Frank's Musings

Trump learned that he must destroy America’s Institutions to achieve control. He is starting with DOJ, HHS, Intelligence, EPA, State, DOE and DOD. Next, he’ll go after the FCC, FDA, Treasury, and the rest. Those of us, who comforted ourselves in 2016 by celebrating our government of institutions, fear the consequences of his filling those leadership posts with obsequious toadies.  When the new Congress is installed, under the leadership of equally obsequious members, appointment of those Trump loyalists will be confirmed and they will preside over the subsequent eradication of the “deep state.’ 

A majority of the American voting public has fallen victim to a demagogue who has apparently submitted to the fawning of skillful manipulators, foreign and domestic.  Trump's supporters are disaffected citizens who can be led to disdain the need for a rational government to maintain order in a society of multimillion people.  How well does a majority of the public understand the travails and narrowed human horizons of the Nazi regime,  the USSR and Communist China, Cuba, Zimbabwe, etc.?  Must the U.S. live through a failed anti-democratic regime before its citizens revolt and reestablish the rule of law?

The danger is that a popular democracy allows its own self-destruction if a coterie of critical thinking influencers does not speak the language of those supporters (the MAGA Crowd) and use it compellingly on the channels of communication that the MAGA Crowd uses to explain what is at stake.  A ray of hope has just shined with the takeover of Infowars by The Onion.  The latter satirical political outlet has taken over the bankrupted right-wing social media instrument hopefully to address bulk of politically active Americans who do not watch, read or listen to other influencers who seek to build up the institutions that strengthen our liberal democracy rather than tear them down.

Voting for Trump in 2024 asserted many voters’  rejection of government’s utility.  They are extreme libertarians who  refuse to acknowledge the validity of any contradictory opinion by third party elites.  In fact, most people also dismiss the usefulness of understanding underlying causes. What’s important to them is how successfully to manipulate things or living beings and achieve happiness.

This is what Trump captures about his supporters—the MAGA crowd.  Its members welcome new scientific discoveries only because they allow the MAGA Crowd to make use of them to improve their lives.  Those who do seek to know underlying causes are driven not by material reward (although they do not reject rewards). Their egos are nourished, rather,  by the satisfaction that comes from solving a problem.

Sometimes, this  class of discoverers is frustrated by the failure of society to recognize and implement its serendipity. It may try to wrest control of government from the hands of the misguided implementers whose philosophy of social Justice they disdain.

For example, in 2024 Kamala Harris appealed to the educated upper and middle classes in hopes that winning their allegiance would automatically reverberate in her favor by means of autochthonous exercise of whatever influence they have on the remaining majority of the nation. Unfortunately, it didn’t work out that way. What should have been done was to instruct those who responded to her message on how to translate it into compelling guidance for “those who get it done,” i.e. the implementers, in a manner reminiscent of “ This Old House” or the old review, “Popular Mechanics.”

Without successfully instructing the majority of voting Citizens on how their lives benefit from the steady discovery of underlying causes and the continual application of that knowledge to the challenges everyone  faces daily,  demagogues of short-term advantage like Trump can always garner the support of a majority of the voters in a formally liberal democratic society, like ours.

It is time to disabuse ourselves of the notion that the American civil War was fought mainly over the injustice of enslaving  a specific class of US residents. That sanctification of the country’s motivations probably owes more to the politics of the twentieth century civil rights movement than to rigorous historical analysis.

The 3/5 Clause of the original  U.S. Constitution allowed the South to take advantage of the Cotton Boom by buying additional slaves and thereby increasing its influence in the federal government.  Furthermore, southern leaders wanted to extend legalized slavery to new states admitted to the Union so their enterprises could enjoy its labor cost advantage there, too.

Why were Northerners ready to use force to heel the obstreperous southern slave states?  Southern cotton growers had benefited from the serendipitous cotton boom, which was owed to the invention of the cotton gin.  They used their increased wealth to invest in enlarging the number of enslaved pickers, which gave them a cost advantage on the world cotton market.  Moreover, Southern society benefited from relief from the hard work involved in its main source of income, which made possible a physically more leisurely style of life.  Beyond that, the popular view of life in the plantation sector insulted Northerners’ sense of fairness that the burden of making a living ought to be shared equally among all residents  of the country.  Moreover, the 3/5 provision effectively enlarged the power of the slave states in the U.S. government.

