IMPEACH!?

For the fourth time in our history, Congress is actively pursuing impeaching a president. The act itself is historically rare. However, the process is decidedly political. After all, to charge  and convict a president for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," is predominantly a political charge, ambiguous, and not generally codified in any legal manual. In many ways, it describes what Congress decides it means. It is, therefore, no coincidence that none of the parties involved will, at least initially, seem able to agree on the substance  of what is being charged. At every level of the process political opponents strategize on either offense or defense, even if they profess publicly to being open to absorbing facts as they come out, to protect their power position in the legislature.

Regardless of which side the parties are on, charges and counter charges have not really varied much throughout our history. While the scope of alleged offenses may remain relatively narrow, partisan defenses have tended to expand well beyond its parameters. To develop a perspective, it may be interesting to review some of the speeches that have surrounded these historic events.

President Andrew Johnson's impeachment trial (1868) was perhaps the most notorious one our country endured. Johnson, appointed by President Lincoln as his Vice President to help form a unity government, was charged with violating the Tenure of Office Act, past by Congress to protect Edwin M. Stanton, who was Secretary of War, by removing the Secretary from office. The House of Representatives, subsequently, passed 11 articles of impeachment to be adjudicated by the Senate, which missed removing the resident from office by a single vote, short of the 2/3 majority needed to do this. The one vote blocking his removal came from Senator James Grimes of Iowa, a Republican, who stated: "I cannot agree to destroy the harmonious working of the Constitution for the sake of getting rid of an Unacceptable President."

President Richard Nixon's impeachment inquiry, which was never completed because the president resigned from office, focused almost exclusively on "the Watergate scandal." The House Judiciary Committee voted to begin the impeachment process on October 30, 1973. This vote passed by a 21-17 party-line majority, all Democrats in favor and all Republicans opposed. Some of the most memorable speeches during this very public inquiry came from Representative Barbara Jordan (D-Texas) and Representative Charles Wiggins (R-Cal) and Charles Sandman (R-New Jersey). Congresswoman Jordan, in a memorable 15 minute speech before the Judiciary Committee, eloquently, yet subtly, indicted President Nixon by quoting James Madison: "A president is impeachable  if he attempts to subvert the Constitution." The Republican defense at the time charged that no specific piece of evidence linked Nixon to any criminal act. A similar defense is currently being used during the inquiry targeting President Trump.

The impeachment of President Clinton focused on two charges, perjury and obstruction of justice. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde made clear what was at stake: "After months of argument, hours of debate, there is no need for further complexity. The Question before the House is rather simple. It's not a question of sex. Sexual misconduct and adultery are private acts and are none of Congress' business. It's not even a question of lying about sex. The matter before the House is a question of lying under oath. This is a public act." "The issue is perjury - lying under oath." President Trump has denied affairs with Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, even though both have been paid off to stay quiet. The difference may be that his denials have thus far not been issued under oath.

This leaves one more issue that continues to surface - the question whether alleged infractions need to be criminal to make them impeachable. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 65, said the following: Impeachable offenses "are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself." They involve "the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust." The charge against Donald Trump is that during interactions with the president of Ukraine he abused his power by using taxpayer dollars as a tool to extract information potentially damaging to a political rival. A few attorneys have alleged that the relevant criminal statute  to use in adjudicating this behavior is the "Hobbs Act," which was enacted in 1946 to cover "extortion under color of official right," but which during the mid 1970s assumed a role as an "ethics in government statute," to be used when public officials solicit bribes.

Even so, Representative - now Senator - Lindsey Graham (R-SC), during President Clinton's impeachment, memorably explained: "You don't even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic, if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office."

Soon this sentiment could come back to haunt him. We are all watching history in the making.

CALLOUS DECEIT OF LOYAL ALLIES

October 6, 2019, the day Donald Trump tweeted his impulsive decision to pull all U.S. troops out of Northern Syria, will be a day that will live in infamy for the many Kurds, our allies, living along the border with Turkey, who were abandoned without notice and, overnight, left to be slaughtered.

These Kurds were our allies, who essentially did our bidding and engaged in most of the fighting against ISIS, losing almost 11,000 fighters in the process, while we lost 5. They lived in enclaves in Northern Syria, especially around the Syrian town of Kobane, when ISIS launched an assault in September of 2014. Paraphrasing an opinion piece by Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn): With our logistic support, we convinced the Kurds to fight and defeat ISIS; subsequently, we urged them to dismantle their defenses, promising to protect them; and then we green-lighted the Turkish troops in, giving them the ability to wipe them out. "Positively sinister."

Twenty-five to thirty-five million Kurds live in a mountainous region, straddling the borders of Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Armenia. They compose the fourth largest ethnic group in the Middle East, but they were never able to develop a permanent state. They do make up a distinctive community, united by race, culture and language. Although they adhere to a number of religions, the majority are Sunni Muslims. After World War I, in the 1920 Treaty of Sevres, the western allies made provisions for establishing a Kurdish state. However, three years later, in the Treaty of Lausanne, which set the boundaries for modern Turkey, Kurdish statehood was eliminated.

Since this episode, animosity between the Turkish state and the country's Kurds, who constitute 15-20% of its population, continued to fester. Kurdish uprisings during the 1920s and 1930s were quelled, reducing the Kurdish minority to "persona non grata" status. The use of Kurdish language was restricted and their ethnic identity denied. In 1978, Abdullah Ocalan founded the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), a militant and political organization based in Turkey and Iraq. Since 1984, this organization has been involved in armed conflict with the Turkish state, with the aim of achieving an independent Kurdish state. Ever since, the Turkish government has labeled the PKK a terrorist organization. Since its inception, 40,000 people have been killed and hundreds of thousand were displaced. In 2013, a ceasefire was agreed to. However, this collapsed in July 2015 after a suicide bombing near the Kurdish town of Suruc, blamed on ISIS, killed 33 young PKK members. The organization accused the authorities of complicity and attacked Turkish soldiers and police. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan continued to stage aggressive attacks an Kurdish residents ever since, while eying a "safe zone," devoid of Kurds, on the Syrian side of the border. What kept him from a full-blown invasion of the area and exterminating its population was the alliance between U.S. forces and resident Kurds. Until now.

President Trump reportedly had a telephone conversation with Mr. Erdogan on the night before he ignorantly unlocked the border. Our military was caught flat-footed, incredulous and ashamed. Three days later, on the Wednesday following the Sunday announcement, Turkey launched "Operation Peace Spring" with a full-blown assault on coalition positions, rapidly left undefended by U.S. troops. Hundreds of thousands Kurds were forced to flee with the little they were able to carry, hundreds ended up being slaughtered by Turkish troops and Syrian fighters allied with them. All of this supported by aerial bombardments of civilian targets. Meanwhile, secure safekeeping of tens of thousands ISIS fighters and adherents, corralled in camps and prisons across Northern Syria, could no longer be insured.

Responses, even from the president's supporters, came swift and furious. Majority Leader Mitch McCormick, in an op-ed posted in the Washington Post, blasted the president's decision to withdraw as "a grave mistake," which, "will leave the American people and homeland less safe, embolden our enemies, and weaken important alliances." Lindsey Graham ripped into Trump stating: "This impulsive decision by the president has undone all he gains we've made, thrown the region into chaos. Iran is licking their chops. And if I'm an ISIS fighter, I've got a second lease on life. I hope I'm making myself clear how shortsighted and irresponsible this decision is in my view." And former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley lamented: "We must always have the backs of our allies. Leaving them to die is a big mistake."

Mr.Trump, in the mean time, retorted defensively: "If Turkey does anything that I, in my great unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy the economy of Turkey." A few days later, after the Russians had moved into our positions, and after Putin and Erdogan had agreed on how to carve up the spoils, Trump eliminated all sanctions he threatened to impose earlier, and Erdogan demanded that the United States hand over Mazloum Abdi, commander of the Kurdish-led forces in Syria, suggesting "after all, we have an extradition treaty with America."

Our military forces, supposedly "coming home," were, instead, sent to secure oil fields. The latter announcement prompted a former senior American official to call it a reflection of a "shocking ignorance" of history and geography, and evoked an appropriate headline in Vanity Fair: "Screw the Kurds, Save the Oil." (Oct. 25, 2019).

Trump has blood on his hands. He does not seem to care. He appears to get a rush from the power to destroy the lives of many by a single tweet, while being blindly supported by sycophants chiming in that his act reflected the best solution to our problems in the Middle East, which, after all, aren't our problems. Where have we heard this before?

REINTERPRETING HISTORY

History is not an exact science, at least not in the same way we see mathematics. Science refers to objective knowledge, which holds that ideas exist independently from the individual. While primary research includes fact finding, history itself is dependent on interpretation of those facts. What is important about this is that nobody can claim a lock on the content, meaning or relevant facts pertinent to a country's national identity. Which is not to say that a country's history is unimportant. In fact, in addition to national symbols, language, culture, values, traditions and, frequently, ethnicity, a common history, especially when embellished, is essential to a sense of national pride. This, in turn, is related to feelings of patriotism and nationalism. A strong sense of national identity has payoffs in terms of social cohesion and a feeling of belonging by its citizenry.

Given today's world, which, more and more, appears to suffer from an identity crisis, politicians taking the lead in many countries, are intent on reinterpreting their country's past and recreate a national history to fit their political objectives. They look at history as a tool of political propaganda. Especially in states led by authoritarians, history has become an independent variable manipulatable by those seeking to remain in power. The past is something that dictatorships do not leave to chance. They almost always take control of academic research, limit public access to information, and retool history through the lens of their ideology.

