Government To Come

   If the announcements of key appointments to be made by the incoming president are any indication of what the nation will face in the coming years, there will be changes bordering on the spectacular.
   Or perhaps I should say "spectacle."
   Already, the series of appointments raises questions about the plan the soon-to-be president has for the nation at large rather than plans for his own family buddies.
   Someone has compiled a list of all the legal offences perpetrated by the nominees. It's too long to print here, but in any case they are a matter of public record.
   Some, of course, are on appeal or have not completed their journey through the legal system, but they are still a matter of public record.
   Perhaps the incoming president will  exercise his prerogative as chief legal officer and issue full pardons for all his buddies.
   Except for state offences. A national president has no authority over them, regardless of what he may assume.
   And we know what happens when you assume.
   Meanwhile, the question gains in importance: What kind of government will we have after January 20, 2025?

Pelagius Meets Grendelson

A Story
By John T Harding

  Pelagius moved across the room where Fendelthor Grendelson was napping.
   "Meow," he whispered as he waited for the cat to respond.
   "I know you're there," Fendelthor hissed. "Mockery will get you scratched. What do you want?"
   "It's time for people to plan how to cope with the preacher who is disrupting the town with his talk about who's in charge of the spirit world," Pelagius said.
   "Everybody knows the Boss is in charge," the cat answered. "This preacher just uses a different name."
   "True," Pelagius agreed. "But this guy, like many other preachers, acts like there is really only one, the one he talks about, and all the names used by others is proof that they are wrong and he is right."
   "That's not logical," Fendelthor said.
   "Logic don't enter into it," the spirit answered. "If it did, he would know that names are only labels, and labels change with every language."
   "There's that language thing again," the cat noted. "I wish people would learn to use thought alone to communicate, like we do. That way, there wouldn't be so many problems in the world."
   "The gobbledygook people use these days never did make sense to me," Pelagius said. "It didn't even exist when I was walking the earth. What do they call it these days? English? I was born and raised on the same island, and that chatter they call their language didn't develop until after I left, when the new guys -- the Angles, Saxon and Jutes -- came to make better use of the available farmland, rather than fight over who supposedly owned it."
   "All that aside, the cat interrupted, "how do we get the local preacher to admit that his version of a belief system is just one of many, and is no more correct than any of the others. From what you tell me, the Boss approves of them all."
   "Except those who use it as an excuse to beat up on the others," Pelagius said. "The Boss does not approve of that."
   Fendelthor hissed. "Then why does he let it happen?"
   "We've been through that before," Pelagius said. "It's called free will."
   "And that's why all these people can't get along," Fendelthor said. "They all want to be in charge, and have all the others do as they're told."
   "You know what that's like," the spirit said. "Cats do the same, always hissing about who's in charge."
   "It's not a matter of who's in charge," the cat said. "We just want to be left alone."
   "Yeah, right," Pelagius teased. "Explain that to people whose cats want to sleep on their lap all day, whenever they sit anywhere."
   "That's easy," Fendelthor said. "Their reward is warmth and purring. That's our way of thanking them for providing a home. That and catching any mice that try to come in. I learned that from my father."
   "His name was Grendel, right?" Pelagius said. "I knew his namesake, back in the day. He became famous on his own for his bouts with my Norse brethren. The sad part of that story is that all of their adventures are taught as fiction, and not as true stories."
   "I know what that's like," Fendelthor said. "My people used to talk to each other about those days, and even then they dismissed the stories as just that -- stories, meant only for entertainment."
   "Stories should be entertaining," Pelagius noted. "That's the key to good teaching. It's a way to get people to think. But that's also the reason I had to leave Rome when I did. The Vatican guys insisted that people do as they're told, and believe the stories just as we tell them, and not ask questions."
   "It's still that way," Fendelthor noted. "But that'ss just among people. Cats don't go that route."
   "And you never have, have you," Pelagius noted.
   "Never," Fendelthor purred.

