On Sunday October 1, 2013, yesterday as I write this, Patrick Lawrence published an article in Consortium news entitled “IMPEACHMENT: ‘Cognitive Warfare’ on Capitol Hill” (Volume 28, Number 269 — Monday, October 2, 2023). It’s an important article reflecting truths obvious to any objective, cognitively competent person. At least one would think so, but Patrick sort of makes the point that such might not be the case, and explains some of the reasons why.
I do have one issue with Patrick, his use of the phrase “liberal authoritarian ideology” with respect to this otherwise praiseworthy article. “Liberal authoritarianism” is an oxymoronic phrase unfortunately used more and more by decent and intelligent people. The same is true of terms like “progressive” and “leftist” when coupled with the concepts of authoritarianism, totalitarianism and censorship. The Democratic Party is not liberal, progressive or leftist, and it is to that political party that Patrick’s observations are (or should be) directed. Unfortunately, language has become so utterly manipulated that its capacity to serve as an efficient communicative tool is now trivialized.
It is worth noting that the term “democracy” too has been perverted. Now, as used by the corporate media, the term demands facilitation of electoral fraud through relaxation of identity verification and use of unsecured ballots. It is no wonder, at least to me, that opponents of such measures suspect that they’re meant to be used to improperly impact elections. In the Republic of Colombia, for example, where I now live, where for almost a decade I chaired a university political science program, and thus, with which I’m familiar, the concept of voting without identity verification through picture ID supplemented by signature verification and ballot access available only at polling stations during actual voting would be considered anathema. The same is true almost everywhere else in the world. But not in many states in the United States of America, purportedly the “land of the free and the home of the brave” (at least according to slavery advocate Francis Scott Key).
There is a sort of new term that has become essential in order to understand what is happening socially, politically and economically in the United States, and to understand the gist of Patrick’s article, and that term is “Deep State”. The Deep State is an unfortunate reality, albeit not as an organized entity but rather, as a loose confederation of like-minded villains who now control the corporate media, most of the federal bureaucracy (especially the Department of Justice, all of the intelligence agencies and the federal judiciary), with analogs at the state, county and municipal levels in a number of jurisdictions. The two major political parties were long controlled by the Deep State, although a successful rebellion by the so called “Tea Party” has made the GOP unpredictable and thus, well, unreliable. Because of such lack of reliability as far as the Deep State is concerned, a dictatorship (in the non-pejorative sense of consolidation of legislative, executive and judicial power) by the so called “Democratic” Party has been become essential, with all theoretical “checks and balances” disabled, which brings me to the subject matter of Patrick’s well thought out article, i.e., “cognitive warfare”, both domestically and abroad, something Cassandrically prescient dystopian authors have been warning us about for at least a century, most notably Eric Arthur Blair writing as George Orwell, in his novels, Animal Farm and 1984, but also, ironically, President Dwight David Eisenhower in his farewell address.
Patrick’s article deals with the possible impeachment of current president Joseph Robinette Biden for numerous felonies and is set in the context of the cognitive warfare with which it is being opposed. Impeachment was once something drastic, but not so since the Clinton presidency, a presidency that accomplished so much long term institutional malevolence, from moving the Democratic Party away from its liberal roots to creating a mockery of verity, crystalized in Bill Clinton’s quote “it depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” The two impeachments of then president Trump turned the concept into a partisan political stunt, as a consequence of which, all future impeachment proceedings become suspect, even one where the evidence is likely to be as obvious as it is in the case discussed in the article (remember when the emoluments clause of the Constitution was a big deal?).
We are, of course, as Patrick implies, in the post truth era, a predictable successor to the era when the concept of verity was stripped of meaning through the hypothesis that verity was non-existent, all meaning being relative based on the perceptor’s cognitive functions. The article is well worth reading, even if, as the Trojan prophetess Cassandra might have keened, were she among us: “things are not likely to improve so we’d best start to appreciate the benefits, if any, of authoritarian chaos, perpetual war and civil strife”: in essence, an updated version of Hobbes’ state of nature. _______
Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review, available at Substack.com, a commentator on Radio Guasca FM, and an occasional contributor to the regional magazine, el Observador. He has academic degrees in political science (the Citadel), law (St. John’s University), international legal studies (New York University) and translation and linguistic studies (the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.
Writing helps me to develop and understand concepts that come to mind intuitively or reflexibly, frequently providing unanticipated insights as I reread what I’ve written, a sort of communication mechanism connecting me to my subconscious perhaps, or perhaps just a means to add dimension to perceptions and introspections.
Whatever the case, it’s an important cognitive tool.
It led me recently, as I worked on a micro story, to reflect on the similarity between neoliberal and “woke” philosophies, in both cases, purportedly liberal but in fact, extreme in their exclusionary tendencies and refusal to tolerate dissent. In each case, advocating censorship and demanding conformity in the name of liberty and thus, oxymoronic.
Then, while writing this brief reflection, it brought to mind a similar phenomenon with reference to Christianity, how the Paulist revolution totally turned the original concept espoused by the Nazarene and his direct followers on its head, turning a positive doctrine of inclusion and tolerance into a negative exclusionary and restrictive means of control.
Our minds, as Freud, Jung and others noted, are strange and complex instruments, capable of finding truth in the depths of deception while concurrently distorting reality to promote deceit. _______
Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review, available at Substack.com, a commentator on Radio Guasca FM, and an occasional contributor to the regional magazine, el Observador. He has academic degrees in political science (the Citadel), law (St. John’s University), international legal studies (New York University) and translation and linguistic studies (the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.
He considered himself an empirical philosopher. He’d taken a number of college level philosophy courses but almost always dropped out before final exams having found his instructors unbearably opinionated and unfair in their grading schemes. He was not always wrong about that. The times were, in fact, sort of “a’changing”, although perhaps not in the manner Bob Dylan had expected. On the other hand, perhaps he was wrong about that. But anyway, he considered himself a philosopher. After all, innovative philosophers frequently went unrecognized. And innovative philosophies were not built upon the structures and beliefs expressed in prior philosophies. There was a great deal to be said for “thinking outside the box”. And he enjoyed pondering abstract notions and arguing about them with others, especially with others who were less informed than he was, especially when their rhetorical abilities were less developed than his.
On this particular day (it was morning, very early morning, although it seemed like very late at night and sleep had eluded him), he was considering something he’d found written on a discarded, or perhaps lost, notebook. Handwritten. What a novelty. Who wrote anymore he’d thought when he first opened it, when computers and the Internet so easily facilitated cutting and pasting! And when with multiple-stage-translation-programs, intralingual rather than interlingual, it wasn’t that hard to disguise the origins of materials borrowed from uncited sources.
The “notes” in the notebook dealt with a comparison of the similarities between the sociopolitical and economic concepts of globalization and localization, and the social beliefs of followers of “identity politics” who referred to themselves as the “woke. At least that’s how it was titled.
The author claimed to recall when “globalization” made sense, but then, according to the author, in a Marxian sort of dialectic, up had popped “localization”. Which to the author made sense as well, although the concepts were diametrically opposed. The first had seemed to the author a sort of Alexandrian concept in the sense that Alexander of Macedon was among the first to publicly insist that all men were equal, while the second, seemed a profoundly libertarian sociological interpretation which insisted on the collective right to be communally special, communally different, with an innate right to preserve independent cultures. “The difference between the homogenous and the heterogeneous” the author had written.
“The ‘woke’ would homogenize us all (if they could) into a society perhaps ruled by a version of Kurt Vonnegut’s ‘handicapper general’: all races comingled into one and, if possible all genders as well.”
Interesting perspective he thought. He’d read that book by Vonnegut. “Harrison” something or other. It was in a class that dealt with comparative dystopian literature. He remembered that, for some reason, he’d confused it with a book about strange firemen whose job it was to burn books, and that he’d dropped that class when the class had found his mistake amusing. Way too amusing. The other students obviously couldn’t grasp dystopian subtleties, and anyway, none of the girls in the class paid any attention to him.
The author had continued (in handwriting that seemed too perfect to be a man’s), writing that: “of course, until real equality was attained” (according to the “woke” with which the author was in contact, evidently the notebook involved some sort of research project was involved), “all races, genders, nationalities, religions (at least their secular versions), sexual proclivities, etc., had to be represented in everything public, and to the extent possible, everything private as well. No one’s feelings could be hurt under threat of dire legal sanctions and civil penalties.”
“A delight to trial lawyers everywhere” the author had noted, underlining the phrase for some reason. The notes continued, now in sort of a narrative fashion, as though meant to be read somewhere, perhaps to a class:
The “woke” envision a “globalized” version of social interaction at every level. Pretty much today’s version of the world as portrayed by Hollywood. Unfortunately, a clash among “woke” constituencies erupted when the “Trans” (males who insisted they be treated as females, sort of like full time cross dressers as they used to be called, although the difference between trans and gay men seems sort of subtle, at least to me) insisted on competing on an equal basis in female sporting events, and feminists realized that the despised patriarchy, albeit in drag, was once again depriving women of competitive rights to equality in everything.
“Ironic” the author had noted. Apparently wondering how that scenario would play out, a sort of “unstoppable force facing an immovable barrier”. At least that was the metaphor the author had used.
Then the author had added a “note”:
Note: what happens if a Trans person also identifies as a lesbian? Seems as though that would be a man who identifies and dresses like a woman but still prefers intimate relations with women. Interesting.
The author had then continued, slightly changing focus:
Traditionalists, at least of the antithetically anti-woke variety on the dialectic scale, those who insist that biological diversity is a reality and that there are only two genders and are thus, according to the “woke”, automatically racist misogynists, anti-Semites, fascist warmongers and patrons of genocide if they refuse to accept alternative views on gender (even if they clung to pacifism, internationally and domestically), have sort of sprung up in a reaction against the “woke”, albeit in a sort of anarchic fashion, apparently tending to be libertarian.
He put down the notebook, wondering what kind of person the author was, sort of hoping it was a woman, a pretty one, preferably slender.
He thought of getting up and rummaging around his refrigerator for a beer, he was pretty sure there was at least one left. He kept different kinds of beer in his refrigerator, mainly for effect. Cheap beer for when he was alone and dark beer for when he had company he wanted to impress. Lowenbrau dark, he loved how old and European the brewery was, apparently it was still brewed in Mucich. The cheap beer he drank straight from the can but the dark beer he liked to serve in frozen beer mugs he kept in the freezer section. He had a similar formula for wines and tequila, although he didn’t drink those straight from the bottle. He had fancy wine and shot glasses for special guests, sometimes professors but usually coeds, and plain old glasses when he drank alone, … which was not all that often. He had to hoard his money wisely.
It was late (and very early concurrently, as we noted earlier) so he just put the notebook down, and shuffled off to his bed, still unmade but the sheets were relatively clean. He always changed them when he hoped one of his female guests would consider spending the night. That was not all that often but he’d gotten sort of lucky a few nights before.
The next morning he went off to a class he was auditing, well, auditing without the professor’s or the university’s knowledge, the class where he’d found the notebook, It was a big class in an auditorium style room and, even though roll was called on occasion, no one noticed that his name was not included. It wasn’t as if he was fascinated by the subject, but it was a good place to meet sort of interesting people, some of whom were attractive women who under normal circumstances would not pay much attention to him.
After the class he walked to a sort of down and out, twenty-four hour, seven days a week diner whose prices (if not necessarily the food), appealed to him and had the soup and sandwich special, a BLT and French Onion soup, then headed towards Central Park. He liked to walk along Central Park West and imagine that he had an apartment in one of the buildings that adjoined “the” Park. He liked to go by the Dakotas where John Lennon had once lived and where he’d died.
He wondered what Yoko Ono was really like. His friend Bill hated her and called her Yucky-Oh-No, blaming her for the Beatle’s separation. But he didn`t care, he was a Stone’s man himself.
He sort of drifted into the heart of Park and watched a softball game being played next to an impromptu touch football game. The players kept getting mixed up and the softball guys became annoyed when the touch football guys drifted onto the space the softball players had claimed as their own, after all, it was set up for softball. But the Park was everyone’s. Some middle-aged women were playing soccer on the opposite side. After a while though it started to drizzle so he headed back to his garden apartment.
“Garden apartment” he mumbled, “right, it’s more like a subterranean cave”. But it was what he could afford, and after all, he was playing the role of an undergraduate student. Cement block and wood plank bookshelves and all, decorated with multicolored candle residue set in old bottles of Chianti. It was a studio apartment but the bathroom wasn’t bad, and it wasn’t really all that tiny. “Less to cleanup” he thought to himself.
When he walked in his door he spotted the notebook on the floor by his bed, picked it up and placed it on the table that doubled as a desk and dining space. “Got to clean this up a bit” he thought, hoping someone interesting would drop by. Oddly enough, that happened sometimes. So he made his bed, without changing the sheets, and even washed the dirty dishes in the sink that served both the kitchen and the bathroom. It was never a good idea to leave dirty dishes there if someone ever showed up and needed to use the John. He wondered what “John” had to do with bathroom functions, but for some reason it did. He decided he’d Google the question after he was through cleaning up and decided what to do with his evening.
