Frank's Musings

Overthrowing an American president is not a simple matter.  Thank God the military is reluctant to act extra-constitutionally,  However, when political office holders that we have elected to defend our constitution are unwilling to put the interests of the public ahead of their own careers, is it wise to trust their judgment of what the people want?  The constitution is supposed to guarantee that the government adheres to the will of the people; but It is based on the assumption that a majority of the people will know and act in its own best interests. 

If an electoral majority of the people does not know what is in its long-term fundamental interest, a wily politician may act to please their short-term myopic desires and gratify them in order to prolong his or her career and expand his or her personal wealth.  At the time of the founding of the republic, it should be remembered, politics was a duty, not a profession. 

Of course, other duties often are also professions.  Cooking, for example, is necessary for healthy nourishment; and those who are good at it can make a living performing that function for others.  The narrower the function, the more valuable and incorruptible are the services that a specialist in that function are.  Government is a much broader function; in fact, it may encompass all other functions in society.  Ages ago, responsibility for that function was commonly given to a monarch or ceded to a conqueror.  When we were able to organize a method for giving control of that function to the governed themselves, its operation was performed by those who could afford to divert a portion of their attention from making a living or earning a fortune.  They were able selflessly to perform the duty of governing on behalf of the public at large.  When a partisan group or leader defines the function without regard for the common interest, they have to marshal sufficient support to defend that interest or else abdicate their rebellion.    Performing the function of government has also always offered opportunities for corruptly building personal gain.  However, by the 21^st Century personal gain has become almost the dominant purpose of engaging in politics. 

It was always an important component of good government to guard against corruption in the operations of a society.  In the middle of the last century it became an essential function of outside non-profit organizations to uncover corruption in government itself.  When the primary objective of corrupt politicians is the anointment of a totally self-indulgent president like Donald Trump, the naïve faith of the Founding Fathers in the power of a written document to “keep the republic,” may have exhausted its power.  Words alone won’t protect or, especially, create freedom and equity. 

Is resort to a power source external to the written constitution subversive of democracy?  Must our options be restricted to the terms of a centuries-old document?  The ease and ubiquity of modern communications may allow our general devotion to the principles of liberal democracy to be mediated by the interchange of information and opinions through social media.  That is certainly a risky alternative to the rule of law.  On the other hand, the rule of law is already being subverted by direct demagoguery over the same channels of communication.  Donald Trump’s lasting bequest to the country may turn out to be forcing it into the modern era of direct democracy.