A Covid-19 Kind Of Day

And so another day begins. The morning get-up routines have been completed, breakfast has been eaten, I am all dressed to meet the day. But what kind of today awaits me as we move through month two of a Covid-19 redefined existence?

Each today looks very similar to yesterday, and the now many yesterdays that came before. One of the normal life changes that occurs in “seniorhood” is that one’s schedule is less dictated by external requirements and institutions versus our own created calendar. There is a certain great freedom in that, but it is also an easy slide into a sameness routine – less distinction from one day to the next. “What day is today?” becomes a more frequently asked question. Covid-19’s stay-at-home requirement exaggerates that sameness even more. How does one fill the time, nurture one’s spirit, and generate enthusiasm in such a context?

We catch up on a thousand little household and personal to-dos that have been awaiting our attention for months (years?). We discover reading again, though the closed libraries and bookstores inconveniently thwart our intentions. Gasoline is cheaper than ever, but there are few places open to go to. A good time to start a new hobby – if you have the materials that you need. How many homes are good entertainment and educational respites for engagement, versus now relying on external venues for amusement? It is a good time to catch up with friends and family, though it must now be done digitally. It is less satisfying through technology, but it breaks up the easy slide towards isolation. The afternoon walk becomes the high point of this new adventure: sunshine, movement, nature, fresh air are all good, encapsulated in an unfamiliar but newly found “quiet” (relatively speaking). Sitting on the front porch, one greets the many neighbors (and often their pets) going by, most of whom having been previously unfamiliar faces. As I watch the day pass, I remind myself that I am a card-carrying member of the higher-risk Covid-19 age group; I am cautious, but not paralyzed.

That said, other people have a very differently filled day, even if they also experience a similar sameness. Some people are classed as “essential workers” employed at “essential businesses.” Generally these workers are: 1) those inadequately-supported health care workers fighting Covid-19 on the front lines (e.g. doctors, nurses, maintenance staff in hospitals / nursing homes / care centers; emergency and first responders; pharmacy employees); 2) those that are keeping our infrastructures open and functioning so the rest of us can stay home (e.g. food chain workers and servers; municipal service workers; home / transportation / financial servicers). Without them, our defensive systems would collapse. While they may be thankful to have employment, and an income to help support their families, it comes with an ever-present awareness that they could easily move from defender to patient with little warning. Yet they continue on, their personal worries tucked under their collective hats – save those occasional moments of desperately needed mental and emotional release.

Another group is the cadre of “at-home” workers. For some, this is a totally new experience which may or may not prove comfortable. Some people can be quite productive in this environment. Others are too easily distracted by the temptations of the home; some may react badly to the isolation and miss the “social” element of working in a central office with colleagues; some may find it difficult to do all work and communicating through technology tools. Perhaps they are also part of a family with children who must be homeschooled, entertained, or overseen. A family that is usually dispersed during the day may now find themselves suddenly together 24x7. It can be a combustible mix requiring a creative deftness instituted on the fly. But at least some employment and income can be continued, and thereby some commercial activities can be conducted for the community. The white collar workplace may be forever changed.

Which leaves another group of people living in limbo. For them, working at home is not an option. For employees, the job is gone; for small business owners, the building is shuttered. Yet unstoppable bills still must be paid, food must be bought, prescriptions must be filled, but “$0” only stretches so far. Many have minimal-to-no financial cushion to absorb this blow, have no idea when – or  if – jobs and businesses will return. Their paycheck-to-paycheck life is now a day-to-day decision about how to survive. The one-time $1200 stimulus check is helpful, but is only an already insufficient month’s pay for a minimum-wage worker; an even shorter timeframe for a previously higher-paid worker. They may spend their day on long lines at the food bank, while farmers dump milk and plow under crops for lack of market reach. They file unemployment insurance claims and applications for small business loans, but those offices are overwhelmed by the volume of millions of filings happening concurrently. So the checks are slow to arrive, if at all. And the next dinnertime comes all too soon.

Alongside this on-the-fly societal reinvention stand the Covid-19 deniers. It is a group that considers the whole pandemic an overblown phenomenon (if not hoax), blown out of proportion by the “fake news” media in search of a story filled with necessary villains. They quote statistics suggesting the Covid-19 numbers are less than other typical cyclical causes of health crises. Or they point to small numbers of cases/deaths in rural areas where they live so the probability of their being infected is assumed to be minimal. (It is unclear how many more than 800,000 Covid-19 cases / 40,000 deaths they require to qualify as an epidemic.) Or they protest the shutdown / stay-at-home program that is the only thing with hope of protecting them – or their neighbors.

