The political-economic-social-religious right has many plausible sounding propaganda slogans.  The claim that some judges, usually called “conservative” though many are in fact reactionary, can read the Constitution’s tea leaves has been completely demolished by many, including the Framers who wrote it.  An excellent starting point is Leonard W. Levy’s “Original Intent and the Framer’s Constitution.”

Pulitzer Prize-winning Levy uses specific quotes from various Framers, analysis by respected scholars, and insights from judges to definitively show what a farce the entire “original intent” argument really is.

Former West Virginia Chief Justice Richard Neely said people who take seriously the Supreme Court’s “historical scholarship as applied to the Constitution also probably believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.”  Levy quotes “sophisticated conservative” United States Court of Appeals Judge Richard A. Posner from his article, “What Am I?  APotted Plant?” repudiating the belief constitutional judges should speak the Framers’ mind: “There has never been a time when the courts of the United States, state or federal behaved consistently in accordance with this idea.  Nor should they.”

In light of the 24/7 propaganda war of disinformation, perhaps revisiting George Orwoll’s “1984” slogan of the Party: “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past,” will be quite helpful in understanding the supposed theory of “original intent.”  See it as a clever trick to control the narrative.

As Levy says, a peculiar charm of “original intent” is that the judge employing it SEEMS to escape subjectivity.  The judge, supposedly, becomes an impersonal time traveler who merely reports what the Framers supposedly intended.  “Thus, an originalist judge supposedly rises above criticism if he is nothing but an intermediary for transmitting and applying the wishes of the Framers.”  A masterful trump card stroke – who would dare be guilt of criticizing James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, et all?  Original intent is a form of name dropping, nothing more.

The Revolutionary Era generation revolted first against a corporation – the Boston Tea Party.  The main evolution was against the British king.  Throughout this era there was a consistent, publicly announced, desire to eliminate any type of theocracy, an official state church, thus “no law respecting an establishment of religion” in the First Amendment.  The common theme: human dignity, respect for the individual rights of man.  They said this over and over again: “We hold these truths to be self-evident;” these rights “are born with us:” “written as with a sunbeam..by the hand of the divinity itself..”  It is commonly accepted that when the Supreme Court has failed worst, it has failed to respect human dignity – Dred Scott, Plessy-v-Ferguson, Korematsu…  One does not need a book to stand for human dignity.  That comes from wisdom and compassion.  The legal school of thought embodied by “Original intent” doesn’t care about human dignity.  One judge practicing it has said: “That wasn’t my job.”  The very essence the real “Original Intent” of the 1770-1792 generation was human dignity.  The opposition to the Constitution demanded this be written, so the Bill of Rights was added to guarantee it.  Simple Justice.

Consider this – the Framers, the geniuses who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights, often, and repeatedly, argued among themselves – in the 1790’s, within 10 years of creating it – over what they had written meant!  If the creators are arguing over their own “original intent,” how can anybody, in 2018, be saying THEY “know” it???  Levy relates during a 1791 Congressional debate, John Vining {Del] “summarily dismissed original intent” as the “opinion” of 1787, which he felt had become obsolete, “not a sufficient authority..for Congress at the present time to construe the Constitution.”

This is not an isolated incident.  Albert Gallatin [Pa], in 1796 felt the only opinions about the meaning of the Constitution that he accepted were those of the members of the state ratifying conventions who favored ratification. because they alone, acting on behalf of the people, adopted the Constitution, and so “their intentions alone might, with any degree of propriety, be resorted to.”  Madison often voiced a similar opinion.

But, as Levy relates, there is a problem with what was actually said, not only in 1787 Philadelphia, but also in the various state conventions.  Madison’s Notes are considered the most reliable account of 1787 Philadelphia activities.  But, by word count, Levy calculates that Madison probably had between 20-50% of what was said.  Another source was “butchered>”  State summaries were not only unreliable, but in some cases “doctored.”  Bill of Rights records were often non-existent; sometimes “imaginative.” including things not said.  Some of the identities of men involved are unknown

Levy notes the Framers’ “genius for studied imprecision and calculated ambiguity,” illustrating his point with several pages of ambiguities and “inappropriate specificity” – absurd literal readings – in the Constitution’s text.  Levy lists as a partial beginning half a page of questions like: “What is the meaning of infamous crimes” in the Fifth Amendment?  Then there is the matter that is perhaps the “definitive statement on a constitutional jurisprudence of original intent was made by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in the Dred Scott case…”

Along those lines it is interesting that the primary users and pushers of “Original intent” are coming from only one part of the political-economc-social-religious spectrum.  The primary “accusation” is that some judges are accused of being unethical and “unconstitutional” in their “judicial activism.”  And, not coincidentally, say figures on the right side, these offenders have been guilty of center-left  “activist” revisions of what the Framers intended.

