A Lifetime Underminer of the National Order Is Now Charged with Maintaining It

As Bruce Schneier wrote four years ago, we have a trust-based society. "In today’s society, we need to trust not only people, but institutions and systems. ... All complex ecosystems require cooperation." As illustration of this principle, "When I used an ATM this morning ... I trusted the national banking system to debit the proper amount from my bank account back home." You can put a VISA card from a west coast credit union in a Berlin ATM and extract the expected number of Euros.

Schneier added that societies contain unscrupulous individuals—parasites—who predate on the cooperative structure of our worldwide civilization:

In any cooperative system, there also exists an alternative parasitical strategy. Examples include tapeworms in your digestive tract, thieves in a market, spammers on e-mail, and people who refuse to pay their taxes. These parasites can only survive if they’re not too successful. That is, if their number gets too large or too powerful, the underlying system collapses.

The essential role of the national government, and particularly its presiding official, is to oversee the ethical order delineated in the Constitution, and thus, to administer(1) a rule of law within which we can enjoy “the benign influence of good laws under a free government.”

Donald Trump's lifetime record is that of a con artist who successfully subverted the public order for his own profit. He stiffed employees, subcontractors, minorities, and regulators, and lied about it. His actions were contrary to the public good, and by implication detrimental to our government. He profited from the order by undermining it, and now he has acceded to the office meant to uphold it—a task for which he is calamitously unfit.

Last August, Kurt Eichenwald wrote:

... Trump was denigrating Native Americans before Congress, ... (In 2000, Trump won a contract to manage the casino for the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians, but after Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts declared bankruptcy in 2004, the tribe paid Trump $6 million to go away.) ... His purposeless, false and inflammatory statements before Congress, ... alienated politicians from around the country, ... Lost contracts, bankruptcies, defaults, deceptions and indifference to investors—Trump’s business career is a long, long list of such troubles, according to regulatory, corporate and court records, as well as sworn testimony and government investigative reports. ... Trump is willing to claim success even when it is not there, according to his own statements. “I’m just telling you, you wouldn’t say that you're failing,” he said in a 2007 deposition when asked to explain why he would give an upbeat assessment of his business even if it was in trouble. “If somebody said, ‘How you doing?’ you're going to say you're doing good.” Perhaps such dissembling is fine in polite cocktail party conversation, but in the business world it’s called lying. ... Trump’s many misrepresentations of his successes and his failures matter—a lot. As a man who has never held so much as a city council seat, there is little voters can examine to determine if he is competent to hold office. ... He sells himself as qualified to run the country because he is a businessman who knows how to get things done, ... And while Trump has had a few successes in business, most of his ventures have been disasters. (Emphasis added)

As for the way businessman Trump stiffed the public before he became our so-called president:

USA TODAY exclusive: Hundreds allege Donald Trump doesn’t pay his bills—Donald Trump often portrays himself as a savior of the working class who will "protect your job." But a USA TODAY NETWORK analysis found he has been involved in more than 3,500 lawsuits over the past three decades — and a large number of those involve ordinary Americans, like the Friels, who say Trump or his companies have refused to pay them.

At least 60 lawsuits, along with hundreds of liens, judgments, and other government filings reviewed by the USA TODAY NETWORK, document people who have accused Trump and his businesses of failing to pay them for their work. Among them: a dishwasher in Florida. A glass company in New Jersey. A carpet company. A plumber. Painters. Forty-eight waiters. Dozens of bartenders and other hourly workers at his resorts and clubs, coast to coast. Real estate brokers who sold his properties. And, ironically, several law firms that once represented him in these suits and others.

Trump’s companies have also been cited for 24 violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act since 2005 for failing to pay overtime or minimum wage, according to U.S. Department of Labor data. That includes 21 citations against the defunct Trump Plaza in Atlantic City and three against the also out-of-business Trump Mortgage LLC in New York. Both cases were resolved by the companies agreeing to pay back wages.