In the meantime, the drizzle morphed into a driving rain which sort of decided his evening plans for him. A pleasant evening at home, or it might have been if his aparta-studio had been a bit larger and had had a fireplace, one with real logs and a warm fire burning. And if he had some brandy, but for the moment, his tequila would do. So he got his salt shaker out, cut up a lime and half-filled a water glass with the amber liquid he liked best. Dinner and drink combined he thought, as he opened a bag of nachos, humming Margaritaville to himself and imagining he was in Key West
After his sort of dinner he picked up the notebook again, speculating on who the owner might be, imagining that it belonged to one of the more attractive women in the class he was sort of auditing. There were a few, and he wondered if he could use it as an excuse to meet one or more of them in a gallant sort of way, certainly a reasonable ice breaker. But he wanted to read it first, not because he was all that interested in its contents, but he wanted to be able to pretend that he had been just in case the owner seemed worthwhile. He could develop and rehearse a few lines first, just in case.
So he opened the notebook and continued reading:
There is a confusing sort of middle ground”, the author had written. “The ‘woke” insist on the right to personalization in matters of style, of dress, tattoos, interpersonal intimate groupings, but certainly not in matters of political opinions where only those whose opinions are ‘correct’ ought to be ‘allowed’ to share and express them. To the “woke”, effective censorship is the hallmark of a free society. On the other hand, ‘traditionalists’, at least younger traditionalists, don’t seem to give much of a damn what they wear, as long as it’s fairly clean. At least that’s been my experience with those I know and classify that way.
“I wonder if that means anything” the author had written, “If it provides any psychological or sociological insights?” There was a telephone number circled in red with a date about a week ahead. “Hmmm” he wondered, “should I call and try and find out to whom the notebook belongs?” Or perhaps, he thought, he could pin a note in the classroom where he’d found it with his own name and phone number asking the owner to contact him, but then he decided that might put his surreptitious attendance at risk. “Drats!” he mumbled to himself, putting off deciding what to do, … if anything. The notebook had some sketches, not bad, and some geometric drawings whose meaning was utterly unclear.
Then he sort of decided it was time to sleep, or rather, he just fell asleep with his night lamp still on and dreamt of riots and chaos and rats and roaches. In his dreams that evening, after the episode with the non-human vermin, somewhere outside of time and space, the shade of Maximilien François Marie Isidore de Robespierre smiled, chuckled, … perhaps even laughed uproariously, albeit maniacally, … he just couldn’t seem to stop.
He woke late with a foul taste somewhat inexplicably in his mouth and a throbbing ache behind his eyes, as if he’d spent the night drinking, which he most assuredly had not. So, first things first, he went to the multipurpose sink and brushed his teeth, then took a few aspirin, or ibuprofen, or, well, something to exorcise whatever was playing in his head and making it pound. Then he took a hot shower and changed into not quite clean, definitely grubby clothing, … stay at home clothing, no shoes or socks necessary.
He’d pretty much finished the notebook and was wondering what to do with, or about it, which led him to reflect on its context in an introspective manner. He liked introspection. He was an empirical philosopher after all.
We wondered where on the personality spectrum dealt with in the notes he fell, or whether he had a place there at all. Too much of his personality was reflective, depending on who he was with and what he hoped to accomplish with respect to them. Did he hope to impress them with his erudition or merely induce them to like him, or to at least consider him tolerable? Or did he want to make them feel insecure and inferior? Or was he merely hoping for a one night stand free of subsequent mental, emotional or medical entanglements?
To “wake” or not to “wake” he thought to himself, “that is the question. Whether it is better in the ….” But he couldn’t recall the rest of the quote he wanted to play with. His head was still not quite right. Of course, he realized that his attitude towards being or not being among the “woke” would in all likelihood depend on whether the author of the notebook was male or female (he voted for female), and if female, whether she was attractive or not, and if attractive, whether or not there were any possibilities for any kind of relationship with her, whether ephemeral or meaningful. An awful lot of variables and all centered, assuming the best, on what her position was with respect to the “woke”.
And that was not quite clear to him, although it seemed she (assuming it was a she) found them superficial. Then again, the author seemed to find both groups superficial.
Well, at least for the nonce, perhaps his habitual boredom would not be at the fore.
He wondered if it might not be wise to actually register for the class he was purportedly auditing.
Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review, available at Substack.com, a commentator on Radio Guasca FM, and an occasional contributor to the regional magazine, el Observador. He has academic degrees in political science (the Citadel), law (St. John’s University), international legal studies (New York University) and translation and linguistic studies (the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.
Constitutions and their interpretation and enforcement are critical sociocivic and economic tools, but the concepts involved are virtually misunderstood and ignored and thus fail to attain their objectives. In part, that is a consequence of the manner in which constitutional law is practiced and adjudicated, an extremely subjective process where it ought to involve and objectively scientific methodology. In one sense, constitutions are the political framework in which juridical processes are supposed to be carried out, thus, constitutionalism is of a higher order than a mere legal system; however, that requires a broad and specialized understanding of the complex of concepts involved and that is sadly lacking, not only among judges, lawyers, political leaders and the citizenry, but among those charged with participating in the process through which constitutions are created, amended and replaced. This reflection seeks to address such deficiency, albeit in a summary fashion, more of a survey than a treatise, but in the hope that it will lead to discussion, criticism, research and more profound related studies.
Key Words
Constitution, democracy, liberty, pluralism, federalism, “separation of powers”, “constitutional review”.
Introduction
Constitutions should be essential instruments in conjunction with collective governance but they are little understood, either with respect to their creation and modification or their implementation and enforcement, and tend to be used more for political sloganeering and polarization than for anything else. Especially among the jurists and legal professionals charged with their enforcement. And that seems to be the case everywhere.
In the United States, the Constitution of 1787-89 et. seq. is revered in the manner that Abrahamic “sacred” texts (Jewish, Christian and Muslim) are revered (Bellah, 1967) and with good reason. All are hodgepodge motleys so often patched as to have utterly distorted whatever original meaning they had[1]. None are functional thus, while they’re all honored, none is really adhered to. Criticizing them, however, is anathema, thus, repairing them is virtually impossible. Still, as an adjective, “virtually” leaves a sort of loophole.
As I was taught and then as I taught United States constitutional law I eventually realized that I was merely dealing with a summary and analysis of often incoherent and disorganized decisions by jurists that dealt with “constitutionalism” as a synonym for the Roman concepts of stare decisis and res judicata, without any framework in the study of theories concerning the nature of legal concepts, and specifically, the nature of constitutions. I was fortunate, however, that several events in my life[2] led me to seriously question constitutional premises, hypotheses and theories, and that, in turn, led to a series of epiphanies I share here.
This “personal reflection” [3] analyzes relevant historical, theoretical and practical concepts involved (or which should be involved) in constitutional studies and arrives at some personal observations, conclusions and suggestions perhaps useful to students, constitutional lawyers, politicians and voters. It’s a bit long so it’s not really fit for casual reading unless one finds the topic fascinating, or perhaps, if one seeks a cure for insomnia. It’s a sort of constitutional study for dummies but perhaps, with a bit of luck, it may useful as a reflection that will pique the curiosity of others much younger and better positioned to delve into these topics in a more detailed and more academic manner than am I.
Theoretical underpinnings concerning constitutions in general
Generally, purportedly “liberal” constitutions primarily seek to reconcile contradictory tendencies, dressing them up in noble sounding platitudes but are, by their nature, antidemocratic, at least in a democratic context. That seems oxymoronic and, well, it is. But it’s also accurate, as oxymorons tend to be. Constitutions are fundamental charters meant to be frameworks for governance, establishing parameters and institutions necessary to limit the chaos inherent in mob rule through the imposition of order, but also, seeking to bind future generations to past ideals, not trusting those in charge of future “presents” to make wise decisions. They are shackles imposed on future leaders by elites who lack faith in their progeny and in majorities which, left unbounded, too often act based on ill thought out temporary expediencies.
The three most important albeit antagonistic premises involved in constitutional theory are democracy, liberty and pluralism, each opposed to the other two but all deemed essential and, the first step in making them functional, or at least, less dysfunctional, is understanding what they really involve in a functionally accurate manner rather than in the politicized form of propaganda through which accuracy and thus, functionality has been destroyed:[5]
Democracy is majoritarian rule, pure and simple, one more than half of the whole, without any of the unrelated contradictory positive platitudes[6] with which it is always presented and thus vastly different than rule by a plurality, which is rule by the largest block, although less than a majority. Majoritarian rule requires massive participation as any non-participation must be counted as a vote against. Hence, for example, in a democratic system comprised of a thousand members, action can only be taken if 5001 members are in accord. If only 600 participate, 400 are in accord and 200 against, that is not a democratic majority, rather, it is a participatory majority. Similarly, if everyone participates but there are more than two options, and the vote is 490 in favor of option (a) 300 in favor of option (b) and 210 in favor of option (c) that is not a democratic majority but rather, a pragmatic pluralistic “decision”. Of course, attaining a democratic majority, even a massive super democratic majority, e.g., a vote of 999 versus 1 does not mean that the decision is morally, ethically or even pragmatically correct.
Liberty is pretty much the opposite of democracy. It is based on the primacy of inherent individual autonomy as the source of sovereignty and thus, of decision making. It is not granted and thus may not be conditioned, even if conditions are not only reasonable but essential. It is, in a sense, the triumph of chaos over order, and is a fundamental component of the concept of rights, “rights being the quantifiable and qualifiable tangible expressions of liberty, e.g., the purported rights to life, free expression, etc. Since all purported rights are in fact subject to conditions, the concept is not only dysfunctional and incoherent but inexistent. What we refer to as rights are aspirational priorities on the use of government power and resources, assuming qualifying conditions are met, priorities rarely consistently honored, priorities coupled with undertakings by governments to either honor them or to provide a measure of relief for their violation. Thus what pass for rights are granted by superior authorities (e.g., the state) rather than inherent and neither unconditional nor eternal.
Pluralism is based on the antidemocratic and antilibertarian concept of collective minority “rights”, subject to all the qualifications mentioned above concerning rights.
Constitutions are essential to reconcile the foregoing antagonistic principles by prioritizing and conditioning them through use of a purported monopoly on the use of force. Constitutions thus have three fundamental functions: (1) reconciliation of democracy, liberty and pluralism through undemocratic restrictions; (2) creating, defining and providing for the implementation of institutional organs through which a collective is to be governed by application of the monopoly on the use of force; and (3), by providing specified forms of prioritized “constitutional legislation” not subject to modification through the ordinary mechanisms established for promulgation of more transitory legislation. Constitutional concepts do not operate in a self-created vacuum, but rather, answer (or should answer) to universal, supraconstitutional principles based on, … take your pick: divine law, natural law, ius cogens, etc., all relatively futile given the absence of legislative institutions to identify and define them, executive powers to enforce them or real judicial power to reconcile them.
There is an interesting argument to be made that constitutions should be written and self-contained, and that certainly makes them more manageable, but, for example, neither the United Kingdom, Israel nor New Zealand have traditional written self-contained constitutions[7]. Rather, they have organic statutory laws and “traditions” that simulate constitutional functions, the foregoing based on the premise that past generations lack the right to bind present or future generations, especially with respect to the concept of parliamentary sovereignty. Interestingly, it may be that in those three cases, the de facto constitutions are more closely adhered to than de jure constitutions elsewhere.
The source recognized for constitutional authority[9] in any given case has (or more accurately, should have) a huge impact on the operation of the constitution promulgated and on its subsequent modifications or even replacements. Recognized potential sources, from autocratic lo less autocratic basically follow the following sequence: divine, autocratic, state, national, popular and individual[10] but, in essence all are either imposed by an elite of some sort, or represent the crystallization of normative mores that percolate over time from popular practices. An interesting observation concerning the theory that the state is the source of constitutional authority, the platonic version, is that it is the foundational premise for fascism and other authoritarian and totalitarian systems, i.e., the belief that what is good for the state is ultimately good for the majority of its citizens. In a non-pejorative sense, state-source-based-constitutionalism sees the state as using its monopoly on the use of force to actively coordinate all societal institutions in order to attain maximum efficiency, exalting neither liberty, democracy nor pluralism, only efficiency and meritocracy.
Elitism is involved in the theories based on promulgation through divine intervention, monarchic auto-limitation and through the state as a quasi-living entity. Percolation from below is involved when the purported source of constitutional authority is derived from the nation as a whole (each member being the owner of an undivided interest in the whole), from the People (a majoritarian concept were each person has an individual percentage ownership of the whole) or from the individual (an anarchic concept). However, notwithstanding theoretical underpinnings, constitutions tend to devolve into autonomous, self-perpetuating memeplexes controlled by activist elites who do everything possible to consolidate and maintain political power for their own welfare, with real modification or replacement available only through populist revolutionary action in the form historically defined as tyrannical.
