked incredulity since the very word means to order, one in the front of the other and contingent being satisfied before proceeding, none of them chose to to answer but worse denied that such a choice had to be made.
One gave the example of WWII where we fought Germany and Japan simultaneously. The actual comparison with that war was between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. To destroy one meant to allow the other to gain power, while an easier decision then since we had allied ourself with Russia, many understood that they were our potential enemy who would gain by the annihilation of Germany. The harsh reality is that the conflict in Syria is a conundrum that has no solution, or none that would be articulated by this adminstration any more than the previous one.
The simplistic dream that getting rid of a brutal dictator would give rise to an enlightened democracy has been refuted by both Iraq and Afghanistan. We have replaced a cautious (or feckless) President with one who mistakes his impulsiveness with strength.
This would certainly make a terrific movie --- if only it were fiction and at the end we would all walk home in the sunlight of a world that was muddling through as it had always been.
