I love baseball for its beauty, symmetry, and its respect for tradition. I feel the same about the U.S. Constitution. On Friday I attended a symposium on the Bill of Rights, as we are nearing their 225th anniversary after Congress approved the first 12 amendments to the Constitution. In December 1791 enough states had ratified these amendments, so that they became part of the Constitution. Various speakers addressed issues of constitutional law, including the inclusion of the 14th amendment, which eventually made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. The speakers also talked about the respect for law or the culture of respect for law which is the embodiment of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
On Friday evening, I watched the Bill Maher show and three of Mr. Maher’s guests were Kellyann Conway, Ralph Reed, and Margaret Hoover. With regard to Ms. Conway, to borrow a phrase from George W Bush, I looked into her eyes and I saw a soulless person. Even more disturbing, was in the panel discussion where Ms. Hoover and Mr. Reed both acknowledged that the country would survive if Trump was elected president. The rationale, coming from Mr. Reed, was that the country had survived Nixon, and so therefore could survive any other flawed president (of course Reed thought that the greater threat comes from Mrs. Clinton). I find this type of reasoning to be frightening, for lack of a better word. It is like surviving a massive heart attack, and continuing to smoke cigarettes, eat an unhealthy diet, and generally ignore the doctor’s advice, wholly on the premise that I survived it once, I’ll survive again, so bring it on.
This reasoning is ludicrous. One does not invite a crisis, based upon the fallacy, that we survived once, we will survive again. With regard to the Nixonian disaster, there are some very unique differences. For all of his faults, Nixon was a party man, a longtime politician, and an establishment man. Nixon didn’t want to bring down the Washington power structure, he wanted to control it, and went overboard in his efforts to do so. Sure, Nixon was full of dirty tricks, and was willing to bend and break the rules, but ultimately, he was a party guy with some level of respect for the institution he was representing. On the other hand, Donald Trump respects nothing, but himself.
It is well documented that Donald Trump has no respect for law, institutions, vows, or, in general, other individuals. In his business dealings, Trump has routinely flouted the law by hiring undocumented Polish workers, undocumented models for his modeling agency etc. etc. In his personal life, his marriage vows mean nothing, as they are strictly a convenience or inconvenience, until a younger “piece of ass” came along. Furthermore in his bankruptcies, he employed fraudulent tactics to get investors to invest in his casinos, and then Trump would take his fees and then declare bankruptcy. He has failed to pay subcontractors, employees, and he has engaged in discrimination against minorities. He also expressed admiration for various dictators around the world, while at the same time disparaging the freedom of the press, due process (lock her up), and a host of other reprehensible ideas. The most frightening of which is the idea that he, and he alone, can fix the nation’s problems. If we give him the power, our cities will be safe, the country will be free of undesirables, and the day will dawn on a new Trumpian America all thanks to our new exalted leader. This is the same type of venom that every dictator has injected into the political process as a precursor to seizing power.
The bottom line is this: Nixon had some level of respect for the institution of government, Trump has none. Consequently, when Ms. Hoover and Mr. Reid state that the country could survive another constitutional crisis, they are mistaken. When Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell believe that they could control Trump, because the rule of law and respect for constitutional institutions, would automatically restrain someone like Trump, they are wrong. The rule of law and respect for those institutions, only exists in a world where all participants believe in the same thing. Trump does not fit into that mold. As commander-in-chief and the executive of the country, Trump would have the reins over the military, and other federal enforcement agencies. Although members of the military take an oath to uphold the Constitution, can we be sure that all of them would be willing to strictly abide by that oath, or could a significant number of them be convinced that they would be upholding the Constitution to use their military power to enforce Trump’s will upon a recalcitrant Congress, if ordered to do so by Trump? On Friday, we saw various military personnel who are willing to throw their support behind such an individual. How far does this loyalty go? Would they be willing to follow orders from Trump to march on Washington to force the Congress to vote in such a way as Trump may want?
My ruminations are not fantasy, as history has taught us that similar institutions, thought to be strong based upon cultural underpinnings, have suffered similar fates. The august members of the Roman Senate certainly believed that their institution was more powerful than Julius Caesar. Yet, when Julius Caesar threw aside all cultural and historical convention, and crossed the Rubicon with his legions, the Roman Senate was powerless to stop him. In the end there was civil war and the eventual destruction of the Roman Republic. Are we so ignorant to believe that it couldn’t happen here? To Ms. Hoover and Mr. Reed I would say yes, it can happen. To my fellow citizens I say democracy and our current form of government is too fragile to invite even the remotest possibility of constitutional crisis. This next time, maybe the time we do not survive. We do not have the luxury of playing with Trumpian fire.