Rigidity versus flexibility
Constitutions are also classified on the basis of their relative rigidity versus flexibility. However, only the rigid variant actually qualifies as a constitution, although being rigid does not equate to permanent, merely that constitutional amendment requires a process equivalent to the original constitutional adoption. Flexible constitutions, in essence, involve the illusion of “organic interpretation”, i.e., the theory that a constitution has no independent meaning and must be interpreted in the context of changes in societal values, hence, formal amendment is not necessary. That is the crux in the constitutional confrontation in the United States between strict-construction-originalists and advocates of creative organic constitutionalism. As is the case above with respect to “democracy”, neither hypotheses (really a range of different hypotheses) determines whether or not a constitution adequately serves to assure equity, justice, governmental efficiency, meritocracy or to attain its principal objective, the common welfare.
On the nature of confederalism, federalism and unitarism[11]
Understanding confederalism, federalism and unitarism is essential to understanding the United States and other confederal or federal constitutions[12] and the political systems they seek to impose. The three related concepts, are, of course, important with respect to governance in any country and also, with respect to evolving international organizations endowed with supranational personality.
Confederalism and federalism are fundamentally based on the concept that the subjects of the composite entity involved are its component states. Both subjects and objects are impacted by law, but only subjects have the capacity to act within the associated legal and judicial frameworks on their own behalf. Thus, for example, an automobile, a slave, and in less enlightened times, a woman, were objects of laws, that is, impacted by them, but they lacked standing to force enforcements of laws that benefitted them, although they could be protected if their case was taken up by a subject, e.g., the owner of the car or slave, or the father, husband, brother or son of the woman.
Both confederalism and federalism are conceptually related to a similar theory of international law[13], one now not as respected as it once was, to the effect that status as subjects of international law was limited to states (countries), a status later somewhat expanded in a hybrid fashion to include international organizations endowed with supranational aspects, but excluding individuals who, while objects of international law, were the concern of states where they might be objects or subjects depending on the nature of the state (e.g., whether the state was confederate, federal or unitary[14]).[15]
The difference between a confederation and a federation lies in the balance of power between the central government and its component states, with component states being more powerful in a confederation and less so in a federation. Thus, under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, all principal central decisions required consensus among all the members, i.e., unanimity, and the central government had no autonomy to act on its own. In a federation, the central government is at least as powerful as its components and has autonomous capabilities. Confederalism and federalism are thus governmental mechanisms designed to fracture sovereignty along geographical and thematic lines, but sovereignty, even fractured, is a permanence-based concept. In confederate and federal contexts, the states are the only subjects of the confederation or federation, while individuals are the subjects of unitary systems. The United States of America purports to be a federation comprised of unitary states, thus individuals should only be subjects with respect to the states, although objects of both. That, of course, as discussed in detail below, is no longer the case.
A unitary system, as in the case of most governments, has no fragmentation of sovereignty although it may have division of functions between a central government and regional and local governments. Because fragmentation of sovereignty is not involved, the allocations of functions and related authority can be unilaterally modified by the central government, an essential aspect of the unitary structure. There are gradients of unitary governmental structures based on the allocation of administrative responsibilities among a central government and its administrative subdivisions so that a unitary government sometimes smells as though it were federal, but the absence of fragmented sovereignty is a critical difference.
Separation of powers versus separation of functions
Separation of powers involves a concept made popular by Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu (“Montesquieu”)[16] in his seminal treatise, The Spirit of the Laws, pursuant to which the abuse of power facilitated by its autocratic and dictatorial concentration was ameliorated through its fragmentation into coequal but separate components (usually referred to as “branches”), each with separate, independent albeit complementary powers and responsibilities, so that the powers of one branch are not in conflict with those of the other branches. Inherent in the concept is the requirement that no individual have authority in more than one such branch, which differentiates it from Westminster (parliamentary) systems where there is a fusion of legislative and executive functions in the figure of the chief executive (usually a prime minister, premiere or, in certain monarchies, a president) and a cabinet comprised of members of parliament, and possibly a fusion of legislative and judicial functions as well, for example, in the judiciary committee of the United Kingdom’s House of Lords. The latter should be referred to as “separation of functions” but is unfortunately, frequently conflated in diverse constitutions with “separation of powers. The original division was into three segments, the legislative, executive, and judiciary, but in modern times, especially in Latin American, additional branches have been added, including branches that control the electoral system and that monitor and discipline corruption in the other branches.
In my analysis of related systems, I have come to conclude that the doctrine of separation of powers leads to political deadlock and inefficiency but generally fails in its mission to curb authoritarian governance. Instead, it seems to lead to continual intragovernmental conflict and usurpation of power, especially by the “executive branch”, something less common but not absent in parliamentary systems. The defect is not theoretical but rather practical, based on the nature of political power and the inherent participatory deficiencies among the electorate in systems that purport to be “democratic”.
Background to constitutional governance in the United States of America
The Declaration of Independence signed by representatives of thirteen of the British Monarch’s North American Colonies on July 2, 1776 but promulgated on July 4, 1776, together with the subsequent Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union adopted by the resulting thirteen sovereign North American states through their Continental Congress on November 15, 1777 and ratified by the thirteen sovereign states effective as of March 1, 1781, were the founding documents for the United States of America, originally known as the “Perpetual Union”; not the subsequently adopted constitution of 1789. The latter constitution was adopted by an unconstitutional constitutional convention that assumed power in defiance of the requirements of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union[17] and presented the final draft of a new constitution on September 17, 1787, having exceeded the authority granted by the thirteen sovereign states to the constitutional convention. In contravention of the unanimity requirements of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, the new constitution was adopted upon ratification by nine of the thirteen sovereign states on June 21, 1788, and adopted as “the law of the land” by the Congress of the Perpetual Union on September 17, 1788. That body then passed resolutions setting dates for choosing the first senators and representatives to the new Congress, the first Wednesday of January (January 7, 1789); electing the first president, the first Wednesday of February (February 4); and officially starting the new government, the first Wednesday of March (March 4), when the first Congress would convene. In essence, the Congress of the Perpetual Union committed suicide and took the Perpetual Union with it.
The Counterrevolutionary Constitution of 1787-89
The Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were revolutionary documents while the constitution that went into effect on March 4, 1789 was a counterrevolutionary instrument revoking most of the principles on which the Declaration of Independence had been premised. It had nothing to do with democracy as none of the institutional organs it created, the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, the Electoral College or the Presidency were based on the one person, one vote majoritarian concept underlying the institution known as “democracy”, hence, the frequent albeit incoherent refrain, neither accurate nor wholly inaccurate, that the United States is a “republic” and not a democracy. The new constitution made a mockery of the Declaration of Independence’s claim that all men were created equal by not only guaranteeing the continuation of slavery but also of the slave trade for a minimum period. It granted the right to vote only to the formerly sovereign states which could then delegate it to such individuals as they saw fit, primarily white male landowners.
No provision was made in the Constitution for resolution of conflicts between the different branches, other than with respect to the presidential veto and provisions for its override, nor, for responsibility for constitutional interpretation or review. However, that is not entirely accurate. Plans for constitutional review were considered and rejected at the constitutional convention, which instead opted for the presidential veto to deal with such issue. In the common law, that was a responsibility ascribed to the legislature (parliament). In the United States however, that was a power usurped by the Supreme Court, a usurpation only finally resolved through the Civil War of 1861-65. Alternative theories until that time insisted that each state, as a contracting party, had the right of Constitutional review (the theory of nullification) or that every federal official who took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution had a right and duty to interpret it when doing so (a view espoused by President Andrew Jackson and others). Consequently today, the branch of the Federal government that the members of the constitutional convention deemed the weakest, and thus the branch most in need of protection through isolation from political considerations through appointment rather than democratic election and through life tenure, has instead proved the strongest, evolving into a non-democratic politburo and super legislature, and that in turn has turned selection of the president, into a contest over who will appoint the federal judiciary and resulting in politicized justices and judges who make their most important decisions passed on political considerations, thoroughly corrupting both institutions.
Ratification of the Constitution was hard fought with truth an irrelevancy, much the way politics functions today. The biggest concerns with the proposed constitution involved how it would impact two essential principles: the equality and rights of the sovereign states and the liberty of the citizenry. Those who supported ratification of the Constitution, the “Federalists”, guaranteed it would never function the way it does today, the way those who opposed the Constitution, the Antifederalists feared it would; i.e., the Antifederalist feared that the federalist form of government being proposed, a compromise between the loose form of confederate government that existed under the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union and the centralized form of unitary government that existed in the United Kingdom, would all too soon become unitary, with state rights minimized and autocracy replacing liberty. The Federalists promised to immediately add a bill of rights to assure that would not occur but, notwithstanding such adoption, the anti-Federalist fears became our reality.
Governance under the Constitution of 1787-89
The new form of government devised under the Constitution of 1787-89 sought to create a synthesis between the confederalism of the prior constitution and the unitary form of government used in the United Kingdom, linguistically problematic when it was explained in the so called Federalist Papers by Messrs. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay (se discussion of confederalism, federalism and unitary forms of constitutions above) as the terms confederation and federation were frequently used as synonyms. The novel hybrid, “federalism”, was deemed to involve a great experiment as each state could experiment with different modalities of governance, as long as they were republican (non-monarchic) in nature, it being anticipated that the most successful innovations would be replicated in the other states.
In addition, in order to minimize the abuse of power (erroneously referred to as “tyranny”[18]), Montesquieu’s concept of decentralization of power into three separate but purportedly equal branches, legislative, executive and judicial (Montesquieu, 1748, Chapter 6 of Book XI), was adopted, a transition from the Westminster concept of legislative supremacy. The three branches were designed as follows:
The Congress, like the parliament of the United Kingdom, was bicameral and based on single member constituencies designed to promote a two party system, but with distinct differences. First and foremost, the Westminster system’s combination of legislative and executive functions and provisions for dissolution (either by royal prerogative or in the event of deadlock) with new elections accelerated, was abandoned, as was the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, wherein parliament was supreme over other branches of government. Terms were to be fixed and sovereignty was to reside in the amorphous concept of “the People”.
The upper house (the Senate) would not be representative of the aristocracy but rather, of the individual component states, on an equal state by state basis, and the Senate would be vested not only with legislative power[20] but with power shared with the executive in the selection of judicial and executive officials (other than the president and vice president, in first instances, which would be allocated to a special electoral college). It would also be vested with the power to remove federal executive and judicial officials by a two thirds vote of its membership, provided they had first been impeached (in essence, indicted) by the lower house. The Senate was also granted special powers in the treaty making process through the requirement that all treaties be ratified there. In contravention of the concept of separation of powers, the presiding officer of the Senate was to be from the executive branch, i.e., the vice president, a strange figure with little function other than in case of the president’s demise, in which case the vice president would assume the presidency. While the vice president ordinarily had no vote in the Senate, he (or eventually she) was granted the power to break voting deadlocks involving tie votes. In the absence of the vice president, the Senate was to be presided over by a president pro tempore elected by the Senate, also important because in the event that neither the president, vice president nor Speaker of the House of Representative (see infra) were available to exercise the presidency, that function would devolve on that official. In the event that the Electoral College failed to elect a vice president, that function would devolve upon the Senate. In consequence of all of the foregoing, the upper house was more powerful than the lower house (the House of Representatives).
The House of Representatives was to represent the citizenry more directly through election by voters deemed qualified by the states, but with more limited, strictly legislative functions, and with primacy solely in three areas: first, financial legislation had to originate there; second, in the event that the electoral college could not agree on the selection of a president then, acting through state delegations with a single vote per state, the House of Representatives would select the president; and third, in the event of the demise or incapacity of both the president and the vice president, then the speaker of the House of Representatives would assume the presidency for the remainder of the term. The number of members in the House of Representatives was not premised on the comparative populations of the states (a democratic concept) but rather on a three part formula. First, each state, regardless of population, was to be allocated at least one member. Second, the population of each state was to be determined based on the number of free citizens plus a number equal to 3/5ths of its enslaved population. Representation in the House of Representative was then to be determined, on a decade by decade basis, based on the resulting qualified number. Oddly, the Constitution overlooked the issue of whether or not the population to be counted would include only citizens or everyone present at the time of the census, including those who were in the state illegally. Persons entitled to vote for the election of its members were to be determined in the sole discretion of each individual state, thus, initially, all women and most other citizens were excluded from the privilege of voting.
Collectively, the power to declare war was vested in the Congress but was soon usurped by the presidency through the president’s role as commander in chief of all the armed forces (i.e., through a presidential declaration, formal or informal, that an armed conflict or armed intervention did not “technically” involve a war, e.g., the Korean and Vietnam “conflicts”, but much earlier, during the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, the “conflict” with the Barbary Pirates).