Examples are plentiful. In China, Xi Jinping appears convinced that to control his country, he must control its history. In his words, for the Chinese Dream to be achieved, he needs to insure that people "have correct views on history." On one hand, Chinese resistance to the Japanese in the 1930's and the second world war can be remembered. On the other hand, the brutal crackdown during the Tiananmen Square episode in June of 1989, which killed hundreds, and which was removed from the secondary school curriculum in Hong Kong, must be forgotten. (Louisa Lim, "Rewriting history in the People's Republic of Amnesia and beyond," The Conversation, May 28, 2018). Chinese textbooks changed almost overnight in 2006. The new standard world history text dropped wars, dynasties and Communist revolutions in favor of colorful tutorials on economics, technology, social customs and globalization. They do not so much rewrite history as diminish it. It serves to indoctrinate students during their formative years.

In early 2018, Polish President Andrzei Duda signed a controversial law criminalizing statements that attribute responsibility for the Holocaust and other Nazi atrocities to "the Polish nation." During a television interview, Duda said that the law protects Poland's interests and the historical truth, "so that we are not slandered." Poland is not the only post-Communist country that tried to reframe the history of its role during WWII and defend the part it played in the Holocaust. Hungary, Ukraine and the Baltic states have all made similar moves. (Rewriting History in Eastern Europe," Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct 2019).

During the past 10-11 years, the Hungarian government has steadily rewritten that country's national history - crafting another, rooted in the "glory days" between the world wars, when Hungary was ruled by right-wing autocrat, and ally of Hitler, Mikols Horthy. This effort has included replacing historical sculptures, art, and reconsidering academic study options. Prime Minister Viktor Orban has waged a systematic assault on Hungary's democracy, rewriting the national Constitution, reshaping the judiciary, tweaking the electoral system and changing the content of textbooks to fit his vision. In a recent interview, Laszlo Miklosi, president of the Association of Hungarian History Teachers, suggested that "the government's goal is to create a version of history preferable to Orban."

Critics maintain that these policies falsify history. Defenders argue that they represent a normal and necessary part of state building. When, 51 years ago, I arrived in this country, I possessed an idealized version of my native Holland. Soon, however, I began to realize that even there, in one of the most progressive countries in Europe, the interpretation of its national history had been contorted to fit the need of developing a positive national identity. My heroes, historical figures like Michiel de Ruyter, Maarten Tromp and Piet Heyn, who, in the Bay of Matanzas, Cuba, in 1628, captured the Spanish Silver Fleet, even worth many millions at the time, were identified by outside historians as pirates or privateers. I found out that our 80 year war with Spain, which ultimately led to Dutch independence, might not have needed to last that long had Dutch merchants not sold guns and ammunition to both sides in the conflict. Participation by the Dutch West India Company in the slave trade during the second half of the 17th century, transporting 2,500 to 3,000 slaves from Africa to the Americas, something never seen in Dutch history textbooks, was an eye opener. And even today, a New York Times article describing the role the Dutch national railroad played in transporting 107,000 Jewish residents to transit and extermination camps in Germany during World War II, something mostly kept quiet for 70 years, served to have me re-examine history with newly opened eyes.

Every country is either doing it, or has done so during their formative period. Today, digitalization has made deliberate reinterpretations and distortions of history far easier. In the past, someone who wanted to censor had to go to the bookshelves and remove copies or pages. But today, with a few keystrokes, that same individual can wipe out content everywhere instantly. The result is that anyone who does research will come away misinformed or with a distorted view.

To quote 19th century French philosopher Ernest Renan: "Forgetting is a crucial factor in the creation of a nation."

DIVINE RIGHT IN THE AGE OF TRUMP

The believe that various forms of one-person rule are derived from a unique authority-conferring relationship with the divine has existed in multiple forms throughout history. In Europe, the "divine right of kings" was formalized into a theory of legitimacy during the period following the middle ages, in the face of attempts at dominance by the Pope, feudal lords, and emerging theses based on the consent of the ruled. Its adoption attempted to end the instability caused by divided loyalties between political and spiritual leaders. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, the will of his people, the aristocracy, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God. It implies that only God can judge an unjust king and that any attempt to depose, dethrone or restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act. As a political theory, it was refined by James VI of Scotland, the future King James I of England, and fully adopted by King Louis XIV, who ruled France from 1643 - 1715, becoming the longest reigning European monarch on record.

King Louis' parents christened him Louis Dieudonne - meaning "Gift of God." He ascended the throne at age 4, assisted by his chief minister, the Italian-born Cardinal Jules Mazarin, his godfather. The latter instilled in the child the notion that kings were divinely chosen, infallible and impotent, having unlimited power. He chose the sun as his personal symbol and became known as the Sun King. His identity remains visible throughout he Palace of Versailles, a former royal hunting lodge Louis transformed after he decided he did not want to live in Paris any longer. Louis XIV also gained notoriety because of his supposed exclamation that "L'etat c'est moi," (I am the state), expressing the spirit of the rule by which he held all political authority. However, there is no real evidence he actually said it. The first reference of this statement came almost 200 years after his death, in Jacques-Antoine Dulaure's 1834 "History of Paris." It refers to a time when young King Louis sat in parliament in 1655. Listening to its president lecturing on affairs of state, he reportedly got fed up enough to interrupt he man with "l'etat c'est moi."

Fast forward to our current political environment. President Trump's assumption of powers he believes he has have produced regular headlines comparing his demeanor to assumptions made by former kings. David Armitage, in "Trump and the Return of Divine Right," (The New York Times, July 12, 2018), wrote: "In deploying his pardon power freely and using the Bible to justify family separation, the president is exactly the sort of ruler that Enlightenment thinkers feared." Dana Milbank posted: "Trump's not claiming executive power. He's going for divine right." (The Washington Post, May 14, 2019). He recounted arguments made on behalf of the president by one of his lawyers, William Consovoy, who argued that Congress can't use a subpoena or otherwise probe a president unless it is doing so for a "legitimate legislative purpose, and any legitimate legislative purpose  Congress could conceivably devise would be unconstitutional."

President Trump claims to have the "absolute right" to do a lot of things. When speaking to a group of young conservatives in D.C. at "The turning Point USA Teen Student Action Summit" on July 23, he told his audience "I have an Article 2 where I have the right to do whatever I want as president." He claims to have the right to pardon himself, or to order U.S. companies out of China. Through his lawyers he has claimed being the state. In a leaked memo intended for Robert Mueller, they asserted: "Put simply...the President has exclusive authority over the ultimate conduct and disposition of all criminal investigations and over those executive branch officials responsible for conducting those investigations." (Ed Simon, "Donald Trump: L'Etat C'est Moi!" History News Network, Jun. 5, 2018). And, just recently, he reportedly told his aides to get a wall built along he southwestern border before the 2020 election by whatever means necessary, including seizing land on the U.S.-Mexico frontier, and waiving environmental and public health laws, while floating the idea of offering pardons to aides willing to break the law.

Examples are plentiful. Much of these percolated back to the front pages after conspiracy theorist Wayne Allyn Root described Mr. Trump, literally, as being like the King of Israel and said "Jews love him like the second coming of God." Trump, never bashful, embraced Mr. Root's claims, adding, while tilting his head to the heavens, "I am the chosen one." (Ostensibly to fix the U.S. trade imbalances with China).

These were not the first "divine right" references related to Trump on record. During an interview for the Christian Broadcasting Network, Sarah Sander related: "I think God calls all of us to fill different roles at different times, and I think that he wanted Donald Trump to become president, and that's why he's there." Brad Parscale, Trump's campaign manager, has said that "only God could deliver such a savior to our nation." And Secretary of State Mike Pompeo suggested earlier this year that Trump "might have been sent to protect the Jewish people from Iran."

Even though, at the onset, several of our founders, like Alexander Hamilton and Benjamin Franklin, accepted the role of a king, ultimately, because of King George III of England's abuse of power, our founding fathers became vehemently opposed to establishing a monarchy in our country. They would turn over in their graves if history books ended up publishing a name like "Donald the Omnipotent" side by side with names like: "Alexander the Great," "Philip the Bold," or "Farmer George" as King George III was also known.

WALL FUNDING REDUCES NATO'S DEFENSIVE CAPACITY

While much of the country is focused on the congressional impeachment inquiry, which, in part, involves national security issues, military construction projects at home and abroad are facing a significant loss of financial support.

On September 3 of this year, seven months after President Trump declared a national emergency, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper issued a memorandum titled: "Military Construction Necessary to Support the Use of Armed Force in Addressing the National Emergency at the Southern Border." Mr. Esper stated that he had "determined that 11 military construction projects along the international border with Mexico, with an estimated cost of $3.6 billion, are necessary to support the use  of armed forces  in connection with the national emergency." In all, 127 military projects are slated to be defunded to help build 175 miles of wall in Yuma, San Diego, El Paso, El Centro and Laredo. Among the major domestic designated  "contributors" to this program are: New York $160 million, New Mexico $125 million, Alaska $102 million, and Virginia and Washington State which each will lose $89 million of financial support.

About half of the defunded projects are located outside of the continental United States. Guam stands to lose more than $207 million, while funds removed from Puerto Rico, still suffering from the effects of Hurricane Maria, will total in excess of $402 million, money allocated for training facilities, National Guard readiness centers and maintenance facilities. Close to $800 million will come from allocations essential to the European Deterrence Initiative (EDI), previously known as the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI). These initiatives were initiated in June of 2014, three months after the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, in response to Russia's increasingly assertive military posture, unsettling to its European neighbors. It was designed to finance activities of the U.S. military and those of its European allies. These projects included the training of forces, multinational military exercises and the development of military equipment and capabilities. Its main beneficiaries were targeted to be Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania.

