Yesterday, a frequent reader and  friend sent me  an article by Mark Buchanan of BloombergView titled “Why Trump Gets Away with Lying.”  It points out how a survey taken after the 2016 election found, “Trump supporters don’t believe many of his lies, especially his most egregious ones.”  According to the researchers who undertook the study, it was never about the content of the message, but the style.  Trump was railing against the same voices that these “forgotten Americans” felt were unresponsive to what they viewed as an economic and social  crisis.  Sound familiar?  It is the latest iteration of the ancient proverb, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

Buchanan concludes, “Trump’s rise might signal the start of a necessary period of painful disruption and chaos, before we find a way to reverse decades of middle class social decay.”  I have to admit, if you think the term “deplorables” was not enough of a rallying point, tell Trump voters they represent “decades of middle class social decay.” Mr. Buchanan, I’m afraid your silver tongue makes you more a part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

In the counter-intuitive tradition of Deprogramming101, let’s consider the possibility we are approaching the issue from the wrong starting point.  As inventor Charles Kettering once said, “A problem well stated is a problem half-solved.”  In other words, before we start worrying about an appropriate responses, let’s examine whether we are asking the right questions.  Buchanan thinks the issue is, “Why do people who know Trump is lying vote for him?”  But if you step back, you realize a better point of entry is, “Why do so many voters believe progressives do not represent them?”  On the surface it doesn’t make sense.  On so many issues, a majority of Republicans and even Trump supporters align with progressive positions on critical issues.  Climate change.  DACA.  Universal background checks. Net neutrality.  Legalization of marijuana.  Affordable health care.  The cost of higher education.  Infrastructure.

So, if it’s not the substance, what else could it be?  If you want to understand the angst of residents of the “flyover states,”  perhaps the best source of advice is someone who grew up in that part of the country.  Ewing Kauffman–CEO of Marion Laboratories in Kansas City, owner of the Kansas City Royals and philanthropist–recognized the relationship between the authorities and those who labored under them was a marriage based on trust and respect.  Exploring this liaison from the perspective of his employees (who it preferred to call associates), he understood a guiding principle was not obedience, but rather buy-in.  As Mr. K would say,  “I don’t want to be managed, but I don’t mind being led.”

Understanding this approach requires a really off the wall analogy.  Progressives believe a woman has a right to choose.  In Kauffman’s words, all they are saying is, “Don’t manage my body.”  But, I may still go to church and listen to my pastor or priest make the moral argument against abortion.  And if I follow his/her lead, that too is my choice.  Now, consider former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg’s effort in 2013 to ban the sale of soft drinks in sizes larger than 16 ounces.  Conservatives cried out, “You can’t tell me what I can and cannot drink and in what quantity.”  The law was eventually overturned by the New York Court of Appeals.  But I’ll bet those same conservatives might listen to their physicians make a persuasive argument about the hazards of “Big Gulps” to one’s health.

I have never met anyone who likes to be micro-managed.  In most workplaces we are informed of the boundaries and our responsibility to respect and operate within those established guidelines.  Perhaps it’s time to think of the United States as our collective workplace.   And all citizens, regardless of rank, are associates who do not want to be ordered around yet are open to persuasion.

Which brings me to the language in the Bill of Rights.  Amendment I does not enumerate what constitutes free speech, freedom of the press or establishment of an official religion.  Instead, it states, “Congress shall make no law…”  Likewise, Amendment X does not list everything the federal government can do.  It reserves to the states and the people all non-enumerated powers.  Individuals have the right to do incredibly stupid things.  It may not be in their own best interests, but it is not against the law.  Instead of a “contract with America” (the 1994 platform which led to the Republican revolution), maybe it’s time for “a progressive bill of rights for 21st century America.”  And in the spirit of the original Bill of Rights, it should focus on what the federal government–executive, legislative and judicial branches–shall not do.

Example:  Citizens United would be history if there was a Constitutional amendment which states “the federal government shall make no law which inhibits the ability of the states to ensure equal representation of all citizens in the political process.”  In 1962, Baker v Carr affirmed one-man-one-vote safeguarded the democratic principle that station in life did not weight the value of any citizen’s ballot.  Then, shouldn’t every citizen’s ability to participate in or influence  political debate not depend on their accumulated wealth?

I wish I had more answers.  But at the moment, perhaps having the right questions is a better place to begin.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

In case you missed it, the time stamp on Donald Trump’s Wednesday morning Twitter threat to send our “nice and new and ‘smart!'” missiles into Syria read, “3:47 AM.”  Obviously, Trump had a sleepless night.  But he was not the only one.  I too was up at 3:30 Wednesday morning.  And, as usual, I engaged in one of my favorite pasttimes, making connections where none seem to exist.  In order to identify such intersections of events, it is useful to list the seemingly unrelated occurrences.