The executive branch was headed by a president with a standby vice president elected in order to replace the president when the president was either permanently or temporarily unavailable. The executive branch was comprised of the president, as both chief executive officer and chief of state (functions divided in the Westmisnter system among the monarch as chief of state, and the prime minister as chief executive), the vice president and a number of designated executive departments, including foreign affairs (promptly renamed State), treasury and war, as well as an attorney general and postmaster general. No constitutional provision was made for a cabinet as existed in the Westminster system but, by tradition, the heads of the executive departments immediately coalesced into a cabinet for practical purposes. The president was granted a supervisory role over the legislature through a power to veto legislation which could be overridden by a two thirds vote in each House, it being anticipated at the constitutional convention that the veto power would be used as the principal form of constitutional review of legislation, a function quickly usurped by the Supreme Court. The president was also made commander in chief of the armed forces. Of course, presidential power amorphously encroaching into legislative functions through the issuance of decrees quickly occurred.
The Electoral College was and is a “virtual” institution created in conjunction with the executive branch, virtual because it has no location and has never actually met, acting solely by correspondence between its members in each state and their respective secretaries of state, and then, between the respective secretaries of state and the presiding officer of the Senate, either the vice president or, in his or her absence, the president pro-tem of the Senate. Its function was to select the president and vice president through majority vote of its membership, members to be appointed by the States in such manner as they deemed appropriate (initially, though state legislative action).
States were allocated varying voting rights based on a formula designed to dilute representation based on population by requiring that, in addition to a number of electors allocated on the basis of the national decennial census, two additional members be allocated to each state, notwithstanding its population. Election requires an absolute majority and failure to attain such majority results in removal of the electoral process to the Congress, albeit voting by state, with the president elected by the House of Representatives and the vice president by the Senate. Initially, the Electoral College was premised on the exercise of personal discretion by each elector based on his own experience and judgment, but political considerations and promises to support one candidate or another quickly politicized the process, which perhaps, with the exception of the initial two presidential elections, never operated as envisioned. That was made obvious in 1800. Originally, the runner-up in the election in the Electoral College was to become the vice president, meaning that the two front runners had probably been opponents, but the tie in the fourth such election between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr led to an amendment calling for the president and vice president to run as a team, with roles specified, at least in the Electoral College.
The third branch, perceived as the weakest at its inception and thus requiring reinforcement, was the federal judiciary, which was to complement rather the compete with the judiciaries in each state, and was expected to limit itself to federal matters and to issues of substance involving citizens of separate states or disputes among the states. It was not an appellate body but rather one, in most cases, entitled to pick and choose which matters it wanted to consider through a process known as certiorari, although in limited instances it had original jurisdiction. Nothing in the constitution granted it the discretion, power or authority to interpret the constitution, to override decisions of the other branches of government or to decide matters reserved to the states; however, under the leadership of John Marshall, Thomas Jefferson’s cousin and rival, such power was usurped, and such usurpation was ratified by the victorious North in the Civil War. In order to avoid its politicization and assure its neutrality, objectives which utterly failed, its members were to be selected for life tenure (on good behavior, removable only through the impeachment and conviction processes for high crimes and misdemeanors) on nomination by the president and ratification by the Senate. Unfortunately, the result was an aloof, insensitive and antidemocratic institution that promptly usurped prerogatives of the other branches as well as of the states through assumption of the power to interpret the Constitution, to declare acts of the other branches inconsistent therewith, and then, to command other branches and the states to take actions the judiciary deemed appropriate.[24]
Checks, balances and usurpation
In the system devised by the Constitution of 1787-89, as with many other things, the concept of separation of powers was adopted but concurrently violated through what is known as the system of checks and balances, pursuant to which each branch invades the prerogatives of the others, either formally, or by usurpation of functions. For example, the Executive Branch has the right to exercise the veto power over legislation, to preside over the Senate, to appoint members of the federal judiciary, subject to senatorial ratification, and to pardon infractions of federal laws. The Congress has the power to remove members of the executive and the judiciary through the impeachment and conviction process and to control executive action through the allocation of fiscal resources with the Senate also participating in the selection of executive and judicial officers through the ratification process. The Judiciary had no formal right to intervention in the affairs of the other branches, collectively referred to as the “political branches” due to their required participation in the purportedly democratic electoral process, but informally, the judiciary appropriated the unfettered capacity to intervene in any and all functions of the other branches, either through prohibitions (injunctions) or affirmative commandments (e.g., writ of mandamus). The presidency also quickly adopted informal means to expand its powers, legislatively through decrees and executive orders and executive agreements circumventing the legislative and treaty processes, through selective prosecution and plea bargaining, circumventing judicial functions and, through participation in numerous undeclared wars and military interventions.
Deconstruction of the Constitution of 1787-89
The deconstruction of the Constitution of 1787-89 started almost immediately but its culmination involved the Union victory in the Civil War as a result of which the concept of a league of sovereign states was dashed and federal supremacy firmly established. Deconstruction was predictable given two series of factors: First, the lack of national identity inherent in the state created involved a multinational entity with incompatible interests, a protectionist industrial north, an internationalist agricultural south with aspirations to absorb the Latin American republics to the south, and an expanding apartheidist frontier society spreading west. And second, a scheme of government based on expedient but incoherent political compromises without agreement on essential priorities and especially, without an understanding of what the term “perpetual” involved with respect to the right of secession implied in the Declaration of Independence or with how determinations concerning conflicts between state and federal policies and laws were to be resolved (see, e.g., Calvo Mahé, 2020).
Related conflicts raged during the first half of the eighteenth century with the New England States being the first to attempt secession (during the War of 1812), and Thomas Jefferson to espouse the rights of states to reject federal legislation (see, e.g., Koch, 1948). Thus, the Civil War was not a war to free the enslaved, as is now asserted[25], but to eliminate governmental theories that predominated during the early years of the Constitutional era:
First, as indicated above, the right of secession first espoused by the New England States during the War of 1812 and in which most early political leaders, including Thomas Jefferson, firmly believed, it being anticipated by many of the founding fathers that the United States of America would eventually separate into three different countries based in irreconcilable regional differences: one comprised on the New England and North Atlantic States (from Maine through Delaware); a second comprised of the newly emerging states to the west of the original thirteen, the frontier states; and, a third comprising the states of the “old south plus a good deal of central and south America which they expected would eventually be absorbed into or conquered by the United States (as the Northern states originally anticipated would occur with the remaining British colonies to the north, which now comprise Canada and as in fact occurred with almost half of Mexico).
Second, the elimination of supremacy of state law in all areas outside the thirteen exclusively allocated to the federal government in the Constitution and the related role of states, on an individual basis, as arbiters within their territorial jurisdiction of the legitimacy of federal legislation, the so called theory of nullification, again first espoused by Thomas Jefferson, the hypocritical author of the Declaration of Independence, in what have been historically referred to as the Virginia and Kentucky Declarations.
Third, the diverse theories over authority to interpret and enforce the Constitution of 1787-89, as emended, which ranged from Jackson’s theory that everyone who took an oath to defend such constitution had a duty to interpret it and apply it in accordance with his conscience (Jackson, 1832) to John Marshall’s assertion that all related authority was vested in the federal judiciary, and especially, in the Supreme Court (see e.g., Newmyer, 2013; Matthew, 2011; Koch, 1948; Kidd, 2012; Henderson, 2010; and, Calvo, 2020).
At the conclusion of the Civil War, through probably unconstitutional means (as occurred with the initial adoption of the Constitution) [26], three amendments to the Constitution (the 13th, 14th and 15th) were imposed by the victorious Union forces, which incoherently, from a legal and logical perspective, forced the states which had seceded to return to the United States of America from which, in theory, according to the victors, they`d had no right to leave, while concurrently depriving them of their constitutional role in the Federal government. The foregoing is not a reflection on the morality of those amendments, the 13th and 15th were obviously moral, but of their constitutional validity and their impact on the nature of federalism, the federalism the Federalists swore would never be abrogated.
The second series of fundamental “unconstitutional” constitutional changes took place during the presidential administration of Woodrow Wilson and the first war “to end all wars”, each amendment profoundly impacting the federal nature of the government originally created by the Constitution; i.e., the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th amendments (see, e.g., Wolfe, 1979; May, 2018).
The sixteenth amendment totally changed the balance of power between the states and the Federal government by changing the concept on which financing the federal government was based. Recognizing that the power to directly tax individuals involved the power to control, the original sovereign states that comprised the United States insisted that such power be retained by the states, with federal taxing and fund raising authority severely limited. However, citing the “temporary” exigencies of financing United States participation in the first “war to end all wars”, the amendment overturned Supreme Court decisions finding that a federal income tax violated the Constitution. In sexist terms, that amendment emasculated the states.
The seventeenth amendment went even further, changing the nature of the Senate from one representing the individual states to one purportedly representing their individual citizens, albeit in a completely undemocratic manner that totally ignored differences in population, thus maximizing the voting power of each individual in the less populated states. Henceforth, state governments would have no direct impact on federal legislation effectively changing the United States of America from a federation into a unitary government.
The eighteenth amendment destroyed the concept of a federal government of limited enumerated powers by granting the federal government the right to regulate consumption of alcoholic beverages on a national basis. Previously, such decisions were made on a state by state basis or even county by county basis. It has subsequently led to a large number of federal prohibitions on individual consumptive rights, including the disastrous war on drugs which has resulted in the imprisonment of so many Americans, especially African Americans and other minorities resulting in the United States having more of its citizens imprisoned, on both a per capita and total basis, than any other country in the world.
The nineteenth amendment, as was the case with the thirteenth and fifteenth amendments, is impossible to criticize morally, but it nonetheless helped destroy the federal nature of the government purportedly installed in 1789. It did so, following up on the 15th amendment, by eliminating one of the pillars of federalism, the exclusive authority of the states to determine voting eligibility.
Thus, while the “Perpetual Union” created by the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union and even the “United States of America” created by the Constitution of 1787-89 envisioned, indeed, specified a league of “sovereign” states, that is no longer the case in the United States except rhetorically and hasn’t been since the Wilson administration. While the Constitution purports to create a federal system of governance, the hodgepodge of inconsistent formal amendments and informal amendments through contrary legislation and contrary judicial decisions have converted the United States into a unitary state with disperse, decentralized administration for purposes of implementing centralized decision making[27]. The two constitutional provisions most designed to avoid the foregoing, the ninth and tenth amendments included in the purported Bill of Rights are utterly ignored.
The process from federalist to unitary forms of governance had its critical points, but also a sort of careless gradualism where individual states gave up their authority voluntarily and then, momentum built to make the changes both permanent and universal. An example involves how states lost their role in the federal legislative process. First, some state legislatures delegated their role in selection of representatives in the Senate to the people by providing for their selection by popular vote and then, when a majority of states had done so, it was made compulsory on the rest through adoption of the 17th amendment. That amendment obviated the rationale for the Senate, making it an undemocratic superfluity in the legislative context.[28]
A similar process seems to be taking form with respect to the Electoral College, the last “sort of” vestige of federalism remaining. “Sort of” because it is largely illusory. So much so that most voters are unaware of its existence or function. Consequently, at least every four years there are demands for its elimination, or for the implementation of gimmicks to make it even more irrelevant. In essence, the raisons d’être for the Electoral College have been extinguished. Those were, first, making selection of the executive branch a power retained by the states, and second, that the electors to be selected would be chosen because of their personal merit, experience and wisdom, and the decisions would be their own, not as spokespeople for those who selected them. Thus the concept of a pre-pledged electors is an anathematic oxymoron, as is their popular election, but both have taken place, thus largely eliminating the premises on which the Electoral College concept was constitutionally implemented, except, of course, for the undemocratic allocation of votes. Sensing the foregoing, a rising tide seeks to follow in the path sowed with respect to the 17th amendment, which made the Senate anachronistic.
Conclusions with respect to constitutionalism in the United States of America
First, an observation. For all of the loyalty demanded to the Constitution of 1787-89, pledges, oaths, ceremonies, statuary, etc., it is almost completely illusory, having been replaced by an antidemocratic, authoritarian “judiciocracy” (rule by the judiciary), where the United States Supreme Court has been converted into a dictatorial fusion of legislative, executive and judicial power, dictatorial not in a pejorative sense but in its original meeting as centralized governance without division of power into separate but equal branches, as envisioned by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has become an all-powerful politburo encompassing not only the executive, legislative and judicial functions, but also electoral functions, effectively replacing the anachronistic constitution. See, e.g., Hamilton, 2012 and Roberts, 1994).
The foregoing is not a value judgment on the nature of the resultant form of governance, it is no more or no less just, no more or no less efficient than the form of governance the Federalists promised when they avocated for adoption of the constitution its members negotiated at the constitutional convention in 1787, but which Antifederalists insisted would devolve into what has, in fact, occurred. But governance through a non-elected judiciocracy is antithetical to democratic aspirations, and to functional libertarian aspirations as well. As to pluralism, well, that seems to be a current goal, but autocracy, whether individual or institutional, tends to be whimsical and arbitrary, depending on the perceptions of the autocrats. And the reality is that at present, our judiciocracy is an elitist instrument with elitist, self perpetuatory goals which can easily change with the temper of the times.