Its creation has done little to diminish Russia's intimidating, belligerent, behavior. The country has provided leadership, ammunition, heavy weapons supplies and regular units of the Russian army in the Donbas region of Eastern Ukraine. It continues to station large numbers of military forces in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine (30,000 Russian personnel in Crimea alone) without consent of the governments of these states. It staged large-scale exercises in close proximity to pro-western neighbors, and it has aggressively skirted the boundaries in the Arctic region. Its forces fired upon and detained three Ukrainian naval ships attempting to pass through the Kerch Strait into the Sea of Azov. In addition, it has made a point of publicizing the modernization of its military, conventional as well as nuclear. All these activities have been used effectively by its president, Vladimir Putin, in an attempt to bolster his diminishing political appeal at home.

Russia's perceived threat to its neighbors has been severe enough to elicit a warning from former Georgia President Mikheil Saaskavili, that "Russia's next land grab won't be in an ex-Soviet state. It will be in Europe." (Foreign Policy, March 15, 2019). He suggests that it could be in remote enclaves of Finland or Sweden, both E.U. members, but not part of NATO. The latter association is deemed important, since article 5 of the North Atlantic Treat  Organization's charter stipulates that an attack on one member is considered to be an attack on all members and will provoke a collective response.

Secretary Esper's decision to defund multiple EDI and ERI programs significantly affects Europe's readiness to withstand Russia's aggressive behavior. Germany will lose $468 million, which was targeted for upgrading aircraft shelters; Poland $109 million from ammunition storage facilities and military staging areas; The U.K. will lose $250 million; Slovenia $105 million; Hungary $55 million; Romania $22 million, and so on. A grand total of $777 million, funds slated to support essential improvements of defensive positions.

Observers suspect that the disproportionate removal of funds from these Europe-based programs was a deliberate attempt to minimize political fall-out at home. Besides, it also appears to have been designed to send the message that the recipients are not doing enough themselves. Secretary Esper admitted as much when he stated that "part of the message is burden sharing, maybe pick up the tab."

On December 13, 2018, the "Atlantic Council," an international affairs think tank, published a paper: "Permanent Deterrence: Enhancements to the U.S. Military Presence in North Central Europe," which concluded that Russia is positioned to quickly defeat forward-deployed U.S. and NATO forces, and grab land before reinforcements could arrive. Its recommendations included many of the programs that are now facing a loss of financial support.

To quote former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia and Ukraine Michael Carpenter: "It's foolish to short-change our deterrence posture against Russia to fund a border wall that will do little, if anything, to stem illegal immigration, since much of it comes through existing points of entry anyhow."

POLITICS CAN CORRUPT SCIENTIFIC OUTCOMES

We appear to be living during an era permeated by fake news and alternative facts.
President Trump's persistent rehashing of the defense of his erroneous announcement that Alabama would be significantly affected by Hurricane Dorian, which was immediately refuted by professionals at he National Weather Service in Birmingham, had a much longer lifeline than expected or warranted.

The story goes that Trump instructed his staff to have the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration "clarify" the forecasters ' position. Subsequently, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross warned NOAA's administrator that top employees could be fired if the situation was not addressed. This was followed by an unsigned memo supporting Mr. Trump's announcement and a press conference during which the president displayed a weather map featuring a hand-drawn "correction" suggesting that he had looked at a map supporting his contention. A clear case of creating alternative facts contradicting the conclusions arrived at by the scientists trained to do this. Hence, "sharpie gate" was created.

This episode is emblematic of how scientific facts are denied and replaced with politically convenient substitutes embraced by a subservient subset of supporters unqualified or unwilling to question their veracity. In 1964, historian Richard Hofstadter received a Pulitzer Prize for his classic publication "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life," (Knopf, 1963). He traced the social movements that altered the role of intellect in American society and concluded that anti-intellectualism and utilitarianism - the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful, mechanical and functional - were embedded in America's national fabric, an outcome of its colonial European and evangelical Protestant heritage. He contended that American Protestantism's anti-intellectual tradition valued the spirit over intellectual rigor. In his mind, anti-intellectualism represented a resentment of the life of the mind and those who are considered to represent it.

Our founders did not appear to harbor anti-intellectual thoughts. They were well educated, intelligent leaders of their time. Many were considered intellectuals in their own right - "sages, scientists, men of broad cultivation, many of them apt in classical learning, who used their wide reading in history, politics and law to solve the exigent problems of their time." (Walter Moss, The Crassness and Anti-Intellectualism of President Donald Trump," History News Network, March 18, 2018). It was during President Andrew Jackson's second presidential term that the French diplomat, political scientist and historian Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in his famous description of "Democracy in America," that the spirit of American self-interest appeared crass, suggesting that Americans judge the value of anything by asking: "How much money will it bring in?" De Tocqueville was one of the first students of American life to identify the presence of anti-intellectualism at multiple levels in our society.

The schism between intellectual elites and lesser educated masses is not a typical American occurrence. Anti-intellectualism has been present in some form and degree in most societies. There are studies of very similar phenomena observed in BC periods in Roman and Greek cultures. The Nazis and Fascists burned entire libraries and executed intellectuals who questioned their tactics. More recently, the world experienced Pol Pot's hatred of bourgeois professionals, which led to the killing fields in Cambodia. Mao Zedong set the Red Guards on millions of members of the cultural elite. The Turkish government decided to strike "evolution" from school curricula, and so on.

However, seldom has the occupant of our White House exhibited such a toxic mix of ignorance and mendacity, such lack of curiosity and disregard for rigorous analysis. During his election campaign, Donald Trump regularly complained about how terrible the experts were. "Look at the mess we're in with all the experts we have." Throughout, he has shown his contempt for evidence-based research. His original budget proposal reflected this. He wanted to significantly defund the National Institute of Health, the National Science Foundation, NASA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. He withdrew from UNESCO, which promotes international collaboration through the arts and sciences. And the administration routinely prevents its scientists from including global warming research reports in their testimony. Mr. Trump has been known to shelve reports, simply because he did not believe them. He skipped a G-7 session about climate change, declaring that American wealth is based on energy and that he would not "jeopardize that for dreams and windmills." And he famously claimed: "I think I know more about the environment than most people."

President Trump's open antipathy towards science, supported by a substantial segment of his political base, has generated a fairly significant body of work by journalists and academics. Titles like: "Americans are not only getting dumber, they're proud of their ignorance." (John L. Mecik, Penn Live, Aug. 3, 2017), and a well-researched book by Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval War College, Tom Nichols: "The Death of Expertise - the campaign against expertise and why it matters," (Oxford University Press, 2017), are only a few.

Some blame the onset of the internet, which made it possible to find a source to support any opinion under the sun, no matter how outrageously unscientific it might be, and which made people feel more empowered to voice their opinion. Nichols believes that "to reject the advice of experts is to assert autonomy, a way for Americans to insulate their increasingly fragile ego from ever being told they're wrong about anything."

President Trump seems to be taking this conclusion to heart.

U.S. GUN VIOLENCE UNSETTLES THE WORLD

Years ago a high school friend of mine in The Netherlands decided he would not come to visit me as long as George W. Bush was president. His decision was purely political. Although today many of my friends and family members have concerns about our political state of affairs as well, their predominant objection to coming over here concerns security. They are seriously worried about their safety. No wonder, because since the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut, on Dec. 14, 2012, our country experienced 2,181 additional mass shootings spread out over 35 different states. The world has noticed, and, especially after the  most recent violent events, is expressing its concerns.

On August 7, Amnesty International issued a warning about travel to the U.S. amid "high levels of gun violence." The organization warned travelers and visitors to the United States to "exercise extreme caution due to rampant gun violence, which has become so prevalent in the US that it amounts to a human rights crisis." Travelers to the United States should remain cautious that the country does not adequately protect people's right to be safe, regardless of who they might be. People in the United States cannot reasonably expect to be free from harm - a guarantee of not being shot is impossible," said Ernest Coverson, campaign manager for the End Gun Violence Campaign at Amnesty International USA. "Depending on the traveler's gender identity, race, country of origin, ethnic background, or sexual orientation, they may be at higher risk of being targeted with gun violence, and should plan accordingly," the advisory reads. As frequent travelers, we are used to observing travel warnings and advisories issued by our own State Department. However, we tend to think these refer mostly to developing countries. We certainly did not expect to see one issued about ourselves.

The news headlines focusing on what seems to have become routine events came from everywhere: "US in the midst of a white nationalist terrorism crisis," (Sydney Morning Herald). "Is the US Facing a White Nationalist Terrorism Crisis?" (Foreign Policy). "Global Headlines Agree U.S. Has a White Supremacy Problem," (The Forward). "White nationalism terrorism." "America's New Civil War." "Domestic terrorists devastate the U.S.." "Mass shootings: The most American way to kill and die," (Aljazeera). "El Paso and Dayton: Two mass shootings - will anything change?"(The Loudest Voice). Richard Madan, covering the Washington bureau for Canada's CTV News, wrapped it up this way: "It's very difficult for a lot of Canadians to understand how the Second Amendment can be politicized, or the way it's used to justify people buying guns. In Canada, if two people get shot, that will be national news. If two people get shot in the U.S., that may make it into the local newspaper, but not on the front page."

Note: During the 72 hours leading up to when I sat down to write this, 81 people were killed by guns in our country...

Government agencies issued warnings as well. Uruguay's Foreign Ministry warned about: "growing indiscriminate violence" in the U.S.. Venezuela's foreign minister warned its citizens to avoid gatherings where mass shootings might occur. And the Japanese Consul in Detroit published an alert that said Japanese nationals "should be aware of the potential for gunfire incidents everywhere in the United States," which he described as a "gun society."

