Stress Testing Our Democracy

With the election of Donald Trump once again in 2024, we have opted to run a stress test on American democracy. Some thought we did this in 2020 with Trump’s first election. But guardrails in human form prevented Trump from doing all of what he wanted to do. Some think that the success of those guardrails are what brought us to Trump 2.0. His supporters were able to claim that his bark is bigger than his bite, so not to worry.

Human guardrails will be largely absent from his cabinet and other positions in the executive branch this time around. Now it will be up to people in Congress to protect us from the impulsive Trump who doesn’t listen to his Presidential Daily Briefings or bother to learn about the complexities of various issues. The first opportunity for the Senate to act will be regarding Trump’s cabinet nominees. Will Senators roll over and approve people who are unfit for their positions? Or will they hold hearings, require background checks, and actually reject some who might pose a danger to the country?

Biden has faded from public view, and Trump seems to be our acting President – or acting co-President along with Elon Musk. Score one for Elon this week as Trump has come out in favor of the H1B visa program that enables tech companies to import clever people from abroad to power their various creative endeavors. The question today is what will the MAGA wing do now? Will those who are opposed to almost all immigration, most especially of brown people, begin to lose their faith in Trump? Will anything at all cause them to rethink their support?

Some people fear, while others cheer, the notion of Trump as a wrecking ball. I’ve heard the call for more efficiency on the part of federal agencies for as long as I’ve been a voter. No one really delivers. Do we need a DOGE initiative to simply eliminate a variety of agencies, perhaps whole cabinet departments such as the Department of Education? That’s not my inclination. Long ago, I decided that government agencies are not going to be efficient, but that their functions are needed, and I would just tolerate inefficiency. 

After coming to that conclusion, I was pleased when some state and county agencies seemed to do some housekeeping. For sure, employees got some sort of customer service training. Also, some employees gained the ability to help with two things at one visit! E.g., “Would you like to change your voter registration information along with the address on your driver’s license? We can do both!” Well, yes I would, and thank you very much! Are similar improvements possible on the federal level?

Perhaps. Ten years ago, when we wanted to remove a culvert on a small stream on our property, several agencies at different levels of government needed to approve this project even though removing culverts is generally a good thing. But, the various agencies had at least cooperated by creating just one set of forms that could be submitted to all, plus they had designated one person to make the final approval! Still tedious, but much less tedious than in prior years. 

I favor incrementalist approaches to change, at least as it relates to governments. Revolutions just don’t always turn out well. Consider Russia. Or Iran. Or Cuba. Sure, get rid of Assad in Syria. But if the violence of a revolution can be avoided, I think that would be a good thing. Those who support Trump acting as a wrecking ball might have fantasies of a peaceful transition to a much smaller government. My vision is one of chaos with the loss of environmental protections and the minimal safety net that exists today. 

Will the Senate and the House of Representatives develop a spine and reclaim their authority to hold hearings on Cabinet nominees. Will they actually perform any oversight of any agencies? Will courts become too political or will they mind the Constitution?

For now, I remain curious – and anxious. We shall see.

P.S.: The news of Jimmy Carter’s death has just come out as I’m finishing this piece. I’m confident that if Kamala Harris had won the election, he would have lived long enough to see her inauguration. 

An Interesting Ballot This Year

Gallery

I just voted in the Washington State 2024 Primary election. Mail ballot, of course (which I love, and which some people don’t, for reasons I do not understand). For the first time ever, I approached the ballot as an independent, … Continue reading

MLK, BLM, Glenn Loury, Donald Trump

Flawed human beings can do good. 

This morning, I read a moving article by Angel Eduardo on the FAIR website. It made the case that Martin Luther King, Jr. was not a saint, but he was the right man at the right time to bring our attention to injustices that we needed to address. King was a powerful orator who made masterful use of non-violent tactics to bring attention to Jim Crow laws in the south and Jim Crow sentiments in the north. Yet he wouldn’t pass muster today with people who expect leaders of both the past and present to have no earthly flaws. 

BLM employs powerful rhetoric and surely has a winning slogan, “Black Lives Matter.” Yet it clamors for justice for individuals who have somehow gotten the message that only “the system” is wrong, that their own actions cannot be scrutinized, that no one needs to obey a cop, that admitting mistakes will fail the cause. Rosa Parks was primed for her role in the fight against racism. A less sympathetic woman was passed over. Yes, the system was unfair to both, but we benefitted from the decision to use Rosa Parks to advance the cause. When individuals can readily be discredited, advancing the cause is more difficult. Knowing this, MLK hid his flaws. And he made sure to focus on people who were undeserving of the ill treatment they received.

Glenn Loury: Flawed. Intelligent. Honest about his struggles. And barely getting the attention he deserves. I look forward to the release of his memoir this spring, Late Admissions: Confessions of a Black Conservative. Glenn posts on Substack, and every other week, he and John McWhorter do a podcast on race issues in which they speak heresy and challenge each other to clarify and justify their thinking. Thomas Sowell might be more famous, but Loury is absolutely the real deal in terms of a flawed person who has overcome many struggles (drugs and infidelity in addition to poverty) accomplished a great deal, and is now sharing his insights and wisdom. Admitting his flaws elevates Loury’s message that individual responsibility is still a vital element in individual achievement.

And then there’s Donald Trump. One thing I learned when I began reaching out to Trump voters is that his supporters are able to overlook his flaws because they like his message. Or they like some of his policies. Or they like the way he stands up to elites. This lesson is why I think it’s vital that we not vilify his supporters if we feel that Trump is dangerous or is too flawed to be President. If someone tells me that MLK was a womanizer, I’m not going to let that fact drown out his important message. 

No. I do not think Trump is of the same stature as Martin Luther King, Jr. No, I do not equate Trump and King in any way. I’m not even sure that Trump has a message for America. To me, he’s all about Trump, and he’s latched onto victim status in a way that true victims can only watch with amazement.

Here, I am just addressing the fact that people who support Trump are able to overlook his character flaws, so we might do better to address issues rather than character flaws when discussing Trump. There are some, you know: No plan for health care; no follow-through on infrastructure; no understanding of America’s role in global trade and global affairs; appointment of cronies to important agencies; insistence on gutting government rather than right-sizing it. 

And lest you think you’re right about everything, here’s a nifty (short) commercial that challenges that idea. From the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression: FIRE commercial