These charges ignore the documented historical truth that “judicial activism” has been practiced from America’s beginning.  It also ignores Supreme Court history.  Most Supreme Courts would be labeled “conservative” at best, reactionary [Dred Scott, Korematsu] in many major decisions.  Also of interest, in the last 50 years, a series of “conservative” regimes have labeled themselves “law and order” governments.  Problematic with that is th fact that the Nixon, Reagan, Bush II, Trump regimes have engaged in a large amount of dubious, even criminal behavior.  To say the least, it appears quite odd that “law and order” regimes also insist on appointing “original intent” judges.  Then, when court decisions lean largely in one direction [by numerical count] ideologically, questions naturally arise.  This is further troubling when the logic quoted behind decisions doesn’t square with known Framers’ goals and beliefs.  Questions naturally arise about the “original intent” scholarship that supposedly justified decisions.

If we take “original intent”literally, then America will be forever governed by 1787 thinking, no matter how America and the world change.  Therefore, modern technology like the internet will be governed by 1787 legal principles.  When robots become ubiquitous, how does the court rule when your robot injures my robot?  Is a robot a “person” or a “thing?”  Where does one find “robot-type thing/person in the Constitution?  Would the robot be subject to “cruel and unusual punishment if we unplugged him?

The Virginia Chief Justice had n answer, 6/l4/1788: “May we not in the progress of things, discover some great and important (right), which we don’t now think of?  In 1920, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: ” when we are dealing with words that are also a constituent act, like the Constitution of the United States we must realize that they have called into life a being the development of which could NOT HAVE BEEN FORESEEN completely by the most gifted of its begetters..The case before us must be considered in the light of OUR WHOLE EXPERIENCE and NOT merely in the light of WHAT WAS SAID A HUNDRED YEARS AGO..  We must CONSIDER WHAT THE COUNTRY HAS BECOME.”

Levy points out that: “Words of crucial importance in constitutional law are not even in the Constitution, including fair trial, executive agreement, beyond reasonable doubt, the spending power, clear and present danger, cross-examination, separation of church and state, war powers.. presumption of innocence..equal justice, the right to privacy, the right to travel, the right  to silence..strict scrutiny, interstate commerce..”   All these rights now understood, have been added since 1787.  Life, and the law without them would be unthinkable.

Alexander Hamilton, in 1775: “the sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged among old parchments or musty records.  They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself..”  In 1766, John Dickinson said, speaking of “the rights essential to happiness,”  We claim them from a higher source – from the King of Kings..They are born with us.. they are founded on the immutable maxims of reason and justice.  This echoes “We hold these truths to be self-evident..”

If America is forever frozen in 1787, then we might ask if this is so, why is the process of adding amendments to the Constitution embedded init?  Since Article V says no amendments before 1808 – thus the Framers were plainly saying future changes, unexpected, could be added.  They are plainly saying, their “original intent” could be changed, modified, even eliminated.

So…what would we have if we could collectively build a Supreme Court justice from nothing?  What characteristics would we like to have?  If we’re giving lifetime tenure to a person, what expectations should America have, deserve??

 

Judge Learned Hand believed these people should be broadly educated in history, literature, and philosophy.  Because “everything turns upon the spirit in which he approaches the questions before him.”…the spirit in which he approaches issues..”

 

Judge Felix Frankfurter: “the words of the Constitution on which their solution is based are so unrestricted by their intrinsic meaning or by their history or by tradition or by prior decisions that they leave the individual Justice free, if they indeed do not compel him, to gather meaning, not from reading the Constitution, but from reading life.”… compelled to gather meaning by reading life…

President Teddy Roosevelt: “.. their whole training and aloofness of their position on the bench prevent them from having, as a rule, any real knowledge of, or understanding sympathy with, the lives and needs of the ordinary hard-working toiler.”….real knowledge and sympathy for ordinary people….