The New York Times quoted readers' comments, illustrative of what many outside of our country are thinking: "Living near Paris, I just wake up and cringe at what is happening in my country of birth. I won't be going back where I'm from too soon," (Linda Thalman near Paris). "Every time I read about a shooting in the U.S. I wonder if the Americans know how the world outside works, because, I think, if they did they would finally realize how crazy their society is. And then they would finally say that simple phrase that started so many revolutions in history: That's enough," (Flavio Finco, Padua, Italy). "My perspective as a retired psychotherapist and counselor, living happily in a very safe and civilized Europe, reveals a crumbling giant I have honored and respected as it flails and sinks deeper into irrelevance around the world,"(Richard Baily, Ferragudo, Portugal). (Aidan Gardener, "Readers Around the World look at Mass Shootings in the U.S. and Ask, Why Are You Surprised?" The New York Times, Aug. 6, 2019).

Josef Janning, senior policy fellow at the European Council of Foreign Relations, based in Berlin, reflected this way: "People are used to the fact that in the United States, every month, a lot of people are killed by someone for no apparent reason. And now it comes together with this trend in Western society of gut-feeling, tribal politics that inflames people rather than educate them."

President Trump, meanwhile, when apprised of travel warnings issued against the U.S. because of gun violence, warned: "We are a very reciprocal nation with me at the head. When somebody does something negative to us in terms of a country, we do it to them." Sad!

The world looks at us for guidance, but it has become increasingly unsettled by what it sees. To change that perception, we need to change the reality on the ground, which requires mature  leadership. To finally begin that process, we need to first find that at the top.

IS OUR SOCIAL CONTRACT UNRAVELING?

The past four years have shaken up what political scientists tend to refer to as the social contract between our government and its citizens. An implicit contract none of us was explicitly asked to opt in on, but a choice we assume to enjoy all the benefits that government provides, while implicitly agreeing to accept governmental authority. President Trump and his congressional supporters are gradually dismantling the vestiges of 20th century liberalism from 21st century America. They appear set on redefining the underlying social agreement between the healthy and the sick, between immigrants and native born, between men and women, between differing sexual orientations and religions, between rich and poor and between those who own capital and those who don’t. The privatization of FDR’s Social Security, Johnson’s Medicare and Medicaid and Obama’s Affordable Care Act are in the ruling party’s sights. So much so that this year’s contender for the presidency, former Vice President Joe Biden, has considered that what is at stake is nothing less than the soul of America. While a social contract may be tacitly greed to in general, its constructs can become very explicit. Our Constitution is often cited as an explicit example of part of our social contract. It sets out what the government can and can’t do. Social contract is a theory or a model which originated during the Age of Enlightenment, an intellectual and philosophical movement that dominated the world of ideas in Europe between the 17th and 19th centuries. The starting point for most social contract theories was an examination of the human condition prior to, or absent of any political order. Theorists sought to demonstrate why a rational individual would voluntarily consent to give up their national freedom to obtain the benefits of political order. The most profound social contract theorists of the time were: Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), John Locke (1632-1704), and Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). Thomas Hobbes’s theoretical basis was “the state of nature,” during which human life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” In the absence of political order and law, everyone would have unlimited natural freedoms, including the right to plunder, rape and murder. To avoid this, free men would engage in a contract to establish a civil society in which they all gain security in return for subjecting themselves to an absolute sovereign. Hobbes saw absolute government as the only alternative to the terrifying anarchy of the state of nature. The English philosopher John Locke came from quite a different starting point. He believed that human nature was characterized by reason and tolerance, even though it allowed people to be selfish. In a natural state, all people were equal and independent. Everyone had a natural right to defend his “life, health, liberty, or possessions.” The sole right to defend in the state of nature was not enough, so people established a civil society to resolve conflicts in a civil way with the help from government in an organized state. He argued against the absolute monarchy and in favor of individual consent as the basis for political legitimacy. His ideas had a profound influence on our “Declaration of Independence” and “Constitution,” and can be found back in the written works of Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison and others. The Swiss philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, writing in 1762, became increasingly aware that the ordering in society was unjust. Rules were made by the rich to suit their own interests, not those of the common people. He argued that laws could only be binding if they were supported by the “general will” of the people. Today, most of us still believe that we live together in accordance with an agreement that establishes moral and political rules of behavior. Based on responses to polling, our American social contract suggests that we generally share a number of values: Everyone should have an equal chance to get ahead; No one should be discriminated against because of race, religion, gender or sexual preference; No one who works full time should have to live in poverty; People should take responsibility for themselves and their families, but deserve help if they need it through no fault of their own; And no one should have special privileges and power based on wealth and class. These values are anchored in moral teachings and democratic ideals that often predate the founding of our republic. We have veered away from all these principles. However, that does not make us less dedicated to them. A problem with social contract theory is that it could give governments too much power to make laws under the guise of protecting the public. Governments may use the cloak of the social contract to invoke the fear of a state of nature to warrant laws that are intrusive. Theo Wierdsma

TIME TO EXHALE

A few weeks ago, my wife and I took a few days away from our daily routine and exposed ourselves to the multifaceted cultural experience provided by Nashville, Tennessee. We visited before, but never managed to attend the Grand Ole Opry, something not necessarily on our bucket list, although it probably should have been. The city of Nashville offered more than “just” music, and much more than the cacophony of country and western sounds blaring at full blast from every bar and restaurant along Broadway, its main thoroughfare. Although the city is currently less “southern” than it reportedly was during the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s, it did retain much of the niceness typically associated with the South. Nevertheless, its southern culture is gradually being diluted by a net migration of about 100 new arrivals a day, making it the 7th fastest growing city in the U.S.. Many of the cultural attractions, however, are fixed in place. We visited the Belle Meade plantation, the Carter House located on the site of one of the Civil War’s last major battles near the city of Franklin, the Hermitage, the estate of our 7th president, Andrew Jackson, the Ryman Auditorium and the Grand Ole Opry, all the while indulging in southern food, and practicing the language. For almost an entire week we saw no newspaper, and only rarely got a glimpse 0f what was going on politically that might increase our blood pressure. In other words, we were able to exhale, and take a break from what we knew would face us again once we returned home. Belle Meade Plantation This 200 year old facility is famous for turning 250 acres of remote wilderness into the nation’s leading thoroughbred farm. It’s founder, John Harding, brought two slaves with him when he settled in the area. Over time, the Harding family became one of the largest slave-holding families in Nashville. Initially, John Harding earned his living through boarding horses and subsistence farming. He would eventually shift the operation into what became known as the Belle Mead Stud. His son William took over operations of the plantation in 1839, and continued breeding thoroughbreds. He donate $500,000 to the cost of the Confederate States army, was arrested after the Union forces took control of the sate in 1862, and was imprisoned in Fort Mackinac in Michigan for 6 months. Somehow he kept all his horses. In 1872, he purchased a prime stud, Bonnie Scotland, and established one of America’s most prominent thoroughbred bloodlines. The estate claims that most recent Kentucky Derby and Triple Crown winner can trace their lineage directly to its most famous stud, Iroquois. The plantation’s head hostler and trainer, Robert “Bob” Green, was an enslaved man who became a nationwide celebrity. A fabulous place to visit. The Battle of Franklin Franklin, a small town just outside of Nashville, is a friendly tourist-focused hamlet, made more famous for the location where on November 30, 1864 the Battle of Franklin, one of the last major Civil War battles, took place. It seems almost inconceivable that in that small area 27,000 Union troops fought with 20,000 Confederates. The combat lasted only five hours, but resulted in 9,500 casualties – 2,000 dead, 6,500 wounded, and 1,000 missing. The focal point of this battle field, the Carter House, provides a fascinating historic perspective, not to be missed by anyone visiting the area. The Hermitage The Hermitage planation is the home of Andrew Jackson, located about twelve miles east of Nashville. It sits on an estate of over 1,100 acres, that includes the tomb of Jackson and his wife Rachel. He lived there from1804 until his death in 1845. It served as a place of rest for “Old Hickory,” where he entertained a steady flow of family and friends. But it was also a place of captivity and suffering for hundreds of slaves. Nevertheless, a must place to visit for history buffs touring the area. Grand Ole Opry Our impetus for visiting Nashville was to attend a concert at the Grand Ole Opry. We managed to book two performances. Downtown, at the Ryman Auditorium, the former Grand Ole Opry House, colloquially known as the “Mother Church of Music,” built in 1892 as a permanent location for tent revival-style gospel meetings. A statue of Little Jimmy Dickens sits in front of its main entrance. We attended a performance by singer-songwriter Jill Scott. Our main event, however, was at the current location on Opryland Drive. We managed to include a fascinating backstage tour during the morning of our concert date. That night, more than 4,000 country and western aficionados and interested tourists swarmed the facility, ready to enjoy a multi-faceted program, including, among others, “The Gatlin Brothers” and Merle Haggard’s son Ben. These were the names we recognized. However, we were intrigued by a bluegrass band: “Joe Mullins and the Radio Ramblers” performing a rousing rendition of “Bacon in my beans,” and their reference to another performance favorite: “If I had shot her when I fist met her, I would be out about now.” We were a day early for a feature performance by “Leftover Salmon W/Horseshoes and Hand Grenades.” You wonder why we can’t stick to common names like the “Beatles,” or “Rolling Stones.” All in all, this trip did exactly what it was intended to do. We crammed a lot into four days. We did partake of hot chicken and waffle dishes, but passed on moonshine tastings, or the redneck comedy tour. I did pick up an instructional manual teaching me “How to Speak Southern,” something I may dig into before we go again. Theo Wierdsma

TRUMP’S TARIFFS CREATE DOMESTIC CONSEQUENCES

Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign swings throughout our country’s heartland successfully honed in on the loss of manufacturing facilities, the millions of jobs lost, and the difficulties encountered by the farming communities scratching out a living when competing with low priced imports. Trump pointedly identified our deficient balance of trade - a measure of the value of exports of goods an services compared with our imports from other countries - as the culprit. While no country escaped his wrath, China rose to the exalted position of being his primary target. He accurately indicated that it contributed 61% of our entire 2016 deficit.

