Again, it’s time to write to our congressional leaders. Sadly, I didn’t get a reply from my first letter that was sent on Veteran’s Day. But, I did get numerous responses from you, my readers, and I thank you for your support.

But, now, here is my second letter. It continues with my original theme of Congress asserting itself as the writer of our federal laws and policies. It does so by showing what the consequences of its failure to exert its Constitutional authorities: Congress becoming increasingly irrelevant and a drift towards an imperial presidency. Unless we want to become another in a long, stale line of autocratic dictatorships, this dangerous trend must be stopped now while there is still time to do so. Thus, I am urging all of my readers to send a copy of this letter to Speaker Pelosi.

P.O. Box 171

Ft. Loudon, PA 17224-0171

July 10, 2019

Dear Madam Speaker,

This is my second letter about what should be done within the legislative branch of the US Government.  Essentially, after further consideration of my original thoughts, I believe that while you’re engaged in a rightful battle with the President, your real battle is directly within the House of Representatives and Senate.  President Trump will eventually leave, but his influence will linger.  That is, he has been expanding the precedents set by his predecessors and thereby making the legislative branch increasingly irrelevant.  Let me give you a few examples.

President George W. Bush unilaterally changed a long established policy of withholding nuclear actions until we are directly attacked with such weapons.  Now, presidents can operate under a pre-emptory policy.  That is, attack without direct provocation.  Why didn’t the Congress not demand a review of this change considering that the lives of tens of millions are at stake?

Our nuclear deal with Iran was negotiated as a treaty.  Yet, President Obama declined to submit it to the Senate for fear that it would be disapproved.  So, he enforced it as an executive order, which his successor has since repudiated.  This certainly doesn’t enhance our reputation as a reliable world leader.  Why didn’t the Senate demand a review decision as is its right under the Constitution?

Two of President Trump’s cabinet members are “acting secretaries.”  The Constitution does allow for temporary appointments during Congressional recesses, but now, the entire process is being entirely bypassed.  The Senate’s lawful role of giving consent to appointments is being entirely negated.

The House has subpoenaed several of President Trump’s staff members, and he has been “thumbing his nose” at those orders.  I know this issue is going through the courts, but his impunity is astounding.  The House is being rendered irrelevant, and the American public is being kept in the dark on important issues…

These examples being the case, it becomes critically important that you and Senator McConnell lay your respective differences aside enough to create a united front against an imperial presidency and reassert Congress’s role as the law and policy maker of the United States.  Your two offices must demand that the rule of Constitutional law be upheld by any and all occupants of the president’s office.  Without this united front, I am deeply afraid of an imperial rule that puts ancient Rome to shame.  When that happens, the liberties Americans cherish will fade away leaving us no different than the Chinese government.  Do we want the  DC Mall to be our Tiananmen Square?

Please don’t misunderstand me.  Democrats and Republicans can and should have disagreements.  That is the competitive nature of our government.  Good ideas arise from the heat of conflict. But, above such disputes should be recognition by all concerned that the legislative branch is the voice of the people where their concerns are debated.  Then, once resolved, the President can go about enforcing the laws and policies given to that office.

I look forward to hearing a reply from you.

Sincerely,

Dr. Lloyd H. Muller, Col, USAF (Ret)

Dear Readers,

Enough is enough.  The stalemate we have seen in Congress has lasted long enough.  This lack of direction has contributed to the violent polarization of our nation.  People are no longer thinking of this great nation as a whole, but their own little worlds.  It’s time that Congress start doing their job of governing.