In other words, it wasn’t the abolition of slavery that drove Northerners to fight the Civil War. Sure, slavery was  distasteful in their eyes, but not primarily for humanitarian reasons.  It was resented because it gave southern growers a source of cheap labor that not only lowered their production costs but also allowed the slavery states to strengthen their relative influence in Washington, not by attracting more citizens, but by buying more slaves.

Contrary to what Nikki Haley was forced to concede during the 2024 Republican presidential primary debates, slavery was not the cause of the American Civil War.  It certainly was a necessary condition for the events that made inevitable the clash between Northern and Southern states.  However, Northerners were ambivalent regarding racial discrimination and would continue to be until the mid-twentieth century.  The southern states had used the Constitution’s 3/5 provision to increase those states’ citizenry counts by 60% of each non-voting enslaved laborer.

Slavery made the South wealthy as a competitive world supplier of raw cotton to UK textile mills. It provided the South with outsized voting power in the US Congress and in the Electoral  College because of the Constitution’s 3/5 rule. It also led Southern politicians to seek extension of slavery to other territories newly to be admitted as states into the Union. In all, this allowed Southern entrepreneurs to enjoy a comparative economic advantage that was not available to  Northern business interests.  The prevailing dualistic zero-sum view of the world belittled searching for a collaborative solution to this resentment-inducing artifact of the Constitutional Congress.   (What was deemed necessary for stitching together the original thirteen states was no longer acceptable to most Americans as the Union embarked on its manifest destiny.)

Disgust with the cruel and demeaning subjugation of certain human beings only distinguished by the color of their skin and their cultural and geographic origin didn’t compel northerners to fight against the recalcitrant and aggressive Confederacy. The driving force behind the North’s and Lincoln’s (cf. his Cooper Union speech) desire to discipline the southern slave states was impatience with having politically, economically and culturally indulged them ever since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution.  Northerners were not jealous or envious of their Southern compatriots.  They simply resented the fact that because of the peculiar history of the Revolution and the negotiation of the Constitution the slave states enjoyed outsized strength in government affairs.  For that reason, making the abolition of slavery the leading  motive behind northern leaders’ and soldiers’ willingness to fight against the disintegration of the Union is an after-the fact rationalization, probably owing more to the rhetoric of the 20^th Century civil rights movement than to rigorous historical analysis.

It was clear to the ambitious Southern leaders in 1860 that despite what they considered their important contribution to the financial strength of the U.S. they could only expand their model of slavery-based business growth in the westward expansion of  civilization by seceding from the Union.  Whether slavery would be allowed to follow was going to be determined by a federal administration under the leadership of the author of the Cooper Union Speech.  In that address Abraham Lincoln had meticulously laid out the historical basis for banning the extension of slavery to any of the new territories to be admitted to the federal Union. 

Southern leaders were surprisingly able to disregard the peculiar circumstances of the creation of the Constitution and not realize (a) that the U.S. would not  permanently hinge  the country’s future on indulging an inhumane proclivity of a select number of states, and (b) that the more populous and more economically diversified portion of the country would not sheepishly allow the South temperamentally and violently break from the Union.

You can almost hear the public in the North say, “They certainly have their nerve!”   That is the main  reason that Union enlistees as well as their influencers were willing to make the sacrifices that warfare would entail.  Defense of an abstract value such as the basic law of the land does not usually compel citizens to risk their lives; nor do the civil rights of a minority group of people.  Therefore, although the ugliness of slavery was undoubtedly a contributing factor, the real causes of the War between the States was Northerners’ resentment of more than six decades of privileged living conditions in the South, and Southerners’ desperate conclusion that they could not rely on an endless series of Congressional Compromises for achievement of their goal of expanding their slavery-based business model.

When the South had the temerity to begin firing on an Union asset like Fort Sumter, the citizens of the Northern states reached their limit.  That violent  attack, unnecessary as it was, symbolized the South’s umbrage at being denied the liberty to pursue its own economic self-interest.    It  provoked the North to embark on a bloody and costly action of discipline against what surely was a hopeless defense of personal  honor by the residents of what had become the Confederacy.  (Allegiance to that principle of self-regard lasts to this day for a dwindling portion of Southerners in their celebration of the “Lost Cause.”)  Slavery was only abolished nationally after Lincoln and the Union were confident that removal of that canker sore from America’s body was necessary to  help bring an end to combat.

