Frank's Musings

Who do the scientists in the federal government work for?  Doesn’t the entire federal bureaucracy work for the country?  A normal President directs their work; but they have a higher calling than preserving that President in power.  If he is good at leading them to serve the interests of the public, he will be rewarded, for example, by reelection to a second term.  However, is it not also a duty of those scientists to alert the public to inadequate leadership by an incompetent or, worse yet, self-centered President?  

We willingly respect the knowledge of the professional scientists who have been studying and commenting on the COVID-19 pandemic.  However, it is disappointing how submissive they have been to the maladministration of President Trump.  Dr. Anthony Fauci has been markedly reserved in stating his scientific conclusions.  He implies that they are advice that will be taken into consideration by those in the government who are responsible for acting on them.  However, he and the others, including the head of the CDC, Dr. Redfeld, as well as Dr. Birx in the State Department, are apparently afraid that openly contradicting President Trump will set him off on even more egregious statements or actions that endanger the republic. 

This gingerly treatment of a rogue President has also been adopted by other professional members of the federal government leadership, including Secretary of Treasury Mnuchin, Vice President Pence,  a succession of White House chiefs of staff, including John Kelly and Mick Mulvaney, as well as other former Cabinet members, like former Secretary of Defense Mattis and former Attorney General Sessions.  Why did they conclude that quiet subservience to this President or resignation was a wiser strategy than aggressive refusal to comply with his whims?  They all witnessed the failure of the Republican Senate to discipline President Trump by convicting him in the impeachment trial, not to mention the Congress’s abdication of control over his erratic policy moves, particularly in foreign relations (e.g. vis-a-vis China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, the EU, Brazil and Iran). 

The frightening explanation is their lack of faith in the constitutional safeguards that the Founding Fathers armed us with for keeping our republic.  You may or may not believe that it was Donald Trump who has orchestrated the transformation of America into a self-centered world power.  However, it is possible that a sufficiently large and serendipitously distributed segment of the country’s population has captured control of the nation’s executive rule.  They have perverted the country’s potential for accomplishing objectives that benefit each of its citizens, as well as the rest of the world. 

Such goals are important to some of us; but their accomplishment cannot happen by itself.  Like the gyroscope of a ship at sea, the checks and balances of the U.S. Constitution must be maintained in good working order in order to prevent our democratic republic from foundering on shoals of neglect (Pardon my metaphor).

Unless the nation elects a President who wishes to use the considerable powers of his office to improve the common welfare, it risks abandoning equitable economic growth and intellectual potency.  Unfortunately, the U.S. is hamstrung by a historically malformed electoral college system that allows less than a majority of its citizens to determine Presidential leadership.  Nevertheless, it cannot be beyond the capabilities of a talented campaign manager to design a winning pathway to election victory for a broadminded President.  The key is to construct a media strategy that presents to sympathetic potential voters that our political system can serve their interests only as long as they participate in its only direct process for influencing policy---election. This recommendation is based on the belief that we have abdicated the selection of our leaders to those who think they can thrive when the President believes that dominating society is the main purpose of life.

Those who choose other more generous purposes for their lives have decided that keeping the republic means acting directly to solve society’s deficiencies.  The Donald Trump administration has made it clear that there is more to government than staying out of everyone’s way.  When our government was formed, thinking people were exasperated by their experience with most of the governments in history that were essentially the tools of authoritarian rulers, selected by some exterior force, whether it be divine right or human conquest.  We have not held steadfast in our commitment to exerting ultimaate popular control over the affairs of state.  Moreover, we have allowed our thoughts to be shaped by showy messaging, something that Donald Trump excels at.



In recent appearances, Stacey Abrams has highlighted her appeal to segments of the voting public that have lost faith in the effectiveness of the election system, particularly in the South.  Unfortunately, in her case it was not enough for winning the Governorship of Georgia just theoretically to fill the bill of desires of women and minority voters.  Something else was missing from her campaign.  It might simply have been making a splashy presentation of the candidate’s qualifications to voters who are no longer motivated by straight facts.  They have to be entertained.  No matter how ideal Ms. Abrams or any other woman would be as a running mate for the Democratic candidate for President, the most important determinant of his or her election chances will be a campaign messaging style that rivets the visual and auditory attention of the usually electorally listless half of the public and inspires their imagination.  Winning the November 2020 election is not going to turn on what the victorious ticket says so much as how they say it.