Frank's Musings

The media have been expressing concern about the threat of Trump’s continuful minored prominence on America’s political scene.  They are warning of the surge of antidemocratic sentiment and violence expressed by a resentful championed by a supposed leader who has uncovered a sizable element of resentful minority or citizens who can be mobilized by me-first rhetoric. He has been effective in using the information channels made available by advanced technology to spread his rabble-rousing messages.  Unfortunately, the media are driven by profit to fan the flames of dis-community that a showman like Trump can ignite.  Therefore, we hear cries that “The Sky is Falling!” from the very sources of wisdom on which many citizens depend to form their opinions and to inspire their actions.

It is tempting to relax and dismiss worry about the fragility of a democratic system of government.  After all, how seriously should a political movement be taken that is based on the confluence of egomania and society’s growing reliance on spoon-feeding for its information.  However, there is no guarantee that the result of the 2020 Presidential election marks a lasting trend.  Moreover, if the communications media continue to succeed in winning viewer/listener allegiance and the number of those who are easily swayed to depend on them continues to grow, it will be critical for members of society who want to preserve and expand equitable government to become adept at using the media to solidify broad support for America’s democracy.

There are other imperfect human endeavors that somehow accomplish their intended goals.  A humorous depiction of such serendipitous outcomes used to be a standard subject of television comedies like “I Love Lucy.”  Alas, this funny treatment of daily life has been supplanted with romantic tragedies or stories of injustice and violence.  They are no longer considered entertaining by a sufficient audience to justify their expense.   Nor are thoughtful programs like “Amanpour and Company” or “Fareed Zakaria GPS” able to attract a meaningful portion of the media-addicted consumers whose spending habits dictate the content selected for transmission by most media channels. 

If the shield that has protected the American Experiment is not to collapse from solipsistic selfishness, popular communication channels have to be infiltrated with entertaining programs that highlight the advantages of an orderly progressive society, and illustrate the personal sacrifices demanded by authoritarianism.

The urgency of the democracy’s need to communicate that message has apparently impressed many commentators in the liberal press and electronic media.  It justifies public expenditure that may only be possible when the federal government is controlled, like now, by liberal Democrats.  PBS on radio and television only addresses a certain well-educated and middle class segment of the public, despite its offerings of a few shows of general interest.  The attention price that viewers and listeners have to pay for tuning them in is paid by countenancing dominant subject matter in most programing in which ordinary and less wealthy citizens may not be interested.  When it succeeds in attracting a loyal audience, Regular Broadcasting Service (RBS) should actually be able to get sales marketing-neutral financial support from the same advertisers who now finance the popular media. Keeping our Republic necessitates updating the Federalist Papers to meet today’s production techniques.

Representatives of the American people in our democratic government are not elected slavishly to follow the constituents’ narrow definition of their own interests. Because of the representatives’ qualifications they are expected to help those who elected them formulate their personal objectives in sync with the preservation of good government.

It seems there is a simple solution to the problem of controlling the actions of a former president during the period between his defeat at the polls and the inauguration of his successor.  Once there is a confirmed calculation of the result of that election, the newly elected president could immediately assume office allowing no time for the rejected incumbent to use the powers of his office to violate his sworn duties.  However, as we have recently seen, even in this era of advanced information technology, it is not impossible for the result of an election to be disputed for an extended period of time, particularly when society is riven with serious partisanship.

On January 6, 2021, the incumbent president of the United States committed acts that the House of Representatives decided merited impeachment and disqualification from holding any further office of responsibility under the U.S. Constitution.  Of course, had Donald J. Trump been immediately replaced as the President upon the determination that he had lost reelection, he would not have been able to commit any further impeachable offense. However, it was by his own recalcitrance that Mr. Trump’s defeat at the polls was considered by many of his supporters to be in doubt. 

It is only the states that are empowered by the Constitution to count the result of a presidential election.  Acceptance of their notifications to the Congress by the federal government is really only a formality.  Therefore, the federal administration and the U.S. Congress do not have a say in the matter.  The outcome of the 2020 Presidential Election is a matter of fact.  Resistance to its result by the President, whether or not accompanied by violent insurrection, violates the Constitution and under its terms constitutes an impeachable offense. 

Former President Trump plans to use his defense at his impeachment trial as a vehicle for promoting his claim of a fraudulent election result. He has apparently found lawyers who will use their legal skills to achieve this distortion.