I have sent the following letter to the five senior leaders of Congress.  They are listed here:

Officers of the US House of Representatives

Speaker of the House:  Rep. Paul D. Ryan – Represents the entire House

H-232 The Capitol
Washington D.C. 20515
P: (202) 225-0600
F: (202) 225-5117

Majority Leader:  Rep Kevin McCarthy – Represents the Republican Party

H-107, THE CAPITOL
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
202-225-4000

Democratic Leader: Rep Nancy Pelosi – Represents the Democratic Party

H-204, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-0100

Officers of the US Senate

Majority leader – Sen. Mitch McConnell

(202) 224-2541

Contact: www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=contact

Minority Leader – Sen. Charles E. Schumer

322 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510

(202) 224-6542

Contact: www.schumer.senate.gov/contact/email-chuck

Now the letter itself.  If every person reading this letter would send a copy of it to the Congressional Leadership, then perhaps they will actually become leaders and help heal this great nation.

Dear _________

I am writing this letter on Veterans Day as I think the democratic values of veterans answering the call of duty through the years should be reflected in our legislature.  Copies of this letter have been sent to the leading officers of both the House and the Senate for united consideration and action.

At this point, our nation is sorely divided, and this fracture is being reflected in our two houses of Congress.  As a result, I believe that a stalemate in deciding national policy has resulted, leaving the political processes in a vacuum.  This means that the Presidents of both parties are filling this void through executive decrees.  That is, they have gone from enabling the policies of Congress to creating policies by themselves.  Examples abound, and need not be repeated here.  But, if left unchecked, a well-worn path dating back to the Roman Senate and culminating in the horrors of the 1930’s dictators will be followed.

If this sad trend is to be reversed, then the primary job of the upcoming Congress is to restore its position as primary policy maker as was envisioned by our Founding Fathers writing the Federalist Papers.  To succeed in this endeavor, the senior officers of both houses must unite into a solid band of leadership that forces all others to use the conflict of their differences effectively and create laws that govern for the commonweal.  Parochial differences can and should be represented and debated, but the job of each member of Congress is to govern for the common good through the process of negotiation and compromise.  Such is the process of our republican form of government.  Thus, if a decision appears to fall along party lines, then you must demand the return of such legislation for further deliberation until a common cross-party support is achieved.

If these laws of Congress are vetoed by the President in order to retain his newly gained powers, then the authority of the legislative branch must be sustained by override votes.  Congress makes policy; the President executes it.  Thus, laws passed as described above can reflect the common consent of all congressional members well enough that override votes can be attained and the primacy of Congress is sustained.  As things now stand, this is not happening, and we are teetering on the precipice of despotism.

I recognize that dangers lie in your political paths if you follow this advice.  You may lose your careers in the face of angry voter factions and monied lobbies.  But, from my perspective as a 30-year veteran, you have no choice.  You must do what is right and avoid the expedient course.  My fallen comrades who are being honored this day lived up to their motto of Duty, Honor and Country.  When they died, they forsook their lives, their families, their fortunes for this great nation.  Only honor remains in nameless graves.  To preserve the unique liberties of this nation, can you do any less?

I pray to God that you see your way to the leadership this nation so badly needs.

Sincerely,

Lloyd H. Muller, Col, USAF (Ret)

And the drum beats on.  I have been writing about the need for the nation and our people of all  persuasions to come together.  But, now, it’s crazy.  Bombs are being sent everywhere and Jews are being massacred.  This is just in one week!  What is going on?  People are asking this question everywhere; but, they are not getting the answers they want.  Why not?  Because they only want their answers with no regard to those of others.

My hometown newspaper, the Public Opinion, ran an article with some interesting insights.  One person who was interviewed remarked, “It’s like our country is becoming ‘The Hunger Games.’”  The article then goes on to record how people are so weary of the hatred that permeates our society and  wonder what will be needed to change it.  As one person noted, “If this isn’t it [shootings], I’d hate to think about what it will take.”

Folks, I don’t like to say this, but I don’t think we’re yet ready for this needed change.  As the Opinion article said after the requisite remorseful statements were uttered about the shame of this political violence, “politicians and talking heads had already backed into the usual corners.”  Meanwhile, the  President called for unity while describing the “liberals and press as villains.”[1]  The listening public is showing its stripes as well.  Casual comments by individuals heard on TV clearly indicate that they are only listening to their talking heads without listening to the same blame sharing by the other talking heads.  The names are changed, but the message is the same: it’s the other guy’s fault.