In addition to the lawsuits, the review found more than 200 mechanic’s liens — filed by contractors and employees against Trump, his companies or his properties claiming they were owed money for their work — since the 1980s. The liens range from a $75,000 claim by a Plainview, N.Y., air conditioning and heating company to a $1 million claim from the president of a New York City real estate banking firm. On just one project, Trump’s Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City, records released by the New Jersey Casino Control Commission in 1990 show that at least 253 subcontractors weren’t paid in full or on time, including workers who installed walls, chandeliers and plumbing.

“Let’s say that they do a job that’s not good, or a job that they didn’t finish, or a job that was way late. I’ll deduct from their contract, absolutely. That’s what the country should be doing.”

The Framers of the Constitution instituted measures intended to prevent an unfit person from ascending to the presidency. First, one of the checks and balances was the provision that the Congress could impeach an unfit president. Article II of the United States Constitution states in Section 4 that "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." They failed to anticipate that both Houses of Congress should be under the domination of a faction which places party over country.

Second, the oath of office was meant to screen out anyone who had no intention of maintaining the order(2) of a constitutional democracy:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) 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."

The inadequacy of this provision is that it assumes that the Electoral College would not make an unprincipled scoundrel president of the United States. As Bruce Schneier reported earlier in this post, the honorable Mr. Trump made "purposeless, false and inflammatory statements before Congress." Newsmax noted yesterday, "New York Times Headline Once Again Calls Trump a Liar." Add to this the disrespect for the law involved in denigrating any judge who places the Constitution above the diktat of a government official; and the disrespect for the First Amendment revealed by the practice of declaring the media the enemy of the American people, and it should be clear that the charlatan in the Oval Office swore perjuriously.

The problem isn't that these guardrails failed. The problem is us. If we had believed in the values of liberal democracy, we wouldn't have voted for a known unfit by the millions. If we believed in our values, we would not have treated the oath of office as a meaningless ritual.

***
(1) Steve Bannon at CPAC: Trump Will Pursue “Deconstruction of the Administrative State”

(2) Lincoln believed that he could not allow the South to secede, thus depriving the U.S. citizens living there of the protection of the Constitution, and yet be faithful to the Oath of Office: "You have no oath in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to preserve, protect, and defend it."

Why did "The Newsroom" offend progressives?

Aaron Sorkin's "The Newsroom,"(1) in three seasons beginning in 2012, took on reality TV, explicitly denounced the tea party as an enormous danger to American democracy,(2) and argued that the news should be "information that's needed in the voting booth." Episode 3 of the first season in several ways forecast a degeneration of movement conservatism which could lead to a so-called president Trump.

Yet Google search, of "The Newsroom review" and "The Newsroom criticism," finds intense criticism mainly from "progressives," including references to "hate watching." "The Newsroom," by the criteria which separate Enlightenment liberalism from the outlook of the left, is one of the most liberal television presentations in recent memory. It is idealistic, concerned for the public good, supports the humanitarian safety net, exemplifies the long range power of ideas (and love of language), supports the intentional moral order delineated by the Constitution, honors the dignity and privacy of the citizen, and speaks freely and without fear.

You would think that a series which includes a number of devastating indictments of today's Republicans, and exemplifies Jeffersonian democracy, would appeal to the progressive left. Why didn't it? Perhaps some of the progressive critiques provide a clue. Verne Gay says "The Newsroom" "actually cares passionately and deeply," but also critiques it for daring to laud an old fashioned moral order:

It's shot through with a 1930s-'40s screwball love-will-conquer-all zest, with rat-a-tat dialogue that zips along at 75 mph. There are distant echoes of "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" ... Frank Capra could've written this, and, in a sense, already has. "The Newsroom" is very old-fashioned -- which may be its chief appeal.
Yet at moments it can also be a proxy for Sorkin's politics. He is the off-screen Lord High executioner, who dispatches his enemies -- like the Koch brothers or the Tea Party -- scene by scene, or speech by windy speech.