Adlai Stevenson: “Knowledge alone is not enough.  It must be leavened with magnanimity before it becomes wisdom.”  …knowledge without magnanimity is not enough…..

We’re left to wonder…Did King Solomon rely on “original intent” when he threatened to split the disputed baby in half?  Or…. had he learned from reading the book of life?

My profound apologies, Trump voters.  I do not understand you – why most of you are still backing this man.  I didn’t understand why you voted for the man  Please understand that millions of Americans who voted against Trump frustrated and horrified that you did.  We non-Trump voters have difficulty with what some of you are saying.  We definitely have trouble with your apparent vision of what America is and should be.  We don’t want to insult you.  We really don’t understand why and how you got to this point.

I’ve read various articles on how a person should talk to a liberal, how to talk to a conservative.  These have been troubling.  The mere fact that I should have to talk “in code” to different groups of people is frustrating.  Two groups of people living in a democracy, two vastly different viewpoints with the same information on the same issues.  I always assumed that most, if not all people, would accept logic and two plus two equals four thinking.

What I’m learning, what others are saying, is that, somehow we’ve into “two different tribes.”  There have always been different opinions; but something has changed that difference in the last 40 years into near-war.  Thus a question: can a modern democracy continue to function this way?  Can there be two sets of “fact,” one based on “belief,” there other on numbers?

In trying to understand how good Americans could be deceived by deliberate lies I’ve read a number of sources on how people are deceived.  In 2007, Brooks Jackson and Kathleen Hall Jamieson wrote “un-Spun, finding facts in a world of [disinformation];” in 20l4 John Grant wrote “Bulls*t, How to Detect Junk Science, Bogus Claims, Wacky Theories, and General Human Stupidity;” a recent “Mother Jones” article, “Disarming Disinformation;” before that, in 2004, Thomas Frank wrote best-seller, What’s the Matter with Kansas?,” about how middle America became outraged over lost jobs and unequal wealth distribution, then elected people who could {and did} make things worse.  European analysts are also trying to understand this.

“Mother Jones” magazine advises me my task is “about finding something that will make sense to you,” and that ‘It’s about how {you] came to believe it, and whether {you} may have been deceived>”  So, can I relate to you about Trump’s past and current behavior that might cause you to think he’d been dishonest?  So….maybe……..

Does it make a difference to you that, I believe it was Politifact, found Trump had lied 2,000 times in 2017?  And the count was up to 3,000 lies in office in early 2018?  Does it make a difference Trump has based policy on campaign “promises,” but what he does is often selective cherry-picking of which promises to keep?  For most people, “the swamp in Washington” to be drained was the criminal effect of money on public policy – but Trump has done virtually nothing positive on that?   Does it bother you that Trump’s “big win” – the 2017 tax cut is another gift to the top 1% and it’s been said Trump will get a $30 million tax cut?  And – this tax cut will increase the national debt by trillions?  This will also be used as an excuse to cut your Social Security and Medicare benefits?  Does it make a difference that Trump has, often deliberately, alienated virtually all of our 70-year foreign policy allies {the ones we need against China}?

If your answer to all of this is “NO, I still support Trump,” then we are left with only controversial issues – abortion , guns, and immigration.  Many non-Trump citizens would be incredulous if this is true.  Because,  suppose we give in- we give you all three: ban abortions, eliminate all gun restrictions, seal off the Mexican border.  You can write any law you want.  Now, do you really feel America is now a better place, that these laws solved all our problems – and- more not mentioned above – like the coming robot/automation of nearly 90-95% of all jobs’ the unsustainable health crisis {we’re #37 world-wide}; the massive opioid crisis, and the future American energy system {renewables, which Trump opposes – but the rest of the world is rapidly employing}

I apologizing if this sounds like a lecture – just raising questions in which you might have been “misinformed” by “alternative facts.”