I recently saw a Facebook post arguing that that America was simply overreacting to an everyday medical problem. That by giving into this disease by shutting down and staying home and not reopening the economy, Americans had become “soft,” or more specifically, had become “wimps.” I would suggest that that writer speak directly to some of the medical personnel and first responders who are showing up each day to tend to the sick. They fight everyday feeling as if they are carrying a sophisticated automatic rifle, but have only one bullet to use; they wait desperately for the cavalry to come to their rescue, but they never show. The “success” of their efforts is no longer measured by the number of people cured, but instead by how many less people died today. They are some of the most courageous people I know of. Or speak directly to some heads of families with no job and no income trying to hold mind and body together, but who understand why they are home. They are some of the most courageous people I know of. Or speak directly to the millions of Americans who are quietly cooperating with the social distancing and stay-at-home orders not because it is easy or convenient, but because they do it for their own good and for the good of others. They are some of the most courageous people I know of. Most importantly, speak to one of the sick or dying Covid-19 patients, alone in a cold institutional health facility, devoid of family or friends, trying to get through the day not knowing if they will survive this experience – 40,000 Americans have already died in just six weeks’ time. Theirs is a very different Covid-19 kind of day. They are truly some of the most courageous people I know of.

These are among the best of our citizens. All told, there’s not a wimp among them.

©   2020   Randy Bell             https://ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

Two Commentaries On Covid-19 Responses

COMMENTARY 1:
Lieutenant General Todd Semonite. Remember that name. Imprint it on the very front of your brain. Why? Because he is the commanding general of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps that moves stuff, builds stuff, puts it exactly wherever it is needed, on a short timetable. When they don’t have exactly what they need, they improvise – American ingenuity on display. That is their job, every single day. I have seen General Semonite interviewed twice now. A no nonsense, old school kind of guy. If you can be clear about what you need (as some governors and mayors are), he is totally focused on just getting the job done. “No” and “can’t be done” are not part of the vocabulary.

Thanks to General Semonite and his extended team, there are temporary, makeshift, and converted facilities going up as hospitals all over this country to respond to the Covid-19 onslaught on our medical centers. Convention centers, dormitories, and vacant hotels converted to overflow hospitals. Tent hospitals built on football fields, parking lots, any open space that can be used. Usually completed in less than a week. It is what the Corps does. And thereby, they demand our respect and admiration as part of the best of America.

This is what you get from true leadership in times of crisis. You turn to someone who has experience in getting done what must be accomplished. Who has a clear understanding of what is needed, what has to be brought to bear, what has to be done, and in what sequence. As President Lincoln turned to General U.S. Grant to defeat the Confederate Army and end the Civil War. As President Roosevelt turned to Dwight Eisenhower to end World War II in Europe; “Ike” then turned to General George Patton to spearhead the allied drive to push the Nazi army back to Germany. Whatever issues of personal character might legitimately be questioned about Grant and Patton, they were singularly focused on getting their assigned job done – no excuses, no distractions. General Todd Semonite appears to have all those similar qualities of leadership (without the character baggage). The leadership needed in these times. What do we get to fight this “war” against Covid-19? We get a responsibility-denier President who still thinks he is running a tiny family-owned business in Manhattan. He in turn appoints his son-in-law (Jared Kushner) to be our Covid-19 point man in background charge of the federal response – notwithstanding that he has NO experience in logistics, health and medicine, pandemics, crisis management, or running a multi-organizational operation.

The art of leadership is all about finding the right person (people) at the right moment to fit the right demand. Clearly defining the results expected, putting those people fully in charge, and then getting out of their way. We do not have anything close to that “right person in charge.” What we have got instead continues to be amateurs at the top, the skilled professionals below. As a result, many people are and will suffer in a variety of different ways. Some will unnecessarily die. Why?

COMMENTARY 2:
On Tuesday April 7, Wisconsin held an election. Other states that had originally scheduled their elections for March and April long ago rescheduled them to May or June in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. The Democratic Governor of Wisconsin, together with the state Public Health Director, tried to postpone the election, but the state’s Republican legislative leaders sued to overturn the postponement. They won in the state’s Supreme Court and the federal Supreme Court. So the election went on.

Why the big push? Because on the ballot was one seat on the state’s Supreme Court, and the Republicans were pushing their conservative candidate to win it. At all cost. And the calculus was that a low voter turnout would favor their candidate. So the election went on, combined with other voter suppression tricks that have been employed in the 2016 and 2018 elections: reduced early voting days/hours; no expansion of mail-in / absentee voting; no extending of absentee voting deadline; moving or reducing polling sites – especially in Democratic-leaning Milwaukee. Nevertheless, voters turned out, many enduring average wait times of 2-3 hours. Putting themselves at personal health risk, standing six feet apart where possible, covered in masks where available, many of them senior citizens most-at-risk for vulnerable to Covid-19. Doing what they needed to do to exercise their right to vote. Mocking this risk, the Republican leader of the Wisconsin House posted a video claiming that “it is absolutely safe to go out and vote,” spoken while he was covered head-to-toe in full PPE gear.

Once again it was demonstrated what lengths some Republican Party officials will go to in order to win by manipulating the rules of game, rather than winning on the strengths of the candidate or the soundness of one’s political argument. Except this time it was not just about winning or losing an election. It was literally about risking one’s life in order to vote. This episode is yet another example of our longtime values, our respect for one another, being thrown in the trash can in favor of one’s selfish, personal, or political benefit. We are absolutely losing our collective minds as a Country.

