THE TRUMP YEARS - AN OVERVIEW (1/3)

This blog will be twelve (12) years old this Spring 2021 ... it began with the 2009 first term of President Barack Obama. President Obama was followed in 2016 by Donald Trump (a single term). Trump lost a try at a second term in the 2020 election to Joseph Biden, Obama's Vice President. (Sigh of relief ... Trump is gone!) 

NOTE: Democrats have won the popular vote in seven of the last eight presidential elections since 1992!

Perhaps the most significant aspect of those twelve years was the opportunity to compare two presidents of historical significance and of radically contrasting executive styles. Obama is the first president of color (Africa-American) and Trump is a businessman elected in hopes of applying business management and economics to solve some of America's challenges in the face of the global economy and domestic needs. (Trump failed in both respects.)

To this blogger, the best summary of the past 3 terms of American presidencies is the great exhale of held breath since Donald Trump became President. The last four years have been a day-to-day test of one's sanity in the face of Trump's seemingly ever-full bag of chaos and confusion which he threw widely and at any target that struck his fancy.

Now, under the Biden presidency, America can go forward under experienced, competent, and stable leadership.

This is this blogger's summary of what was actually going on under Trump. The details will be revealed in time. 

First, was Trump a traitor or, somewhat naively, just a Russian intelligence asset-in-place? (This blogger wrote in May 2016, before the following November election, that Trump had already committed "treason" with Russia.) 

Second, was/is Trump wealthy or simply agile with shady accounting, gangster accomplices, faked financial forms, complicit bank executives ... i.e.,  actually a con-artist? (This blogger has consistently favored 'con artist'.)

Third, was/is Trump a racist, misogynist wreck of a man.  We saw evidently that Trump has always been both.

In any case, Trump's policy decisions seemed guided by two consistent themes - what was good for Putin, Russia's leader, and what was good for lining the personal pockets of Trump and his family. Two simple and straightforward guides that seemed always accurate interpreters of Trump's actions and thoughts while President. He really was just a simple guy, after all. But a businessman he was and is not. Trump is more of an out-of-his-depth, 'Mom-and-Pop' corner grocery store single proprietor who can barely find his way o get his next fast-food burger (to which he is addicted). This is not intended to be funny, it is the truth about Trumps as far as we know or can politely speak on.

However, again, here we are this day relieved with the 'Fact' that Trump was voted out of office and America is free to go forward. and recover its sanity.

WHAT LIES AHEAD FROM THE TRUMP DEBACLE?

Today, Pericles21 wrote a comment on John Amato’s Nov 27, 2020, ‘Crooks and Liars’ article on the future political effect of the 2020 election and was drawn back in memory to the honor of sitting in a small group college seminar listening to Hannah Arendt’s impromptu explorations on human vulnerability to authoritarianism manipulations and specifically on the rise and inhuman atrocities of 1930s-40s totalitarian Nazism (The Origins of Talitarianism, H. Arendt, 1951).  (The remarkable thing about Hannah Arendt is that her explorations, though not satisfying to everyone, were in my opinion 100 percent sincere ... one could tell by her visible pain in attempting, again, after no doubt many such presentations, to express ‘The Answer’, and we still haven’t figured this out.) Although Arendt’s thoughts, explorations and writings did not ‘close the book’ on authoritarianism, Arendt did leave vital ‘thought equipment’ outlining a path to frame, ‘see’ and describe how the human conditions leading to ‘modern’ authoritarian leadership and excesses (such as Trumpism’?). 

One feels that Hannah Arendt would be saddened but perhaps in a resigned yet ever hopeful way not shocked, that her musings and writings on authoritarianism continue to be sought out and critically pertinent after nearly a century ... and raise the same questions in current times! 

In his article referred to above, John Am@to asks ‘what did we learn from the rise, four years of the atrump ‘presidency’ and  the recent election details?  And, ‘can we prevent a future Trump?’ 

One answer, if not the most at-fault agent, is the pernicious effect of deliberate misinformation spread by profit-focused media outlets such as Fox News and similar right-wing outlets. But, in this blogger’s view, is this a too simple jand too quick jump to hand out ‘blame’ ... no matter how satisfying that might feel?  Does such an ‘easy’ labeling actually help create an opposite atmosphere of fear of expressing opinions, i.e., an equivalent misdeed?  

And an important corollary question is, ‘who will be the judge of media boundaries?’ 

Here is Pericles21’s comment on the John Amato article:

“Newsmax CEO Admits Airing Conspiracy Theories As News”  (John Amato, Crooks and Liars, Nov 27, 2020):

Pericles21: “We must be careful of capricious and dangerous censorship, I.e., ‘What is, or is not, News?’ And ‘who or what entity shall judge on that question?’  Why can’t we simply rely on the robustness of American ‘freedom of the press’? Hmmm ... but that ‘freedom’ got us Fox ‘News’, and Trump, didn’t it!!”  

 There is no doubt, in the minds of the majority of American voters (an excess of 7 million votes over Trump voters in 2020) that Trump and Trumpism was a bullet that America blessedly dodged ... and actually dodged back in 2016 when Hillary Clinton won the majority vote. How Hillary won but still ‘lost’ her election must be answered and preventive, but equitable, measures designed and implemented ... such as finally removing or neutralizing the Electoral College.

 

 

ARE WE SEEING AN ‘AMY CONEY BARRETT SCOTUS REGRESSIVE EFFECT’ ON THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY?

Is this a sign of movement toward a conservative regression?

BACKGROUND: 

A November 20, 2020, article cites a Boca Raton, Florida (of course) federal appeals court repeal (2-1) of a ban on gay conversion therapy as a “violation of First Amendment right to free speech”. Both majority judges are Trump appointees.  This repeal struck this blogger as a not-just-coincidental indication that the recent addition of ‘originalist’, Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court might encourage lower court conservative judges to begin to dismantle the gains made by the LGBTQ community. It is very pertinent that the arguments for recognizing gay conversion therapy were robed in religious costume: 

The therapists said their clients typically had "sincerely held religious beliefs conflicting with homosexuality," and sought counseling to conform their identities and behaviors with those beliefs.

TO THE POINT:

This blogger references back the warning of October 19, 2020, (AMY CONEY BARRETT ‘S ‘ORIGINALISM’ WILL PUSH AMERICA BACK TO 1800s VICTORIANISM) noting the potential dangers to social balance and gains made by the American LGBTQ community, from her views expressed in the US Senate hearings on her nomination to the US Supreme Court, the now SCOTUS Associate Justice, Amy Coney Barrett, described the LGBTQ community as essentially a lifestyle of “sexual preference”, a statement which this blogger challenged as being “scientifically invalid”, harmful to members of that community and potentially opening the door to re-activate the  false notions and marketing of so-called “conversion” therapies. This is supported by a brief look at the following excerpts from the Wikipedia article on conversion therapy:

the advancement of conversion therapy may cause social harm by disseminating unscientific views about sexual orientation.^[10] 

And, 

In 2001, United States Surgeon General David Satcher issued a report stating that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed".^[15]”

Further, the same article gives examples of some of the torturing, so-called conversion ‘therapies’:

Techniques used in conversion therapy in the United States and Western Europe have included ice-pick lobotomies;^{[3][4][16][17][18][19]} chemical castration with hormonal treatment;^[20] aversive treatments, such as "the application of electric shock to the hands and/or genitals"; "nausea-inducing drugs ...

Currently, the invalid concept of sexuality as a preference or choice ... or at least a reparable state of mind has created a new type of charlatan, the spiritual interventionist and psychoanalytic ‘reconditionist’ - both are newer faces of the same old ‘snake oil’ industry, and still owe their existence to the false description of sexuality as a “preference” (ala Amy Coney Barrett): 

The point being made here is that ‘sexuality as a choice or preference’ is scientifically debunked and harmful.  

But we shall see if Judge Barrett can evolve in breadth and wisdom under her new, national, diversity accountability to a nation of real and broadly diverse  peoples.

IS THIS A TIME TO SUMMON THE PRAETORIANS?

 ”Praetorians”? From the shadows of the halls, from behind the curtain folds, metal-on-metal unsheathed? No, we must not slide further into that dark play. But there's no ethic owned by DT that prevents him from acting as an emperor from long ago....with a sycophant Senate and split America veering, maybe the current impasse awaits the his declaration he ’will’ serve a second term, at least, ...and ”then, we'll see”. That would be a perfect final exam for our Republic... to see ’how that cookie crumbles’.  Though, today's  Praetorian's carry people out on cushions and crossed arms and all else remains safely sheathed.

AN OVERVIEW AFTER THE 2020 ELECTION - BIDEN WON AND TRUMP LOST! AMERICA HOPEFULLY HAS LEARNED

 Yes, America escaped a dark, dark hole that could have made us a short footnote in some history book a century from now written about failed states.

THE CHURCH SUPPORTS LEGAL STATUS OF SAME SEX UNIONS

As reported in the October 21, New York Times, Pope Francis, in the documentary film (Francesco) released the same day at the Rome Film Festival, voiced a progressive shift in the Church’s tone affecting the LGBTQ community by supporting same-sex civil unions. The Catholic Church remains, though, opposed to same sex marriage).  The documentary reaffirms Pope Francis’ position that gay people are ’children of God’.

AMY CONEY BARRETT ‘S ‘ORIGINALISM’ WILL PUSH AMERICA BACK TO 1800s VICTORIANISM

The recent Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, used the term ”Sexual Preference” to describe the membership of the LGBTQ community. This was both shocking and foreboding. ’Shocking’ because, first, ’Sexual Preference’ as applied to the LBGTQ community is scientifically an obsolete and inaccurate descriptor by at least a couple of decades... as established by genetic studies that.prove human gender is not the 1800s strictly (and strictly ’enforced’) heterosexual picture and therefore variances (LGBTQ) from traditionalist heterosexuality are genetically ’natural and legitimate’ and therefore cannot, should not, be an issue for legal punishment, social ostracizing. employment discrimination ... or any form of gender-disadvantaging..

Second, equally as shocking, Barrett’s use of “sexual preference”, if sincere and not the rote-spouting of an ideologue who knows better, either reveals she is embarrassingly ’out  of touch’ or painfully ignorant about current scientific realism regarding sexuality and is thus unqualified to render a SCOTUS opinion on some of today's most important and sensitive legal protection issues in America. 

(if Barrett was insincerely spouting learned ideology then America is indeed screwed because Barrett comes with a ’preformed, Radical-right agenda’.).  

With Justice Barrett in the lead, will America see a revival of gender conversion therapy that will, in disguise as a ’corrective’ medical treatment, legally pressure LGBTQ persons to recant their ‘flawed’ sexual ‘choice’, i.e., LGBTQ, to miraculously and enthusiastically embrace their new heterosexuality... a genetic lie?  

And then, lastly, Barrett’s use of the ‘sexual preference’ descriptor is foreboding because whether sincere or not, Barrett will be a factor for regressing America by fifty years or more on several critical legal fronts - healthcare, ‘abortion rights, voting rights and protections, women’s equal pay in the workplace, labor rights, minority issues, ...and in other issues that are not strictly in the ’progressive’camp but are vital to the security and quality of American life.

ORIGINALISM!  

(This post is a warning about the dangerous, regressive effect an ultra-conservative ‘Originalism’ interpretation of the American Constitution will likely have on America. And more, will the recent nomination to the Supreme Court of Amy Coney Barrett, a self-described ‘Originalist’ (ala her legal mentor Anthonin Scalia under whom she clerked) bring about a radically imbalanced Supreme Court (6-3 conservative) in favor of ultra-conservatism and consequentially reverse a century of American social progress.

CRITIQUING ORIGINALISM. 

This blogger regards ‘Originalism” as an excuse to avoid putting the extra effort, beyond simply reading, into studying and understanding the deeper meanings of the American Constitution as they relate to an evolved America two hundred years after the Founders, ...and gaining a perspective about future issues that might face the Constitution . This and more would be the benefits of a non-literalist interpretation of the Constitution. Doesn’t it seem that the ‘sacred’ jurisprudence goal of any serious candidate for the Supreme Court would be to present the benefits of such deeper search for meaning ... to show palpable, distinguished evidence in writings and case opinions that the candidate to the court has delved to and outstanding degree into the ‘What’s’,‘Wherefores’, Why’s’ and ‘Hows’ that underpin the deeper philosophical concepts that shaped the Founders’ thoughts and intentions, especially regarding the potential ‘Relevancy’ contained in a ‘Living Constitution’. 

IMHO, Originalists take a permanent lunch break midway in the above sequence of Constitutional interpretayion while others are left to clean up the wreckage caused by ‘mis-application’ from too-narrow interpretations resulting in mis-applicaton.

A quick explanation of legal-world ‘Originalism’ could be by comparison with its opposite’s view of the Constitution. 

For an ‘Originalist’, the Constituion is a static document containing the Founders holy words which should only be read and memorized like a catechism...and not ‘messed with’ by verlaying things and opinions outside its exact historical context. For example, an Originalist ‘studying’ the Constitution as written’ would not see any relation between the written words and the multitude of passing cars (no horses in sight) and especially seeing people of all colors and gender endowmemts walking around blithely and unworried by their ‘differences’ from a so-called norm... as written, or implied in our Constitution, 200 plus years ago.

The apposite legalist, on ther other hand, becomes immersed in the Constituion and attempts to interpret its words relevant to the here and now. 

Given that a majority of the Founders were slave owners, and saw neither slaves nor women as potential voters, it seems highly threatening to current social meaning and stability to take ‘Originalism’ seriously. 

