President Trump, Part 1: The Democrats’ Failure

No observer of President Trump’s habits and character could be surprised to find him the chief architect of his own political undoing in 2020. More perplexing to most observers would the question how he came to be in a position where he was virtually the only person who could have gotten in his own way. Admittedly it is not necessarily accepted that he was in such a position: but I believe such a case can be made, at least about Trump’s position after surviving the first impeachment against him.

The role of the Republican party in strengthening Trump’s position is obvious and not particularly interesting, as it mostly consisted of doing nothing and letting Trump “lead”. In fact the failure of a Republican-controlled Congress for two years – with the Senate majority maintained longer – to do anything of consequence at all is in my opinion a greater practical failure than virtual anything President Trump did or did not do.

By it is also the case that the Democratic party played a role in strengthening Trump’s hand. The strategic errors made in the 2016 election have been much discussed: primarily the appearance that was created of gaming the party process to ensure Clinton won the nomination, and then the Clinton campaign’s decision to, if not outright ignore, at least not take seriously certain surprise battleground states. Trump’s base of support as a candidate was surprising, but intelligent practice of politics must account for the situation that obtains.

The role of the Democratic platform is difficult to criticize directly, as the casual observer can hardly sort intentional party strategy from media coverage largely favorable to its main tenets. The image of the party, due to those twin influences, however, is calculated to create resentment, because it appears to emphasize social disruption and casting blame – legitimate media roles where social faults exist – over actually addressing problems, which a political party must at least pretend to do.

When that agenda majors on abortion, encouragement of sexual perversion, and vocal if admittedly not much practiced calls for stifling regulation of business – all while letting the major corporations that provide platforms for online discourse roam unsupervised – the more traditional America is horrified. A vague worship of northern Europe’s successful form of democratic socialism that would have no legal ground in the United States’ Constitution without significant amendments – on top of a century of vaguely socialistic programs enacted in defiance of said document and combined with a wilful ignorance of, or failure to repudiate, socialism’s and communism’s disaster stories and fanatical excesses – is hardly better. American history, in contrast, appears to be mentioned by Democrats only in the negative – the occasional appeals to vilify Republican actions as unworthy of the Constitution they generally so blithely ignore is calculated to create no reaction but bitter laughter.

The Democratic-friendly media attempt to make a slogan out of “resist”, unaware that overall media political leanings make the Democrats appear nearly ascendant even when they are out of power, was mostly just funny – especially when their choice not to deal really was a choice. President Trump’s agenda was not entirely in line with recent Republican posturing; support, compromise, would have been rewarded had a few Democrats crossed the line. I don’t say President Trump did any better in making his attempts to deal attractive to Democrats than the Democrats have done making their party attractive to Trump’s supporters. But if the mafia don’s deal is refused, nothing is left but, to save face, humiliating the opposition: and it was quickly apparent Democrats would major on opposition to President Trump far more than they would contest any issue on its merits: a sort of negative of the Republican party’s failure.

All of this could be excused. All of this could even, ignoring my own views, be considered a moral stand of sorts. What is most difficult to explain is the ineptness of the Democratic opposition. To highlight that ineptness, consider the impeachments against Trump.

Yes, impeachments, because President Trump was eventually impeached, twice. He was not convicted the first time, and I have significant doubts whether enough senators will prove comfortable with the idea of convicting a person no longer in office for it to happen on the second try. But what were the charges? Well, first of all, here are some of the things Trump was not impeached for:

• President Trump was not impeached for attempting to create a “Space Force” on his own initiative – which reportedly got the Pentagon to start drafting plans for such a thing. The organization of the military is the responsibility of Congress: this could easily be construed as a usurpation. Perhaps most people were thought unlikely to care, and articles of impeachment would have been thought too transparently motivated; but then, the eventual impeachment hardly scores better on those criteria. It is not entirely clear to me whether Congress eventually giving the thing some sort of formal backing makes the situation better or worse.
• President Trump was not impeached for abusing a national emergency order to access military funds which were reappropriated to build his pet border wall. There is little doubt that the handling of immigration at the southern border could be considered an emergency, even if President Biden has decided to retract the order rather than take advantage of it to promulgate his own solutions, and even if a swath of judges seemed at times more interested in rulings that would create problems and frustrate Trump than they did in meeting demands of either law or justice, not that President Trump seemed to care that much about the conditions suffered by those enduring his emergency either. The emergency may have been legitimate: the transparent abuse of process, hardly. But then, securing conviction seems impossible: Trump’s defense would certainly – if he could have kept his temper – have been that he was pursuing the means he thought best to address the situation, and a precedent of impeachment for bad judgment seems like it would find little favor.
• President Trump was not impeached for pardoning convicted and alleged war criminals. This received about two days’ worth of media attention, is indefensible, and is certainly an abuse of authority. But perhaps it broke no laws – beyond making a joke of the military’s own due process, which could hardly endear him to anyone who takes our military virtue seriously – and the case would be too hard to argue.

It’s entirely possible there are other instances I missed, but any of these seems at least of worthy of condemination than what actually happened. The articles of impeachment that were eventually brought against Trump a little over a year ago had, nominally, to do with attempting to pressure a foreign power to investigate a connection of a political opponent; which is disreputable, but – and here is what the Democrats missed – “everybody knows” politics is a load of dirty money and dirty laundry. If there was a misdeed less likely to turn opinion against Trump, I can’t think of it – especially when circumstantial evidence suggests Hunter Biden’s connections wouldn’t stand scrutiny themselves, the Democrat-led process was hardly squeaky-clean, and Trump’s threat to withhold aid was never followed through on.

Now, had President Trump made enough enemies in the Senate that conviction could be secured, the case would have been a good one for the Democrats to pursue: the conviction would publicly throw the “swamp” back in Trump’s face, implicitly secure Biden’s reputation from public derrogation, and, of course, remove President Trump from office. But the combination of Republican stonewalling and Democratic attacks – sometimes verging on slander – had made that impracticable. It’s not that Trump seems likely to actually have been innocent, mind: merely that the case was neither chosen nor handled in such a manner as to create certainty of guilt and stain senators irrevocably should they demur from conviction.

The second impeachment is in some ways more appalling still. President Trump certainly ought to have been impeached after the election, when he was discovered, on a recorded phone call, soliciting for a fraudulent election count. He was even recorded giving a specific number of votes to be found! After all the hyperbolic warnings about possible fraud by others, the public relations gain the Democrats could have made by parading this hypocrisy around dwarfs anything they might have gotten from success last year and a one-year Pence presidency. What, after all, could the Senate say in defence? And what could the Republicans in the Senate do the stonewall on a charge that obvious? And, reputation after standing behind Trump for four years and then having to convict being what it would be, how likely is it the GOP would stand up to really resist any but the most far-fetched Democratic proposals, for quite a while at least?

Instead, the second impeachment depended on taking the most negative view of a couple tweets. A precedent that implies politicians should refrain from encouraging protests of perceived injustice, or that implies politicians who do so will be held personally accountable for any rioting that ensues, is chilling – and would condemn a huge number of politicians over the unrest last year, if the principle were carried out consistently.

It is also telling that the reaction to President Trump’s alleged encouragement of insurrection was first to threaten, not impeachment, but instead abuse of a constitutional amendment meant to provide for conduct of the presidency’s business in case of illness. This impeachment was the results of Democrats being unable to bully others into doing Congress’s work for them. The impeachment process certainly takes longer, but it suggests an agenda more interested in trying to implicate Vice-President Pence in removing President Trump – and thus get Pence out of favor with Trump’s base – than one interested in seeing the law followed or justice done.

The Democrats agenda, while at least openly proclaimed, is not carryingly popular. This calls for a scrupulous honesty to win further support and deflect criticism, or successful villification of opponents: but they failed to put a dent in President Trump’s support by attacking him directly, because their motivations appeared to be those of resentment rather than principle; and their methods seem as venal as his.

In a country plagued by non-participation in elections, Democratic efforts did eventually create enough interest to remove Trump from office by election; but it can hardly be said that the number of those willing to support Trump was diminished in any way. Of the support that did fall away, much of it was surely motivated by Republican inaction, as sketched above – and by Trump’s own failures of character and control, which I will discuss in part two.

Two Notes in Response to Today’s Rioting

America

In my American history textbooks, and I assume still today, it was noted with some pride that John Adams’ inauguration marked a peaceful transition of non-hereditary power in a context which made that – leaving aside the technically inaccurate superlatives these things accumulate – truly remarkable. Although I doubt President Trump quite anticipated the protests today would take the turn they did, his encouragement of the protestors and refusal even now to be more conciliatory than a request to withdraw from the Capitol makes it hard to say that tradition continues – arguably for the first time: even the Southern secessionists, as far as I am aware, let the Union states’ governmental functions continue uninterrupted. That’s an historical event and stain that will attach – whatever the other circumstances – to President Trump and his supporters, not his opponents.

The Church

The Reformed churches – I am speaking here as a Reformed layman – have generally taught the doctrine of the “lesser magistrate”, both in eccelsiastical and civil affairs. Although it’s most often invoked – at least in American circles – to justify defiance of wicked or tyrannical orders, it has its second edge, which is that there is no right of the private person to defy the magistracy as a whole. The layperson is not entitled to form his own church or to fight the civil authorities: the conscientious objector must accept civil penalties imposed or at most flee. No responsible authority appealed to has deigned to object to the election results as counted; no authority I am aware of, even those who supported the right of protestors to continue to appeal for further investigations, supports the attack on the US Capitol building and the Congress’s certification session – including the President who continues to cast doubt on those results. No reporting I am seeing indicates that any civil officials have orchestrated or helped organize – let alone regulate – the incident. Reformed theology is generous to a certain class of rebels, but theologically, today’s proceedings must be considered unlawful.* The exact term can be sorted out by the lawyers.

Police, Anecdotally

With regard to the recent killings of Americans by American police, and subsequent protests, two rhetorical positions are being taken which are essentially incoherent.  There is one attitude which talks of revolution and issues often obscene threats against the police – and then assumes that in every physically violent confrontation between protestors and police, the police are at fault.  The idea of a hostile mob which can be restrained to only react to its targets is laughable.

But at least that stance has a certain thoughtless consistency.  More baffling is the assumption of those who purport to care about law and order, but are unwilling to entertain the idea that the police are ever at fault.  In the American civil tradition, built originally on a distrust of the powerful, this is baffling in a way it might not be if rulers and administrators were assumed to stand outside or above the law.  An unshakeable assumption of police – or other official – innocence is in fact to slide back towards that frame of mind, where the appearance of stability is valued over justice.

An acquaintance suggested the other day that it would be possible to identify which jurisdictions still police properly and which have fallen into a security mentality by noting where the bright blue associated with the police is still worn, and where departments have adopted other or darker colors.  The idea appears plausible: good police should want their role to be clear, and that is a positive role: as Chesterton, while well aware of abuses, noted, the linguistic roots of “police” and “polite” are the same.  I have of course no idea how one could substantiate this supposal, and would further assume that a study would find many exceptions even should it prove a general rule.

What I do have ideas about are things that have happened to me.  Outside the city – and often inside – I suspect the majority of public encounters with police have to do with traffic; especially as it’s rather rare (and I have been told in some jurisdictions intentionally avoided or even proscribed) for police officers to be out on the public streets without a report of crime.  Apart from the occasional time I’ve been in the vicinity of other police activity, this has certainly been true for me.  I’ve picked up my share of speeding tickets, properly given all but in passing and duly paid, but the following are all experiences I have had:

• I was pulled over for running a red light.  The officer said, likely because I had no other record, that if I reported to pay the fine on the indicated day, he would rewrite the ticket for a lesser offence with a lower fine and no record.  This happened.
• I received a ticket, well away from home, for speeding on a highway.  Several months later, I received a refund, with the code used for tickets issued in error.  The ticket had not been either an error or unfair; there did, however, appear to be a sherrif up for re-election in the county the ticket was issued in.
• A significant time after I had moved into an apartment, residents began receiving tickets for parking on a nearby bridge, which had not been posted as a no parking zone.  According to city ordinances, that bridge was in fact in a class which was not supposed to be free for parking: but after a couple months, I assume their were complaints – I myself noted the inconsistency and lack of a sign when I paid the fine – and tickets were no longer issued and people began parking on the bridge again.
• A left hand turn lane was blocked by police apparently assisting at an accident: I needed to turn left and following other traffic turned left from the next lane over.  The second car of the two at the first incident pulled me over.  The officer asked if I had been drinking, which I had earlier, and naturally the officer performed a few sobriety tests, including eventually asking me to blow through a breathalyzer.  At this point he implied I would be arrested if I refused, and refused to tell me what would happen, either way, after the test.  I passed, and he again implied he would have preferred to arrest me but was now constrained by the result.  I did receive a warning for the left turn – which noted my race as Hispanic, which by my appearance seems an unusual assumption which even the dim lighting of the fast food restaurant parking lot doesn’t quite seem to justify.
• I received a ticket for parking in a bus lane, which I had done.  The amount of the ticket was significantly higher than prescribed by city ordinance.  On consulting with more knowledgeable persons including a local police officer I knew, I was told if I contested the ticket what was most likely was that I would end up paying the ticket, that it was unlikely to be reduced and even if it was I would still pay the (relatively nominal) court costs in addition; or, if the issuing officer happened to be unavailable, it would be thrown out completely because it would be too much of a hassle to sort it out at another date.  In the end I paid the ticket as given.

There’s a theme that runs through these incidents: control, especially of information.  I value information, and I’m relatively good at finding it: in most cases I was able to look up the relevant statutes fairly easily.  But of course that doesn’t apply in the moment, and we see that even if we set the use of force aside, ignorance is a weakness against even a claim of information.

I’m willing to look at any single incident and find excuses that could provide re-interpretation of events.  A cop trying to give a kid a break; a new guy on the job trying to do the job; and so forth.  But I suspect there are a lot of people with similar stories, if they were told.  It’s not like I’ve been particularly inconvenienced by any of the results.  I’m unlikely to be considered a threat, by normal stereotypes, so at any of these times the money really was the only likely cost.   And the money from fines I probably would have spent on books or games or other recreation – and I already have the money to spend on more books than I have shelves for.  But put these same incidents in the lives of a class liable to be considered a risk, or for whom fines represent more than a couple hours’ work, and we are talking about very different conseqences.

After one of the previous police killings in recent years, during following protesting, my pastor at the time – for those to whom it’s significant, a black pastor of a multiracial congregation – made a point of saying in church on Sunday that there were undoubtedly corrupt policmen, flawed practices, and irresponsible departments, but respect was still demanded: that the police did still go out and stand in the way of actual trouble-makers, and that if all the police were to simply quit or refuse to do their jobs, the eruption of violence and trouble would remind us right away why we have police to begin with.  And that’s merely omission of a current good: really clearing away the institutions we have would be far worse.

Revolution is a far messier business than protestors mostly remember to begin with.  However, while I doubt that Jefferson’s description of the formation of governments in the opening of the Declaration of Independence should be taken as prescriptive, but historically it certainly seems descriptive.  Eventually, abuses not corrected lead to revolution: the task is to correct them.

We Are the Threat to the Second Amendment

The American War for Independence was fought, and the Constitution of the United States of America subsequently constructed, so that Americans could live in a free society.  The particular connotation of “freedom” paramount in importance was that of self-government.  The British crown and parliament were seen to interfere with the ordering of American colonies by themselves: the crown and parliament were thrown off.  What then proved to be an interim measure, the Articles of Confederation, was homegrown but the resulting government was ineffectual and even bad: the Articles were superseded.  The Constitution as it took effect in 1789 provided a much more effective structure for the central government of the United States: but as government is entrusted with maintaining by compulsion those things thought necessary in society – or at least by the governors of society – a more effective government is also a greater threat to individual and social liberties.

Thus, with ratification beginning in 1791, several Amendments – the Bill of Rights – were quickly added into the structure of the new government.  From the standpoint of modern practice, these protect freedoms ranging from our most prized (such as speech and religion) to the apparently quaint (not quartering troops) to the generally ignored (authority of individual states and the people).  Today, while the exact limits of the freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment – speech, religion, assembly – are hotly debated, the most controversial item in the Bill of Rights is the Second Amendment:

“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 abridged.”

The security of any State is threatened by foreign encroachment; but that of a free State is also threatened by its own government, should that government turn tyrannical.  This latter was certainly that consideration by those drafting this amendment.  The Constitution already provided for armed forces.  The rest of the Bill of Rights asserts rights against government: why would this be different?  The Founders had just fought a war against a government they considered tyrannical.

At the time and in context, militia were lightly trained and loosely organized citizens with ordinary or perhaps slightly outdated infantry weapons.  The Second Amendment thus speaks directly to the legitimacy – even necessity – of a “civilian military”, under regulation.  The weapons in view for the citizenry to possess – the Militia Acts of 1792 required citizens to provide themselves with these arms – were recognizably those used in war.

It is worth noting that the Second Amendment has nothing to say about what individual states in the Union might require or disallow with regards to arms (except as superseded by national militia regulations).  However, the authority of states in this question would seem to have later been strictly curtailed by the Fourteenth Amendment, although I do not know whether this reasoning following the letter of the Constitution is routinely followed itself in court cases.

Militia service was assumed to be a duty for citizens.  The Militia Acts prescribed militia service for all white male citizens in the United States, subject to requirements established in the various states.  This reflects the common practice of probably a majority of nations throughout history, free or not.  It is still common practice throughout the world to require some degree of military service.  It is, however, not true of practice in the United States today.  How we got here is understandable: reluctance after the Civil War to give the Southern states opportunity for further disruptions, followed by the nationalism and centralization of the early Progressives; two World Wars and various ensuing conflicts would put the country’s military in mind to keep skill in the field at its fighting peak, a task for professionals, rather than amateur citizens.  But there is something a little odd about the occasional claim that the current doctrine of an “All Volunteer Force” is somehow specially “American”.

I take it for granted that some discipline in habits is necessary in a populace to maintain a continuing society.  That discipline can either be imposed from outside or maintained from inside: tyranny or at least autocracy on the one hand; self-control and self-government on the other.  As a society we do not value – in fact we tend to resent – admonitions to curb our desires.  We do so increasingly poorly, and are largely inclined to make jokes about our failures rather than consider them seriously.  In this light, the decline of – the lack of requirement of – militia service is an indication of a people not significantly concerned with remaining free.

In light of current outrages some call for further arming, that everybody should be ready to defend themselves: but a free man should not have to go armed in a free place.  The absolute horror of weapons themselves occasioned by these massacres is not significantly more palatable as an alternative, because by implication it is to admit we have surrendered our freedom.  Between the desire to feel in control of one’s own safety, the emotional and symbolic implications of surrendering the instrument of that control, and the actual fact of a government that spawns ever more intrusive regulations and agencies – the threat the Second Amendment actually had in mind – it is quite easy to understand the desire to see the right to bear arms remain unabridged.

It is mainly either free or lawless societies that have been armed societies: the former to mark and protect their freedom; the latter out of necessity and terror.  The Constitution of the United States was written for a people who – whatever their failures in actually carrying out these principles – wanted to live freely.  Its provisions are probably not safe for a populace which does not wish to exercise self-control.  But – here is the trouble – are we ready to admit that we are in fact not exactly a free people, or do not wish to be?  If so, are we content with that, or will we make actual reforms?

If society as a whole reflects an inability of individuals to govern their own conduct safely, the society is not free: even those individuals who might control themselves will be restricted, out of necessities that affect the whole.  I firmly believe no other nation has yet had the ideals of liberty imagined, or even achieved though admittedly only in part, so well as we have in the United States.  But it is possible for a nation’s maturity to regress.  Are we still free?  Can we prove it?  Or will Uncle Sam have to come take the scissors away from a nation of squabbling toddlers mad about who got invited to the party?

Gun Control Without Annoying People?

A friend recently suggested on facebook that, with several weeks having passed since any heavily-publicized shooting, it might now be a good time to have that mythical “conversation about guns”.  I intend to define that conversation a little more clearly.  Advocates for gun control often appear to expect the discussion to consist of them making points, and their opponents acknowledging that wisdom: I see a real resentment of what seems to them senseless stubbornness on the part of defenders of gun rights.

At least part of the problem, I think, is that gun control arguments on the whole do not address the concerns of those concerned with gun rights.  In some cases, they actually make the case for gun control less appealing.  For instance, defenders of gun rights often regard that right as a peculiarly American institution, and reflexively assume American ideas are superior to others.  To compare foreign laws favorably, especially when combined with the apparent implication that American laws are inferior, is to prejudice that audience against your conclusion from the very beginning.

Now, I think there is a natural right to self-defense, and that there is in the United States a civil right to bear arms – including firearms.  In fact the language and context of the Second Amendment suggests “arms” should be considered to include any weapons commonly assigned to infantry: in this respect accepted laws on gun possession are if anything more strict than the Constitution allows.  But I am not convinced the natural law of self-defense requires citizens of any hypothetical country to have this right.

In other words, I admit the possible utility of gun control.  However, I am generally among those put off by the arguments generally put forward by gun control advocates.  If they want to make a case that actually appeals to the sensibilities of supporters of gun rights, they need to do at least three things.

First, they need to respect the law.  Advocates of gun control are often dismissive of the Constitution and the legal protections of due process, emphasizing momentary needs over institutional integrity.  Many, I believe, support gun rights primarily, like myself, because it is the law: dismissing the Second Amendment, or the concerns of its authors about tyranny, needlessly antagonizes a constituency which is not emotionally or habitually invested in gun possession and therefore is a potential gun control ally.

Second, they need to demonstrate the benefit.  Citing foreign experience is insufficient, for reasons I have outlined.  Most advocates of gun rights associate high levels of gun violence not with gun possession simply, but with the cities – which is to say, corruption and poverty.  Racially-motivated distrust also plays a part.  But when it comes to gun control in the American context, cities often have more stringent laws than other places: and so the American concludes gun control doesn’t work in America.  “Gun-free zone” is a common a morbid jab at their opponents among gun rights supporters.  Gun control might help prevent violence: especially deadly violence, but for it to find approval, American urban crime rates – both violence by private persons, and government corruption – have to be brought down, and the public has to know these rates have fallen, or many people will simply continue to assume gun control does not really work, and is simply a short-hand to achieve “people control”.

Finally, gun control advocates need a population that trusts the government.  In America, this is a somewhat paradoxical task: the entire structure is set up under the assumption that people are not particularly trustworthy, and ambitious ones even less so.  But at the moment, neither major party is doing anything to counter-act these suspicions.  The Republican Party, as an institution. is more or less openly on the side of business and consulting that will keep them fat and happy, but at least has the decency to talk about believing in free trade as a cover; the Democratic Party is not really any better, and does not even make that an excuse – and moreover, is generally always in favor of passing coercive regulations on any subject whatsoever.  Those supporting gun rights for any reason whatsoever almost always believe in the ideal and benefits of self-government, while they see advocates for gun control practically denying the possibility.

I am, as I said, not convinced that passage of gun control laws is either necessary or the most urgent cause at the moment.  But if a gun control advocate were serious about achieving tighter control without intentionally aggrieving gun rights defenders, I would suggest the working within the laws.  I think, in fact, a Constitutional amendment is likely required.  If I were working to allow gun control laws, I would suggest an amendment to the Constitution be made up in Congress, reading something like this: “The Fourteenth Amendment shall not apply to laws made by State or local authorities with regard to bearing or possession of arms.”  By proposing such a law as an amendment, gun control advocates could show they were serious about working within the legal framework.  By returning a specific power to the States, they would cripple a common argument among those defending gun rights, that the Federal government is looking to centralize all power.  And by allowing variety – the passage of laws as States and localities desire – we would be better able to demonstrate, in a purely American context, what kind of laws really are best for limiting violent crimes.