©   2020   Randy Bell             https://ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

A Virus Unleashed

Coronavirus. It is the dominant word of our time. The centerpiece topic of politicians and government administrators, medical and public health officials, and business owners and entertainment providers. It has swallowed up most all of the media attention, leaving other issues of importance near-voiceless. The major events just past – impeachment, weather catastrophes, election primaries, border wall immigration – seem years ago.

There is also the general public messaging, which similarly dominates space in the non-social media platforms. Typically, many (not all) Americans are aligning in polarized opposite camps of opinion. On one side are the doubters. For them, the whole coronavirus issue is simply overblown. Statistics are quoted comparing current/projected low coronavirus cases and deaths with our substantial cancer, heart disease, and “winter flu” (influenza) numbers. They dismiss – if not ridicule – people’s “herd mentality” and concerns as being out of proportion to “the facts.” Given this perspective, they report making minimal changes in their daily life due to this virus threat.

On the other side, people are expressly fearful, based on images seen and stories heard across the globe. Face masks, mandatory home confinement, deserted tourist venues, overloaded hospitals and medical facilities, empty grocery shelves. Charts with ever-growing, spiking numbers. In spite of other countries’ experiences, America wasted two months doing little to prepare for this eventuality. We had a “see no virus / hear no virus / speak no virus” phase; followed by no information, conflicting information, or inaccurate information; infused with misstatements, fantasy scenarios, and future promises (versus current actions). Few have been reassured, leaving people feeling on their own, dependent upon varying initiatives of individual state/local governments and officials left driving our response. In the midst of such confusion, fear set in.

As America finally begins in mid-March to truly gear up for this public health issue, there are several elements we should keep in mind in developing our perspective.

1. While statistics about other killer diseases are important to keep in mind, they are essentially irrelevant to this current experience. These other diseases are largely known items. We have years of study and mountains of data about them; they are generally predictable as to how they proceed; protocols for successful treatment – including some vaccines – are known or are continually emerging. Coronavirus – more specifically this Covid-19 strain – has none of this. It is a totally new sickness, with no track record, no data, no protocols, no “facts” of where it comes from or how it moves. We have no built-in antibodies, no vaccines, no known treatments. The real danger is not what this coronavirus IS, but what it COULD BE. It is this unknown-ness that is our real crisis, which means we are forced to “wing it” in the short term with educated guesses between worst case / best case scenarios. We are not just fighting a disease; we are fighting an unknown enemy – the hardest battle to fight and the hardest to organize against.

2. That said, data is coming in rapidly, and we are sorting through it as quickly as possible. Each day we know more, but it is an elusive, moving target. China and Italy give us a starting point of experiences – IF we elect to learn from them.

3. Are we overreacting to the significant closures and social distancing being rapidly introduced? It may seem so, especially in geographic areas (like mine) where there are (as yet) no confirmed cases. But Covid-19 is a stealth contagion. Once infected, it can take up to two weeks to show itself. It may even show no symptoms at all, but in that invisible state can still infect others. As it travels on its human host, this insidious disease is unknowingly transmitted to an increasingly wider audience – a sleeper cell that results in the sudden spiked curve of cases as seen elsewhere. Because one is “not sick” does not mean one is not contagious.

4. What is clear is that the relatively low number of current Covid-19 cases is statistically meaningless as a basis for projection and planning. We do not know the true number of cases because we have still not adequately tested our population – in spite of the early warnings we had. This is a collective failure of federal government (mis-)management. It reflects a lack of timely preparedness, collective organization, effective leadership, with scattershot solutions focused more on avoiding blame than solving problems. As of this writing, we are still well behind the demand for testing, analysis, planning, and delivery of needed resources to where they are needed. Planning accurate strategies to fight this virus is highly difficult when one lacks adequate intelligence about who the enemy is.

5. Much more could be said about this public health case study. The “lessons learned” post-crisis debriefing and analysis will be important to do. But the immediate conclusion for each of us is that we are in unknown territory here. We are fighting blind with inadequate knowledge and insufficient resources. Once again we face the age-old American conflict of values: do I do what is right for me, or do I do what is right for the community of which I am a part? If I think I am fine – even though I might not be – do I ignore the guidelines and go about my business? Or do I consider those who might be far more vulnerable to, and potentially injured by, my singular action? That is the moral question each of us faces.

For now, responsible state and local political and health leaders will continue to fight this battle as best they can – hopefully with increasing resources and support. Six months from now, perhaps we will know this virus more fully, and we can then judge how well we responded to this crisis with what we knew. Depending upon our outcomes, we may never know whether the Covid-19 threat was overblown, or our collective mitigating efforts stopped it in its tracks (as our “victim of our own success” experience mitigating the “Y2K” computer flaw threatening to shut down the world economy.) Knowing the reasons for “success” can be as elusive as knowing the causes of disease.

In the meantime, we need to remember our health professionals and volunteers, and our service workers who are keeping our country semi-functioning. They are seeking to defend us and provide comfort during these times. We are obligated to do the same for them. Simultaneously, we express our compassion to all the people being significantly impacted by this crisis.