People, it’s our fault.  Mr. President, it’s time for you to be a statesman.  It’s time for you to lead the nation.  You can do this by recognizing how there is enough blame for everyone, including yourself.  You must declare how the time has passed where we demand the other fellow solve our problems. Now, it’s time for each of us to ask, “What can I do?”  It’s time to reach out and listen to the other guy.  What’s that person saying?  You don’t have to agree, but you do have to listen.  Then repeat back what was said to ensure comprehension.  Back and forth; back and forth.  It will be a slow process and probably a really ugly one for a long time until the vitriol is gone.

Then, comes the humble pie.  When both sides understand each other, a serious effort must be made to consider salient points with care.  Humility will require acceptance of good ideas that come from either side where common ground can be achieved.  From this dialogue some harmony can be achieved between warring parties.

At this point, such harmony seems to be a long way off.  I once read that negotiations (which is what I’m talking about) will only start when people decide that conflict is no longer productive.  Judging from what is being said and done, Americans aren’t there yet.  I only hope that we pull back from acts of violence before it erupts into full scale war.  Remember, that happened once before: it was called the Civil War.  Do we need to repeat this lunacy before we harken to the words of Abraham Lincoln when he said, “Of the people, for the people, and by the people?”

I am not totally without hope.  The shooter at the Tree of Life synagogue, Mr. Robert Bowers, was wounded.  Ironically, after spouting hatred of all Jews, he was attended by a Jewish medical team.  Such is the core of their faith: life above all.  They practiced it in the face of utter horror.  Can we do no less among people whose stated views are different from ours?  I hope…

[1] Galofaro, Claire; Beck, Margery A.  “Fed-up Americans Crave Unity.”  Public Opinion.  Chambersburg, PA.  October 29, 2018.

On Friday, 5 October, 2018, Chicago police officer, Jason Van Dyke, was found guilty of second degree murder in his 2014 shooting of 17 year old Laquan McDonald.  The decision probably prevented a major riot.  Instead, there was joy among the black community.  For the first time in a long time, they felt that justice was served.

The black community has long been serving notice through protests and riots that they do not trust the police forces serving their cities.  Whenever there’s shooting, the black community’s response is predictable: the violence was unneeded at best and was another example of racial prejudice at worst.  Tamir Rice of Cleveland, Ohio; George V. King of Baltimore, Maryland; and Michael Brown of Ferguson, Missouri are only three names that have generated the animosity Blacks have for their police forces.  Such does not indicate a belief in the motto of all police forces: to serve and to protect.

Since shooting violence is the common thread of these attitudes, a question arises: should police officers be armed?  The ready objection is that police officers need weapons to enforce the law.   Without access to deadly force, it is assumed that communities will descend into lawless violence and chaos.  Is that really true?  Perhaps a look at the history of the famed London Bobbies might offer light on this question.

Prior to the 1820’s, English cities were patrolled by local constables who were responsible to their local governments.  Sir Robert Peel, Home Secretary, thought a better way was possible for preserving the peace and ensuring freedom from violence.  His solution was the creation of a well-trained 1,000-man force that would protect London.  Specifically, they were to detect and prevent crimes.  Along the way, they were also used to detect fires and light gas lights.    They were directed by a two-man commission.  Note, none of these peace officers was armed with a firearm.  These men were armed with truncheons, handcuffs and whistles.  This tradition has endured to this day.[1]

The problem with carrying a firearm is that eventually, one might feel compelled to use it.  I learned this lesson from my son-in-law who is a lifelong resident of Naples, Italy where violence is a common element of life.  When I asked him why he didn’t carry a weapon, his answer was that he would one day be obliged to use it.  So, to avoid that situation, he remains unarmed.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that every officer who has shot someone did so in good faith.  That is, he or she believed that human life was in danger and no alternative existed but to use deadly force.  Choices must be made in a fraction of second, and despite long training about this situation, the consequences of these decisions are forever.  Furthermore, perceptions after the fact lead to second-guessing and mistrust.  All this is under the best of circumstances.  Given the history of Jim Crow law that has typified our nation for the past century, Black suspicion about the motives of police officers runs strong.  Riots occur even in the aftermath of all shooting events.