• Monday evening, Donald Trump describes the lawful raid on his personal attorney’s office, home and hotel room as “an attack against the nation.”
• At the Tuesday briefing, Sarah Huckabee Sanders tells the White House press corps Trump has been advised he has the authority to fire special counsel Robert Mueller, contrary to the language of the law.
• Trump tweets “Get ready Russia…the missiles are coming.”
• Paul Ryan announces he will not seek re-election.
• Former Secretary of State Madelaine Albright launches publicity tour to promote her new book Fascism: A Warning.
• The NRA joins a law suit to overturn an assault weapons ban in the Chicago suburb of Deerfield, Illinois.

Hard to believe this all occurred over a 48-hour period. Welcome to the Age of Trump.  But where is the nexus?  I believe the unifying element among these events is how they all are governed by the “rule of law.”  Let’s take them one a time.

The unlawful raid on an attorney’s offices and residences could be seen as a violation of the Fourth Amendment, protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures.”  But the Department of Justice followed the letter of the law consistent with the qualifying language, “…upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Although not true, from a legal perspective, Trump would have been better served by claiming the FBI’s actions on Monday were “an attack on Michael Cohen” contrary to his personal protections under the Fourth Amendment.  HE DID NOT.

There is a law governing the conduct and, if necessary, the disciplining and removal of a special counsel appointed by attorney general or his designee.  It is embodied in Title 28 Section 600.7 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

(d) The Special Counsel may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General. The Attorney General may remove a Special Counsel for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies. The Attorney General shall inform the Special Counsel in writing of the specific reason for his or her removal.

The term attorney general in Subsection (d) is modified by the language in 28 CFR 600.1 by adding, “or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General will appoint a special counsel…” The White House has not referred to this statute or any other to affirm its belief in Trump’s authority to remove the special counsel. FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. Such authority does not exist.

Instead of a unilateral declaration of military action, Trump could have sought Congressional authority under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, federal law designed to check the president’s power to commit the United States to armed conflict without legislative consent.  Or at a minimum consulted with Congress.  HE DID NOT.

Ryan’s decision to step aside as speaker is a good opportunity to look back at Article I of the Constitution which states:

The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

It does not say the members of the majority party shall choose the speaker is a functionary of the House of Representatives.  He is the presiding officer and third in line to the presidency.  He is is an officer of the House of Representatives, not congressional leader of his party.  That is why he is not also given the responsibilities of the majority party.  Has Trump or Ryan once taken that into account.  THEY HAVE NOT.

Although Albright’s book is just the latest to alert Americans that Trump and his minions demonstrate the behavior associated with the rise of past fascist leaders, there are a growing number of books documenting this threat to our democracy and the institutions which preserve democracy.  This book will join a growing list of Trump targets he calls “fake news” or  media as “enemies of the people.”  He could disagree with everything these authors and journalists write and say, but they have that right under the First Amendment.  HE HAS NOT.

Which brings us to the NRA.  It is impossible to count the number of times Trump has invoked the Second Amendment to support the NRA and parrot its positions on the regulation of firearms.  Thus the title of this post.  Donald J. Trump believes in the right to bear arms as “second” to no other law or regulation which governs our fragile democracy.  And his devotion to the language of the Second Amendment is the dog whistle which keeps me up at night.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Powerful, but like much of the lexicon we use today, the meaning or inference of specific words morphs over time.  In 1789, a “regulated Militia” was widely viewed as the nation’s citizen army for the sole purpose of defense against foreign invasion.  I don’t remember George W. Bush calling out the militia post 9/11.  Today, a “regulated Militia” is more like an organization, part of a right wing movement such as the Three Percenters, the Hutaree in southern Michigan, the Militia of Montana or the Texas Light Foot Militia.  In 2015, the Southern Poverty Law Center identified 276 such groups across the country.

Consider the term “free State.”  In 1789, that term referred to the former colonies’ freedom from external governance or control.  Today it is a designation more like used by alt-right groups or anti-government cadres which are loyal members of the Trump base.

So, this is my worse nightmare.  The only “rule of law” to which Trump adheres is the Second Amendment and has made it clear that a ban on assault weapons is not in the cards as long as he is in the Oval Office.  But listen to some of the arguments in favor of semi-automatic assault weapons.  Literature available from the Three Percenters warns, “All politics in this country now is just dress rehearsal for civil war.”  But these conspiracy theories are not reserved to fringe elements.  Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn, in January 2013, said, “The Second Amendment wasn’t written so you can go hunting, it was to create a force to balance a tyrannical force here.”

So, just imagine if Donald Trump becomes the subject of impeachment and possible conviction under Article Two of the Constitution.  It does not take a stable genius to understand he will view such lawful due process as nothing more than “a civil war between his followers and deep state Democrats” or “the country is being taken over by a tyrannical un-elected force.”  The very buzzwords which will incite “citizen militias” to lock and load their semi-automatic weapons and march on Washington, not to peacefully protest (their right under the First Amendment) but to hide behind the SECOND TO NONE AMENDMENT to launch a violent insurrection.

Just in case you think this theory is implausible or the rantings of a conspiracy theorist, I remind of what Trump said at a campaign rally in Wilmington, Delaware on August 9, 2016 about the possibility Hillary Clinton would appoint justices to the Supreme Court who favor stricter gun controls.

If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks.  Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.

I apologize if you don’t sleep well tonight.  Join the club.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP