The OLD Philosopher – John M. Miller
Since the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress in 2010, Congress and the President have been at various levels of an impasse. When the Democrats took control of the House in 2016, the two sides are at even more of an impasse.
This has all happened before. Many past Presidents and Congresses have stymied themselves from accomplishing very much. Usually it happened because of extraordinary partisanship.
However, partisanship naturally arises because of political parties. The two words are, after all, linguistically closely linked.
The Founding Fathers strongly disapproved of political parties. From the end of the American Revolution in 1781 to the presidential election of 1800, essentially there were no parties as we have long understood them. In that year Jefferson, who ran as a Republican against President John Adams, who was a Federalist, partisanship became more divisive than perhaps ever in all of American history. The election of 1800 was a disgusting, dirty, no-holds-barred battle by both sides.
For most of its history since then, politically the USA has been largely a two-party country, with the exception of the election of 1860, the one in which Abraham Lincoln won with the smallest plurality in all our presidential elections Nonetheless, Americans seem to have concluded that a two-party system is the best one we are likely ever to devise.
There have been historical periods, though, when the two parties could not work together for the common good because of their seemingly intractable obvious differences. The Twenty-Teens are such a time.
In most democracies throughout the world, two-party politics is a decided rarity. However, most nation-states during most of the past as well as the present have been either monarchies or virtual autocracies, with one-person dictators (almost always of the male persuasion), and no significant political parties at all.
From the late eighteenth century and into the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, democracies emerged in various nation-states around the world. The large majority of those democracies had parliamentary governments. In them the people did not elect their national chief executive. Instead, the members of the majority party in the parliamentary elected a prime minister, and he (almost always a “he”) led the parliament and the state.
There was a growing movement toward democracy in many nations which had been under Soviet control before the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989. Most of the former Warsaw Pact states of Eastern Europe became at least somewhat democratic, as did many other nations in Asia, Africa, and South America.
All that began to change in the past five to ten years. At the moment there are now autocratic-leaning, nationalistic heads of state in the United Kingdom, Italy, Greece, the Balkans, Hungary, Austria, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Sweden, Turkey, India, the Philippines, Brazil, Argentina, and Bolivia. This does change from month to month, however. All of those countries at one time in the past seventy years have been at least semi-flourishing democracies. Now, they all are swerving toward autocratic, one-party government.
In addition, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and China have leaders who boldly or surreptitiously have continued to maintained one-man, one-party rule in those nations, which for virtually all of their history have been autocracies.
Africa has a handful of democracies, but only a handful, and some of those are being threatened by a return to autocracy. Central America is in a similar situation.
*****
As the voters of the United States of America prepare for the election of 2020, perhaps 40% of them believe President Trump is headed toward autocracy, 30% are very pleased with the leadership of the President, and either 30% are undecided or are totally apathetic and may not vote at all. (These percentages admittedly are pulled out of thin air, and have no basis in any polling data. But then, this writer has come to believe that much polling data is determined by the political predilections of the pollsters in the carefully selected wording of their polls.)
Be that as it may, the US Congress is still stymied, largely because the Senate majority leader is willing to vote on almost nothing that the House proposes. And so the multitude of partisan Democratic presidential candidates continue to espouse traditional Democratic positions on several main issues: climate change, health care reform, taxation, education, the growing disparity between the one per cent (or perhaps ten per cent) and the rest of the population, and so on. These candidates appear partisan because they are members of one of the two traditionally governing American parties. How could they not appear to be partisan?
There is, however, another major looming political prospect. It is the potential initiation by the House of Representatives of an investigation into the possible impeachment of President Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors, emoluments infractions, or other forms of alleged skullduggery.
Only three presidents have ever been impeached: Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton. None was convicted of the charges against him in the impeachment proceedings. Johnson came the closest to conviction, being exonerated by the slimmest margin of just one vote in the Senate. All three were impeached largely on political, not legal, grounds. If the impeachment of any president ever arises in the future, politics rather than legality shall likely also be the issue.
Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, has strongly resisted impeachment action against the president. Perhaps she may finally accede to an “impeachment hearing,” however that might be defined.
It is obvious, in any case, that the political future of President Donald Trump is the overarching issue in the current American presidential race. It is certainly not the usual conservative/liberal issues which have always occupied the minds and manners of the American people and their representatives.
In the meantime, a very strange phenomenon has befallen and finally taken complete control of the Republican Party. Whatever may be the leaning of Republican voters, the vast majority of elected Republican Senators and Members of the House of Representatives have fallen into line by supporting nearly every unpredictable action or position of President Trump.
Within a few months of Trump’s election, almost no congressional Republicans dared to question any decision made by the President on almost any issue. If they did, they feared they might lose in a primary contest for their office. The unflinching support for Mr. Trump is as astonishing as it is alarming.
