Congenial-speak #51

Return to the Lab

How did America ever get such a good reputation? Who ever implied that we could do no wrong, that this is the type of government to which everyone should aspire? It is an existential decision, a want, not a need. Their are other options; Socialism, Communism, anarchy, monarchy—all pale, to us, in comparison. Lately though, as the current administration appeases and appears to want to emulate Putin's tortured ruse of a democracy with 24 percent of Americans continuing to support it, when they actually seem to want that kind of oligarchy, I wonder about the blueprints. I wonder whether they need to be scrapped, or seriously tweaked (and, as luck would have it, we have the perfect man in the WH to tweak or grab things). I think it is time to examine the template for government, the 241-year-old “experiment” whipped up by mad scientists during that sweltering summer in Philadelphia. Are those 24 percent the renegades that finally broke away from the control group, the subjects against whom the premise of democracy was tested for its validity? I am left thinking that maybe, after 12 score and 1 year, in the turbulent wakes of constant abrogations, in the light of contemporary media fascinations, it failed. People cannot live together with only marginal differences, irregularities that don't test the very laws that said people had a voice in making. Turns out we are not the nation “conceived in liberty” Lincoln said we were during the greatest divide in history to precede this one. As evidenced by, most recently, the 2016 campaign we fall far short of any dedication or even complacent commitment to “the proposition that all men are created equal.” Not even close. Only privileged misogynist white men who convincingly bellow YOU'RE FIRED! and can grab women by the short hairs because of it.

I never fell for it. I was never a fan of over-compensatory flag waving, genuflecting, of actually crossing a stage to hug and kiss a red, quite and blue cloth. I feel it is basic respect, courtesy perhaps, to stand during a playing of our anthem, but hollow displays of patriotism by xenophobes only cheapen the whole idea. How could America, land that I loved (but am now seriously reconsidering), allow a bigoted angry man who has disgraced every race and group in America to become president. Where is the curator of this “experiment?” If it were some kind of nuclear experiment the reactor would be in meltdown mode, sirens would sound incessantly and technicians would be screaming “the humanity!” as though a firey zeppelin were plummeting to earth. There has to be some oversight committee, a coalition whose sole purpose is to step in when Frankenstein becomes unhinged, when Godzilla breaks his chains, climbs the Empire State and starts swatting at airplanes. I think this is an emergency, an anomaly, a “democratic arrest” situation. It is not a garden variety Republican, fathoms from an Eisenhower, a Reagan, even a Bush. It is not even a credible third party, definitely not anything that belongs anywhere near America, some kind of oligarchical mutation. It is the stuff of horrific science fiction—genre dystopia. I never fell for it, not as I was introduced to the half-truths (if even that) of government growing up with Vietnam, and certainly not now. I vote, go to my precinct caucus (or last time a step further), pay my federal tax, pay for schools and roads that, as a non-driver, I don't use. I see the whole picture, not just what I want or need to see, not just when my team is winning. I see and recognize the possible long-term worth of my opposing teams' wins, I take them for what they are worth. However I have never fallen victim to the pablum, the myth that America is number one, numero uno, hands down. Sure it is an admirable goal, worth entertaining, but I think it is foolish to boast about it. Now it is coming back to bite America in the ass, we look foolish. Merkel and May are either laughing, rolling their eyes, or feeling sad for Americans. Now, each day of this administration we are getting further from being the best. It's the opinion of at least—seventy-six percent of the country. The rest, frankly I don't know in what universe THIS is great, good, or even better. Like I say, success today is existential. Do the mantra. Echo TR, echo TR, walk softly and carry a big stick. America has developed more of a limp, as of late. One leg is a lot shorter than the other, and that metaphor could be as tortured as the “democracy” Putin offers his people.

In many ways America has pigeon-holed itself. The mad scientists from yesteryear created a set of rules, a template designed to test time. Through the ages the constitution has been amended with well-debated arguments having achieved a consensus in all 50 states. Only once was an amendment rescinded, was it accepted by enough of a consensus in all states to over-turn the amendment and foster one to again be tested by time. It never came close. The 18^th amendment (effective January 1920) prohibited the sale and transfer of alcohol. The 21^st amendment (effective December 1933) repealed the 18^th. Prohibition encompassed, facilitated and necessitated 13 years of bootlegging and speakeasys. It spawned a decade of getting around the law, subverting rulings enough of the populace made to make them a federal mandate! America's pastime isn't baseball, it's making laws and then finding ways around them, ways that don't always work, depending on what color your skin is. Here's a radical thought: Constitutions, manifestos, pre-ambles, grocery lists could become outdated. Take the second amendment to the constitution. Has anyone read the history behind this? I have. It has its roots in the English Bill of Rights passed in 1689. King James bestowed upon his Protestant subjects (no doubt the P in what WAS) the right to “have arms for their defense within the rule of law.” With that right the early English settlers, in what could only be destined to become America, set about making certain guidelines to properly, responsibly use that right, possibly to avoid a time when gun violence can be found in America on any given day. They used it for:

• enabling the people to organize a militia system
• participating in law enforcement
• deterring tyrannical government
• repelling invaders
• suppressing insurgencies (rumored to have included slave rebellions)
• facilitating the instinct to defend oneself

To me, contrary to the amendment as it is written (in the 1791 drafting), the last bullet point does imply individual gun ownership. All people want—or need—to see to placate their (I guess) insecurity, cod piece, ego, the incomplete clause “. . .the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” period. To appreciate the full meaning of the second amendment one must somehow, in an equitable fashion, mesh those words with “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.” I was codified once. The bill passed by congress, written by scribe William Lambert, had more dependent clauses. The version written by Thomas Jefferson simply stated, in two clauses, the right and what it was for: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Semantics, minced words. TJ knew that people would be looking at the words for hundreds of years, twisting them to their wants or needs, wrapping the flag ever tighter around them and their guns until a simple way to assemble a militia to protect whatever state existed was contorted, perverted into a sanctimonious card to play. Notice arms is capitalized. Is this so it is not confused with anatomical arm? Then one could say to a gun-happy citizen, this only means feel free to run around in a tank-top. See, Jefferson thought of everything.

America was conceived in liberty once, in the later part of the 18^th century. It was, almost existentially conceived to be unequal, with many groups, ironically those who largely built it, being kept at bay, not equally reaping its rewards. Then, sometime in the 20^th century (60s) the giant woke up, Frankenstein became unhinged, and ever since the implicit paradigm shift has been ignored. Programs worked to alleviate the disparity, programs failed. One side tries to bring equality, the other invents ways to subvert them, twist words to their favor, or currently—well. . .the uneven playing field is at a 90º angle. A man is a man, far from infallible (although the current one in the WH would choke on those words). Many have tried to tame the beast called America, pulled the levers behind a curtain. Some have had great success, depending on whom you ask. All had foibles, even Obama. Although, unlike some, I know he would be the first to admit it. Men have tried, so why not try a woman. As some candidate said last year, “what do you have to lose?”