Therefore, following the advice of my son-in-law, it seems evident that a fundamental change in the policies of our city fathers is needed.  If armed force leads to riots, then why not eliminate the cause  of riots?  Why not disarm city police forces and follow the example of London Bobbies?  To carry this idea out further, access to firearms by police forces would only be permitted after a judicial review.  Furthermore, if non-violent wiretapping requires a warrant as a means of preserving liberty, why shouldn’t access to deadly force require a warrant as a means of preserving liberty?  Being dead certainly obviates any possibility of liberty.

Clearly, there would be those who will decry these ideas.  They foresee chaos and violence running rampant in their communities.  Actually, that’s always a possibility.  But, whose communities?  If one is worried about violence in affluent suburbs, that doesn’t seem likely.  Violence and riots are not being recorded there.  Rather, the riots are occurring in the inner cities and only after police actions.  Therefore, if the police cannot kill people, then any issues of any violence that occurs after police are disarmed become highlighted as to their real origins.  Police officers could not be seen as perpetrators of violence, but hopefully as facilitators of community efforts to prevent and detect crime.

The choice of my words, prevent and detect, was deliberate.  In fact, prevention cannot be done by police forces.  Criminal actions are done by perpetrators who think they can evade retribution.  Law enforcement agents, even the best of them, can only detect crimes after the fact  and prosecute them.  This means that communities wanting peaceful streets must accept a certain amount of responsibility for them.  They know who lives in them, and presumably would have more direct influence over individual residents.  This effect could be amplified by a daily contact with unarmed policemen who patrol their beats on foot.  This interaction could possibly lead to a feeling of mutual partnership that is aimed at reducing violence.  If so, then the possibility of civic intervention might exist to deter any specific act of violence. In sum, armed police forces don’t seem able to curb gun-related gun violence.  Perhaps increased civil-police cooperation might help.

This possibility in not impossible.  When I lived in Europe, police forces in some nations knew their neighborhoods so well that if a youngster was late in coming home, the parents were given a visit by a neighborhood officer wanting to know if all was well.  Consequently, families felt secure in the midst of their neighborhoods.  So, what the heck?  Why not try for it here in America by using the English Bobbies as a model?

,

[1] Bauer, Patricia.  “Bobby, British Police Officer.”  Encyclopedia Britannica.  https://www.britannica.com/topic/bobby.  10/6/18.

Well, recently we have been seeing a marvelous display of political theater.  If I were a Broadway reviewer, I would have given it two thumbs up.  It had everything one could want:  a distraught woman, an angry man, posturing choruses of senators.  The interactions among them were marvelous…and like a Greek tragedy, predictable.  One knows the end of the play even at its beginning.

The tragedy of this play is that it was gathered to ferret out the truth about a judge who is being vetted for a lifetime position on the nation’s supreme court.  The standards for this position should be of the highest nature, and the reviewing senators should be striving to confirm this standard.  This was clearly lost in the proceedings that we saw.

The Republicans were interested in getting Mr. Kavenaugh onto the Supreme Court in anticipation of his conservative views overturning the progressive decisions rendered in years past.  The Democrats were interested in blocking this appointment.  Thus, lacking the votes needed to thwart Republican desires, the Democratic minority created the spectacle seen yesterday in hopes of defeating the nomination through the political pressure of public revulsion to violence to a female.