Personal suggestions and observations
At the time the Declaration of Independence was adopted, it was innovative and revolutionary. The same was true with respect to the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, and perhaps, even with respect to the Constitution of 1787-89. But even the pseudo-revolutionaries who designed all three understood that they involved experiments which should, in the future, be modified or even replaced, to reflect the revelations attained through such experiments. That’s why the Constitution of 1787-89 has mechanisms for amendment, but our political leadership is loath to invoke and apply them, preferring to effect changes they deem convenient through the illusion of non-amendment by judicial interpretation, a much more controlled form of quasi-amendment where the People are denied their role as the purported source of constitutional authority.
Other countries have learned from the United States’ mistakes and have designed more effective and more democratic, perhaps even more libertarian forms of government from which we, in turn, might learn, were it not for a combination of our hubris, e.g., the perception of “American Exceptionalism”, and the reality that the elites who wield the real power in our society have utterly no interest in democracy, or liberty, or pluralism, or equity, or justice, but rather in the acquisition, accumulation and maintenance of power, and through their control of the economy, have acquired control of the means of communication at all levels, as well as of the bureaucracy, the military, the intelligence agencies, the Congress, the judiciary, and, with rare exceptions, the executive branch led by the presidency as well. The foregoing virtually negates the possibility of peaceful real constitutional reform, which at least in part explains the increasing outbreaks of violent protests such as that which took place at the Capitol on January 6, 2020. A situation approaching that which took place in North America during the second half of the eighteenth century, and then, much more seriously, in France during the last decade of that century and the first decades of the nineteenth century, and in Russia at the end of the first “war to end all wars”.
Possible reforms
If we could somehow effect meaningful constitutional reform, what might it look like, assuming the goal was to implement a model that sought to reconcile and prioritize our democratic, libertarian and pluralistic aspirations maximizing the possibility of attaining equity, justice, sustainable economic growth in an environmentally responsible fashion and the illusive common welfare?
The following alternatives each offer positive and negative aspects:
What good is a constitution if it is not respected? And respect would seem to require and ability to interpret and enforce it, as well as to keep its parameters in line with societal mores. Generalizing the sources of constitutional authority, two categories stand out: one, imposition from above in the form of a grant by a superior authority, or two, percolation from below, i.e., from the “People” in an evolutionary normative process based on social mores. Constitutional interpretation and supervision may be the determining factor in the internal balance of political power and should be coherently tied to theories of the sources of sovereignty, what is referred to as “constituent” authority, i.e., the source of authority to create constitutions. As discussed above, the possibilities range from the extremes of the divine to the individual but in between, the predominant theories are, on one hand (the grant from above variants) divinity, autocracy and the state, and on the other (percolate from below variants) either the “nation”, the “People” or the individual. In order to consolidate and maintain power among elites in the latter three cases, rendering them malleable and manipulable, it is posited that “constituent power” is surrendered once a constitution is adopted, and henceforth, its modification is authorized only in accordance with its terms and through authorized delegates and processes; however, that is illogical as the “constituent power, purportedly fundamental and inherent, would logically always remain at least inchoate in its source institution, thus amendment should require the same formalities as adoption, rather than being left in the hands of an elite of some sorts, for example, a judiciary. Constitutional changes would seem to need popular ratification, even if, for practical purposes, formulation is centered in some form of representative organ.
In the United Kingdom, based on the theory of parliamentary sovereignty, constitutional authority was concentrated in parliament for all purposes, creational as well as interpretative. In the United States, while vague, it appears that the formulation of constitutional changes was left to the Congress and the states, or to the states alone, logical if the source of constitutional authority based on federalist theory was the states, but illogical if, as the preamble to the Constitution of 1787-89 states, it was “We the People”. Like most constitutions, that of the United States of America was and is based on constant political compromise, the political characterized by the sublimation of logic and coherence to sharing of power through compromise. The issue was considered in the constitutional convention but several options for councils combining legislative, judicial and executive membership were rejected and instead, aspects of the power were vested in the presidency through the veto power, while, as discussed above, competing hypotheses argued that such power was vested in the contracting parties to the constitution, i.e., the states, or, as perceived by Andrew Jackson, by any person whose duty it was to enforce the constitution, while John Marshall appropriated such authority for the federal courts with ultimate authority in the Supreme Court, thereby politicizing both the entire judiciary as well as its selection process.
Many countries have created an independent organ charged with constitutional interpretation and enforcement, as opposed to constitutional creation and amendment, usually but not always in the form of specialized judicial bodies known as “constitutional courts” while others have opted for mixed concepts similar to those proposed at the constitutional convention, i.e., through “constitutional councils” comprised of members selected from diverse state organs, usually the legislature, the judiciary and the executive.
Logic would seem to dictate that an interpretative organ is essential, but that its composition should involve broad rather than narrow social segments, perhaps combining democratic elements (some members popularly elected) with pluralism (some members representing specific socioeconomic constituencies and minorities), and still others selected by the diverse branches of government, a sort of mini-permanent constitutional commission, with initial enforcement vested in the judiciary and final ratification of the decisions of the commission vested in the People through required periodic ratification of its decisions.
Of course, logic and politics are antithetical, given that politics, in the end, seems to rest on the use and abuse of power, to some extent, balanced by negotiation, a subjective rather than an objective process, while proper implementation of legal and constitutional principles ought to exclude the subjective in favor of the neutrally objective.
Assuming theoretical constitutional considerations are either dealt with, or more probably ignored, we can consider the organic aspect of constitutions and specifically, perhaps review the different systemic grouping of governmental institutions, which today, tend to follow three principal models: the Westminster parliamentary systems, the presidential systems based on separation of powers, and the multi-level assembly systems common among governments with more socialist leanings. In addition, there are outliers ranging from absolute monarchies like the Saudis, or theocracies like Iran.
Based on current parliamentary (Westminster) models, the Republic of Ireland seems to provide a parliamentary system that blends democracy and pluralism, and a constitution that provides a modicum of liberty. Parliamentary systems such as exist in the Republic of Ireland, as opposed to presidential systems as exists in the United States of America, combine legislative and executive functions in one institution in the sense that the legislature selects the executive, which serves at the pleasure of the legislature during a fixed term, usually five years, but which, in the event of a major conflict between the two, requires new democratic elections. A separate chief of state with important residual but inchoate rather than quotidian power is provided for with protocolary and election related responsibilities, usually elected by the legislature or an electoral college, but in Ireland, popularly elected.
While parliaments may be unicameral, they are usually bicameral with most power vested in what is known as the lower house, or the commons, and residual power based on diverse premises (e.g., geographic, ethnic, nobility, federalist, etc.) in a so called upper house. Members of the governing house, usually the lower house, are elected for five year terms, and in turn, select a ruling cabinet that may include members of parliament, and which includes the chief executive, known usually as the prime minister or premiere, or, on occasion, in monarchies, as the president (e.g., in Spain). The Parliament as a whole or in some instances, only the governing lower house can be dissolved during its five year term at the option of either a majority of its members or the prime minister, by notice to a figure known as the chief of state (either a president or, in monarchical systems, the monarch) who calls for organizes and supervises the electoral process. Thus while elected for five year terms, the legislative and executive branches can be replaced at any time.
The chief of state in a parliamentary system, usually denominated president if a monarchy is not involved, tends to have enormous potential power, rarely exercised except in emergencies, and is expected to be non-partisan. Much of the chief of state’s role is perfunctory, sort of like a notary’s, if things are in order, he signs them, without any subjective input, but in an emergency, he or she may exercise plenary powers.
The Irish novelty mainly involves its upper house (the Senate) which, rather than being premised on democratic premises, is premised on selection of its members based on pluralistic concepts, thus different segments of society, rather than individuals, are represented through elected delegates. The president selects a number of senators, universities others, unions, others, industry groups others, etc. An additional novelty involves the chief of state, a president who, has less rigorous qualifying requirements if he or she has the backing of members of representing diverse political parties, a means of promoting a non-partisan presidential perspective. Unlike most presidents in parliamentary systems, the president is popularly elected. In most parliamentary systems the chief of state is elected by the parliament, or by an electoral college of complex composition.
Governments in socialist economies (e.g., in Cuba and in the People’s Republic of China) provide their own innovations based on a sort of multilevel electoral system that maximizes participation, and hence, democracy and pluralism, albeit at times at the expense of liberty.
Almost all governmental systems claim to be “Democratic”, even the absolutist monarchical system in place in the United Arab Emirates, but that is based on diverse definition on what “democracy” entails and a rejection of its majoritarian premise as described above. But very few involve the level of participation required for functional (albeit not necessarily, libertarian or pluralistic) democracy. Two that do, but lack the libertarian element, although not the pluralistic aspect involve the Cuban and Chinese models, both of which involve a form of multilevel democracy, sort of the Amway system.
In those two models, electoral participation is obligatory and starts at the local level with a form of direct democracy, at local meetings, anyone who secures nomination by ten people can be a candidate and the campaign is pretty much limited, sort of like in New England town hall meetings. First level representatives are elected there, but their function primarily involves election of regional representatives under similar conditions in China, or directly to the national level in Cuba. The local representatives in Cuba or regional representatives in China then elect a majority of the members to the ruling unicameral, uni-functional governing organ, the national assembly, from whose members all senior officials serving in state organs are chosen. Other representatives to the national assembly are selected on the basis of pluralism, with different societal sectors electing members, and others are designated by the state (e.g., by the armed forces, labor unions, etc. The National Assembly is the highest state organ and arbiter of constitutional issues, it is the highest legislative and judicial body, but is subdivided into diverse specialized commissions, the most powerful of which are the Central (or Standing) Committee, which exercises the National Assembly’s powers when it is not in session (most of the time) and the Council of State, a sort of cabinet. The electoral role of the Communist Party is difficult to gauge because related information is heavily impacted by propaganda, both pro and con, based on the source.
The Iranian, democratic theocracy model
Robert Heinlein, a popular science fiction author whose books tend to be fascinating when one is young but tedious as one ages, was a sort of political philosopher and a whole series of his books was dedicated to an alternate future history where the United States had become a theocracy. Something that, to a student of history, would not be odd given that theocratic tendencies have always been close to the surface in the United States. Thus, the Iranian model seems worthwhile at least playing with.
In an anti-Iranian article, Wikipedia describes the Iranian electoral system as follows:
Iran elects on national level a head of state and the head of government (the president), a legislature (the Majlis), and an “Assembly of Experts” (which elects the Supreme Leader). City and Village Council elections are also held every four years throughout the entire country. The president is elected for a four-year term by the citizens. The Parliament or Islamic Consultative Assembly (Majlis-e Shura-ye Eslami) currently has 290 members, also elected for a four-year term in multi- and single-seat constituencies. Elections for the Assembly of Experts are held every eight years. All candidates have to be approved by the Guardian Council. See Politics of Iran for more details.
I would supplement the article by noting that all formal political parties are precluded and elections are based on multi-member districts with each voter conforming his own lists from lists of candidates conformed by those seeking election in conjunction with others. And as a former student noted with respect to the Guardian Council: “isn’t that exactly what major political parties, the intelligence community, the judiciary and the corporate media do now in the United States???
Single versus multicandidate electoral districts
Most of the world has rejected single candidate, first past the post electoral districts as undemocratic given that first: the winning candidate need not obtain a majority of the vote, and second, that losers receive no representation, thus usually disenfranchising sizeable minorities or at times, even composite majorities. Instead, they adopt electoral districts with multiple seats being contested. An example would be if a state elects 55 representatives to Congress and was divided into five districts, each would elect eleven representatives on a proportional basis. Thus, if Democrats received 40% of the vote, the GOP 30%, Libertarians 20% and greens 10%, then democrats would elect 5 of the representatives, Republicans 3, Libertarians 2 and Greens 1, and none would be totally disenfranchised. Under the current system, the Democrats would have received all eleven.
In one candidate per electoral district systems (the US, the UK and Canada), it is almost impossible for minority parties to develop, while in multi seat districts, it is reasonable easy. If the US electorate has been clamoring for new options, this is the only way to attain them.
Of course, it is inconceivable that any fundamental electoral or government reforms will be adopted by a very satisfied Congressional and executive duopoly. It would involve political suicide. But the Constitution of 1787-79 does have a provision permitting two thirds of the states (currently 34) to call a new constitutional convention, a provision never invoked although a proposal has been circulating for many years and which to date has been approved by nineteen states. Many more states would probably approve a call if it could be limited to consideration of specified proposals, and that is a possibility. However, that was the case with the constitutional convention of 1787, the one that refused to comply with the instructions of its organizers and instead of correcting a few aspects of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union by unanimity, replaced them entirely by a three fourths vote. Thus, our current constitution lacks legitimacy in a manner that in the classical context of constitutional law, would have defined it as a tyranny (in a non-pejorative sense) but is nonetheless in force, and the dread is that the same thing would happen should a new convention be called. Something which, on a global basis, is hardly rare (e.g., the Colombian constitution of 1991). There are active campaigns to elicit support for a new constitutional convention through voter initiatives, available in a majority of states, but our citizenry is rarely well informed, thanks to the corporate media’s policies of political homicide through silence. But if you’re interested, at least one of the sites is available through the Internet, at least right now, it may soon be censored: e.g., https://conventionofstates.com/states-that-have-passed-the-convention-of-states-article-v-application.