Trump won re-election in 2024 because he captured the ultimate libertarian dream. In his mind and in the minds of seemingly most  Americans who cared to vote nothing is more important than devoting one’s short life to achieving a happy existence for oneself. The barriers to that goal may include what others have built similarly to succeed; but the barriers most despised by those who supported Trump are those built by agents who guide their lives in the interest of the community.

This philosophy is attractive to those who think their personal interests have been ignored, if not countermanded, by the elites who usually govern society. They believe that their personal well-being depends on directing their own lives. As Adam Smith is thought to have concluded, competition between self-directed actors will achieve a common good because their collective deeds are guided by an Invisible Hand.

Fortunately, one ultimate totalitarian government system.  Communism,  failed owing to the tyranny of central planning. And yet, to abandon the  common pursuit of equitable goals is to ignore the power of humanity’s greatest asset—critical thinking. Trump convinced a winning number of voters that they would never improve their individual condition if they sacrificed their concepts of their  personal welfare to benefit the common interest.  That is also what drives his slogan, MAGA, and likewise threatens to result in an end state of disorganized chaos, or entropy.

Regarding Mr. Krugman’s essay in the 10/22/2024 NYT, it’s not so much putting a madman in charge of our WMD arsenal that should alarm us as rearming Trump with the administrative power diabolically to restrain U.S. citizens from pursuing their plans and dreams regardless of their wokeness or contravention of his perceived self-interest.  Furthermore, the abolition of slavery didn’t cause the Civil War; rather,  as Lincoln prescribed at Cooper Union, the North had lost patience with the South’s use of slavery not only as a key to economic gain but also as an audacious tool for enlarging its governmental influence. 

Re-electing Trump would threaten to make necessary another Civil War—This time setting the people against their own federal government.

I disagree with Mr. Chemerinsky's essay in the 10/20/2024 NYT, "College Officials Must Condemn On-Campus Support for Hamas Violence."

We can disabuse ourselves of the notion that the American civil War was fought mainly over the injustice enslaving  a specific class of US residents. This sanctification of the country’s motivations probably owes more to the politics of the twentieth century civil rights movement than to rigorous historical analysis.

The 3/5 Clause of the U.S. Constitution allowed the South to take advantage of the Cotton Boom by buying slaves and thereby increasing its influence in the federal government.  Furthermore, southern leaders wanted to extend legalized slavery to new states admitted to the Union so their enterprises  could enjoy the labor cost advantage there, too.

Why were Northerners ready to use force to heel the obstreperous southern slave states?  Southerners had benefited from the serendipitous cotton boom, owing  to the invention of the cotton gin, and used their increased wealth to invest in enlarging he number of enslaved pickers, which gave them a cost advantage on the world cotton market.  Moreover, Southern society benefited from relief from the hard work involved in its main source of income, which made possible a physically more leisurely style of life.  Beyond that, the popular view of life in the plantation sector insulted Northerners’ sense of democratic sharing of the burden of making a living.

In other words, it wasn’t the abolition of slavery that drove Northerners to fight the Civil War. Sure, slavery was  distasteful in their eyes, but not primarily for humanitarian reasons. It was believed, more critically, to give southern growers an unfair source of cheap labor.

Contrary to what Nikki Haley was forced to concede during the 2024 Republican presidential primary debates, slavery was not the cause of the American Civil War.  It certainly was a necessary condition for the events that made inevitable the clash between Northern and Southern states.  However, Northerners were ambivalent in regard to racial discrimination and would continue to be until the mid-twentieth century.

Slavery made the South wealthy as a competitive world supplier of raw cotton to UK textile mills. It provided the South with outsized voting power in the US legislature because of the Constitution’s 3/5 rule. It also led Southern politicians to seek extension of slavery to other territories newly to be admitted into the Union. In all, this allowed Southern entrepreneurs to enjoy a comparative economic advantage that was not available to  Northern business interests. A dualistic zero-sum view of the world prevented finding a collaborative solution to this resentful artifact of the Constitutional Congress.   What was deemed necessary for stitching together the original thirteen states was no longer acceptable for most Americans as the Union embarked on its manifest destiny.

