Thought for the Day

[sukumvit boy]

Michael Flynn dismissal , "It's about trust".Sociopaths always demand 'loyalty' and 'trust'.

[Stavros]

If the Presidency of Donald Trump cannot secure a dinner table, how can it secure the United States of America?

[broncofan]

There is a great paradox for liberals who hope that Donald Trump might be impeached and removed from office. The type of act he would have to commit in order for two thirds of the senate to vote to remove him from power would need to be such an egregious act of treason that we would not easily recover from it.

Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the house oversight committee has said that he will not investigate Flynn's phone call to Russia in which he told them not to overreact to sanctions and implied they would be lifted by Trump. An investigation means that Republicans could learn something that would force them to act and it's better not to know. How likely is it that Trump knew about this phone call? In my view more likely than not. Would evidence of it emerge in an investigation and if so, how would the public respond to Trump's coordination with Russia to undermine a sitting president and possibly pay back Russia for hacking the DNC? Well that's anybody's guess, but if nothing that looks unethical is ever investigated, nobody can be held to account. What would it take for the Republicans to act? A catastrophe, so we should either hope it doesn't get that far or that some of them remember that their loyalty should be to our Constitution and not an individual or his administration.

[Stavros]

"their loyalty should be to our Constitution and not an individual or his administration"

-The cynic in me would like to suggest on the evidence provided by those named individuals ridiculed and abused by Trump during the campaign who crawled on their hands and knees to beg for a job once he was elected, that their personal interest takes precedence over the Constitution of the United States of America, and will continue to do so until they feel their hold over their seat in Congress is threatened. Your Constitution is not a document that works for this crowd, and anyway I doubt Trump has ever read it, certainly not all of it, as he doesn't normally read more than a sheet of paper at one sitting, and not at all if it doesn't have pictures.

There was a song about this, I think it's called Stormy Weather.

[broncofan]

I think that we don't make constitutional law very accessible in this country for those who would be interested in learning. Reading the document can be informative, but if you then read the cases interpreting it, it's amazing how much has been drawn out of so little. Single clauses have been expounded into volumes. There are the thousand plus page treatises, but I think a citizen's guide to the basic issues would take sixty or seventy pages. Powers of each branch, federalism or dual sovereignty, and civil rights (due process, equal protection, and first amendment). It should really be a required course for undergraduates, with an exemption for foreign exchange students who want to take another civics oriented course. It's a shame that we don't at least prepare students to be able to pick up a court decision and make sense of it, let alone look up statutes, regulations, and executive orders.

There's no hope for Trump but I bet there are at least some people who have been deterred by how arcane and barren the language is in the Constitution.

Sorry for the tedious post, but I've felt strongly about this for some time. I think it's important for our democracy, even if only a few would take the initiative to learn.

[broncofan]

Of course, as you point out, this wouldn't help the people whose sense of duty is overpowered by self-interest. But since so many members of the public resent experts, maybe it's better we train people not to depend on intermediaries.

[filghy2]

The main priority of the Republican Congress is to push through as much of their small government/social conservatism agenda as they can over the next two years. I doubt they'll do anything meaningful about Trump unless evidence of wrongdoing becomes too blatant to ignore.

[Stavros]

A more intriguing question would be -is Donald Trump a Republican? I don't see him as being a 'party man' and wonder if he takes the view, one I assume is supported by his advisers, that the US system of government and indeed, society and the economy is so 'broken' that the drastic measures they think are needed to 'make America Great Again' will test the Constitution to its limits, but must be attempted. And, if they succeed, it could have important ramifications for the relationship between the Judiciary and the Executive, not least because I think Trump regards the Supreme Court with the same disdain as he does the media. If Gorsuch, as is possible, fails to endorse as a matter of law Trump's attempts to single out Muslims in a temporary ban on immigration, it will be interesting to hear Trump's response, as he must know that at the same time he criticizes the Supreme Court for making political judgements, you cannot get away from the political bias in his nomination. Ultimately, the law and the rule of law must prevail, yet Trump seems to regard every criticism, every set-back as some sort of treachery, but that again, reflects his lack of experience in public office which, other than getting rid of him, the Republican Party cannot do anything about.

[filghy2]

I think you may be underestimating the extent which Trumpism has taken over the Republican party, or at least the party base. By Trumpism I mean a combination of hostility toward established institutions, rejection of norms regarding acceptable political behaviour, 'America First' nationalism/nativism, and white christian identity politics. This didn't start with Trump; much of it was embodied in the Tea Party movement. Trump simply latched onto the existing trend, attached his own personality cult, and took things further than others might have done.

While there are many Republican politicians who are not fans of Trumpism, most of them are afraid of pre-selection challenges if they step out of line too much. Even if Trump proves to be a political failure, it may be difficult for more moderate/establishment Republicans to take back control and move the party in a more moderate direction. This was widely expected to happen after the 2012 election, and there was some attempt to do so, but the party base reacted adversely, so the hard-liners ended up on top and the party if anything became more extreme.

[Stavros]

I agree with your post filghy2, so the mid-term elections are going to be a real test, even if Trump has gone by then. I see your point given the position Mike Pence has taken on numerous issues, and this does appear to expose the division between Republicans and Democrats widening even further, but can the Democrats develop a credible leadership and programme to regain lost ground? I don't know enough about what is happening on the ground to comment further.