*****
For the moment, however, let us set aside partisan Democrats, Trump Republicans, and the 2020 election. We now turn our attention to the current Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orban. Mr. Orban was a graduate from an elite law school in Budapest in 1989. By coincidence, that was the year the Soviet Union came apart at the seams. In those days he made courageous speeches against Soviet-style communism, and was elected to the Hungarian parliament in 1990, twenty-nine years ago.
By 1998, the young Viktor Orban became the prime minister of the Hungarian parliament. In the only hiccup in its brief history, Fidesz, his political party, lost its majority in the parliament in 2000. By various political machinations, it took until 2010 for Fidesz to produce an invincible super-majority in parliament. It did so by means of 53% of the total votes cast. However, because of a uniquely Hungarian system for casting votes, Fidesz was enabled to amass over two-thirds of the total seats, and it has held at least that high a percentage ever since.
In the intervening twenty-one years from his initial election to parliament until now, Viktor Orban has steadily turned Hungary into a single-party, increasingly authoritarian, state. In its last election in April of 2018, Fidesz won 91 seats in parliament, compared to 16 for the other eight parties. Fidesz won 49.2% of the votes, and was awarded 85% of the parliamentary seats. That could not happen in a genuine democracy. Only an autocratic government could produce a vote that numerically skewed.
Orban has closed many opposition newspapers and television channels. He has stacked the judicial system with pro-Fidesz judges, so that no laws get passed without Fidesz approval. The secret police have jailed countless citizens. Democracy lasted for only twenty years after the dissolution of communism, but an authoritarian, ultra-right, one-party rule has quickly replaced it, beginning twenty years ago.
Viktor Orban has taken power in Hungary by campaigning against immigration, strongly espousing nationalism, and appealing to what he termed were the historic “Christian values” of the Hungarian people. He seized control on that platform, and that platform has remained firmly in place under his iron fist.
Despite these measures, Mr. Orban is still very popular in Hungary. He faces no serious opposition from anyone or any other party, because he is able to see to it that there is no one else and no other party to challenge his authority. Fortunately for him, the economy is doing fairly well. It may be hard for outsiders to believe he could engineer that degree of political power, but it is an indisputable fact. No major opposition to him has coalesced, nor does it seem likely that any shall emerge soon.
*****
It is widely understood that it is a political necessity for every sitting President of the United States to meet in person with many different kinds of heads of state. Thus in the early months of his presidency Donald Trump met many national leaders either in personal summits in Washington or elsewhere or in mini-summits at international meetings. Among the leaders of major democracies with whom he conferred were the chief executives of Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Australia. He also has spent time with heads-of-state who clearly are moving away from democracy and towards autocracy, such as those in Mexico, Poland, the Philippines, and, of course, Hungary.
All this makes sense. By the nature of their office, it is incumbent on all presidents to do that. But why has President Trump proclaimed his meetings with undeniable autocrats to be his most successful summits? Bibi Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, has become his new best friend. Netanyahu is boldly turning into an autocrat, and is doing it in plain sight. Israel is now a democracy in name only, although the recent election may once again bring democracy back to America’s strongest ally in the Middle East.
Vladimir Putin has turned into a totalitarian autocrat during the last twenty-plus years. When Putin first became the Russian president, he acted as though he might have democratic instincts. Obviously it was only an act.
Trump has sung high praises of his secret meetings with Putin. We only know what he wants to tell us, because there were only two translators there to hear it and no one else. He has spent considerable time with Xi Jin-peng of China. That too is understandable. China is the biggest rival --- and potential --- threat to America in every respect. It certainly behooves President Trump to have serious discussions with Chairman Xi. At least other diplomats from both sides were there for those meetings.
But why does Mr. Trump speak so glowingly of his summits with Mr. Xi? And why was he so obsequious about Putin? Why did Trump disparage “Little Rocket Man” so frequently before and during his presidency, until he had his famous Singapore summit with the third-generation scion of the ruthless Kim family of North Korea? Once he had actually met Kim Jon Un, he told us that he fell in love him. Another summit with Kim was scheduled, but was called off at the last minute. Apparently love is not necessarily lovelier the second time around.
Why does Trump do what he does, and the way he does it? And why did he spend any time at all with Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia after the CIA insisted the ruling Saudi prince had ordered the murder of an adversarial Saudi journalist, and then boast of what a wonderful tete-a-tete he had with a seemingly-liberal-but-truly-murderous despot? Why? And why did he speak so warmly of Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan after he met this man who represents such a great threat to the solidarity of NATO? Why was he fulsome in his praise of Viktor Orban?