Conclusion
The foregoing section, “Personal suggestions and observations” lacks the objectivity and reliability of the former sections and thus, for academic purposes, much of it can be easily disregarded, yet it addresses current constitutional dilemmas we face and provides suggestions I find interesting. Feel free to craft your own. Or to criticize any aspect of these personal reflections, in whole or in part. That, after all, is what these reflections aspire to. To generate reflection, speculation, discussion, new understanding and new proposals.
If you’ve reached this point and read all the foregoing: congratulations.
Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (March 1, 1781); Miscellaneous Papers of the Continental Congress, 1774 – 1789; Records of the Continental and Confederation Congresses and the Constitutional Convention, Record Group 360; National Archives Building, Washington, DC.
Asimov, Isaac (1969): Asimov’s Guide to the Bible (vols. 1 and 2); Doubleday, New York City.
Bellah, Robert N. (1967): “Civil Religion in America”; Daedalus, Vol. 96, No. 1, Religion in America (Winter, 1967), pp. 1-21; The MIT Press on behalf of American Academy of Arts & Sciences, Cambridge, available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/20027022, first accessed November 15, 2019.
Calvo Mahé, Guillermo et. al. (Jiménez Ramírez, Milton Cesar, editor, 2020): “Capítulo I. Evolución del control de constitucionalidad en los estados unidos.”; El control de la constitucionalidad en episodios: acerca del control constitucional como límite al poder; Universidad de Caldas, Facultad de ciencias jurídicas y sociales; Bogotá.
Jefferson, Thomas (1976): Declaration of Independence; Miscellaneous Papers of the Continental Congress, 1774 – 1789; Records of the Continental and Confederation Congresses and the Constitutional Convention; National Archives Building, Washington, DC.
Koch, Adrienne and Harry Ammon (1948). ”The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions: An Episode in Jefferson’s and Madison’s Defense of Civil Liberties.” William & Mary Quarterly 3d ser., vol. 5, no. 2 (April 1948), pp. 145–76; Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture; Williamsburg, Va.
Lutz, Donald S. (1984). “The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth-Century American Political Thought”. American Political Science Review. 78 (1): 189–97. Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association; Cambridge.
Madison, James (scrivener) (1788): Constitution of 1787-89; Miscellaneous Papers of the Continental Congress, 1774 – 1789; Records of the Continental and Confederation Congresses and the Constitutional Convention; National Archives Building, Washington, DC.
Russell, David (2017). “Politicization in the Federal Judiciary and Its Effect on the Federal Judicial Function”; New York University Journal of Legislation & Public Policy Quorum, Vol. 19 (2017 Forthcoming), 25 Pages Posted: 3 Jul 2017 (last revised: 5 Oct 2017); New York University, New York City, available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2995008, first accessed October 7, 2017.
Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review, available at Substack.com, a commentator on Radio Guasca FM, and an occasional contributor to the regional magazine, el Observador. He has academic degrees in political science (the Citadel), law (St. John’s University), international legal studies (New York University) and translation and linguistic studies (the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/
[2]I.e., a course I took on jurisprudence while receiving my juris doctor degree; diverse courses in comparative studies I completed in conjunction with earning al LL.M in international legal studies during the late 1970’s; a series of personal chats I was privileged to have with Thomas Martin Franck (July 14, 1931 – May 27, 2009; from 1962 until his death the Murry and Ida Becker Professor of Law at New York University), one of my professors at NYU; courses on linguistics I took in conjunction with a post graduate certificate in translation studies at the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies and, later, profound questions and observations by very bright students both in the United States and in the Republic of Colombia. As a result of the foregoing, my curiosity was piqued and I found myself delving rather thoroughly into the topics I touch upon here.
[3] I acknowledge that, in large part, this reflection is a medley of personal hypotheses which have evolved over a bit more than a half century of observation, study, experience and mistakes from which I’ve hopefully learned, and on having taught what passes for constitutional law, constitutional theory, comparative constitutionalism, comparative politics and political systems and, international, comparative and supranational law.
[5] Linguistics are an essential element in the study of constitutions, and well, anything, and perhaps the most fundamental element of linguistics is understanding the nature of words. Words are conventions, in the sense expounded by David Hume, involving containers for information, and ironically, the more information a word contains, the less practically useful it is. Thus, for example, the generic word “tool” is less practical that the more specific word “hammer”. Unfortunately, politics tends to imbue words not only with too much information, but also with contradictory information rendering the concepts involved in a word incoherent. That is certainly the case with the term “democracy” which has been imbued with antagonistically contrary concepts such as liberty, pluralism, rights, etc., in order to make it more palatable. More palatable perhaps but not only less useful but in fact, unmanageable and thus useless. The following seeks to reverse that process by defining the three essential terms “democracy”, “liberty” and “pluralism” in their functional rather than politicized senses.
[6] Such as liberty, human rights, justice, equity, respect for minorities, etc.
[7] Nor are they really “unwritten, although they have tradition based components that are not “formally” adopted, fixed or reflected in definitive written instruments.
[14] In the United States of America, for example, on a state level, individuals are both subjects and objects but originally, on a federal level, they were originally only objects, which explains why, originally, the Bill of Rights only applied to the relationship between the federal government and the states.
[15] In the international context, lip service has been given to expanding subject status to individuals but with little headway, although through intermediation in the context of supranational international organizations involved with human rights, some headway has been made, specifically, with respect to the role of the commission in the Interamerican Human Rights system, and formerly, in a similar context in the United Nations Economic and Social Council.
[16] Clearly a restatement of Locke’s division of government functions (Jenkins, 2011).
[17] The final provision of which, its Article XIII, provided that the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union were to be perpetual, and altered only with the approval of Congress and the ratification of all [emphasis added] the state legislatures.
[18] “Tyranny” actual refers to assumption of power outside the prevalent, recognized constitutional channels.
[25] See, e.g., Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address where he stated as follows: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read: Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes” (Lincoln, 1861).
[26] Richard Albert, the William Stamps Professor in Law and the director of constitutional studies at the University of Texas at Austin and others, I among them, have written concerning the concept of “unconstitutional constitutional amendments”, a concept recognized in the common law pursuant to decisions of the supreme courts of Canada and India, and in the civil law through decisions of the German Federal Constitutional Court. I argue that it would probably apply to amendments 13 through 19 of the United States constitution because they changed the fundamental nature of the government adopted by the Constitution of 1787-89, despite, with respect to the 13th, 15th and 19th amendments, moral and ethical grounds for doing so.
[27] For a discussion of the diverse decentralized administrative options in unitary states, see, e.g., Hague (2010).
[28] Had the goal been implemented logically, albeit unconstitutionally, it would have made much more sense to have merely eliminated the Senate transferring its functions to the House of Representatives, transforming it into a quasi-democratic federal unicameral legislature; a significant operational savings with increased efficiency if democratic governance were the objective.
[29] See Schmitt, 1931; Herrera, 1992; Garlicki, 2007; Comella, 2004 and Calvo, 2020.
Sucleforth Winslow hated his name. Where the hell did his parents come up with the name Sucleforth anyway? He’d googled it and had come up with absolutely nothing, which, apparently, had been his parents’ goal. His nickname, of course … sucked!!!! And it had gotten him into quite a few physical altercations. If that’s what his parents had hoped for, that he’d grow up tough, why hadn’t they at least named him “Sue”? But he guessed that, in today’s “trans is awesome” world, that wouldn’t have worked. Apparently his parents had foreseen the writing on the wall and acted accordingly.
He’d tried reversing his name, Winslow Sucleforth forth was not great, but it was quite a bit better. And he’d run with it for a while, several times, but then his parents would introduce themselves as Albert and Agnes Winslow and questions would arise and answers would be given and things would be worse than ever.
Sucleforth refused to ever do any drugs as he firmly believed, and his parents did not deign to deny, that drugs of some sort, or perhaps many sorts, had quite a bit to do with their decision to gift him with a name so utterly unique. And worse, they expected him to pass it on to his descendants, so that, eventually, there might be a Sucleforth VIII, who put away wives willy nilly, assuming, that with his name, he’d ever be able to acquire any.
His parents were first generation “woke”. That meant that they engaged in number of somewhat uncomfortable practices, at least to Sucleforth, but obviously, not to them. They’d both agreed, prior to starting their lives together (they refused to marry, making Sucleforth a bastard), that his father would be a cuckold, but not just any cuckold, as variety was imperative in everything. So his mother engaged in serial coupling and group coupling with a huge variety of partners, in both gender, orientation, and race, always in front of her submissive husband, who was required to clean any resulting messes. Notwithstanding her very active sexual life, his mother did not procreate, except in his case, abortion being very, very important to her. So, she always tried her best to become pregnant, their being no other way to constantly demonstrate her dedication to abortion as a guiding life principle.
His father, on the other hand, having been born a Caucasian male of the protestant variant pejoratively referred to as a Wasp, had to be perpetually punished for sins perpetrated on other races, genders, sexual orientations, religions, nationalities, species, plants, etc., and thus could not engage in any activities that provided fulfillment or satisfaction, not even masochism, which made his wife’s duties a bit complex with respect to assuring that his punishment, on behalf of his race and his religion, etc., was adequate. But she’d proved up to the task, regardless of the effort required.
The Winslows were well off, having sued their parents for permanent and perpetual support, but has arranged things so that Sucleforth was financially completely dependant on them, without any possibility of ever getting access to their wealth, not even on their demise, their fortune having been pledged in trust to a gazillion unusual causes, many political (to assure the election of woke candidates), but also designed to assure the ever increasing variety of woke entertainment, woke education, woke anything. They really were very, very woke. And Sucleforth pitiful periodic stipend would only continue if he procreated with someone from a different race, a different nationality, a different religion, well, someone totally different, and provided a new “Sucleforth”. Unfortunately, based on his experience with his parents’ “lifestyle”, the idea of a relationship terrified him.
He really did not need much of a stipend as his parents insisted that he live at home, in his room, which was supplied with every videogame console and every videogame possible that being planned as his access to education. Athletics were absolutely forbidden but he was expected to attend woke rallies and protests and riots regularly, that was a given, no exceptions tolerated. And he was also expected to become a connoisseur of drugs at a very early age, the only area where he’d successfully rebelled. But then again, notwithstanding the irony, his parents expected that he’d turn out rebellious. As had they. But not in a way that in any manner threatened their lifestyle.
Sooo, Sucleforth, for some reason, blamed his odd life on his name, for some reason believing that, if he could just somehow discard it, everything would be a bit more, well, bland and normal. He knew he had a legal right to change his name, but unfortunately, all the lawyers and judges and social workers and bureaucrats he’s ever been able to contact shared his parents’ perspectives, so he was stuck, at least so far.
But he wasn’t getting any younger, and the world, at least the world to which he was allowed access, was not as comforting as a young boy of thirty-seven might hope it would be.
If only he’d had a name like “Schicklgruber”!!! _______
Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review, available at Substack.com, a commentator on Radio Guasca FM, and an occasional contributor to the regional magazine, el Observador. He has academic degrees in political science (the Citadel), law (St. John’s University), international legal studies (New York University) and translation and linguistic studies (the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.
There is a purportedly existential crisis under way involving the possibility that the United States of America, until recently the world’s hegemon, lacks enough funds to pay its current debts. Some wonder how, if that’s the case, the Biden administration can be so generous to the Ukrainian military and whether, such “generosity is not largely responsible for the current situation. Others would note that were this a down and out debtor looking to refinance his or her debt, no competent financial institution would step up to the plate. The International Monetary Fund most probably would not, nor the World Bank (at least if it involved any regular country whose currency did not currently, at least for now, dominate international trade).
The Biden administration is broke and its looking for a bailout, … again. But then again, the same has been true of other administrations, Republican as well as Democrat. This would be the 81st or 82nd such existential increase in the nation’s borrowing authority.
Public borrowing by the United States is never logical given that the funds it borrows are usually issued by that same government, at miniscule rates, to the banks that then lend them to it. If the government just had some responsible mechanism for issuing its own currency directly to pay its debts, it would avoid the related, crushing interest payments. But then, where’s the fun in that, or the profit.
Anyway, ….
The Biden administration will get its way, at least in part, increasing the already boated 31.5 trillion dollar national debt by another trillion and a half, but in doing so, several important points have slipped out that should have an impact on 2024 elections from dog catcher to president. The points have to do with priorities and where we stand in that respect, but also with the cynical decision to raise the debt limit so that its impact on the 2024 federal elections will be minimized. Are we really that stupid?