Whether the accusations were true will never be known.  Violence to females is almost always done in seclusion, which leads to a “he said, she said” situation.  Corroborating evidence is scarce at best.  But, in this theater, the truth of the allegations was not the issue.  Illusions were the thing.  Would the illusion be enough to derail Mr. Kavenaugh’s nomination?  Such is the stuff of theater.

What’s tragic is how the lives of two people will be forever smeared by this tableau.  Dr. Ford wanted to perform a public duty as she perceived it.  She also wanted it to be private.  Mr. Kavenaugh wanted to be affirmed to his post cleanly.  Neither got what they wanted.  Dr. Ford was brought before the public without the resolution she wanted.  Mr. Kavenaugh will be joining a colleague, Justice Thomas, for a lifetime of whispers.  Both people were put through a horrible trial for political ends that had nothing to do with them.

Now for a dramatic postscript.  If the situation were reversed and Mr. Kavenaugh were a Democratic nominee, the play would be unchanged.  Rages of umbrage, tearful condolences and peans of heroism would be heard. Hypocrisy would be dripping from the walls.  Americans deserve better.  A pox on all of the actors save the tragic protagonists.

It’s been a while since I reviewed my novels, but of them, Section 5 is the one my readers have liked the least.  Rodney Macefield is a character who is universally hated.  Reviews about him and his story say, “It’s so black.”  Well, people, if I were to write his story today, I’d make it even blacker.  Sorry about that, and here’s why.

Rodney is an extreme example of the conservative movement.  But, he is also a caricature of any extremist.  I could have written Section 5 with an ultra-liberal character.  In either case, the result would have been the same.  When someone or party can take absolute control of a nation and governs from a single point of view, the results are the same.  There is totalitarianism accompanied by terror.  Pure and simple.

My critics agree with that proposition, but also add, “It can’t happen here.”  Say that to the millions of Jews, Russian peasants and Chinese who died in the World War II era.  Ask what has happened to millions of people since then.  Argentines have disappeared.  Africans have been butchered.  Muslims massacred.  The list goes on, and most of these people would have said, “It can’t happen here.”  But, it can as I outline in the novel.

Section 5 relates how our nation has become so divided that politics is less about governance for the common weal and more about attaining power.  The Right thinks that Lefties are effete eggheads intent on overturning our American way of life.  The Left sees their opponents as knuckle-dragging cave-men.  More importantly, note my use of labels.  These are the shortcut terms that are used in place of ideas that should be reviewed. People and ideas become objects of derision.  By contrast, President Regan and Speaker Tip O’Neill saw each other as colleagues.  They differed greatly on their ideals, but they could talk civilly to one another and develop solutions to problems.

Such is not the case today.  The newspapers are full of articles about intransigence, which is a fancy word for bullheadedness.  My local newspaper today, 8 August 2018, has two articles about Russian meddling in our elections.  The first one analyzed the facts concerning the meeting of the President’s son and son-in-law with a Russian attorney.  The second one talked of Trump voters ready to discount any findings by Special Counsel Mueller.  One said, “People are surprised they [Russians] meddled; I’d be more surprised if they didn’t.”

To balance the scales, Hilary Clinton’s scandal about her careless handling of sensitive e-mail on her personal server has occupied many front pages of the news.  The latest is an article posted yesterday in the Canada Free Press.  In it, the Press reported five new classified messages have been found.  Like Trump promoters, efforts are made to minimize the effects of her problem.  One report said, “ Clinton committed no crime because she didn’t “knowingly” share classified materials.”   Frankly, that’s hard to believe given Ms. Clinton’s many years in public service.

After reviewing these scandals and others that are being paraded across the front pages, I have a novel idea.  How about public support demanding thorough investigations without political hype?  Then, only facts will be used to determine whether wrongdoing was done and if so, let justice prevail.  Will this possibly ruin careers?  Will it hurt political movements?  Will it be painful for citizens to read about their elected leaders’ wrongdoings?  Yes, to all these questions.  But what is better?  Political chicanery that breeds cynicism and a loss of faith in the founding principles of our nation, or ruination and pain accompanying a return to justice being meted out under the scales of law?