©   2020    Randy Bell            https://ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

Democratic Primary Strategies

The American constitutional ritual of voting has begun. Five months of primary campaigning and voting will lead to a presidential nominee for each of the major parties. The Republican nominee is presumed already known. Yet in the crazy political world of Donald Trump’s daily turns and surprises, who continually snatches defeat by stepping on his own victories, anything is possible. (Future essays will discuss separately the Trump candidacy.) On the Democratic side, the ultimate victor is far from clear. Who the Party’s voters will choose, who the Party’s convention will select, can still go a number of different directions – and will be subject to the same currently-unforeseen twisting and turning events as Trump’s campaign.

Unlike the few Republican challengers against Trump, the Democrats started this campaign season with over two dozen candidates. By any criteria, it was as diverse a pool as could be imagined: age, race, gender, background, political / governmental experience, issue priorities, name recognition. By the start of primary season in February 2020, that number has narrowed to approximately six viable candidates: Joe Biden, Mike Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren (with Tom Steyer in the wings).

From the initial pool of diversity, the survivors include:
-4 are aged 70+, 1 in her 50s, and 1 only slightly above the minimum age of 35
-4 are males, 2 are females
-all 6 are white, with no minority candidate
-4 are married, 1 is in a gay marriage, 1 has a long-term life partner
-3 are former mayors, 4 are current or former U.S. senators, 1 is a former Vice-President
-2 are from New England, 2 are from the Middle Atlantic states, 2 are Midwesterners
-2 are former Republicans, 1 an Independent (making his 2^nd try), 3 are long-term Democrats
-all but 1 are millionaires through mega-billionaires
It is diverse, but hardly the expected resulting profile from the original candidate pool.

All candidates agree that priority #1 is to beat Trump in November. But who is best qualified to accomplish that goal is not clear among the candidates, the Party, and the voters, as each candidate has different strengths and weaknesses to match up against Trump. Huge turnout is accepted as the key to victory (as proven in the 2018 midterms). The ability to get that turnout will likely depend on several strategy considerations:

1. Hillary lost some key traditionally-Democratic states (e.g. PA, MI, WI) by narrow margins. Those states were key to Trump’s win. Some of that loss reflected Hillary’s neglect of those states and taking them for granted in her campaign. Some loss was simply Trump’s appeal to a portion of those voters. Then there was a large number of voters who were deeply opposed to Hillary personally and voted against her. How do Democrats get these voters back?

2. “Bread and butter / dining room table” issues won for the Democrats in 2018. While anti-Trump opinions were high, in the important Midwest it was moderate candidates stressing these close-to-home issues who won in previous Republican districts. They won enough to flip the House to Democratic control, and in 2020 they need to win those seats again to keep control.

3. Some Democratic voters are passionate about achieving a “radical change / big ideas” agenda on a quick timeline for America. The changes include economic restructuring, income redistribution, social justice and equality goals. Moderate Democrats also seek economic and social changes, but on more of a building-block basis of accumulating changes. Revolution versus evolution. Nether camp has sufficient numbers alone to win the November election outright. How will these two camps reconcile their differences and unify for November? In truth, all candidates agree on virtually all programmatic OUTCOMES, but simply differ in their methods. For example, Democrats share a desire for all children to receive needed healthcare, and there are multiple good ways to accomplish that. Quibbling now over mechanics and details is not helpful, versus demonstrating the leadership that will be needed to bring America together to accomplish these things later.

4. Each candidate has pledged to support the ultimate nominee, whomever wins. But which nominee(s) can unite the party, bridge the Left-vs-Moderate agenda divide, while still energizing an across-the-board turnout? Will Sanders’ and Warren’s supporters follow a moderate nominee? Will supporters of the four moderates follow a radical change nominee?

5. All candidates acknowledge defeating Trump is Priority #1. There are certainly many line-item reasons to do so. Who can most skillfully make the case AGAINST Trump’s actions and words over the past four years? Who can make the case to America FOR a Democratic alternative – a clear, clean, simple, succinct , but cogent case?

These are some of the overall strategy considerations for the candidates, their advisors, and the political consultants to consider. However, there are two overall dominating factors that loom over this election, and what can then be accomplished over the next decade.

First, the American public is tired. They are worn out and exhausted from the endless national political arguing and chaos. The constant Tweets, political maneuvering, personal attacks in lieu of serving constituents. The negative changes in the essence, ethics, and conduct of the Presidency. The dropping of yet one more bombshell shoe after another. The headline-dominating daily conversations about “what did the President do or say today?”

The vast majority of Americans are not looking to be so consumed by political or governmental conversations. They are looking to live lives focused on nurturing and providing for their families. Engaging with friends and their communities. Pursuing their personal, professional, and recreational goals. The “Washington Drama” is not where they want to put their attention. They long for the politicians to take care of the necessary political business, the government to provide the services promised, while the rest of us get on with our lives. The “Theater of the Absurd” has simply gone on too long. And Americans have always had a short attention span.