But, as outrageous at that first point is, there is one more outrageous, by an immense magnitude. The issue of priorities.
The Biden administration has made it clear that if there is insufficient cash to go around, first priority in payments will be to holders of United States debt securities, many of them banks and financial institutions which, as indicated above, leveraged the purchase of government securities using lower interest loans from the Federal Reserve.
At the end of the line, are Social Security recipients, although perhaps that “threat” was mainly suggested to generate massive fear among a vulnerable segment of the electorate, “encouraging” them to force their representatives in Congress to back down. The cynicism in that ploy should have serious, indeed, permanent political consequences. Social Security is not a welfare program, it is a compulsory investment program with penal sanctions for failure to comply, not all that different, when one considers it, from an organized crime protection racket enforced by hired goons, but an investment program in which one does not get to make the investment decisions. They’re made by the Federal Government, “for our own good”. Just like the phrase “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you” the former phrase generates well deserved ridicule.
Investors “deserve” their profits purportedly because they assume voluntary risks. When the “risk” is removed, they are no longer investors, they are instead an offshoot of organized criminals, like loan sharks. Social Security recipients did not have the “option” of not “investing” and thus, under no circumstance, in a democracy based on law, should they ever be placed in a lower priority than other creditors of the United States. That does not mean that Social Security is absolutely guaranteed. Were the United States, for reasons beyond its control, to find itself with no funds to pay anyone, then Social Security recipients would have to suffer along with everyone else. But to place purported investors at the head of the line is an outrage.
It’s an outrage that “investors” would be paid before military veterans or serving military personnel as well. In fact, it’s an outrage that purported “investors” would be paid ahead of any other class of creditors. In any other setting, holders of unsecured debt would find themselves at the end of the line, but not with the Biden administration in charge of the decision. It knows on which side its bread is buttered, it knows from whence its political “contributions” come, and it knows to whom its real loyalties are owed, and it’s clear that it’s not to “We the People”. All the old canards that the Democratic Party is the party of common men and women, of the downtrodden, of labor and of the retired went out with the sewage when the Clinton administration (of which the Biden administration is and the Obama administration was a continuation) assumed control of that political party in 1992.
Not that the GOP is much better, or at least the traditionalists in the GOP. Who can tell what its populist wing (now apparently that party’s largest segment) would do. That segment’s leaders talk a different game, but they were outmatched and outmaneuvered in 2020 by the state within a state many refer to as the Deep State, and which is the investment community’s enforcement arm. But if populists from both the left and the right opened their eyes and took a whiff at the odor emanating from the District of Colombia, if they ever joined forces (and the outrage currently being perpetrated might be a sufficient catalyst to break the bonds that keep then apart and at each other’s’ throats), then perhaps a whole new set of government representatives and functionaries would get their priorities straight.
Something to seriously consider every time you head to the ballot box in the future, assuming that votes are still actually taken into account. _______
Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review, available at Substack.com. He has academic degrees in political science (the Citadel), law (St. John’s University), international legal studies (New York University) and translation and linguistic studies (the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.
The fulcrum on which political decisions are leveraged and the world’s future mortgaged is inherently tied to the welfare of investors in “defense” industries, of their senior executives and directors, and secondarily, the welfare of ancillary industries and businesses that profit from war and the threat of war, and if war and the threat of war are constants, then investments in “defense” industries are predictably secure. Something the commander of allied forces in the Second World War and later, president of the United States, Dwight David Eisenhower begged us to avoid. To the extent related government expenditures are not carefully monitored and waste prevails, so much the better. That millions subsidize such profits with their lives in diverse parts of the world is merely “collateral damage”, at least to those not suffering such consequences, directly or indirectly. And of course, on this Memorial Day, we recognize that such casualties are not only innocent foreigners, but also the bravest Americans, those who, believing that their service is essential, volunteer to put their lives and welfare on the line.
The Athenians attitude towards those who provided the armaments for their military and naval forces was wise. They were required to serve on the front lines. Not so our own war profiteers, neither they nor their families, except in extremely rare cases, serve at all, being too busy enjoying the fruits of others’ labors. And most of those who do serve, Albert Gore and George W. Bush being prime examples, do so ensconced in protective cocoons, far from danger, surrounded by photographers so that their purported service can be documented for future use. The Clintons and the Obamas and the Bidens (Joe and Hunter and Jimmy) and the Trumps were excused from service through the labyrinth of useful loopholes available to those wealthy or influential enough to avoid service, something which needs to be differentiated from the refusal to serve by those opposed to war, and who would never send the children, spouses, siblings or relatives of others to tread where they refused to serve. Those who declined to serve but on attaining power of any sort, do not hesitate to send others to die or kill, and to suffer and cause mayhem, and to suffer and cause irreparable psychological trauma, are contemptuously referred to by those who served, as well as by conscientious objectors, as “chicken hawks”. Our country is led by chicken hawks. Chicken hawks in government, in the “defense” industries and in the corporate media as well. And the results are predictable. Profits for the few, massive profits. But famine and chaos and mayhem and death and destruction for far too many on the other side of the ledger. Some of them our own. Some of them the best among us.
This Memorial Day takes place at an interesting time. There has been hugely hyperbolic debate between the Republican led House of Representatives and the Biden administration concerning the need to raise the national debt limit, an increase once again required, for the 82nd time, because rather than pay for federal expenditures through taxes, to which voters would object and, as a result, might seriously consider what their taxes were being used to fund, it is more palatable, at least for now, to just, well, … borrow the money. Federal debt financing is done through unsecured borrowing from third parties, largely banks and financial institutions but also investors, foreign and domestic. Interestingly, the interest paid to holders of United States debt securities is higher than that paid by financial institutions to the Federal Reserve for the money borrowed to acquire such securities, among other things. Many might wonder why the prohibitions against “ponzi” schemes which the Federal government prosecutes, are not applicable to the largest ponzi scheme of all.
The current direct national debt, that which is disclosed (it may well be substantially greater and does not include state, municipal or local debt), currently stands at almost thirty-two-trillion dollars[1], but the Biden administration insists that it must be increased immediately, if not sooner, and traditionalist members of the Republican Party are in agreement, although its populist branch is not. There is a current proposal on the table in Congress to acquiesce to the Biden administration’s demand to increase the national debt during the period preceding the next presidential election (so that it need not be revisited and become a political issue therein), by one-and-a-half-trillion dollars.
Sooo. Why?
Because the United States government wants to spend the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China into oblivion by funding wars involving the Ukraine, already under way, and Taiwan, even at the risk of a nuclear holocaust, and anyway, that addition to the national debt, like the accumulated debt before it, ends up in the pockets of, well, you may have already guessed the answer from the introductory material above, “investors in “defense” industries, their senior executives and directors, and secondarily, the welfare of ancillary industries and businesses that profit from war and the threat of war”.
And who, you may ask, will pay that accumulated debt?
The answer is interesting and reminiscent of the attitude of French King Louis XV, you know, the one who preceded Luis XVI, who, along with his family and many others, lost his head in the French Revolution of 1789 (which, to an extent, may explain the drastic reaction by the powers that be to the political protests of January 6, 2020). The answer is, … “who cares”! At worse, the United States could print the money necessary to pay off the debt, although that would create never before imagined hyperinflation, inflation that would make that suffered in Germany following the War to End All Wars (well, we now call it the first of the world wars) at the dawn of the twentieth century a trifle. One might recall that the inflation following the first of the world wars led to the rise of fascism in various countries, and threatened to do the same in most others. Of course, some consider that fascism is currently in vogue among those who most criticized it way back then.
This Memorial Day, as I mourn my many friends and my former classmates who’ve perished in combat during the past six decades (I’m a Citadel graduate), it occurred to me that the answer to our ludicrous national debt crisis is rather simple and does not require a reinvention of the wheel. It’s called a “windfall profits tax”. One that should be imposed on those who’ve so profited from the perpetual wars (what would Emanuel Kant think). You may have guessed the answer again, it’s the same as the answer to the former query: “investors in “defense” industries, their senior executives and directors, and secondarily, the welfare of ancillary industries and businesses that profit from war and the threat of war”. A tax of 90% on all profits derived from them, directly and indirectly, from whatever sources and wherever derived, until the national debt is paid off, with tax avoidance punishable by forfeiture of all assets and life imprisonment.
Simple, sort of. At least in a democracy where voters have some awareness of how things work, and why.
A suggestion as we remember those of our fellow men and woman who’ve sacrificed so much, unfortunately, all too often uselessly, on this Memorial Day.
Something on which not only to reflect, but perhaps on which to act. _______
Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review, available at Substack.com. He has academic degrees in political science (the Citadel), law (St. John’s University), international legal studies (New York University) and translation and linguistic studies (the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.
First of all, for context, I freely confess that I’m a confirmed, left wing democratic socialist in the style of Albert Einstein, Noam Chomsky, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Jr., etc., and thus an anti-interventionist pacifist, but not an isolationist. I’m a non-globalist, non-neoliberal, non-neoconservative internationalist. I’m an independent, disdaining both the GOP and the Democratic Party, but feel the Democratic Party is the greater evil. I do not vote for lesser evils though.
Another confession: many people that I’ve cared for over the years, some whom I’ve loved, and even some after whom I’ve lusted, are among the “woke” who are the subject of this reflection. I don’t like Donald Trump (who I’ve only met once). I find him a childish, egocentric buffoon, but that doesn’t prevent me from admitting that he’s been treated in an outlandishly unfair manner by the corporate press, the Justice Department, his own appointees, traditional Republican leaders, the bureaucracy, the judiciary, and, that, without a doubt, the presidential election of 2022 was manipulated, if perhaps not “technically stolen.
The foregoing is to contextualize the following perspectives concerning the controversial nature of the postmodern term “woke”, to which I frequently allude.
To me, the term “woke” is a sort of neologism in the sense that during the past decade it has acquired very different meanings depending on who’s using it, in what context and for what purpose. It no longer merely refers to the opposite of sleeping in a biological sense but has been given political overtones. It is a self-anointed appellation by those I describe below, who consider it a positive metaphor but, in my opinion and as I use it, the people who apply the term as a self-description instead engage in futile, hubris afflicted self-defeating distortion of progressive values. Because, as I indicated, I frequently use the term in my reflections, articles, reports and comments, I’m frequently asked what it means, albeit usually by people who clearly have their own opinions on the point and who are usually among those I describe as “woke”. In any case, this reflection involves an effort to describe the term for both those people (whose minds are already made up as to its meaning), and for those who are honestly curious concerning its use in my discourse. I note that, apparently, there exists a dictionary definition which identifies them in a manner which their adherents love, in essence, as selfless, well informed, well intentioned humanists. I assume it was devised by a “woke” lexicographer. I, find it misleading at best, hence this reflection.
From the foregoing it’s obvious that I’m at odds with those who describe themselves as the “woke”, a group that reminds me of Star Trek’s fictional “Borg” (because to the “woke”, resistance to them is futile). The irony is that we purport to share the same goals and similar values: a more enlightened world, a more equitable world, one free of racism, misogyny and xenophobia. A world where justice prevails and impunity and nepotism are minimized, an environmentally sustainable world where everyone is enabled to attain their highest potential. But we differ on bellicosity. Bellicosity in every sense (personal, domestic and international). We differ on tactics and strategies. And we differ on the essential need for mutual respect and for open minds and the importance of empathy. “Empathy”, that psychological state of mind which enables us to understand (in a non-judgmental fashion) the positions held by others and the reasons for their actions and reactions. Which enables us to maintain open minds and to listen at least as much as we preach, and to differ respectfully instead of with animosity. I believe that only through the use of empathy and respect can we all evolve, changing our hearts and souls as well as our minds in the manner necessary to attain our mutual goals. I derive great satisfaction from what I’ve learned from others, as well as from the shifts in attitude, especially concerning war and the military-industrial-intelligence complex, of many of the military personnel (both retired and active) with whom I’ve interacted.
In my opinion, politics, on a worldwide, not just United States basis, has not really been the realm of a liberal left versus a conservative right for a very long time. Those are cultivated delusional illusions. Rather, it involves a truly adversarial relationship between an alliance of deep states subservient to the primary Deep State (the one associated with the United States but with tentacles everywhere), versus diverse, divided and fragmented populists, “populists” being those who believe that traditional governmental institutions, self-described as “democratic”, are in fact, chokeholds to assure popular democracy is at best a dysfunctional illusion. The rise in populism is being addressed by deep states though coercive communication-censoring policies, abuse of prosecutorial and judicial systems, and, if all else fails, by facilitation of the development of a capitalist oriented, for-profit market in votes through relaxation of procedures safeguarding against electoral fraud (e.g., identity verification, direct voting, verified ballot collection, etc.), oxymoronically, in the name of “democracy”.