Is Donald Trump drawn to autocrats because he finds it a great political challenge? Is he intrigued by the challenge to try to figure out what makes them tick? Or might he do this because he wants to learn the secrets of the autocrats? If so, should that motivation be a secret to anyone who has studied the behavior of Donald Trump? Why haven’t his political leanings become very apparent to almost all of the American people?
They probably have become apparent to most of the hypothetical 40% of anti-Trumps, but definitely not to the 30% of the pro-Trumps, nor to the other 30%, where on the misty flats the rest go to and fro. Democracy thrives or fails on percentages of voters. It always has, and it always will.
Was it evident from the beginning where they were going when the current strong men of China, Russia, India, Turkey, Israel, Austria, Hungary, Poland, Brazil, and Argentina came to power? Did no one there see it coming? Surely multitudes saw it coming, but they were electorally unable to prevent it, because the strong man proved to be stronger than failing democratic impulses.
Donald Trump fancies himself to be the world’s greatest deal-maker. He believes he can best any autocrat in a political discussion. That, he is convinced, is his strongest suit in life.
Mr. Trump learned his business practiced from his father, a ruthless, law-flaunting developer. As the years passed, Donald Trump dug deeper foundations to support his father’s shady business practices. The Trump Organization was no capitalistic democracy; it was a capitalistic autocracy. He has never had to deal with the give-and-take of a major corporation; he has known only that he gives and he takes. That pattern has been illustrated in his presidency by his many hirings and firings, his irrational and rapid changes of course, and in his government-by-tweet philosophy of political management.
Before 2016, Donald Trump had no real political training at all. There were no politics that mattered in the Trump Organization; he made all the major decisions. Management by consensus was something completely foreign to Mr. Trump. He is most comfortable operating in the milieu of a family-owned private corporation. He has treated the American people and the United States Congress and government in the same fashion: as underlings in his private enterprise. That is how his life experience has taught him to treat everyone. He is not ashamed of anything he does, because in his world, what he does is beyond criticism. In Trump-World, that is how things are done.
There is an unavoidable obstacle in that manner of thinking. That is not how things get done in a democratic government or in any other public organization. There must be constant consensus.
With Donald Trump, however, there is no consensus. As another president famously declared, “I am the decider.” However, that president at least had served in in two previous elective offices. By so doing, he came to understand that in government, consensus and cooperation are a necessity. Donald Trump has not comprehended that his political philosophy is a dangerous demagogic fantasy. Neither can he be allowed to continue nurturing it, if the USA is to remain a democracy.
In a glaringly obvious technological error, somehow an errant computer somewhere added this writer’s name to a putative list of purported Republican contributors. For the past few months I have received numerous appeals from the Republican National Committee for funds. Here is the written rationale in my latest missive.
“No President has ever faced more vicious, dishonest, and withering attacks than President Donald Trump.
“The Democrats, the Left, and fake news were all banking on Robert Mueller to cause a coup d’état and force the President from office. But when the President was cleared after two years of exhaustive investigation, the Left became enraged.
“In their false, blind, out-of-control anger, they believe they can make any false accusation, attempt a ‘do-over’ of the Mueller witch hunt, ignore the national security and humanitarian crisis on our southern border, and block vital reforms. This outrageous Democrat assault is no longer just an attack on President Trump – this is also an assault on America and that includes you and me….
“This is a clarion call to you and me to stand up and be counted at this historic moment…. If we are going to save this country and Keep America Great, it is imperative that you answer today.”
Having been invited to answer, I shall now do so.
There are a few false statements in this epistle which forthrightly decries false statements. Anyone may actually “believe they can make any reckless or false accusation,” so long as it is not legally or personally slanderous. By this point in our political impasse, it has become almost impossible to slander any politician of any party or political stripe. Innumerable over-the-top polarized statements are made every day. Some, on occasion, are even made by our President. I admit that many are being made in this essay.
If the Mueller investigation was “a witch hunt,” but “the President was cleared after an exhaustive investigation,” why is it still being labeled a witch hunt? And how is it that “the Left” are ignoring “the national security and humanitarian crisis on our southern border”? And why would it be called in the same sentence a “national security and humanitarian crisis”? Who declared it a national security crisis, and who caused it to be a humanitarian crisis? No one other than President Trump and the Trump Republicans!
Is it correct unmistakably to declare that “(I)f we are going to save this country and Keep America Great, it is imperative” quickly to send money to the Republican National Committee? Really? Should everyone conclude that to be a statement of fact?
Official state Republican committees in several of our states have determined there shall be no presidential primaries in those states. Three Republicans besides Donald Trump have declared their intention to seek the Republican nomination for President, but many Trump Republicans are insistent on thwarting that attempt. Is that –you should pardon the expression -- an acceptably democratic thing to do?