Second, as important as such topics as healthcare, climate change, immigration reform, economic fairness, and a host of other issues are, they are necessarily secondary to an even greater priority. Before taking on these notable issues, Trump’s replacement is necessarily going to have to face the need to first rebuild the foundations and structures of our government after all the change and damage that has been inflicted upon them. Trust in our governing institutions, respect for the rule of law versus person, and the everyday functioning of our governmental bodies and agencies – all carefully developed over 230 years – have all been strangled or ripped apart in just four years. We are now looking at a federal government hollowed out and decimated of knowledgeable professionals, and the breaking or elimination of orderly processes.

Before any grand agenda of new policies and programs can be put into place – no matter how seemingly desirable on their face – this destruction must be reversed and rebuilt. It will be slow, unglamorous, detailed, and painful work, requiring a steady hand. This work will likely consume the entire next presidential term – a significant factor for Biden and Sanders who would likely be a one-term president due to their age. (It is a transitional role similar to that admirably performed by Gerald Ford following the “long national nightmare” of Richard Nixon.) But until that reversal is done, and pride and integrity are restored, and American confidence and leadership are renewed, and our many competing groups find a way to respectfully talk and actually WORK together – we will be stuck where we are. One cannot build policy and program castles on a foundation of sand using broken tools with no workers on hand to operate them.

Until we restore America’s faith and trust in each other, along with the mechanics needed to accomplish the next extraordinary dreams of America’s story, talking about specific ideas and detailed programs is a fool’s journey aiming at a brick wall. Measured against that true priority, which one of those speakers on the Democratic debate stage can best lead us to our future? Which one has best demonstrated an ability to be truly inclusive and join people in working together? That is the important question for each of us to thoughtfully answer.

©   2020   Randy Bell             https://ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

Impeachment Recap And Reflections

At 4:32pm on Wednesday, 2/5/2020, the Constitution of the United States was rushed to the Library of Congress and placed in intensive care, suffering from significant assaults against its Principles and Values. Concurrently, the spirits of the 39 Founders who signed the Constitution gathered in an impromptu vigil, waiting to see whether or not the Patient would survive its injuries. The outcome for the Republic is in doubt.

There is much to take away from these past five months of Impeachment and Trial.  The specific takeaways will vary considerably depending on the lens of our varying perspectives through which we view these events, shaped by our widely varying life experiences. In many respects, our concerns are not over what was specifically said and done. Instead, our greater concerns should likely focus more around issues of “rules of law and rules of order,” new precedents being established, and our basic assumptions about our government’s commitment and responsiveness to “We, the People.” Space limitations of this essay does not allow for in-depth discussion of these events; that will be left to the historians. Meanwhile, perhaps the following reflections may be helpful.

1. It is a violation of federal law to solicit or receive assistance from foreign entities for a political campaign. All discussion starts with that legal reality. Donald Trump admitted in the notes of his July 2019 call to the new President of Ukraine that he did solicit such election help by demanding a foreign investigation of his primary potential election rival. [Such admission was also consistent with his public call for assistance to Russia in 2016 (“Russia if you are listening…”), his interview with George Stephanopoulos in June 2019 expressing his willingness to accept political dirt from foreign entities (“I would look at it and decide whether to use it…”), and his 2019 request of China made on the lawn of the White House inviting them to “also look into corruption by the Bidens.”] These public/confessed actions broke the law. He reinforced his demands by acts of bribery/coercion in holding up a White House show-of-support meeting, along with illegally (per the General Accounting Office) holding up $250M+ of military aid appropriated by Congress. These actions constituted Impeachment Article 1.

2. The violation of the foreign interference law was not an accidental, one-time event, but was a deliberate campaign authorized and orchestrated by Trump that went on for nearly a year. It involved numerous employees and non-employees of the government to either obtain the Biden investigations, and/or to hide these secretive efforts. As was said, “everybody was in the loop” –cabinet secretaries, department heads, and outside players. It significantly included Devin Nunes (House Intel Committee ranking Republican) and Pat Cipollone (lead counsel on Trump’s defense team) – two significant conflicts of interest. Keeping these secrets hidden included a total refusal to comply with any legal Congressional subpoenas for testimony by participants, along with relevant documents. The defense argued that “there was no first-hand testimony about the president’s actions,” yet Trump refused to let firsthand witnesses testify. If Trump was truly innocent of these charges, why did he not flood the Senate with witness testimony and documents that would rebut the prosecution and prove his case? This, blanket refusal to cooperate with the House investigation constituted Impeachment Article 2.

3. The House Managers prosecuting the Senate trial were well-organized in laying out the detailed course of events underlying Impeachment Article 1. Their presentation earned compliments from a number of senators from both parties. This was in stark contrast to Trump’s legal defense team which never seemed to settle on a consistent line of defense.