Frankly, I’m actually hesitant to ask this question for fear that corruption has become too thoroughly soaked into the fabric of our American culture.  What say ye, my readers?

A year has passed since the publication of my latest novel, Section 5, and the reaction of readers has been most interesting.  Generally, they have not liked the book, and in particular, they have hated the central character, Rodney Macefield.  One friend, who is an admitted conservative, thought Rodney was almost a cartoonlike person.  So, there you have it.  Section 5 will never be seen as a popular work of literature such as Gone With the Wind.

But, I had not intended to draw a portrait of a sensitive soul or to create a heroic, happy end story.  Rather, Section 5, is intended to show what happens when a singular political ideology becomes dominant in governmental halls of power.  This story presses to its logical end and the results are explosively obvious.  If anyone doubts that my scenario could become possible, I suggest a cursory review of history.  Germany’s Hitler, Russia’s Stalin, Japan’s Hirohito, and today’s Hamas make for a vivid list of horrors.  Such can happen here in America if restraint is not applied.  I chose the Republican side of this example of what could happen, but truly, a similar story could be written about liberal extremism.

Thinking about Republicanism since the publication of Section 5, has led me to wonder about the motivations of its ideology.  Why do they act as they do?  Why are they so adamant about confronting their antagonists: the Democratic Party? For the rank and file Republicans, it can’t just be a contrary drive for power, because without a vision, power alone is meaningless.  Furthermore, for the average Republicans, access to real power such as described in Section 5 is simply not available to them.  So, what are Republicans all about?  Why do they vote for the candidates that they do?  This blog suggests three ideas.

The first of these ideas is a belief that life is a serious business.  Getting ahead towards survival is paramount.  Consequently, there is little room for charity.  Ann Rynd, a leading inspiration of Tea Partiers, expounded this central idea in her novels, Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.  Her childhood struggles for survival during the turmoils of the Russian Revolution would certainly have taught her that self-survival alone is paramount.  Consequently, when interviewed about the subject of charity to others, she stated: “ My views on charity are very simple.  I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty.”[1]

Seen against this background, Democratic ideas of social security and Medicare all smack of charity which is not, to Republicans, a moral duty of government.  They look back on American frontier history as our example of rugged individualism where the only reliable resource for survival was a steely reliance on one’s self.  No one else was available despite the portrayals of warm-hearted help in western movies.  Therefore, how little room for concern for others can exist among these people?  Republicans think, “Very little.”

The second impulse of Republicans is an absolute belief in the “pursuit of happiness.”  This phrase leads the opening sentence of our Declaration of Independence.  Before then, it was used by John Locke who believed that the central role of government was the protection of private property.[2]  Ironically, in his time, those espousing this idea were considered to be “liberals.”  That is, individual liberty to pursue one’s fortunes without reference to feudal heredity was a new liberal movement.[3]  Government’s role was therefore to be focused on this ideal.

Thus, when Democrats advocate worker protection, ecological constraints and higher taxes, Republicans view them as constraints on their natural right to pursue happiness.  Perhaps it’s not too much to say that even if a governmental policy could be proven as beneficial, these “liberals” would object saying that it is, in principle, a violation of their right pursue happiness, and so, they would oppose it.  We see this today.  ExxonMobil fought the science of global warming for years as an unfounded idea.  The reasons were obvious: actions that could be taken to reduce this threat was seen as an infringement of their right to do business.  It was only when the possibility arose that scientific forecasts were right and that ExxonMobil might be held liable for saying otherwise, did they begin to modify their stance. [4]  In essence, ExxonMobil’s antagonism about global warming and governmental interference hadn’t changed, only their legal defenses.