Disgust with the cruel and demeaning subjugation of certain human beings only distinguished by the color of their skin and their cultural and geographic origin didn’t compel northerners to fight against the recalcitrant and aggressive Confederacy. The driving force behind the North’s and Lincoln’s (cf. his Cooper Union speech) desire to discipline the southern slave states was impatience with having economically and culturally indulged the southern states ever since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution.

Making the abolition of slavery the leading  motive behind northern leaders’ and soldiers’ willingness to fight against the disintegration of the Union is an after-the fact rationalization, probably owing more to the rhetoric of the civil rights movement than to rigorous historical analysis.

It was clear to the ambitious Southern leaders in 1860 that despite what they considered their dominant contribution to the financial strength of the U.S. they could only expand their model of slavery-based business growth in the westward expansion of  civilization by seceding from the Union.  Whether slavery would be allowed to follow was going to be determined by a federal administration under the leadership of the author of the Cooper Union Speech.  In that address Abraham Lincoln had meticulously laid out the historical basis for banning extension of slavery to any of the new territories to be admitted to the federal Union. 

Southern leaders were surprisingly able to disregard the peculiar circumstances of the creation of the Constitution and not realize (a) that the U.S. would not  permanently  hinge  the country’s future on indulging an inhumane proclivity of a select number of states, and (b) that the more populous  and more economically diversified  portion of the country would not sheepishly allow the South temperamentally and violently break from the Union.

You can almost hear the public in the North say, “They certainly have their nerve!”   That is the main  reason that  Union enlistees as well as their influencers were willing to make the sacrifices that warfare would entail.  Defense of an abstract value such as the basic law of the land does not usually compel citizens to risk their lives; nor do the civil rights of a minority group of people.  Therefore, although the ugliness of slavery was undoubtedly a contributing factor, the real cause of the War between the States was Noreterners’ resentment of more than six decades of privileged living conditions in the South. 

When the South had the temerity to begin firing on Union assets like Fort Sumpter, the citizens of the Northern states reached their limit.  They embarked on a bloody and costly action of discipline against what surely was a hopeless defense of personal  honor by the residents of what became the Confederacy.  Allegiance to that principle of self-regard lasts to this day for a dwindling portion of Southerners in their celebration of the “Lost Cause.”  Slavery was only abolished nationally after Lincoln and the Union were confident that removal of that canker sore from America’s body would surely help bring an end to combat.

Thomas Edsall’s essay in the NYT of 9/25/2024 characterizes the appeal of lying demagogues to members of the classes that are losing status to the inevitable progress of knowledge as confirming their dislike of losing their place in the social pecking order.  This is a natural regret of having less privileges than they have been accustomed to.  They call this change “political correctness,” but it really shows that time marches on; and if you lose step, you will be left behind.

In fact, the strength of the demagogue also has a shortening half-life.  Fortunately, the number of the demagogue’s followers will diminish over time.  That will  make him a political artifact and only a temporary threat to social advancement; however, during his heyday, he will be ridiculed by forward-looking critics for his backwardness and futile but dangerous threat social progress.

The Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision has fomented a serious political conflict in the U.S.  Overturning it under the Constitution requires a variety of extremely difficult action plans: (1) election of  politically sympathetic controlling parties to two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the fifty state legislatures (and governors?) allowing the proposal and adoption of a Constitutional amendment; (2) the morbid strategy of anxiously awaiting changes in the membership of the Supreme Court, or in the Justices’ philosophies, that allows it to countermand the Dobbs decision and accept an Act  of Congress restoring the terms of the Roe v. Wade decision; or (3) the election of abortion-favorable majorities in all  the state legislatures and governorships.  Therefore, the promise of a 2024 Presidential election candidate to “sign into law” a Congressional bill that restores Roe v. Wade holds little weight.

In the meantime, the tragic deaths cited by that candidate were inevitable consequences of the barriers to reproductive health care erected by the Dobbs decision.  There have probably been and there surely will be others.  Moreover, before the Roe v. Wade decision more than fifty years ago, such tragedies were probably common.  The ideologue who’s running for VP on the Republican ticket would probably say, “That’s life.”  I await his debate performance next month to see how he rationalizes that sentiment.