OTHERS’ VIEWS ON ORIGINALISM

Umair Haque’s article (Medium, October 24, 2020) cuts right to the core of his distaste for Originalism in its relation to the Senate Confirmation Hearing on the nominaton of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court:

Umair Haque on Originalism:                                                                                                  “How “Originalism” Prevented America From Becoming Part of the Modern World  (“The ACB Hearings Show How Antiquated, Racist, and Misogynist Trying to Think Like a 18th Century White Man Really Is”)

Haque’s is a fitting social media title that aptly conveys the controversy about judge Barrett’s unsuitability because of her “Originalist” interpretation of the American Constitution. 

America may have a decades-long clean-up ahead if Amy Coney Barrett indeed sits on the Supreme Court. (Of course, there will be many praying that she will ‘grow’ to acknowledge America’s evolution since the Founders and Barrett will adapt her legal and moral perspectives in accord.

==============================

The title of this post summarizes the atmosphere surrounding the potential Supreme Court shift toward a strict (radical, perhaps) conservativist interpretation of the American Constitution in both legal philosophy and applied principles. This shift is anticipated from Donald Trump’s nomination to fill the recently vacant seat of liberal SCOTUS Associate Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsberg (deceased Sept 18, 2020) with the conservative Amy Coney Barrett (Appelate Justice).  

Judge Bader Ginsberg was ‘with’ us from 1993 to 2020, and played a central role, in her unassuming way, in shaping a modern America .... despite America’s strong counter-tides of tradionalist, even regressionist sentiments and factionism.  Ruth Bader Ginsberg will be more than missed.

  

Donald Trump, in a not unexpected manner, plans to drop on America, a souvenir of his hopefully only term as president.   

Trump’s ‘gift’ to America in this case is the nomination of Amy Conney Barrett to fill the now empty seat of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Justice Ginsberg was a champion of women’s rights and equality, and made every effort to develop and extend the protections of those principles to everyone. Amy Conney Barrett is a stark contrast to Judge Ginsberg. Barrett is a career legal conservative and a somewhat more-than-even-traditional religious conservative - although raised in a strongly Catholic family, Barrett belonged to an ecumenical, charismatic covenant group, the People of Praise centered in Indiana.

Barrett comes with several areas of doubt about her suitability and legal ‘fit’ for the Supreme Court in today’s world, i.e., her ability to understand and relate to how America, and the world, have evolved over the 200 years since the Constitution was created. 

Recent article titles examplify the debate over her suitability to the nation;s highest court.  One such title is the lead-off to this post from ‘David’, Crooks and Liars (October 14, 2020)

 Internet Recoils In Horror Over Barrett's Ruling That Saying N-word Doesn't Make Workplace ‘Hostile’  (A ruling by Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett that whitewashed racism in the workplace shocked the Internet this week.)

Umair Haque notes this reservation in blunt manner (agreed with by Pericles21) in the above-mentioned Medium article (October 14, 2020);  

How “Originalism” Prevented America From Becoming Part of the Modern World  (“The ACB Hearings Show How Antiquated, Racist, and Misogynist Trying to Think Like a 18th Century White Man Really Is”)

And finally from  CathyYoung’s article on the Barrett nomination (ArcDigital, October 13, 2020):

The Handmaid and the Feminist                                                                                    Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination raises difficult questions of faith, justice, and gender.                                                                                                                                        “I believe that Barrett’s under-the-wire nomination — especially in conjunction with the Garland fiasco — stinks to high heaven on fair-play grounds. In fact, I would argue that if Barrett has not been confirmed by November 3 and if Trump loses, she should withdraw.”

Most notable from Ms Young’s just quoted ArcDigital article is it disparages the importance the LGBTQA community attaches to Coney Barrett’s “Sexual Preference” descriptor ... about which this blogger ‘Strongly’ takes issue in that “Sexual Preference” is so much a ‘Tell’ about where Coney Barrett’s mental context seems to belong, historically .... perhaps in Victorian England in the 1870s or so when LGBTQ were imprisoned or sent to mental wards). Or, most recently, in the 1950s America ...

“It’s this issue — the compromised moral legitimacy of the nomination itself — that Barrett’s critics should emphasize. Instead, much of the left has chosen ridiculous lines of attack such as Barrett’s use of the term “sexual preference” rather than “sexual orientation.” (Some LBGT activists argue “preference” is offensive because it implies that sexual orientation is a choice — even though the term is still widely used in scientific literature.) 

This blogger is not LGBTQA but “Sexual Preference” is so rmbarrasingly ‘yesterday’! Amy Coney Barrett has a lot of catching up to do to become a positive factor in America’s continued evoltition/