I know all Trump supporters consider themselves real patriots.  How do you feel about “The Economist” recently downgrading America from a full democracy to a flawed democracy?  What has happened in the last 40 years that led to this ranking?  A vast number of books, articles, and programs have discussed this.  Some are: Pulitzer Prize-winning Headrick Smith”s “Who Stole the American Dream;?  double-Pulitzer Prize-winner Donald Bartlett and James Steele”s “The Betrayal of the American Dream;” Academy Award winner {for his film ,”Inside Job”] Charles Ferguson’s “Predator Nation, Corporate Criminals, Political Corruption, and the Hijacking of America;” and Pulitzer Prize-winner David C Johnston’s “Divided, The Perils of Growing Inequality” [and also “Perfectly Legal,” “Free Lunch,” “Fine Print”].  They all blame the top 1% and multi-national corporations for the cheating of middle America.

Would you believe any of them?  The top 1% and the corporations have, in a sense, committed “treason” against America.  They’ve weakened us by shipping jobs overseas, by wage suppression, and, in some cases, by giving away sensitive technology for short term profits.  The tax cuts for the top 1% have [using GAO & IRS numbers] escalated the American national debt from $1 trillion in 1980 to XX trillions now, and more guaranteed by Trump’s 2017 ta cut.  Do you believe these facts?  If not, where are we?

Dear Trump voters, where are we as a middle class democracy?  You have a vision of a America.  What information is behind this vision?  Have you been lied to?  Has corporate America done the same as the tobacco industry?  Have you been told the truth on global warming?  Exxon-Mobile scientists knew global warming was real in the 1970’s.

Have you been told the real truth on why your wages have been stagnate?  Numerous studies have shown the top 1% has, in effect, stolen from $500-1,000 a month from post-1980 workers, based upon pre-1980 IRS un-spun numbers.  The median American worker’s income is now about $31,000 annually.  If your income had gone up as much as the top 1%, one study showed you’d be making about $93,000 a year!!!

Dear Trump voters, has the post-1980 rhetoric that most of you apparently believe made life better for you and your family than the middle class statistical golden age of 1947-l973?  Is your life more secure, stable, stress-free than it was then?  Do you have the same affordable health benefits, decent wages, guaranteed pension as they did?  If somebody “is to blame” for misfortune, have you been told the real truth on “who did it?”  OR… have you accepted the “reasons” given you by your favorite media sources, and asked no questions?

Are you living in “Mr. Rogers’ neighborhood,” or Donald Trump”s?

Not trying to lecture you!   I just really, really do not understand why you are still supporting such a person as Donald Trump.  Many of your non-Trump fellow citizens see him as an “all hat, no cattle” 21st century P. T. Barnum.  We’re not only horrified, we’re scared over what he’ll do to America, the environment, and the world.  WE’re praying he doesn’t start a shooting war in addition to the trade war we thinks he can “win.”  We fear the “shaking up” of Washington isn’t going to be what you thought it was going to be.

Dear Trump supporters, we love America as much as you do.  That’s why we’re very frightened.  Living in Mr. Rogers’ neighborhood meant love, hope, tolerance.  Living in Mr. Trump’s neighborhood seems to mean hate, fear, and intolerance.  I’m sorry.  I don’t understand anybody supporting this as the vision of America’s future.

Internationally respected religious expert, Charles Kimball’s “When Religion Becomes Evil”{2002} lists five warning signs of corruption in a religion: absolute truth claims, blind obedience, establishing the “ideal’ time, the end justifies any means, declaring holy war. Kimball talks of his 1950’s background, in which many of his Baptist and Church of Christ friends were convinced Methodists, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians were in grave danger of missing “the true gospel” of Christ.  Catholics were “not even on the map.”

Katherine Stewart’s “The Good News Club, the Christian Right’s Stealth Assault on America’s Children” documents a plan to undermine and eliminate public schools.  She attended a religious right convention in which one seminar’s main topic was “addressing the problem of how to subvert Catholic teachings and practices so subtly that the Catholic-born students won’t alert their parents..” because being devout Catholics doesn’t mean they are the “right kind” of Christian.

It has been said often that more people have been killed, more evil perpetrated in the name of religion than anything else.  Catholics and Protestants killed each for centuries in Europe.  Sunni and Shi’ah  Muslims have killed each other for centuries.  One reason Native Americans were nearly exterminated was they weren’t Christians.  There was long-standing prejudice against Jews in Europe before 1933.  Hitler used that bigotry to murder 6 million Jews.

America’s Founding Fathers knew some of this.  Article VI of the U.S. Constitution states; “..no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”   Amendment I states:    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..”  A religious test cuts two ways.  Your religion is neither a positive reason for office, nor a negative reason against you.  Amendment I also cuts two ways, you have freedom to conduct your own religious experience and beliefs, AND, the rest of the American people have a “freedom from” you.  It is unconstitutional for you to force others by law to run their lives by YOUR religious beliefs.  In 1963, Boston Archbishop Richard Cardinal Cushing told a radio audience: “I have no right to impose my thinking, which is rooted in religious thought {opposition to birth control}, on those who do not think as I do.”

Using the Bible, any Bible, presents problems Kimball says.  The Christian Bible has 66 books written over 1,000 years and many kinds of expression, requiring interpretation at many levels.  The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek.  In 2002 there were “nearly two dozen contemporary English translations points to challenge of communicating the meaning and intent of the original text.”  Which Bible is the “right” one?

Kimball quotes Peter Gomes, Harvard Memorial Church minister of 38 years: “Literalism is dangerous..meaning is determined by what the reader         takes out of the text..Thus, what the reader thinks is there becomes not merely the reader’s opinion, but the will of God, with all the moral consequences and authority that that implies..”

Kimball places the Taliban and the American religious right on a continuum: “Christian reconstructionists in America are only one step removed from the counterparts with a concrete, divinely ordained plan for an Islamic state or the reconstituted, expanded biblical state of Israel.  The gap begins to close when the agenda includes denigration of Islam or direct action against abortion clinics.”

The major difference between Middle Eastern religious zealots and American zealots is the Islamic ones kill people physically, the American zealots kill people using laws.  Church doctrines are forced into laws and judicial interpretations.  Susan Jacoby, in The Age of American Unreason:” Justice “Scalia, a profoundly conservative Catholic as well as a profoundly conservative jurist, has said bluntly that Catholic officeholders should resign if asked to uphold any public policies that contradict church doctrine..”  Pat Robertson, in a taped, 9/18/97 speech discussing the goal of shaping America’s future and expecting to “select the next president of the United States” and Republican obedience: “We just tell these guys, “Look, we {the religious right} put you in power in 1994, and we want you to deliver..we’re going to hold your feet to the fire while you do it..”

The “culture war” the religious right has foisted on America didn’t begin with Roe-v-Wade.  It began with the Griswold decision process.  One of the religious right churches wanted to ban all Connecticut married women from using birth control.  The 1965, 7-2  Griswold decision, in part, said: “We deal with a right of privacy older than The Bill of Rights.”  Goldberg’s supporting opinion: “The entire fabric of the Constitution demonstrated that thew right to marital privacy were just as fundamental as any that were explicitly enumerated.”

Interestingly, in l987, following the 58-42 defeat of Judge Bork’s Supreme Court nomination, the Senate’s judiciary committee chief counsel said: “if the Bork struggle was over any one case, it was “Griswold-v-Connecticut.”  Others agreed: “Bork was deprived of a seat on the Supreme Court largely because of his refusal to acknowledge the ‘unenumerated’ right to privacy as being part of the set of constitutional rights legitimately enjoyed by Americans.”

In December, l977, a group of prominent theologians and ethicists said: “We are sadened by the heavy institutional involvement of the Bishops of the Roman Catholic  Church in a campaign to enact religiously based antiabortion commitments int5o law and we view this as a serious threat to religious liberty and freedom  of conscience.”  In the 1992 “Casey” decision, Justice Kennedy said: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.  In light of a woman’s pregnancy burdens: “her suffering is too intimate and personal for the State to insist..upon its own vision of the woman;s role..”  {David J. Garrow – “Liberty and Sexuality”}

The original intent of the Founding Fathers, of the common people of the various states, of religions in l787-1792, is definitively described in Leonard W. Levy”s book, “The Establishment Clause.”  When they said “NO” law respecting an establishment of religion, they meant none, as in never, in any way.  Levy relates hoe Evangelicals in Virginia demanded separation of church and state; framer Richard Dobbs Spaight: “Any act of Congress on this subject would be a usurpation;” Baptist preacher John Leland advocated a radical separation of government and religion, and “religion is a matter between God and individuals..:”  Madison, Jefferson, and Christian fundamentalists felt the founding principle was that to require a person to support even the religion of his choice denied him his freedom of choice and his right to religious liberty; Evangelicals who profoundly cared about the purity of Christian faith warned against the corrupting embrace of government, and advocated separation in order to defend religion.