4. The facts upon which the impeachment charges were based proved unarguable and uncontestable. This led Trump’s defense team to pursue an evolving line of defense. First: he did not seek a “political favor” from Ukraine. Second: well, he did, but what he did was not wrong. Third: well, his actions may not have been the best to do. Fourth: well, he asked Ukraine for a “favor,” but there was no quid pro quo – in spite of the substantial testimony to the contrary. Fifth: well, he committed no actual crime. Sixth: well, yes, he may have committed a crime, but it is a crime that does not rise to the “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” level of impeachment. Besides, ultimately a) Ukraine announced no prosecutions and b) they got their money. (Is the burglar who doesn’t find the jewels therefore innocent of the break-in?) Various Trump supporters tried to denigrate the significance of Trump’s solicitation of political help from Ukraine (and Russia and China). But for the Constitutional Founders, resisting any interference by foreign entities was a high priority and concern.

5. Twenty years ago in the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton, Senator Lindsey Graham and constitutional professor Alan Dershowitz separately argued that impeachment does NOT require the commission of an explicit statutory criminal act. In this trial on behalf of Trump, they each reversed course and said that impeachment DOES require a criminal act (an opinion rejected by the vast majority of legal scholars and Constitutional Founders). So which is it? Is legality based upon the law, or who the defendant is (and what political party s/he belongs to? Founder Alexander Hamilton wrote in “The Federalist” that impeachment applied to “the abuse or violation of some public trust” and “injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

Professor Dershowitz went on to offer a painfully nonsensical legal argument that if whatever the president does is for what s/he concludes is in the best interest of the country as s/he sees it, it is not illegal or impeachable. This includes concluding that if s/he is the best person to be president, then whatever s/he does to get elected is permissible. It is a discredited reasoning reminiscent of President Nixon’s statement during Watergate that “If the President does it, it is not a crime.”

6. One example of how far integrity has disappeared from Congress was the abdication of the Impeachment Oath. All one hundred senators swore an oath to their god committing them to approach this senate trial, and review the accusations and defense, from a perspective of “impartial justice.” Nevertheless, some senators from both parties announced their decision and intended vote well before the trial started. In particular, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell went even further by stating his intention to shut down and dismiss the trial as soon as possible, and that he was “in total coordination with the White House” (i.e. Trump) as to how the trial would be conducted. Hypocrisy reigned supreme.

7. To justify his decisions about the trial rules, McConnell (and other Republican senators) claimed that this trial was following the same rules as the Clinton impeachment. This was wrong. Clinton’s trial was based on the findings of an “Independent Counselor” (Ken Starr, now a part of Trump’s defense team) appointed by the Attorney General, who spent several years investigating Clinton. Starr turned over boxes of his interviews and supporting documentation – including sealed grand jury testimony – to the House, which formed the basis of the House’s Articles of Impeachment. This was supplemented by three witnesses called to the Senate. No such Independent Counselor or grand jury testimony was allowed for the trial of Trump. Trump’s trial was the first to include no witness testimony or additional documentation (though 70% of the public supported such input).

8. Some Republican defenders of Trump made the argument that this impeachment “was a partisan affair from the get-go in the House, an attempt to reverse the results of the 2016 election; the guilt/innocence of Trump should be left to the voters in November.” First, if it was a partisan affair in the House, would not the country be best served by rising above partisanship in the Senate and conducting a demonstrably model impartial trial– instead of tit-for-tat partisanship? Second, the Constitution assigns responsibility to the Congress for determining whether a president should be impeached and removed. It does not assign that responsibility to election day voters. Congress needed to step up to the job rather than pass the buck. Third, the basis for the Article 1 charge was that Trump sought to illegally tamper with the 2020 election. How does one defer his trial to the very process corrupted by his guilt?

In the end, this entire episode was not a proud moment for an America that has been an aspiration and role model for democracy for the world.  Trump broke at least two federal laws, threatened the security of both a European ally and America, and then tried to hide his actions from Congress and the citizenry. Virtually no Republican senator disputed that Trump committed these actions; rather, the trial was reduced to the subjective question of “how important” was it. The Senate “trial” proved to be no trial at all based upon many Americans’ understanding – by their own experience – of what constitutes a trial. In the process, the Senate effectively announced that: a) the President IS in fact above the law; b) House and Senate Republicans will back Trump in virtually whatever he chooses to do; and c) Congress has surrendered its oversight role over the Executive Branch – access to testimony, documents and information will henceforth be limited to only what a President allows.

Where this takes us from here, and what Trump will now feel free to do, is anyone’s guess. Now it is the People’s obligation to speak its impeachment judgment at the polls in November. What will America’s verdict be in November 2020?

©   2020   Randy Bell             https://ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

2020 Vision

A new year is upon us. Not just a new year, but also a new decade. As it turns out, a decade as important and significant as was anticipated, a decade that will be defined by its first year. The events and the language are going to set our table, and define our future, more so than any year since 1945. Faced with a variety of choices, directions and alternatives, this is the year that will call the questions of who we are as a people and a country, and ask us to clarify what kind of country we want to live in, based upon what values and principles are truly most important.