Other critiques are often vague. The real issue, which is evaded, is cynical objection to pre-60s American idealism. "The Newsroom" has specific references to Capra's "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" liberal idealism and public-spiritedness. The aura of tribute to forgotten grandeur lingers over it, complemented by references to the noble futility of Don Quixote.

"The Newsroom" has the most devastating savaging of the sullenly bigoted idiocies of the Tea Party and movement conservatism to be found on mass media, yet its left derogators focus on silly arguments against presenting the news as it should be rather than as it is. Why the total surrender to conformism?

"The Newsroom" nailed the reactionary nature of the tea party in its discussion of  "The American Taliban." Its discussion of "America is the Greatest Nation" placed the meme in its rightful context: Manifest Destiny; and The White Man's Burden. "The Newsroom" gave MacKenzie (Emily Mortimer) an early scene in which she owned Will McAvoy. Sloan Sabbith (Olivia Munn) is the smartest person in the organization.
 
The critics went with male dominance. There are far more criticisms, of conduct by male Republicans that is harmful to the public good, than of mean social standards in which women may play a part; but the fact that Sorkin dares to criticize, for example, soap opera gossip, is treated as proof of sexism. Margaret Lyons:

Within the Aaron Sorkin world, there's no insult more grave than being a woman. "I'm concerned about the rest of us being turned into a bunch of old ladies with hair-dryers on our heads," Will snapped at one of his dates on Sunday's episode. That's his nightmare, his fear: that our culture has become too invested in gossip or reality TV, which are feminine concerns. ... [as is] the nightmarish senselessness of a fashion TV show.
... Will's boss and mentor Charlie scolds him in "Fix" for dating women "he'd never want to spend daylight hours with." Because it's degrading? Disrespectful? Objectifying? Because it's patronizing? Cruel? Selfish? No, no: Because Will deserves better. Will can be petty, nasty, and immature, but the show insists that he's still worthy of an enormous amount of respect. But that inherent dignity doesn't extend to any of the female characters.
"Fix" seemed to be about how fashion is dumb and news is smart, how gossip is a social cancer and cable news is noble, ... Will's dates all know about one of the Real Housewives of New Jersey, but Will can't be bothered because he's too busy covering stories from many months before. ...

"The Newsroom" took on:

• The entertainment media takedown.
• The immediate appearance of a wrathful self-righteous witch hunt mob at any act or utterance which deviates in the slightest from identity politics/class warfare orthodoxy.
• A media site which prefers rating worst movies to rating best movies.
• News-as-entertainment (lurid hurricane reports; "what's going on with the McRib"; Angelina vows revenge after Brad dalliance; Tot Mom's secret beau; love child dumped on star's mother; you won't believe what child actor looks like now).
• Mean, petty, uncivilized practices.
• Reductivism, as when a gossip columnist tells a journalist, "After all, we're in the same business."
• Disrespect for dignity and privacy, as in the readiness to call out others, particularly if they're guilty of being prominent or wealthy.

It was fashionable to denigrate "The Newsroom" as moralistic and self-righteous. (One is reminded of those whose hopefully inquired, after the cleansing shock of 9/11, "Is this the end of irony?") "The Newsroom" foretold the lizard-brained era of Trump's alternative truth. It's true that truth is disrespectful of the Liar-In-Chief who has usurped the Oval Office; still, truth is the most valuable resource of Homo sapiens ("Thinking human"). (If you think that truth is political, you have greater problems than can be resolved by reading an article that dissents from the Received Wisdom.)

Newsroom's Charlie Skinner dares to say, "I'm too old to be governed by fear of dumb people." As Bill Brioux writes:

Sorkin’s complaint about America is that intelligence is in a semi-apologetic retreat, while emotionalism and stupidity are on the rise—in public policy and in the media. He’s setting up an ideal. He is an ethical writer—a moralist, if you like. He’s neither ironic nor self-deprecating; he dislikes that part of our derisive culture which undercuts, as a ritual form of defense, any kind of seriousness. He’s a very witty entertainer who believes that there’s a social value in truth. I don’t think this belief should be confused, as it has been recently, with self-righteousness.