Trump and his advisors argued that this deficit was concentrated in the manufacturing sector. They asserted that surging imports of low cost Chinese products had not only lowered the wages of our non-college educated workers, they also forced many industries into bankruptcy, which, in turn, led to a loss of somewhere between two and three million jobs during the preceding decades. The “balance of trade” talking point became a simple, convenient, be it unsophisticated populist theme that elevated Trump’s electoral chances. While many economists argue that the trade deficit is not economically significant as an indicator of economic health, and that a larger trade deficit could in fact be the result of a stronger economy, Trump would not let go, and installed the concept as a centerpiece of his economic policies.

As he complained that unfair trading practices were being used against us, Mr. Trump has used the “threat of tariffs” as a weapon to persuade competitors to help us reduce our trade deficit. This strategy did not work out as planned. Our balance of trade deficit with China was almost $44 billion higher in 2018 than it was the year before. Doubling down, Trump increased his aggressive posture against the second largest economic superpower in the world, in an attempt to force it to comply with his demands. On May 5th he announced that he would increase the tariff on $200 billion of Chinese goods to 25%, and threatened to tax the remaining $325 billion to the same percentage "shortly."

He mistakenly, or blatantly, asserted that the tariffs paid to the USA have had little impact on our product cost, claiming that they are mostly borne by China. The latter, in turn, retaliated by announcing plans to impose tariffs on $60 billion worth of American goods, specifically targeting commodities originating in states Trump won by significant margins in 2016. The trade war was on. Donald Trump was fulfilling election promises, making political points in an attempt to solidify his base, even though he clearly displayed his ignorance about how the economy works, and seemed untroubled by the consequences of his impetuous posturing.

Our president falsely claims that China pays the tariffs levied by his administration. In reality, companies like Ford, Walmart and others that import goods from China foot the bill - costs that are passed on to U.S. consumers. Economists calculate that the tariffs imposed on imports from China cost American consumers $68.8 billion last year alone. David Weinstein, an economist at Columbia University, estimates that the latest round of tariff increases will push the annual cost per household well above $800. Larry Kudlow, director of the "National Economic Council" concedes that both sides in the conflict will pay. "Both sides will suffer on this," he said on "Fox News Sunday" recently. "You've got to do what you got to do...The economic consequences are so small that the possible improvements in trade and exports and open markets for the United States, this is worth doing."

However, tariffs not only increase prices, they also kill jobs. "The Tax Foundation" calculated that in 2018 459,816 jobs were lost because of enacted and announced tariffs. The Washington based "Trade Partnership World Wide" estimates that job losses during a U.S.- China trade war would top 2 million if Trump imposes a 25% tariff on all Chinese imports.

Mr.Trump's celebrated constituency of so-called "Patriot Farmers," those still supporting him, but caught between a rock and a hard place, find themselves hoping beyond hope that he knows what he is doing. China's retaliatory tariffs effectively killed the market for domestic producers of agricultural products. A May 19 article in Newsweek quoted a Wisconsin farmer telling Fox News that suicides and bankruptcies in rural America are rising dramatically. A poll backed by the American Farm Bureau reported that 91% of respondents revealed that financial issues are impacting mental health, 87% of farmers fear losing their farms, and one third had sought mental healthcare. With Trump promising that "short term pains" inflicted  on farmers are worth the "long term gains," farmers are asking: "How long is short term?" and "what does success ultimately look like?" Many are beginning to worry that other countries will permanently replace American suppliers. In response, Donald Trump offered another $16 billion bail-out package for farmers most hurt by the dispute - funds paid by the U.S. Treasury Department, not by China.

In addition to all this, economists suggest that these tariffs, if sustained, increase the probability of a recession, could shave 0.25 - 0.35 percentage points off GDP, and would more than cancel out all of the economic benefits of the 2017 tax law. Forbes Magazine, in its May 23rd issue, reported that the Japanese financial services company "Nomura Securities" offered 65% odds that 25% tariffs on additional $300 billion worth of Chinese goods will go into effects by the 3rd quarter of this year. In the mean time, Donald Trump is on record tweeting that he would be happy to leave tariffs in place indefinitely.

Most of our allies agree that we need to do something to reign in China's irresponsible trading practices. However, the consensus is that coordinated action would promise far better results. Trump's gamble does not merit the consequences, intended or not.

MR. TRUMP BEFUDDLES EUROPE

President Trump's European trip earlier this month was nervously anticipated to be an improvement over the experience of last year's visit, but still expected to contain some surprises and awkward situations, some potentially consequential, and some relegated to fodder for the talk show circuit. Some controversies already preceded the flight from Washington D.C.. Mr. Trump's ongoing feud with London's mayor Sadiq Khan had been in the headlines for days, and his characterization of Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, as "nasty," during an interview, rankled more than some royal feathers.

Helicopters transported Mr. an Mrs. Trump from Stansted Airport to Buckingham Palace, where they were received by Queen Elizabeth, Prince Charles and Camilla. Mr. Trump would later claim that they flew over thousands of cheering supporters in downtown London, not recognizing that these were actually protesters expressing their disapproval of his presence.

The pomp and ceremony at Buckingham Palace fit President Trump very well. He appeared coached and scripted, acting statesman-like. Trump, being Trump, was very pleased with himself. After the state dinner, he soon boasted about having had "automatic chemistry" with the queen. When asked during a Fox interview if he fist-bumbed  the queen, he said: "I did not, but I had a great relationship, we had a really great time. There are those that say they have never seen the queen have a better time, a more animated time... We just had a great time together." (The Guardian, Jun. 7, 2019). Queen Elizabeth, who has met with 12 U.S. presidents since 1951, was predictably not asked for a comment.

After insulting Prime Minister Theresa May during their last visit, this year's face-to-face meeting was much more civil. Mr. Trump actually managed to compliment the outgoing P.M. on her negotiating efforts with he European Union. He did, however, all but encourage the U.K. to pursue a "no deal Brexit," a scenario British lawmakers adamantly oppose. He also strongly suggested that Nigel Farage, a supporter and leader of the recently formed "Brexit Party," should lead ongoing negotiations with the E.U.. And, while he continued providing unwelcome advise, he insinuated that former U.K. Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, an old friend, should replace Theresa May as leader of the Conservative Party, and as Prime Minister. (To not hurt his chances of being elected, Mr. Johnson declined to meet with the president.) Finally, he proposed a post Brexit free trade agreement with the U.S., but stipulated that everything, including the popular British healthcare system, should be on the table. A deal breaker for anyone in the audience.

The interview with Piers Morgan for "Good Morning Britain" should probably never have happened. The president appeared very uncomfortable when Morgan asked him how he evaded the draft during the Vietnam war. Trump received four student deferments and two medical excuses for bone spurs. Trump's rambling explanation quickly made the news: "I was never a fan of that war, I'll be honest with you. I thought it was a terrible war; I thought it was very far away. You're talking about Vietnam. At that time nobody had ever heard of that country."

His televised pep-talk to Ireland's Prime Minister Leo Varadkar became another awkward moment. Referring to Brexit, a hot topic of significant concern in Ireland, Trump said: "I think it will all work out very well, and also for you with your wall, your border. I mean, we have a border situation in the United States, and you have one over here. But I hear it's going to work out very well here." Mr. Varadkar's retort that Ireland would like "to avoid a border or wall" did not seem to penetrate or resonate.

Aside from the state visit, the other featured objective of Trump's visit to Europe at this time of the year was to participate in the commemoration of the 75th Anniversary of D-Day at the "Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial" in Colleville-sur-Mer in France. President Trump managed to do a commendable job during the solemn and emotional ceremony. However, even here he managed to redirect attention onto himself. With the D-Day ceremony as a backdrop, and the 9,388 white crosses covering burial sites behind him, he inserted a sit-down interview with Fox News host Laura Ingraham, during which he blasted his political rivals at home. At some point he suggested that the officials attending probably did not recognize that he was the one holding up the entire ceremony just to do that interview. Even Ingraham admitted that that was fake news.

A final parting gift to the pundits surfaced during the family's trip home. Becoming aware that NASA planned to go back to the  moon during he coming few years, something Trump actually proposed not too long ago, he flipped on his space objectives, tweeting: "For all the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the moon - we did that 50 years ago. They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including MARS (of which the moon is a part). Defence (sic) and Science!" For some in the Trump entourage this may have counted as enlightenment. For many at home and abroad this tweet resembled pure nonsense.

Most controversial statements chronicled during Mr. Trump's European trip this time around are attributable to self-aggrandizement, and expressions of, mostly unwelcome, opinions fueled by narcissism and essential ignorance of the political facts and climate on the ground. I am certain that many in Europe anticipated much of this. If this was his objective, Mr. Trump did  great job leaving much of the citizenry in host countries confused and bewildered.

TRUMP DEFIES SIMPLISTIC COMPARISON

"Tall trees catch a lot of wind." This traditional Dutch expression translates to something like: "people in high places catch a lot of flack." This is something we are all familiar with. No matter who runs our government, critics will quickly attach labels in an attempt to pigeonhole them, sometimes even well before they take power. These days many seem tempted to simplistically compare current political leaders to historical figures. Two of the more popular characterizations we have all become familiar with are: "Fascist" and "Machiavellian." Hitler's moustache has adorned  George Bush as well as Barack Obama, while Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were often considered to be Machiavellian. No surprise therefore that Donald Trump is receiving the same treatment - be it probably more prevalent because he is currently more visible and more intensely controversial. However, none of this should imply that the characterizations being bantered about this time are somehow less simplistic or more appropriate.