 

(Comments welcome)

King Donald

  Evidence is building that the incoming president of the United States plans to expand his powers over government agencies so he can control all their actions.
   He has named his choices leaders of those agencies only those who are fully loyal to him, and not to the principles of the agencies they would lead. That includes loyalty to the traditions and principles of America.
   Rather, their loyalty should be to their leader, the incoming president, and not to American principles.
   All of this assumes that their nominations are approved by the U.S. Senate.
   But to bypass that dangerous assumption, the incoming president is encouraging the Senate to take a recess, so he can appoint his favorites directly, and without their input, much less their approval.
   Whether the senators take a hike -- even briefly -- remains to be seen.

Questions

    I dislike posing questions when writing about politics and current events. It's better to describe a situation and list potential solutions, leaving it up to readers to decide which is best.
   There comes a time, however, when asking questions is the primary, if not the only, way to list what could or should be done to improve the political and social life of a nation.
   Part of that list is to describe similar situations in other nations, and what happened there and then. And in doing so, the question comes up as to what to do here and now.
   In the United States of America currently, people are making comparisons to what happened in Germany in the 1930s, when the National Socialist Party (NAZI) came to power and acted on its list of what to do to return the nation to prosperity and power. At the time, many felt their proposed way was the best, if not the only, way to recover from the damage suffered from the First World War and the punishment inflicted on the nation by the victorious powers.
   Some say the worst of was the demand from the military winners that Germany pay for the damage inflicted on other nations. The reality that Germany itself did not have the economic ability to support itself, much less rebuild other nations, did not enter into the winners' planning.
   (At the time, the U.S. did not have the influence on other nations that it developed in later years.)
   The purpose of the "peace treaty" was to force the losers to pay for the damage inflicted on other nations.
   The reality that the losing nation suffered as much if not more than the winners did not enter into the thinking. Eventually, this resentment led to Germany abandoned its forced debt to the winning nations and used its own funds, few as they were, to rebuild itself.
   Within 20 years, this led to a Second World War.
   It turns out that America learned a lesson from this calamity, and did not force Japan to pay for the damage inflicted during the war. Result: The Japanese nation became friends.
   Sadly, the Chinese nation did not, but that's another story.
   Meanwhile, American conservatives have acquired the political power to insist that their way the best and only way to maintain prosperity, and compromise is out of the question. Therefore, the thinking goes, the nation must impose tariffs (import taxes) high enough to keep out products from other nations to ensure prosperity for us alone and only us.
   Reality check: Every time a nation in past years has done this, competing nations have retaliated by raising their own tariffs, this increasing customer costs on both sides.
   So who loses?
   There's that closing question again. Oh, well.

Lost Party

    The time will come when American Democrats find a way to reflect the views of many voters without modifying them to fit what they perceive is what they really mean.
   Maybe they mean just what they say.
   Then again, maybe not.
   Therein lies the problem. Perception is not always reality. And that applies to many voters' views of Trumpian politics.
   But to be safe and sure, it's important to remember that many voters feel they have to believe just what a politician says.
   The problem comes when politicians lie.
   What a concept. A politician who neglects to speak truth.
   It's also important to remember that many politicians are in league with each other and all plan to tell the same lie.
   When that happens, society has a problem.
   An even bigger problem is some groups of politicians believe what they say, even when it's clear to listeners that such comments or claims cannot possibly be true.
   Then it's impossible to persuade such true believers that what they claim cannot be true.
   An even bigger and more dangerous problem is that many voters believe whatever their political admirees say.
   Who's to know the difference and how do opponents express their disagreements without being labeled traitors? Or worse.

Danger Signs

    Opposition is building in Congress toward some of Donald Trump's choices for Cabinet posts. In turn, he is looking for ways to bypass Congressional approval for his choices.
   Meanwhile, his new partner, the exec with the most money of any individual in the world, is participating in contacts with other world leaders even though he has no official government position in the U.S.
   All told, the signals are that the incoming president wants a unitarian government, with everything controlled by the White House and his nominees.
   So much for a balanced three-part government.
   He has already named his favorites to SCOTUS, which he accomplished during his first term in office, and now he is filling Cabinet posts with his most obedient subordinates.
   Will Congress act to keep its Constitutional independence?