The final aspect of Republican ideology is a Calvinist theory that “ is a concept in theology, sociology, economics and history which emphasizes hard work, frugality and diligence as a constant display of a person’s salvation in the Christian faith [lies] in contrast to the focus upon religious attendance, confession, and ceremonial sacrament in the Catholic tradition.”[5]  First promoted by the German sociologist, Max Weber, in 1904, this idea now permeates Republican beliefs such that those who aren’t wealthy are inherently a lesser people.  They have not been destined by God to greatness but rather to evil.  Numerous examples follow that illustrate this attitude.  Charles Murray wrote in his book, The Bell Curve, that minorities are intellectually and morally inferior.  Presidential Candidate, Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” comment about the American populace being lazy clearly exposed this attitude of inferiority.  Jared Bernstein’s blog comment accurately reflected the Republican idea that “all you have to do to get a job is want a job.”[6]  By implication, those without a job are, by definition, people of lesser moral character.  Therefore, going back to their attitudes about charity, one doesn’t do that for undeserving people.  One doesn’t create public policy for undeserving people.

Of course, these few paragraphs are a broad swipe and in detail don’t pertain to everyone.  But, I believe there is enough truth in them to warrant discussion.  Section 5 was my attempt to generate such a conversation.  Does anyone have any comments?

[1]  Charity, Ann Rynd Lexicon. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/charity.html.  20 July 2014. [2] Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  Wikipedia.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happiness.  20 July 2014. [3] Liberalism, Wikipedia.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism.  20 July 2014. [4] Coll, Steven.  Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power.  New York, NY: The Penguin Press.  2012.  Kindle Page: 6130-46. [5] Protestant Work Ethic.  Wikipedia.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic.  2 August 2014. [6] Pitts, Leonard.  “A Republican with Serious Things to Say About Poverty.”  The Herald Mail Opinion.  Hagerstown, MD.  31 July 2014.  Page A4.

Section 5 is a new title, but it’s a story I’ve worked on for a number of years.  It was sparked by the increasing rancor that our politics have taken on.  The basic work of solving the nations’s problems has been pushed aside in favor of single-minded drives for power.  The philosophical positions of our leaders in Congress have become so set and permitting so little room for reason and compromise that attaining office alone has become the all important issue.

This being the case, I began to speculate on what would happen if one party did, in fact, achieve its goal of total and permanent political domination with its philosophical planks being nailed firmly into its platform and the law of the land.  At the time I started this story, the Republican Party under George W. Bush came fairly close to being able to do this had it chosen to try for this domination.  This situation just made for a logical place to start my tale, and it has continued as such since then.  Of course, I could have written a similar novel with the Democrats in power, but timely relevance made the GOP my incumbent for Section 5.

Now, the question arises: could absolute power be achieved?  Yes, it can.  Had the GOP succeeded in re-interpreting Section 5, Article I of the Constitution as I suggest in my book, they could have developed an absolute control of the Congress.  I’ll leave it for you to read the story and see how this obscure clause could become the vehicle for political domination.  But, you’ll find out that, in fact, people in the past have tried to use it for political gain.  Fortunately, no one has succeeded … yet.

If there is a lesson to be gained from this story, it is that the American people have selected their president, representatives and senators to govern.  Governance is the art of solving real problems through means that can’t be solved elsewhere.  How far politicians can go in any particular direction towards solutions can be seen in the balance of power that has been given to them through the power of the vote.   If the balance of power is close, then caution is being called for.  However, in times of crisis, strong powers have been given.  We have seen this in the Civil War and the two World Wars.  Leaders were given trust to lead the nation back to peace.  When it was achieved, a political balance was restored that forced leaders to solve problems through compromise.

Compromise is a sloppy way of doing business.  It has been defined as achieving a solution that satisfies no one.  Doing so involves a clash of wills and ideas.  But, through the conflict, if compromise is pursued honorably, workable solutions for the commonweal can be achieved with room for further perfection later in time.  But, when the parties concerned are only interested in attaining absolute power, then tragedy can only loom on the horizon.