The purportedly “woke”, as I see them, are tools of the permanent government structure owned by the wealthiest among to which I alluded above as the “Deep State”, which is an informal but highly efficient structure comprised of ensconced bureaucrats unresponsive to democratic vagaries, the corporate media, the aforementioned military-industrial-intelligence complex and the newly empowered owners of the Internet’s technocracy, to which, during the past decade, has been added Big Pharma. The role of the “woke” in that scheme (albeit perhaps a role of which they are not aware) is to distract the attention of liberals and progressives from the goals described above through polarizing identity politics, keeping us divided through wedge issues such as abortion, gun control, immigration, revisionist history and exaggerated racism and divisive gender related issues (using gender in the broadest possible context), all of the foregoing never to be resolved, as resolution would minimize their political usefulness.
The “woke” are characterized by a blend of naivety and hubris, believing themselves morally and ethically superior, better informed, wiser, more erudite and, most of all, entitled. For some unfathomable reason, they’re convinced that the minds and hearts of those not yet “woke” can best be changed through ridicule and rhetoric, clever distortions, and ignoring past realities through creative fiction. In essence, they’re intolerant in the name of tolerance (freedom of opinion and of expression be damned!). Narrative replaces history (well, … okay, …it always has, but much more aggressively), in the belief that the past and even the present are irrelevant to the future, so long as both are presented in a manner that facilitates the belief that the future sought is inevitably preordained, a sort of five story mansion, but without a foundation or first story, just somehow floating closer to heaven.
It’s much easier to win arguments if truth is irrelevant, if it is “relative”, something flexible to be molded as best suits a particular occasion, and easily discarded when inconvenient, discarded to an abyss for those beliefs which, in an Orwellian sense, “never existed, … anymore”. The “woke” are firm practitioners of that verisimilitudinous art form in the firm belief that the means justify the ends, and thus, as so often happens in those cases, there’s a shift and the means become the ends, the former ends fading into oblivion.
“Merit” is, as I see it, a pejorative to the “woke”, a synonym for racism, and for misogyny, and for xenophobia. To them, quotas are essential in everything; something glaringly obvious in the entertainment industry where accurate reflections of society and history are irrelevant and every scene must now include non-existent racial and gender balances, with positive attributes concentrated among women and minorities, especially African Americans and those who adhere to sexually alternative lifestyles, and negative attributes are primarily ascribed to Caucasian males older than forty. Of course, “merit” has always been an elusive concept, especially where nepotism provides an alternative, and, of course, merit has never been all that relevant in the apparently eternal political-favors-based-favoritism-system in which we humans appear to have always lived.
So, the “woke”, to me, are a sad irony involving a diversion of energy and human resources that could really make a difference in the attainment of the values and the world to which they and I both aspire; to which most people aspire., but which, as economist Thomas Piketty’s ground breaking studies and analyses clearly demonstrate, is becoming more and more distant and more and more unlikely as we become more and more polarized, more and more embittered and more and more successfully manipulated by the cynics who joyfully rule as all.
Rule us all as surely as though we were ringwraiths and they possessed Sauron’s once and future ring.
Of course, the “woke” who’ve read my reflections and opinions probably reciprocate my perceptions, believing me to be as delusional as I perceive them. And that’s fine.
Paraphrasing the refrain used in adds concerning historically black colleges: “An open mind is a terrible thing to waste”.
Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review, available at Substack.com. He has academic degrees in political science (the Citadel), law (St. John’s University), international legal studies (New York University) and translation and linguistic studies (the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.
Mirrors can be useful things if used objectively, but the truth is frequently uglier than we care to bear. Who we’ve become politically, perhaps who we’ve always been, is an all too accurate example.
A reflection of sorts:
The voting dead used to be a reliable Democratic Party constituency. They won the presidency for young John Kennedy in 1960. In Illinois. In Chicago to be precise. Home town to another slick president almost half a century later. It’s a bit trickier nowadays to convince the deceased to continue to exercise their political rights, but the concept has morphed and we have voters who’ll vote as their told, no matter what. To vote as if they were zombies. Whole “blocks” of them, … Well almost, there are always those inexplicable few who insist on exercising their own judgment, but they’re pretty few.
A “motley bunch” is a misunderstood expression. It does not denigrate the nature of its members, rather, it makes clear their diversity and perhaps even, their diverse goals, backgrounds and aspirations. Today, the Democratic Party is a motley group comprised of one large ethnic group, African Americans; women desperate to preserve their ability to discard their would be progeny; those unhappy with their gender; feminists who have a flexible approach to misogyny depending on the political leanings of particular misogynists; the rebellious children of the very wealthy; artists of questionable talent other than their ability to self-promote; pseudo journalists much more talented in creative writing than in seeking the truth; creative academics and historians interested in molding the past as they wish it had been; and, government bureaucrats, especially of the quasi-permanent mole variety. But it is a “motley” which rather than generate synergy, is merely subservient to the billionaire classes who own the Deep State, the potentates who, like Sauron’s ring in Tolkien’s novels, ruthlessly rule us all.
The GOP is not a motley, it is much more homogenous than the Democratic Party, albeit now divided into two ideological groups: traditionalists like the Bushes, the McCains, etc., also owned by the Deep State, but now a majority seems to be comprised of right wing populist libertarians who in some, but unfortunately not all, aspects, oppose the Deep State. Too often all of the foregoing are supportive of the Deep State’s primary business, perpetual conflict and a quest for global hegemony similar to that once enjoyed by the Roman empire, not cognizant of the fact that the human cost is all too similar quantitatively to that paid by the victims of the Nazi’s own pursuit of hegemony. Unlike the Romans though, who cared not a whit about moral justification for their actions, the United States is compelled to justify itself through hypocrisy, deception and self-delusion, something it inherited from the British (from who it inherited its own hunger for hegemony).
Political independents, a heterogeneous group whose members purportedly form a larger block than either Democrats or Republicans, together with members of minor political parties like the Greens, the Libertarians, etc., could theoretically change the current United States cascade towards mutually assured oblivion but seem trapped in a quagmire, hypnotized and unable to move or act, as though charmed by a snake, the snake being the corporate media that convinces them, briefly but regularly (during electoral cycles), that the exercise of their better judgment would be anathema and would assuredly bring on an apocalypse. And that their efforts would, in any case, prove futile. The current apparent only choices, choices between a bombastic and childish lesser evil (Mr. Trump) and an utterly corrupt war monger (Mr. Biden, the clear Deep State designee), illustrate the foregoing.
Thus, we, as a People, become more and more polarized, more prone to violence and psychological and sociological anomalies (like mass murder both abroad and at home). We sit sort of idly watching and perhaps kvetching as the Deep State destroys more and more of everything around us, whether our environment or our fellow men and women, especially the aged and the very young. Destroys them sociopathically and amorally for the profit of the billionaire class, to the delight of the laughing and smirking hyenas (my apology to hyenas) who comprise our purported cultural leaders (i.e., massively overpaid albeit usually ignorant glitzy entertainers and athletes).
A conclusion:
That is by all appearances who we are today. Ugly is as ugly does. Perhaps it’s just the predictable evolutionary path of who we’ve always been as a group, although perhaps individually most of us seem very different. One wonders if nature’s purported natural selection of the fittest still applies, and just what that might imply.
A sort of Cassandric entropy seems to shout that we’ve already passed the point of no return, hence, our current epigram at birth would seem to be “abandon all hope ye who enter here”.
To which, unfortunately, no pithy rejoinder comes to mind.
Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review, available at Substack.com. He has academic degrees in political science (the Citadel), law (St. John’s University), international legal studies (New York University) and translation and linguistic studies (the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.
It’s a Saturday morning in May, 2023. The first seven days did not bring the political crisis envisioned in Charles W. Bailey II and Fletcher Knebel’s 1962 story, Seven Days in May. Those were a wasted seven days anyway, lesser evil triumphed there, or perhaps it was greater evil. It’s a matter of perspective. But it seems like a good morning to break rules, like the prohibition against mixing metaphors, so I’m playing with imagery involving mirrors, perhaps magic mirrors, perhaps not. But mirrors that give us slightly distorted but not wholly inaccurate glimpses of ourselves, of our realities, but also of our perceptions, whether truthful or not. Interesting topic for speculation: are truth and accuracy synonyms? My instincts tell me that’s not the case, although I don’t know why.
Once more I imagine what it must have been like for Troy’s princess Cassandra, after she was afflicted by Apollo’s curse, and she became uselessly clairvoyant. I imagine what she might have been shouting to disinterested winds, were she among us today. Perhaps something like the following with respect to the political climate in which our world finds itself, one where egocentric Paris has become the norm. Perhaps the following is what she might write, seeking to warn us, had she ever learned to write:
Donald Trump’s bombastic pomposity and egocentrism is not unique to today’s major political characters, it is at least equaled by the Clintons and the Bidens and the Obamas, but theirs is more deceptive, more subtle. Obfuscated by the corporate media and thus, much more dangerous. Their respective followers (all furious) are comprised, on the one hand, of the mid to lower, less educated but much more hardworking classes that idolize the brash Mr. Trump, and in doing so, vent their frustration at their denigration while being looted, and on the other by the purportedly “woke” who follow the latter three, not realizing that they are, more than anything else, tools of the tiny oppressor class. “Woke” in the sense that zombies can be said to be awake, blindly and blithely following orders they don’t comprehend, but doing so relentlessly. Mr. Trump’s unpleasantness does not mean that his grasp of reality is less than that of the Clintons and the Bidens, the Obamas and their ilk. To the latter, reality is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is the narrative they weave and seek to impose, believing. Justifiably. that if truth us totally hidden, then its impact on the present and the future can be blunted, can be manipulated, at least for a while, reveling in Lincoln’s “you can fool most of the people some of the time”, and like Louis XV, rejoicing in the belief that such time is now, that it’s their time and to Hell with the future they’ve so thoroughly mortgaged. Their adherents, for the most part, do not plan on having the children who will have to bear that burden. Mr. Trump’s glimpses into reality, slight and distorted as they might be, recognize that the anti-Kantish state of perpetual war so profitable to the “woke’s” masters is disastrous for business, which is seemingly Mr. Trump’s guiding principle, and that a prosperous future requires mutually profitable coexistence with the “enemies-on-demand” that keep the military industrial complex humming, hence peace with China and Russia and North Korea is essential, and NATO is but an anachronistic white elephant looking to justify its existence, and that for the United States, the tax dollars wasted on defense spending and military bases and adventures abroad ought to be redirected to repair and modernization of internal infrastructure, on bridges and roads and airports and railroads, and public utilities. But his view is myopic and occluded when it comes to the Middle East, where whatever Israel does is fine with him, and whatever it wants it deserves and should get, so Iran has to go, at the very least. After all, what is one more genocide (of others) in Judaea’s long history? And, of course, Mr. Trump’s perspective is utterly convoluted when it comes to international economics which he treats like New York City real estate machinations, i.e., where the art of the bluff is key to “the art of the deal”. Perhaps, the abuses of both groups of bipolar bombastically pompous and egocentric leaders, as they inadvertently slip into the light as a result of their policy of mutual calumny, will somehow filter into the collective consciousness and, like an annoying morning alarm clock, jolt the electorate awake, although the Clintons and the Bidens and the Obamas hope that it is way too late for that to make any differences, and it at least smells as though they might be right, at least in the verisimilitude of democracy in which we live. Electoral manipulation through misinformation and information withheld, if not outright electoral fraud, has seemingly become the norm, covered in a cloak of impunity by a judicial system which equates the refusal to investigate allegations as definitive proof that they’re not only false, but deliberate lies. Not just errors in judgment, but deliberate sedition. And where the totally politicized judiciary has joined the totally politicized corporate media to throttle any attempts to change the profitably pro-perpetual-bellum quagmire in which ordinary citizens are trapped. After all, neither rules nor consequences apply to the extraordinary few, no talent needed, the awards and rewards are theirs to bestow upon themselves, and, of course, upon the groveling useful.
Still; … even Cassandra seemingly had hope. The one positive thing that remained when Pandora’s amphora was unsealed (it was not really a box) and emptied. And even if only an illusion, or perhaps a delusion, hope apparently springs eternally-enough to keep things interesting. And thus, … Mr. Trump. “What a world”, as the purportedly Evil Witch of the West declaimed as she melted after exposure to the cleansing effects of water, “what a world” where apparently, the bombastically pompous and egocentric Mr. Trump represents the almost unattainable but much sought, lesser evil.
As an irrelevant but funny aside (at least we still sometimes have humor, as long as it’s not politically incorrect), someone innocently pointed out to me the uncanny resemblance on a number of levels between the current president of the United States and a character on the long running “Simpsons”, Montgomery Burns. That person may well soon find himself or herself (I need to protect my sources) in big trouble, although purportedly not having anything to do with such observation. That’s apparently the current price for exercising the right to freedom of expression.
Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review, available at Substack.com. He has academic degrees in political science (the Citadel), law (St. John’s University), international legal studies (New York University) and translation and linguistic studies (the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.
Guillermo Calvo Mahé 