Right Shift

    The U.S. national government is taking a hard right turn, as the incoming president names his chief staffers who will take office with him as his term begins on Jan. 20, 2025.

   Oddly, some have very little experience in government, or their primary qualification is personal loyalty to their new boss. But that seems to be the crucial test for the incoming president's decision.

   Not experience, but loyalty.

   Therein lies the danger to America and its way of life. Not that you may do as you wish, but to do as you're told.

   The longer and greater danger is that when his new term expires in the coming four years, he will find some excuse to suspend the Constitution and continue his time in office, past the two-term limit, until and unless he alone decides to pass the Oval Office to one of his devoted colleagues.

   Or perhaps to a member of his family.

Future Calls

   Donald Trump will become the next president of the United States when the transfer happens come January. In addition, he will have support from the GOP dominated Senate and most likely the House of Representatives as well, although the latter has not yet been affirmed.
   So as the new year begins, America will have a federal government dominated by members of the Republican Party.
   What does that mean for the future of status of American citizenry? Forecasting is not on the agenda of this commentary column.
   But given the comments and preferences of the upcoming president, especially that of economic protection for American business, that can be a major problem.
   History tells us that boosting import taxes to protect U.S.-based firms quickly backfires as other nations do the same. Result: Higher prices for consumers.
   And as prices rise but income does not, there comes a problem that families in the middle and low income brackets cannot handle.
   The consequence can easily be similar to what happened nearly 100 years ago, which quickly led to the Great Depression and subsequently to World War II. Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.

Presidential Count

    TV networks are saying that if Donald Trump wins today, he will be the only president to serve two non-consecutive terms.
   Not so.
   Grover Cleveland served as both the 22d and the 24th president (1885-89, 1893-97), having been elected in 1884 but defeated four years later by Benjamin Harrison, even though his popular vote was larger. (Source: The World Almanac, 2011 edition.)
   So winning the popular vote but losing the electoral vote is not new. The key to taking a White House post is winning the electoral vote, which is a total of the number of House and Senate representatives from each state. That combined number totals 535.
   This is how George Walker Bush took the presidency in 2001, through a court challenge of a single state's vote so he could gather its electoral vote despite having lost the popular vote.
   That's also why Donald Trump put so much effort into persuading a single state to change its electoral count. The reality is that he lost the popular vote but succeeded isn manipulating the electoral vote in order to take offce. Four years later, he lost both counts. Nevertheless, he remains in denial that he lost re-election.
   So who will be the next president of the United States? We will not really know for several weeks, while the votes are being counted and gathered. And officially, we won't know until Congress accepts the vote of the electoral college in January.

Trim Government

"That government is best that governs least."

                               -- Henry David Thoreau

"All men are created equal." -- Declaration of Independence

"Some are more equal than others." 

                            -- Animal Farm, by George Orwell

   It's time to trim government, say Republicans, as they have insisted for many decades. It's time to cut back on government aid, they add, especially to those who don't deserve it, because this only takes away from families who have earned their wealth over many generations, and prevents them from passing it on to their own friends and family.
   Some in this legion say the best government is no government. Barring that extreme, they would settle for minimal government, with only a few representatives to control the larger population.
   Been there, done that.
   In other nations, it's called a dictatorship. In America, it was called government by a few to represent the many. In the beginning of the republic, voting was limited to the few white men. Enslaved Blacks and women were not included, as were those who could not pass the designated literacy test. But in many parts of the nation, the reading test was used mainly against former slaves. Others were often not tested, and were free to vote even as their literate friends helped them with their ballots.
   In his time, Henry David Thoreau referred to ordinary citizens. But in more modern times, business executives used the same theory to support their demand that government leave them alone so they can deal with workers as they chose.
   They often paid workers as little as they chose, and demanded high prices for groceries at company-owned stores. Result: Workers wound up in debt to their employer, with the danger of losing their jobs and being unable to find another as executives passed the word of any protest.
   In defense of their own interests, workers united.
   Now we are engaged in great civil unrest, testing whether this nation can long endure the treatment of the many by the few who put their own interests above that of the nation as an independent whole.
   Will the nation endure?
   Stay tuned.