Political antagonists from all sides of the political spectrum have made ignorant use of the term "Fascist" to describe their opposition to mean something or someone cruel, unscrupulous or arrogant. Political affiliation doesn't protect against this kind of assault. Back in 20017, Keith Oberman, political commentator for MSNBC, chastised then President George W. Bush for commuting Lewis Libby's prion sentence by exclaiming: "If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business, come out and say it! There is a dictionary definition, one word that describe that toxic blend. You're a Fascist!" Ten years later, Seth Connell, writing for "The Federalist Papers," penned a piece headlined: "The Democratic Party Has Officially Gone Full Fascist." Any political leader in between has at some point become the focus of similar treatment. As former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright points out in her new book: "Fascism, a warning," "at this point, anybody who disagrees with us is a Fascist."

Many who use the term have often degraded it to the level of a swearword. It is usually not the "ideology" behind the term, such as it is, but the visual impression of Adolf Hitler that gets highlighted. As Secretary Albright explains, "Fascism is not an ideology, it is a process for taking and holding power." She continues: "A Fascist is someone who is willing to use whatever means are necessary - including violence - to achieve his or her goals. A Fascist will likely be a tyrant, but a tyrant need not be a Fascist." The adoption of violence to impose fascist authority is key to Fascism. Hitler's objective was cleansing his Aryan race. He was a sociopathic narcissist, delusional egomaniac, unfeeling and cruel. Whatever tendencies Donald Trump is perceived to have, they don't raise to that level. Those equating Trump's supposed fascism with that of Benito Mussolini, in many ways the father of fascism, are wrong as well. Mussolini was obsessed with power, a trait Trump also appears to possess, but he was more cerebral, resorting to extreme manipulation by writing interpretative entries on the definition of fascism for the Italian Encyclopedia, and composing multiple biographies and speeches. Trump does not have the mental capacity to do these without the use of a ghostwriter. "The Art of the Deal" does not qualify.

Those depicting Donald Trump as being Machiavellian generally focus on philosophical content rather than propagandistic imagery. Superficially, being Machiavellian refers to being sneaky, cunning, lacking a moral code, and the idea that the end justifies he means. Early on, before Trump was even inaugurated, David Ignatius, in a Washington Post column, proclaimed that: "Donald Trump is the American Machiavelli." (Washington Post, Nov. 10, 2016.) He explained that: "Rarely in the United States have we seen the embodiment of the traits Machiavelli admired quite like Donald Trump,"  while referring to Machiavelli's masterpiece "The Prince," a book Trump had listed as one of his favorites. Ignatius goes on to enumerate some of the character traits Machiavelli listed as an advantageous or even necessary part of leadership, including: occasionally lying, bullying, mocking political correctness, decisively exercising power, and the proclivity to rather be feared than loved. The prince's task was to create a "strong state," not necessarily a "good one."

Several  months later, Ignatius reversed himself, and wrote: "Trump is not so Machiavellian after all." (Washington Post, March 23, 2017). He stated that Trump embodied some of the moral qualities Machiavelli had recommended in his book: "He is ruthless, he lies, deceives and manipulates where necessary." However, he did not believe that our president, among other qualities, really embodies the spirit of "virtue," something Machiavelli regarded as essential for political success. Multiple analysts and observers agreed, sometimes even referring to Trump as the "Anti-Machiavelli." (See for instance: Stefano Albertini, "La Voce di New York," Jan. 14, 2018.)

One might wonder whether the attempt to attach superficially defined labels to our political leaders represents an act of convenience, not intended to educate but to agitate, counting on the unquestioning acceptance of a receptive audience. Then again, some critics may use ill-defined, but recognizable labels in lieu of what could be called "Trumpism," something even more difficult to define, since it tends to refer to unpredictability, and is ever changing, without a philosophical or ideological underpinning.

DEMOCRATS PONDER THEIR "TREXIT" STRATEGY

The Democratic Party appears to be in turmoil over what strategy to pursue to affect President Trump's exit (Trexit) from the White House. While playing defense, the Republican Party is laser-focused on protecting their leader, who only garners a 39% approval rating, from electoral defeat in the rapidly approaching national election.

Democrats are in a quandary about whether to impeach or not impeach. With the election just 18  months away, how this dilemma is resolved would almost certainly have an effect on its outcome. National polls indicate that only 37% of respondents indicated they favor starting the impeachment process, while 56% oppose that idea. Moreover six in ten independents appear to be against impeachment now, a sign of potential electoral danger for Democrats.

Article II of our Constitution states that a president can be impeached for bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors. The latter condition is not defined, and its application is purely political. Pro "impeachment now" Democratic members of Congress point out that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's heavily redacted but revealing report identified at least ten instances of potential obstruction of justice, impeachable offenses if proven, providing a blueprint for Congress to decide how to handle them.

Congresswoman Maxine Waters is clear in her conviction, proclaiming: "We're going to have to impeach. I just wish it was sooner rather than later." Presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren the first of few major candidates to immediately call for impeachment, saying that "there is no political inconvenience exception to the United States Constitution," and asserted that President Trump's actions would "inflict a great and lasting damage on this country." Other candidates like Sen. Kamala Harris and former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro, publicly concurred. By contrast, mainstream Democrats warn about the political risks of an unsuccessful impeachment. While Democrats control the House, and could muster the simple majority it takes to adopt articles of impeachment, virtually every political observer concedes that the Republican Senate would never round up the 2/3 supermajority it takes to convict.

Party leaders fear that the impeachment process would work to President Trump's advantage, giving him the sympathy vote, especially while a significant segment of the public is growing tired of the ongoing Mueller probe. Sen. Cory Booker, another Democratic candidate for the presidency, said that "there is a lot more investigation that should go on before Congress comes to any conclusion like that," meaning the need to impeach. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand made clear that she feels that a meeting with Robert Mueller should precede any decision. Sen. Bernie Sanders reiterated as well that impeachment might distract from other important issues important to voters that "works to Trump's advantage."

Democratic congressional leaders cautiously remind their membership about what happened when Republicans impeached President Bill Clinton  two decades ago. The House impeached Clinton in 1999. House Speaker Newt Gingrich intimate that they did "because we can." He predicted that, because of what they were doing, Republicans would gain 25-30 seats in the 2002 election. However, the Republican Senate failed to convict, Clinton became even more popular than his 72 percent approval rating at the start of the process, ostensibly because people saw his impeachment as Republican overreach. The Democrats ended up gaining five seats in the 2002 election, and Gingrich was forced to resign. Speaker Pelosi could direct Donald Trump's impeachment as well, "because she can." But party insiders fear that the fall-out could well mirror what happened in 2002.

Given this historical context, Republicans might actually prefer confronting impeachment proceedings over the drip, drip, drip of ongoing investigations into the multitude of instances Mueller identified as possibly bordering on obstruction of justice. Democrats run the risk of being branded one-trick ponies. Michigan Rep. Debbie Dingell argued that Americans expect more from Congress, and suggested they pursue a legislative agenda that includes "lowering prescription drug prices, creating 16 million good-paying jobs through a real infrastructure plan, and to make sure our government is working" instead. With the election around the corner, timing also becomes a factor. President Nixon's impeachment process took 14 months from the start of the Watergate hearings until he resigned. Given that timeframe, impeachment might still be debated when the election takes place. Many Democrats are unlikely to enjoy that prospect.

Even as they strategize to reclaim the White House, Democrats would benefit from showing they are able to walk and chew gum. This involves compartmentalizing their constitutional oversight responsibilities involving ongoing investigations, while simultaneously advancing legislative objectives. Republicans would benefit from signing on to these pursuits as well, and the country at large would be the better for it.

EUROPE'S VEXING CHARISMA PROBLEM

The 2019 elections to the European Parliament will take place between May 23 and May 26. Many in the Union prepare for this election with trepidation. It threatens to be shaping up as a battle between the forces  of integration an fragmentation. A Reuter poll, executed in June of last year, projected that Eurosceptic political parties could well expand their representative strength in the Parliament by more than 60%. These largely critical, sometimes entirely anti EU, movements operate outside of the traditional mainstream support structure within the 28 nation bloc. If Brexit does happen before the election, 19 members of the United Kingdom Independent Party, which openly opposes the EU, will leave. However, Italy's coalition of populist parties, "5-Star" and "The League," combined with the rise of "Alternative for Germany," the French "National Rally," the Dutch "Freedom Party," and the recently surging "Forum for the Democracy," as well as Poland's "Law and Justice Party" are anticipated to more than make up for the British absence, and increase their collective representation from the current 80 to a potentially consequential 122 seats.

To say the least, this situation is awkward. EU member states could end up with a governing body seating a very significant percentage of representatives ideologically opposed to its essential objective. Outsiders with suspect intentions also join the fray. Steve Bannon, Donald Trump's former White House Chief Strategist, even set up shop here, launching a project intended to coordinate and bolster the anti-EU vote across the continent. While a 2018 "Eurobarometer" survey commissioned by the Parliament indicated that 67% of EU citizens thought that membership had benefitted their country, and slightly more than half continue to express strong support for the Union - possibly stimulated by the Brexit vote - the Eurosceptic movement and its electoral success has exhibited steady growth. The question is: "why?" The temptation has been to blame the outcomes on populism fed by immigration. While this is important, it is only part of the answer.