We have been entrenched in uncivil conflict for 20 years, conflict now coming into open headlong collision. As a country, we have been arguing among ourselves about America’s purpose and promise since the very beginning of the Republic. We have been through and survived even worse times and fissures in our relationships. But not since our American Civil War has there been such a concerted attack on the institutions and principles that have held this country together in spite of our arguments. We argue about government programs, policies and priorities. We file endless lawsuits to try to clarify our laws, many of which are in fact clear in their intention. We elect leaders who do not lead – and do not even follow – but rather pursue their own personal agenda (or enrichment) with little regard for “the greater good.” Our conversations with each other have become superficial and outright mean, making societal progress and solutions to problems nearly impossible. Our Constitution – that marvelous expression of social and governmental creativity built upon our population’s better nature – is being chewed up by our population’s worse nature. We are drowning in fighting each other while we ignore the opportunities that are possible if we instead worked together. This dysfunction is funded by outlandish amounts of money spent to benefit self-interests in governmental, non-profit, cultural, religious, and corporate realms. And there seems no end in sight to this toxic and counterproductive environment.

Right out of the chute in 2020 will be the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Will this process be a political sham? Or will one hundred senators ignore the Politics of Power and, instead, act in an ethical exercise responsible to their special oath as “impartial impeachment jurors?” Separate from the ultimate verdict, will our citizens (and the world) watch our democracy in action, or will they see only political grandstanding and theater. Depending upon the outcome of the Senate vote, what actions will then follow, what forces will be unleashed?

Immediately thereafter (or even concurrently), the citizenry will begin to speak through the sacred voice of their vote. They will pick their candidates, and then their final choice, for president, but also for thousands of other federal, state, and local representatives. How will we conduct this election process, given that our experience suggests that this will be a very hard fought and ugly process, filled with exaggerated mistruths? Who will we choose, based upon what criteria: proposed policies; demonstrated competency; evidence of Character? Will this election be governed by fair rules that welcome all eligible voters, or corrupted by partisan misdeeds, perhaps even sabotaged by foreign adversaries intent on disrupting our faith in the results – if not the results themselves?

Alongside this internal journey, there will be incidents, threats, opportunities and conflicts happening across the globe. Ones we may be able to anticipate through today’s eyes; others not yet even a blip on our radar. Who will we entrust to navigate these events in the deeply interconnected world we now live – a world where isolation is no longer an option and cooperation is mandatory. Who will make friends and build partnerships, who will confront enemies appropriately, and who will be unable to distinguish between “friend and foe”?

Running in and out of these major narratives will be a continuing parade of investigations – federal and state prosecutions, judicial rulings, congressional oversight, and media reporting. There seems no end to the list of questionable actions and falsehoods still being continually uncovered. In 2020, some of these investigations will be concluded, some will continue to slowly unfold drop by drop, and (amazingly) some new ones will arise. For many Americans, it is nearly impossible to keep track of all of the separate cases now in process, much less the details embedded in each. But we have to try if we are to be informed voters trying to make good and rational decisions for our country.

Meanwhile, our many divisions continue to get bigger and deeper. We are building barriers over just about every facet of our society with an intention to dominate each other and establish one single “what’s right” for everyone. We are split between two political parties, and split even further within each. Many of our religions are dividing into more narrow denominations and branches over issues of faith, dogma and operational control. Economic goals conflict with social aspirations amid wide-spread debate about the role of government. Divisions over social, religious, gender and immigration questions are “negotiated” in seemingly daily barrages of bullets and violence. Meanwhile, “truth” and “facts” are strewn alongside the highway, roadkill casualties to our efforts to win at all costs. Potential progress is lost because it is “the other guy’s” fault.

Depressing? Yes, quite so. But it does not have to be this way. Our future is our choice – a choice to continue as we are or to make it different. What kind of America do we truly want? What American message do we wish to speak – to ourselves and to the world? When will we get tired of the fighting, and move to a renewed spirit of reconciliation and cooperation? What are we willing to give, and to give up, to achieve a renewed America?

In 2020, we will answer these fundamental, critical questions not by our words, but by our participatory engagement and our actions. It starts with our taking responsibility for the political and cultural environment we find ourselves in. It is not the other guy’s fault; it is our collective fault. The way out requires us to commit to truly staying informed, as difficult as it may be in these times when major events and headlines arrive on a seemingly daily basis. It requires us to reintroduce ourselves to our “opponents” and remember that these are our neighbors whose needs and aspirations should be our concern. It requires us to change the nature of our conversations from throwing bricks and hurling insults at each other, to listening to one another so as to understand why our worldviews differ. It requires us to reject lies, to speak from reasonable facts, to demand truth, and to insist on ethical behavior. It requires us to sit together, work together, and find the many middle grounds that are necessary to make living together possible. It requires us to move away from “my way” and to find “our way” by Compromising with each other – the very foundational and essential principle that our Founders had to draw upon to create this Republic in the first place.

Change does not start in the White House or Congress. Nor in governors’ mansions or state legislatures. It starts in each of our living rooms. Around our dinner tables. It is, as it was designed to be in the beginning, upon us – “We, the People.” What will we do with what we have been given?