There is no serious public or even clandestine discussion in opposition to President Trump among most Republicans. Such internal debates are neither encouraged nor allowed.
Therefore, when American Republican or Democratic voters cast their votes on November 2 of 2020, they will be forced into the corner of having to push traditional political issues into the background, and to decide primarily on whether Mr. Trump is truly fit to remain in office. Democracies are ominously threatened when the only real political issue is the suitability of a particular person, and all other issues must be thrust aside. Nevertheless, that is where we Americans now find ourselves.
A few weeks ago various news reports suggested that Mr. Trump had joked about perhaps serving beyond 2024. A man who possesses no genuine sense of humor has no ability honestly to make a joke. The President was not joking; he was testing the validity of Amendment XXII to the US Constitution in the minds of both supporters and opponents. He was trying to divine whether he might defy the Twenty-Second Amendment five years from now, assuming that a year from now he will be re-elected.
Of course Trump says outrageous things every day, and perhaps we ought not to read any more into that seemingly innocuous inquiry than we do into most of the others. But what if he was asking a serious question, seriously posed?
The Democratic Representatives in the House are feverishly trying to decide whether to proceed with an impeachment investigation. No Congress is ever faced with a more weighty decision than that. Even if Donald Trump might be found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, the initiation of an impeachment inquiry is politically a very risky gambit, especially because the Senate would almost certainly refuse to confirm the charges. A president may be impeached, but unless the Senate convicts him, it is all a production in political theater.
The problem behind any presidential impeachment is always its politics, not its legalities or ethical questions. The politics are always explosive; the results are never obvious ahead of time. Impeachment hearings might further convince anti-Trump voters of what they already believe, but they probably would not change the opinion of many if any Trump voters.
If too many Americans perceive an impeachment to be a purely partisan matter set in motion by the Democratic Party, and not really a constitutional question, it could scuttle the 2020 election in favor of the incumbent president. As valid as impeachment may be, it could guarantee Donald Trump a second term. Therefore the Democrats are confronted by a potentially lose/lose choice. To impeach or not to impeach; that is the question.
Virtually every week, and often on most days of those weeks, there is a journalistic eruption caused by Donald J. Trump on two of the major the cable news networks. From September 18 on, stories about a Washington whistleblower have captured most of the headlines. Whether that shall raise the impeachment rancor remains to be seen.
For the sake of the republic, and the Republicans, for the sake of the Democrats and out democracy, for the independent voters and the non-voters and for those ineligible to vote, for the sake of entire world, Donald Trump somehow must be removed from office. Whether it occurs in part because of impeachment proceedings or solely because of a presidential election without an impeachment is yet to be decided.
The election of 2020 is probably the least disruptive method for accomplishing the removal of the President. By whatever method he is ejected, however, it will very extremely disruptive. At least the voters themselves will have the opportunity to cast their ballots regarding the perceived efficacy of Mr. Trump as our President. It is conceivable, however, that their votes might become better informed by a presidential impeachment.
This writer clearly understands that many readers of this essay would consider these thoughts to be the ravings on an anti-Trump, fear-mongering, fretful leftist lunatic. He also admits that is actually a possibility, though he hopes not.
If, on the other hand, there is enough truth in the allegations made here, they require that serious contemplation should be given to these claims. They are only claims, to be sure, and are not indisputable facts. If they were indisputable, Donald Trump would not represent the apocalyptic threat to democracy it is herein suggested that he really represents.
In a republic, if a devastating political plague breaks out, and too few sound the alarm, an enormous contagion may ensue. The disease has already begun to creep into the body politic. Will the citizens recognize it, or will they remain silent while the nation becomes enveloped in a sweeping autocratic illness?
For the sake of the decreasing number of democracies in the world, as well as our own democracy, our President must be defeated one way or another by November, 2020. Otherwise his ilk shall spread in a dark contagion throughout the world. Partisan Democrats, Trump Republicans, American independent voters and those who usually do not vote at all are needed collectively to solve the looming problem of The Donald.
If the President continues in office beyond 2020, the future will be grim beyond our ability fully to forecast it. If he is successfully impeached, or if he merely is turned out of office by a sufficiently overwhelming Electoral College vote, it is naïve to imagine that instantaneously there will smooth sailing for the ship of state. Donald Trump has taken such a firm grip on such a sizeable percentage of the American population it is impossible for political peace magically to return.
There are many would-be Viktor Orbans in struggling democracies in many parts of the world. We can help thwart them by thwarting a man who is steadily becoming our own Viktor Orban, or Vladimir Putin, or Xi Jin-peng, or Kim Jong Un.
The choice is ours.
John Miller is Pastor of The Chapel Without Walls on Hilton Head Island, SC. More of his writings may be viewed at www.chapelwithoutwalls.org.