Levy spends considerable time explaining why 1980’s figures like Rehnquist, Meese, and Burger were wrong in their attempts to twist the First Amendment.  As many have noted, the  Rehnquist and Roberts Courts have further twisted the First Amendment out of the Founders’ original intent.  Ironically, this will be done in the name of “originalism!.’   And, of course, the prime beneficiaries of this twisting, surprise!, will be the top 1% and corporations.

 

Levy also relates Tocqueville”s famous trip to America and his observations about  American religion: ” ..all thought the main reason for the quiet sway of religion over their country was the complete separation of church and state.  I have no hesitation in stating that throughout my stay in America I met nobody, lay or cleric, who did not agree about that.”

“When you pray, do not do as the hypocrites do, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, so that they may be seen by men..Instead, when you do pray, enter into your room and shut the door, and pray to thy Father who is in secret.”  Matthew  6: 5-6

For many millions of frustrated and highly concerned about the growth of irrationality in post-1980 America, there is a book for you.  It is bestselling author Kurt Andersen’s “Fantasyland, How America Went Haywire.”  Andersen provides a 500 year history of craziness in America; significantly, nearly half the book is about post-1980 “delusions and magical thinking.”

Andersen doesn’t mind that one lives in a bunker with 10 years food; or manage a fantasy NFL team; or are a Civil War general on maneuvers; that you’re prepared for Jesus’ imminent return; or speak in tongue4s; believe people who said they died and went to heaven; dress like a feudal baron or wizard; believe that believing you’ll get rich will make you rich; believe burning sage cleared your house of evil spirits; believe alien spirits taught us how to build computer chips

“So what if there are lots of Americans with various screws loose?  So what if they dream and stew in their own mad, mad, mad, mad dreamworld?  Ignore them let them alone, let them be.  Right?  Aye, there’s the rub.  There are real consequences in the real world.”

“Delusional ideas and magical thinking flood from the private sphere into the public’ become so pervasive and deeply rooted, so ‘normal’, that they affect everyone.  Some American fantasies have become weaponized, literally… our pockets ARE being picked and our legs ARE being broken.”

“”As  the more fantastical ideas of alternative medicine are mainstreamed, millions of people are cheated, which doesn’t break your or my leg; but when their diseases deposit them in the actual-doctor-and-hospital healthcare system late in the treatment game , paid for by my insurance and the government, that does pick our pocket.  The belief that childhood vaccines cause autism was a fantasy that directly produced disease and death among people who happened to be in the proximity of unvaccinated and infected children.  As disbelief in science grows, our whole society may become less prosperous and more vulnerable.   as religious belief drives government to make legal contraception and abortions more difficult to get, the rest of us will have our pockets picked in all kinds of ways for years to come.”

This is the beginning of the price to be paid for “doing our own thing, i.e., ” believing in “alternative facts.”  How long does America remain competitive if half of us don’t accept evolution, the basis for modern science and medicine?  How long do we remain competitive if we don’t accept global warming, like the rest of the advanced world?  The adults reading this will most likely be dead when the predicted, and now occurring, consequences reach catastrophic levels.  But, your children and grandchildren will, for a while, not die.  They will ask why you did nothing while you had the chance.

How long will America remain competitive denying science and reason in general?  Parents are free to send children to almost any school.  But, what if those children are deliberately taught falsehoods?  How do they communicate with kids from other countries who were taught accepted truths?

How long does America remain competitive when one major party is increasingly antagonistic to the very idea of good government?  When this party opposes taxes in general, but most especially on the top 1% – the supposed “job creators?”  How long do we maintain a fiction our ballooning post-1980 national debt has no relationship to the fact that the top 1% have been given numerous loopholes and tax dodges, and have foreign tax havens?  And because of this debt, we don’t invest in America?

