Diagnosing America

A few notes on the health of our constitutional republic

Photo by mari lezhava on Unsplash

In San Francisco about a week ago—I did not mean to make a rhyme—there was an event hosted by Principles First. I will quote from the organization’s website:

In 2019, principled Americans on the right and center-right who were concerned about the health of American democracy organized a series of meet-ups around the country to serve as an alternative to the Conservative Political Action Conference. Today, that movement has grown into Principles First.

Another paragraph:

We are a nationwide grassroots movement of people who share a love of American democracy and concern for the direction of our existing conservative leadership. We’ve watched as institutions on the right have been hijacked or co-opted by bad-faith actors willing to put politics and personality over principle. And we’ve seen those in positions of leadership compromise themselves out of cynical self-interest.

Oh, yeah. Big-time (as the late Dick Cheney might say).

Principles First is an all-volunteer organization, except for one position, which is paid. That is the position of executive director, which is filled by Brittany Martinez. She was the host, or emcee, of this dinner—the San Franciso event—and she did an excellent job.

A spearhead of the evening was John Storella, a crack attorney who specializes in biotech IP law. (Dude has two degrees in science, in addition to his law degree.)

The event was co-sponsored by the Society for the Rule of Law—about which I had occasion to write in October. In its mission statement, SRL says, “We are a group of attorneys, law students, and other public-spirited citizens who would traditionally be considered conservative or libertarian.”

Well, being traditional, that’s how I consider them.

At the dinner, I had two co-panelists: Gregg Nunziata, the executive director of SRL, and Benjamin Wittes, the veteran journalist who is the editor-in-chief of Lawfare.

Ben once worked as an editorial writer for the Washington Post. As I understand it, he was the last hire of Meg Greenfield, the legendary editor of the page who died in 1999.

Brittany Martinez asked the three of us a series of questions, requiring short answers and longer, and I’d like to go through a few of them, here and now.

Question: “What is the constitutional issue keeping you up at night?”

Answer (or mine): The general issue of whether Americans want a constitutional republic. Whether we can keep it (to echo Franklin).

Question: “Which is more dangerous to democracy at this moment: corruption, apathy, or disinformation?”

Answer: Too close to call, as I once heard Thomas Sowell say in a different context. (I had asked him, “Who has treated you worse in your career? White liberals or your black critics?”)

But, if I had to choose one, I’d choose “apathy.” We need a renewal of civic education. I think of an old saying, from the early part of the previous century: “What this country needs is a really good five-cent cigar.”

(That line was uttered by Thomas R. Marshall, vice president under Wilson, and, formerly, governor of Indiana.)

Well, what this country needs is a renewal of civic education.

Question: “What’s the biggest constitutional red flag you’ve seen this year?”

Answer: A use of the pardon power which puts supporters of the president, or enrichers of the president, essentially beyond reach of the law.

Question: “A president absolutely should never ... what? Please fill in that blank.”

Answer: A president should never place himself outside the constitutional order.

I think of Ernesto Zedillo, probably the best president Mexico has had in modern times. Once, after he was out of office, he was asked, “What three things does Mexico need most?” He answered, “The rule of law. The rule of law. And the rule of law.”

This applies to many countries, including, I’m sad and amazed to say, our own.

Question: “How do today’s leaders shape a general understanding of law?”

Answer: Leaders set an example, good or bad. They set it by their own conduct: their restraint, their respect, their self-discipline—or the lack of those things. A great deal depends on character: the character of the man or woman holding the office.

“Art is what you can get away with,” said Andy Warhol. (Marshall McLuhan made a similar remark.) What can a U.S. president get away with? A lot, it turns out—especially when his party controls both houses of Congress.

Can you ignore due process and ship people to Salvadoran prisons? Yes.

Can you accept an “Air Force One” from Qatar? Yes.

Can you remake the White House, physically, just because you want to? Can you put yourself on a coin, front and back? Can you name things after yourself?

Oh, yes, all of that.

There’s an expression, which I dislike, but use: “new normal.” Something new is established, and the old normal fades. Young people view Donald Trump’s behavior as normal—because it is normal, now—and older people may forget what came before.

Question: “In today’s climate, what is the most pressing threat to the rule of law?”

Answer: The election of candidates, by the people, with no regard for the rule of law. A democracy will be a democracy.

The Republican Party has nominated Trump for president three times in a row. No one else has ever been nominated by the GOP three times in a row.

Jimmy Carter had a slogan: “A government as good as its people.” Well, in a democracy, isn’t a government always, or usually, as good as the people?

Question: “How do we rebuild a shared sense that corruption is unacceptable?”

Answer: I suppose it starts with parents—and grandparents, and teachers, and coaches, et al. Civil society. The political class does not offer much in the way of salutary leadership.

Question: “Do you see any examples of moral courage among political leaders today?”

Answer: We have certainly had those examples—Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, Mike Pence.

Pence stood up on January 6, of course. Later, when he was running for president, he went to Ukraine, to express his solidarity with those people. He did this knowing that it could only hurt him with Republican voters. And he refused to endorse Trump for reelection.

Congressman Don Bacon (R., Neb.) is stalwart. But he is retiring. So ...

Question: “If you could implement three reforms tomorrow to reinforce constitutional boundaries and reduce opportunities for corruption, what would they be?”

Answer: I could think of three, and they would probably be good—good reforms. You could curb the pardon power, somehow. But you know? I’m sorry to be a broken record, but nothing substitutes for character: the character of the country and the character of individual officeholders.

To quote John Adams, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.” Low qualities—“avarice, ambition, revenge,” etc.—“would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.”

You may have memorized this next line: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

In San Francisco, after questions from Brittany Martinez, we had audience Q&A. It was probing and heartfelt. One question, I basically whiffed on. Let me explain.

A man said something like this:

“I have several friends and family members who are Trump devotees, and they will not hear or believe a word against him. They are good people, at heart. They have just been terribly misled. How do I reach them? What can I say?”

I’m afraid I have no answer. Some people say, “Tell ’em that whatever abuses the Republicans commit today, the Democrats will commit tomorrow, when they have the reins.” In my experience, that has no effect whatsoever.

Let me lament—repine—for a moment (making a point, all the while).

In 2020, President Trump tried to overturn an election. He used intimidation tactics day after day. Ultimately, he sicced a mob on the U.S. Congress, for the purpose of halting a constitutional process—which they succeeded in doing, for several hours, while Trump watched it all unfold on television, in the White House.

Thereafter, he called the attackers “patriots” and “political prisoners.” After October 7, 2023—when Hamas committed mass murder against Israelis, and took hundreds of them hostage—he started referring to them as “hostages.”

And what did Republican voters do? They nominated Trump for president for the third time in a row. The American people then elected him for the second time.

If January 6 and all that did not diminish the popular appetite for Trump—what will? What can? There will never be a revulsion. (It would have happened already.) There will never be a bridge too far. There will never be a line drawn. The people—tens of millions of them—will go with Trump all the way down. As far down as he wants to go.

“There is no bottom,” to use a cliché.

But there may be a consolation. People consume horrendous media. An old saying goes, “You are what you eat.” For the past many years, I’ve said, “You are the media you consume.” Let me listen to someone for a minute—less—and I have a pretty good idea what media he consumes.

Some analysts think that Trump supporters—a significant percentage of them—never hear anything negative about their man. If they did, would it affect their views?

To be continued (whether we like it or not). Thank you for joining me, ladies and gentlemen, and I’m sorry today’s column was not very fun. But I hope it provided food for thought—or at least fodder for a food fight.

Later.