©   2020   Randy Bell             https://ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com

Impeachment Deja Vu

For those of us that lived through the turmoil of the late-1960s/1970, I have previously remarked that our current times have an eerily familiar sound and feel to that time. So it is with the current drumbeat marching us undeterred towards our fourth instance of presidential impeachment proceedings. This fourth instance (out of 45 presidents) seems like a drama we have already seen before, a repeat of history with minimal rewrites of the script. Consider the following:

1. The President:
1974: Republican President Richard M. Nixon (RMN).
2019: Republican President Donald J. Trump (DJT).

2. The President’s Goal:
RMN: To obtain political dirt on his reelection Democratic opponent, George McGovern.
DJT: To obtain political dirt on a leading reelection Democratic opponent, Joe Biden.

In both instances, the central issue was/is about using illegal “dirty tricks” to win reelection.

3. The Crime:
RMN: The break-in and wiretapping of the DNC headquarters (June 1972), and using the power of the federal government to cover it up for two years.
DJT: Soliciting help from a foreign leader in generating political dirt, coerced by illegally withholding Congressionally-mandated military aid to that leader, and using the power of the federal government to cover it up (April → October, 2019)

4. The Perpetrators:
RMN: His reelection committee; Howard Hunt, Gordon Liddy, several Cuban freedom fighters.
DJT: His personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, multiple Ukrainians (foreign and naturalized citizens) now under indictment.

5. Principal Enablers:
RMN: Aides Haldeman, Ehrlichman, ex-AG Mitchell, Acting FBI Director Gray; other staffers.
DJT: Secretary of State Pompeo, Acting Chief of Staff/Director OMB Mulvaney; AG Barr; various other staffers.

6. The Congressional Investigation:
RMN: Senate Watergate Committee, conducted on a bipartisan basis. Assisted by Special Prosecutor appointed by Department of Justice.
DJT: Joint House Intelligence Committee (lead), Foreign Affairs Committee, Oversight Committee, but not conducted on a bipartisan basis. No special prosecutor made available by DOJ for House committees; seeking the details of the prosecutorial work of Robert Mueller.

7. Revealing The Inside Story – Breaking Through The Wall Of Silence:
RMN: John Dean; Jeb Magruder; Alexander Butterfield; others then followed.
DJT: An unnamed CIA whistleblower; Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch; Ambassador William Taylor; others then following.

8. The Guilty  Confession (“The Smoking Gun”):
RMN: The “White House tapes,” recorded in the Oval Office, Cabinet Room, and Nixon’s private office.
DJT: The “notes” of Trump’s phone call to Ukraine president. (Official transcript remains hidden on private server and unreleased.)

9. The Firings:
RMN: Fired his Attorney General (Elliot Richardson), the Deputy Attorney AG (William Ruckelshaus) in order to force the Solicitor General (Robert Bork) to fire the investigating Special Prosecutor (Archibald Cox) pressing for the release of the White House tapes. The pushback was so strong that Bork appointed Leon Jaworksi as replacement Prosecutor, who then continued (successfully) to go after the tapes. (The “Saturday Night Massacre.”)
DJT: Has fired more of his appointees at this point in his term than any other president to this date, including numerous senior members of the DOJ, FBI and CIA who have not supported his defense claims.

10. The Stonewalling:
RMN: Fought turning over any documents under “executive privilege,” until overruled by the courts. Tapes turned over by Supreme Court ruling.
DJT: Citing “executive privilege,” fighting turning over any documents; forbidding any Executive Branch testimony (people testifying anyway); claiming a president cannot be subject to ANY step in the judicial process (including being investigated); claiming impeachment process itself is illegal; appealing (mostly losing) adverse court decisions.

11. The Impeachment Charges:
RMN: Charged with obstructing justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress.
DJT: Likely to be the same; other charges potentially to be added.

12. The Outcome:
RMN: On July 30, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee approved three Articles of Impeachment and sent them to the House floor for a vote. On August 7, senior Republican Senators Barry Goldwater, Hugh Scott, and Representative John Rhodes advised Nixon that he had no chance of surviving an impeachment vote by both political parties. Nixon resigned as President the next day, before the full House could formally vote on the Impeachment charges. President Gerald Ford issued a full and unconditional pardon of Nixon on September 8. In all, 69 associates of Nixon were indicted on various charges; 48 were found guilty. After his resignation, around 1/3^rd of the American voters continued to express support for Richard Nixon.

DJT: To Be Determined.

*****

How this current impeachment process, or the election in November 2020, will ultimately work out is unknown. Virtually nothing has been foreseeable and expectable for the past three years. Will it follow historical precedent? Will it chart a brand new course? What is assured is that America’s structures will be further pulled apart, our relationships with each other will be even more deeply divided, and our country’s core values will be tested as never before. This course of events will prove unhealthy and dangerous regardless of one’s political views and positions, requiring years of deliberate work thereafter to set right. In the end, will facts, the rule of law, and our principles of Constitutional government prevail? The jury is literally still out on these critical questions.

©   2019   Randy Bell               https://ThoughtsFromTheMountain.blogspot.com