How long do we survive as a rational middle class society if the American population is continually bombarded with falsehoods by a major TV network, by talk radio hosts making millions to incite people with lies, by misinformation, not only by the Russians, but by many Americans on the internet?

How long do we survive, supposedly divided and hating the other half?  Who gains by the lower 90% being confused and misinformed?  Who gains when civility and decency, basic respect for other human beings, slowly disappears?

Mr. Andersen;s fine book stands by itself as a classic.  Unfortunately, it is not the first to discuss some aspect of America’s self-destructive post-1980 lapse into irrationality.  Our parents and grandparents left us a great functioning democracy.  We are allowing this great world treasure to fall apart around us.  Shame on us.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan:  You are entitled to your opinion.  But you are not entitled to your own facts.:

Kellyanne Conway:  “You’re saying it’s a falsehood.  And they;re giving… our press secretary gave alternative facts.:”

 

Hannah Arendt:  A mixture of gullibility and cynicism have been an outstanding characteristic of mob mentality…In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses had reached a point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing….Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd…”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

s

One wonders what Shakespeare would create of 1980-20l8 America! Probably his greatest tragedy. Think of the material he has to work with! The world’s greatest “democracy” is slowly transformed into a theocratic plutocracy, and…many people support it. The lower 99% conditioned to see their greedy Scrooge-like ( borrowing from Dickens) oppressors are really the “job creators!” The ruling top 1% has reduced its taxes by 50% from the middle class golden age of 1947-l973 – but – this is “good.” It means more wealth can “trickle down!” Think what Shakespeare could do with millions of poor and middle class people voting against themselves! The U.S top 1% has outdone Goebbels! Defeat is victory! OK, he borrowed from “l984” too.

How would Shakespeare treat 1980-2018 Republicans who run for public office with the intent of sabotaging government – and – rewarding their top 1% donor patrons? Yes, some Democrats are guilty too. What villains would Shakespeare have portraying successive cabinet secretaries ruining the environment and aiding polluters in the name of “public service?” How would Shakespeare portray crooked politicians (the real D.C.’swamp) taking billionaire’s money, and then writing laws favoring those same people?

Think what Shakespeare could do with Nixon-Reagan-Bush II-Trump! Would this be a separate comedy? Or several acts of the entire tragedy? Think what Shakespeare could do with Watergate! Or Iran-Contra; or with “weapons of mass destruction” that didn’t exist; or war crimes like Abu Ghraib or massive lying; or taxpayers paying for family business trips’ or hypocrites claiming to stand for “family values” doing the same things they’re legislating against!

Think what Shakespeare could do with a Supreme Court ruling (Citizens United) that facilitates billionaires corrupting government in the name of “freedom of speech!” And a Court that says paper people (corporations) are the same as real human people for legal rights (top 1% wins again). How would Shakespeare portray the arrogant, greedy billionaires using donor-anonymous “charities” to subvert democracy tax-free?

How would Shakespeare portray American voters who’ve supported and voted for politicians who’ve blatantly lied to them, demagogue people’s fears;used divide and conquer diversionary tactics covering the real 1980-2018 villains’ the top 1%

How would Shakespeare portray the children – the dead at Sandy Hook, the dead at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas- for whom the adults did nothing; actually worse than nothing by refusing to listen to them? And the living children and young adults, the outraged thousands of high school and college students protesting against being potential victims? What could he do with this ultimate irony of gutless adults being forced to see massive corruption, by their own children? How would he show who really is the real “adult in the room?”

Would this be Shakespeare’s greatest tragedy? The innocent, idealistic, truthful children, representing the true American ideals – are deliberately sabotaged by the “adults.” You can see it now, the stage slowly empties, then grows dark, while the music softly ends. The movie version ends with these words from Teddy Roosevelt’s Mount Rushmore plaque: We here in America, hold in our hands the hope of the world, the fate of the coming years; and shame and disgrace will be ours if in our eyes the light of high resolve is dimmed, if we trail in the dust the golden hopes of men. Dickens had his Scrooge redeeming himself at the end. 2018 (or 2008 Scrooges) are not that generous, or even caring about what they’ve done.