The Writer's Almanac for February 14 reported on something Carl Bernstein, of Woodward and Bernstein, wrote in 1992:

“For, next to race, the story of the contemporary American media is the great uncovered story in America today. We need to start asking the same fundamental questions about the press that we do of the other powerful institutions in this society — about who is served, about standards, about self-interest and its eclipse of the public interest and the interest of truth. For the reality is that the media are probably the most powerful of all our institutions today; and they are squandering their power and ignoring their obligation. They — or more precisely, we — have abdicated our responsibility, and the consequence of our abdication is the spectacle, and the triumph, of the idiot culture.” (Emphasis added)

"The Newsroom" promoted Frank Capra/Don Quixote idealism; naive, sentimental public-spiritedness; thinking (and writing) fearlessly; the vital importance of truth and good information to a democracy; respect for dignity, privacy, and autonomy; and indifference to orthodoxy. It criticized gossip columns and TV shows dedicated to gossip; the associated glee for the "takedown" of prominent or successful public figures; news-as-entertainment; and mean, petty, uncivilized social practices.

It is telling that the progressive left responded with indignation. Their blindness to "tectonic shifts" was a large part of changes in American character which made possible the elevation of a totally unfit charlatan to the presidency.


(1) See "Nothing is more important to a democracy than a well-informed electorate", April 2016
(2) See "The American Taliban"

Gorsuch's shifty, deceptive logic on "cultural" issues

Jeffrey Rosen recently evaluated Neil Gorsuch's qualifications for the Supreme Court.

As discussed in Rosen's article, Attorney Gorsuch's logic about a human taking a human life contradicts itself:

His approach to the issue is ... “premised on the idea that all human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.”

But:

Gorsuch stresses that “my argument, based on secular moral theory, is consistent with the common law and long-standing medical ethics” and he emphasizes that “I do not seek to address publicly authorized forms of killing like capital punishment and war.”

There is a hidden shift in the attorney's reasoning from "private persons" to public agents such as executioners and soldiers. But the physician operating under public physician-assisted suicide laws is no longer acting as a "private person."

Physician-assisted suicide laws "publicly authorize" the physician just as death penalty law publicly authorizes the hangman. Physician-assisted suicide laws are not conceptually different from the "long-standing" laws and ethics the attorney cites. They're just newer. Gorsuch's problem is the familiar conservative "cultural" hang up concerning change and the new.

Attorney Gorsuch's equivocation in secretly shifting between "private persons" and "publicly authorized" acts reveals either deductive incompetence or intentionally deceptive argument. If the constitutional sacredness of human life is not infringed by execution under color of law, it is not infringed by merciful assisted suicide under color of law. In either case, he does not meet the standards expected of a Supreme Court Justice. 

The candidate for Supreme Court Justice engaged in further misleading argument:

Gorsuch emphasizes, however, that “it remains to be seen whether [the Court might] … recognize a constitutional right that trumps at least some state legislation against assisted suicide.” And he suggests that he might be inclined to recognize such a right.

“Oregon’s decision to make a legal discrimination based on physical health (the terminally ill versus everyone else) seems a candidate for heightened review,” he argues, just like distinctions based on race or gender. “This [is] especially so given that Oregon’s law expressly implicates a fundamental right—that is, the scope of the right to life.”

Wouldn't such a constitutional right logically trump the death penalty as well?

 

Moreover, assisted suicide laws don't just "make a legal discrimination based on physical health." They further the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of the patient by honoring their choice to end further pointless suffering. Here again, Gorsuch's argument is cleverly misleading. Does he have so little regard for the freedom of American citizens?