EU leadership has become a haven for technocrats. The government in Brussels is filled with obscure bureaucrats few Europeans recognize or know by name. Post-war Europe was rebuilt on the strength and vision of charismatic leaders. German sociologist Max Weber referred to charisma as "a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities." After World War II Europeans looked up to leaders with these qualities, men like Charles De Gaulle, Konrad Adenauer, Winston Churchill and Alcide De Gasperi. Some of these inspired the development of the European Union project, aiming to end the frequent and bloody wars between neighbors.

 Ultimately, the EU grew to what it has become today. However, it appears to be suffering some consequences of its success. Europe has not seen wars for decades. Its crises have become largely economic. Its technocratic leadership will solve economic issues, but it does not articulate these for popular consumption, and does not really inspire. Hence, ordinary citizens in membership countries are less inclined to develop an emotional connection with Brussels than with their native institutions.

Opposition parties competing in parliamentary elections are clearly taking advantage. Globalization, immigration, and the transfer of power to a source outside of their own country, gradually generated erosion of native cultures. This has often led to identity crises, a perceived loss of direction, and becoming a ripe environment for populist politicians. Political scientists have asserted that the charismatic bond between leader and follower is central to populist parties. Populism advocates the power of the people, yet relies on seduction by a charismatic leader. Populist politicians clearly articulate these identity crises, cast blame on the supranational government in Brussels, and justify their leadership by challenging its legitimacy and pontificating against it. By its nature, their messaging is more focused, and the messengers tend to be skillful and inspirational orators. By using fear and focus their messianic demeanor forges trust, a stable emotional connection with domestic citizenry, and develops a reliable electoral base. People understand what eurosceptics stand for.

Between Brussels and most of Europe, this connection is lacking. Many remain unclear about the direction mainstream parties want to take them. As far back as 2012, Frederico Castiglioni, an articulate member of the European Federalist Movement, warned that "Europe's technocrats might solve the economic conundrum, but they cannot restore trust between Europe and its citizens. We need a charismatic, democratic leader before illiberal and nationalistic forces gain ground." ("Europe's need for a charismatic leader," The European, Nov. 29, 2012). Others have issued similar warnings. Brussels continues to hope to convert dissatisfaction into democratic zeal rather than more political apathy. Thus far with little success.

Lacking major changes in campaign strategies, the upcoming election threatens to remain a confrontation between technocratic competence and charisma, a battle charisma very often wins. In the mean time, the pro EU centrist majority in the European Parliament hangs by a thread, lucky that eurosceptics thus far appear unable to unite under one political umbrella.

OBAMACARE ON DEATH ROW - AGAIN?

Attorney General William Barr's cursory summation of the long awaited Mueller Report appears to have emboldened President Donald Trump.

During the immediate aftermath of the report's release to the Justice Department, Mr. Trump, among a number of ill-considered and counter-productive moves, decided to throw his administration's support behind the ruling of Texas District Court Judge Reed O'Connor, invalidating the entire Affordable Care Act.

By re-opening the "repeal and replace Obamacare" discussion, Trump blindsided most, if not all, of his supporters in Congress, who would rather not revisit a debate that effectively concluded when Senator John McCain famously killed the final attempt at repeal in the Senate by dramatically voting "thumbs down."

Perhaps by design, the administration's renewed effort stands in starks contrast to the political debate among many Democratic candidates contending to win the chance to compete with Mr. Trump in next year's election, promising "Medicare for all." This attempt at establishing universal healthcare, still a radical left-wing pipe dream in 2016, now appears to have moved into the mainstream.

The December ruling by Judge O'Connor is being appealed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans, one of the most conservative appellate courts in the country, almost guaranteeing that it will eventually end up before the Supreme Court. In a new filing, signed by three Justice Department attorneys, the administration held that the decision of District Judge Reed O'Connor should be affirmed, and that the entirety of the ACA should be validated. While a court victory would fulfill one of the president's campaign promises, it would potentially eliminate healthcare for millions of people with preexisting conditions, and for people who get their health insurance on the exchanges or through Medicaid expansion.

"This lawsuit is as dangerous as it is reckless. it threatens the healthcare of tens of millions of Americans across the country," said California A.G. Xavier Becerra, one of 21 Attorneys General from Democratic states stepping in to oppose the administration's decision and defend the ACA law.

While the heated heathcare debate appears to be re-emerging after Mr. Trump's announcement, the confrontation between proponents of private health insurance and supporters of single payer, government-run healthcare has been going on for a hundred years or more.

U.S. efforts to achieve universal healthcare coverage began with progressive healthcare reformers who supported Theodore Roosevelt for president in 1912. This attempt did not go anywhere when Roosevelt was defeated. Franklin Roosevelt initially included a national healthcare program in the Social Security Act of 1935. He removed it when he encountered opposition from the AMA and others.Harry Truman tried in 1945 and again in 1947. However, the opposition quickly labeled his proposals "socialized medicine," which, given the sentiment of the time, killed it. Lyndon Johnson did manage to achieve incremental progress by passing Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. Bill Clinton made a failed attempt with "Hillarycare" in 1993. Subsequently, Barack Obama succeeded in passing the Affordable Care Act in 2010, the adoption of which has led to contentious partisan arguments ever since. Although not perfect, implementation of ACA led to a reduction of the number uninsured citizens to roughly 28 million.Nevertheless, political opponents in Congress voted more than 60 times to attempt to repeal this law, something President Trump apparently intends to pursue again.

Supporters of universal access to healthcare argue that healthcare is a right, and should not be run like a business. They point out that the U.S. is the only developed country in which the population needs to worry about the cost and coverage of healh insurance.Comparisons are made with countries like Denmark and the United Kingdom.

In Denmark the underlying principle of its healthcare law is a "government obligation to promote the health of its population and prevent and treat illness, suffering and functional limitations. This includes ensuring high quality care, easy and equal access to care, service integration, choice, transparency, access to information and short waiting times." (Karsten Vrangbaek, "The Danish Health Care System," University of Copenhagen).All Danish residents are automatically entitled to publicly financed healthcare, largely free. Its system is 84.2% publicly financed, supported by an 8% national health tax. Healthcare spending per capita - 2014 numbers - is $5012 per year, about half of what it is in theU.S.

The U.K. picture is very similar. Its National Health Service, a single-payer system paid for with payroll taxes, guarantees care for all, and includes everything from ambulance rides, emergency room visits to long hospital stays, complex surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. It also spends less than half of what Americans spend per person on healthare, yet, life expectncy in Britain is higher than in the U.S. The NHS remains the most popular institution in the U.K., more popular than the military or royal family. A 2014 report by the Commonwealth Fund concluded that the U.K. was ranked as having the best healthcare system in the world overall. ("Mirror, mirror on the wall, 2014 update: How the U.S. healthcare system compares internationally.")

The arguments in favor of universal healthcare are powerful. While an erstwhile pipe dream may have gone mainstream, articulating the pros and cons of adopting a Medicare for all system, and actually getting a law enacted may look easy compared to implementing it.Yet, many seem to think that we are collectively moving closer to a Medicare for all system, which would signify a seismic shift, affecting the lives of of millions, and nearly one-fifth of our economy.

Killing Obamacare without offering a suitable replacement won't get us there.

BREXIT IS IN TROUBLE - SHOULD WE CARE?

Former British prime minister David Cameron probably did not recognize the can of worms he opened when he agreed to hold a referendum on U.K. membership in the European Union. Under pressure from Eurosceptic backbenchers and the threat of losing votes to the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) during he 2015 general election, Cameron made the promise, fully convinced that British voters would elect to remain in the E.U.. To most everyone's surprise, when the referendum was held June 23, 2016, more that 30 million citizens voted by a 51.9% to 48.1% margin to support Britain's exit (Brexit) from the Union. Consequently, Cameron resigned, and was replaced by current PM Theresa May, who accepted what she considered to be the will of the people, and formally notified the European Council of Britain's intention. By doing so she invoked Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, beginning the process of withdrawing the country from the E.U., and starting the clock on a two year negotiating period, slated to end March 29 of this year.

In addition to concerns over threatened British sovereignty, the emotional case for Brexit was always heavily influenced by immigration. In 2015 the U.K. absorbed 333,000 new people, many from Southern and Eastern Europe, argued to have depressed the wages of native-born British workers, and using scarce public services. (Although, according to 2017 estimates, 1.3 million people born in the U.K. live in other E.U. countries.) The intellectual case against leaving the E.U. focused on economics. More than 50% of exports go to E.U. countries. No tariffs are assessed on imports and exports between member states. Within the Union, Britain benefits from trade deals between the E.U. and other world powers. It was also feared that its status as one of the world's biggest financial centers would be diminished if it was no longer seen as a gateway to the E.U., especially if large companies were to decide to move their headquarters back onto the continent. "Remain" proponents estimated that about three million jobs related to trade with the E.U. would disappear if the country left he block.

Ms. May was tasked with the tedious process of negotiating an acceptable Brexit agreement, an agreement Parliament could endorse. The E.U. has a major say in how Britain is released from complex legal and economic bonds formed over more than forty years. Any agreement needs to be endorsed by all remaining 27 member states. One of these, the Republic of Ireland, shares a 310 mile border with Northern Ireland, which is part of the U.K.. As long as E.U. rules apply, billions of dollars worth of trade move unencumbered across this border. Under Brexit, border controls, involving tariffs and customs checks, would likely be reestablished, impeding the free flow of goods.

The agreement the prime minister negotiated was billed as the "best and last" offer the Europeans were willing to put on the table. British lawmakers considered it on December 11 of last year, and voted it down by a 432-202 margin. It included a backstop plan for Ireland, which provided a safety net to insure no hard border would reappear on the island. However, this "backstop" involved a temporary single customs territory, which would effectively keep all of the U.K. indefinitely in the E.U. customs union, forced to comply with E.U. rules and regulations. Brexiteers dislike the backstop for that specific reason. E.U. proponents hate it because it leaves Britain outside the E.U., but subject to its rules without a voice or a vote.

Thus far the prime minister has not been able to come up with an acceptable alternative. Options are few. If nothing else happens, the U.K. will leave the E.U. on Friday, March 29, without a deal. Hardcore Brexiteers alarmingly maintain that this "solution" is not only feasible, but perhaps desirable as a way for Britain to dramatically reaffirm its sovereignty. This group has voted against any attempt to take the option off the table. Theresa May could attempt to renegotiate the agreement, which may involve setting an end date to the backstop plan, most likely risking a veto from Irish premier Leo Varadkar, who opposes a hard border under any circumstances. Ms. May could also ask for an extension. European leaders might approve such a request until July1. The first session of the new European Parliament will be held in July. Britain would need to elect MEPs if it continued its membership for a prolonged period of time. To keep the pressure on her government, Theresa May appears to want to wait requesting an extension. A new referendum is opposed by many as being undemocratic and representing a betrayal of British popular will. And, finally, the U.K. could cancel the Article 50 Brexit process, which does not require permission of the other 27 E.U. members, and remain a member on its existing terms, provided the decision followed a "democratic process," requiring a vote in Parliament.

Brexit is important to the U.S., because, without a good outcome, one of our major trading partners could slip into significant economic instability. In 2016, our trade in goods and services with the E.U. totaled nearly $1.1 trillion. Britain's diminished influence would also be less able to support American interest on the international stage. Our hoped for trade deal with he E.U. may be less acceptable if Britain is left out to fend for its own. Besides, a volatile British economy risks the election of Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister, someone who openly prefers centrally planned economies over free markets.

The process appears to be stuck. Few options are palatable to all stakeholders. Nobody is promoting a plan on how to move forward. Unless resolved satisfactorily, all sides are looking forward to protracted economic instability. To quote Donald Tusk, president of the European Council: "I've been wondering what that special place in hell looks like for those who promoted Brexit without even a sketch of a plan how to carry it out safely."

ARE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH TALKING ABOUT?

In 2017, 39.7 million Americans lived below the federally established poverty level of an annual income of $24,600 for a family or four. Of these, 19 million live in deep poverty, meaning that their total family income is less than one-half of the poverty threshold. These people don't have enough resources to secure basic life necessities. For  most of them the inane discussion about the economics behind Donald Trump's $5.7 billion demand for support of his border wall, which forced 800,000 government employees to survive without a paycheck during the recent government shutdown, must have come across as incomprehensible and moronically insensitive.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, a wannabe billionaire (a contested $200 million shy of that goal), responding to reports that some government workers were relying on charity, homeless shelters and food banks, said: "I know they are, and I don't understand why." He suggested that those affected should be able to take out a loan, entirely missing the point when he rambled on: "We've had shutdowns, albeit for not such a long period as we've been thus far, but put it in the perspective: You're talking about 800,000 workers, if they never got their pay - which is not the case, they will eventually get it - but if they never got it, you're talking about a third of a percent on our GDP." (Quoted in "Real Clear Politics," Jan. 24, 2019.) Not to be outdone, Donald Trump, referencing an unsubstantiated annual price tag for illegal immigration of $250 billion, chimed in: "The $5 billion dollars ... is such a small amount compared to the level of the problem. It is insignificant compared to what we are talking about."

For the many wage earners who transitioned from viewing our national pastime of political infighting from the sidelines to confronting significant bread and butter issues for themselves and their families, this incredulously insensitive interchange between our national leaders must have come off as incomprehensible. Discounting the dollar value of the disputed wall, and reducing it to an "insignificant" percentage of GDP, should have disturbed everyone impacted by the shutdown. A billion dollars is $1,000 million dollars. If you have one billion, and spend $1,000 per day, you would be spending 2,740 years before going broke. You would need to pend $40 million per year - more than $3 million per month - to spend it all in 25 years. Considering that President Trump is demanding $5.7 billion as a down payment for a wall which ultimately is estimated to cost close to $25 billion, these number become difficult to make sense of for most of us.

Another way to understand the magnitude of the $5.7 billion price tag is to correlate it with more digestible expenditures. For instance, it equates to $17 per U.S. citizen, $40. per U.S. tax payer, about $18,750. for each one of the 304,000 apprehended undocumented immigrants during fiscal 2017, or $57,555. for each person requesting asylum in 2018. (The Wall Street Journal, Jan. 26, 2019). The eventual total estimated expenditure for this wall would virtually cover the cost of two of the navy's newest and most expensive "Gerald R. Ford-class" aircraft carriers, at $12.9 billion a piece.

Journalist and political commentator Nicholas Kristoff calculated that for $5.7 billion we could: "Send 100,000 at risk kids to a high quality pre-school for a year, AND provide Pell grants for 100,000 students to attend college for a full four years, PLUS provide comprehensive treatment to 115,000 Americans struggling with opioid addiction." (N.Y. Times, Jan. 15, 2019).

Our leaders may downplay the amount requested to erect this controversial monument to our president, reducing it to 0.03% of GDP, or, alternatively, discounting it to "only" 0.13% of our projected 2019 federal budget of $4.5 trillion, this is still a huge amount of money. We could probably use it more productively elsewhere.

NATIONAL EMERGENCY - A POTENTIALLY SUSPECT GAME CHANGER

Donald Trump has been boxed into an intractable position, more or less imposed by his biggest supporters. Mid-December he nearly signed legislation that would have funded the government, even though it lacked additional border wall funding. He signaled that he would sign legislation the Senate passed by acclamation. But when the House of Representatives was about to follow suit, right-wing personalities like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity ad Ann Coulter blew a fuse. They publicly reminded the president of his central campaign promise to build a wall along the southern border, and argued that backing away from that promise was the equivalent of "caving in" (Breitbart), "retreating" (Drudge Report), and leaving him "dead in the water" (Coulter). Trump succumbed to the criticism, signaled he would not sign a continuing resolution that did not include $5.7 billion for his wall, and allowed the government to shut down. He effectively painted himself into a corner, using his "wall" as a symbolic and persistent centerpiece of ensuing negotiations, and led the government into its longest shutdown ever.

After the 116th Congress convened on January3rd, the Democrat controlled House passed numerous bills designed to re-open the government. None of these included money for Trump's wall. All of them faced opposition from Senate Majority Leader McConnell, who refused to bring them to the Senate floor for a vote. Mr Trump adamantly maintained that any legislation not including this  money would be dead on arrival. Democrats dug in their heels, demanding that the government be re-opened before debating the Homeland Security budget and funding for border security. Donald Trump's most recent offer to re-open the government by trading his $5.7 billion wall fund for temporarily shielding 700,000 DACA recipients and 300,000 refugees with temporary protective status fell flat, almost before it was issued. Some Trump supporters criticized the offer as "amnesty," while Democrats rejected it, called it "window dressing," continued to decline to support the wall, and refused to believe that the president would follow through on promises made.

While Democrats seem to sense that they occupy the political high ground and can hold out indefinitely, President Trump appears to be losing the P.R. battle, and is searching for ways not to blink. In other words, Mr. Trump is looking for an off ramp. A potential solution receiving significant traction within the administration is to declare a national emergency, followed by re-opening the government, and funding wall construction with funds derived from other projects. The president is confident that he has the absolute authority to do this, and that it would be a win-win solution for all interested parties. We should ask if he, in fact, can do this, and whether this solution would satisfy all parties involved.

Trump is correct in his assumption that he has the authority to do this. Legal scholars believe that the Constitution gives the president inherent emergency powers by making him Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and by giving him wide-ranging executive jurisdiction. Emergency powers are based on the idea that ordinary laws might be insufficient in a true crisis to deal with whatever that situation is. The president may need some temporary flexibility until the emergency passes, or until Congress has time to act and provide the authorities the president needs. At times, past presidents have taken actions that were not authorized, or specifically forbidden. Franklin Roosevelt's internment of U.S. citizens of Japanese descent during WWII and George W. Bush's programs of warrantless wiretapping and torture after the 9/11 terrorist attacks are examples.

In 1976 Congress passed the National Emergencies Act, designed to stop open-ended states of national emergencies and formalize the power of Congress to provide checks and balances on the emergency powers of the president. The Act does not define "national  emergency," does not create any criteria or requirements that have to be met, and does not require that the powers invoked relate to the nature of the emergency. Donald Trump laid the groundwork for this eventuality when he characterized the caravan of Central American migrants headed towards the U.S. border to seek asylum  a "national emergency," and when he asserted that the situation at the border constituted a "humanitarian crisis." Congress might contest this evaluation, but he has a legal right to his own interpretation.

The Brennan Center for justice at NYU School of Law calculated that once the emergency has been declared, the president would have access to emergency powers contained in 123 statutory provisions.  He could, for instance, declare martial law and use the military inside our borders. He could order the military to enforce immigration laws in sanctuary cities or states by claiming conspiracies. He could also determine that Americans inside the U.S. who offer material support to asylum seekers or, for that matter, to undocumented immigrants, pose a threat to national security, and authorize the Treasury Department to take action against them. And he could assume government control over internet traffic, to prevent the spread of disinformation or propaganda. In the mean time, wall construction could be litigated and be hung up for several years, well past the 2020 election.

While declaring a national emergency would allow Mr. Trump to escape the box his supporters placed him in, re-open the government, and to save face whether or not his wall is built, many in the country would be justifiably concerned that this move could become a precursor to the assumption of autocratic powers. Autocrats in Hungary, Turkey, Egypt and other places already employ similar methods. This could be tempting for a president backed into a corner and facing electoral defeat or impeachment. Declaring a national emergency could be a way of holding on to power.