A Matter of Days

 10 January 2021                

Given the appalling attack on our Capitol by domestic terrorists four days ago, I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that the nation is in dire crisis.  It astounds me that nearly all of our Republican lawmakers, at the same time as they recoil in disgust from the events that resulted in the loss of 5 lives and left parts of the building in shambles, have adopted a “well, gee, we only have a handful of days left to endure Trump’s shenanigans (as if that is the proper way to describe his behavior); let’s stay the course and not do anything rash.”  

 

Consider other moments of crisis in our nation’s history, and weigh the practicality of just hanging in there and doing nothing.  Where would we be?

 

When confronted on October 24, 1962 with aerial images of Cuba’s build-up of nuclear missiles (courtesy of Russia), did President Kennedy inform his Ex-Comm that he preferred to wait it out?  A mere 12 days later, after a tense back-and-forth at the highest levels, the crisis had been averted, as a lengthy, discursive letter from Khrushchev to Kennedy demonstrates.  Both leaders recognized the greater existential threat that the standoff represented.  

 

When Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese on December 7, 1941, did FDR stroke his jaw in idle thought and say, Let’s wait and see what Hirohito’s next move is?  His response was swift, but controlled, and reflective of an objective view of the facts.  

 

Thus, while these two examples are illustrative of foreign threats, and the prompt responses were at the executive level of federal government, there is much to be learned from them.  In the first place, both leaders recognized the gravity of the situation.  More significantly, however, they understood the profound implications if they failed to extinguish the threat. 

 

Make no mistake: the deadly uprising at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 was an angry and deluded attempt by U.S. citizens to dismantle our democratic ideals.  It was masterminded by the very man entrusted with our nation’s security, a traitor in every sense of the word.  Underneath all the rhetoric and despite misguided maneuvers by some members of Congress, I have to believe that they all know how dangerous this one man is. His unrestrained appeals - born of deep insecurities – to continue the “fight” to assure his continuation on his “throne” (whatever it takes) have reached willing ears.  As uninformed as the current president is regarding history, the American citizenry, and the true nature of his responsibilities; he has been careful in his language.  Section 1 of the Terrorism Act of 2006 clarifies for us what constitutes criminal liability, however, including direct, as well as indirect exhortations to commit a crime.  It seems important to point out that the people who descended on the Capitol with zip-tie handcuffs, pipe bombs, and delusions about a stolen election, were of one mind; through force they would wrest presidential victory for their Republican savior.

 

Make no mistake: the signs are obvious that the perpetrators have unfinished business.  While the ceaseless and vast media coverage allows the insurgents’ chests to fill with pride and their chins to tilt up haughtily over what they have thus far achieved, they remain frustrated that their end goal wasn’t realized.  They fully intend to nullify what should be the incontestable results of a free and fair election, and they have not just our President’s blessing on their side, but his incessant urging to resist the outcome. 

 

For rational-minded people, the solution to this crisis is simple - remove this president from office. . . immediately.  An objective view of the facts leaves no doubt as to his treasonous behavior, and that he represents a clear and present danger.  Moreover, by sitting and doing nothing, our Republican leaders are implying that the Constitution is meaningless; either that, or they have cowardly abandoned the oaths they promised to uphold when originally sworn in.  The drafters of our Constitution were perhaps dazzled by the patriotism and sense of unity exhibited by the new nation’s citizens; nevertheless, they weren’t naïve about future prospects for treachery and other events that would threaten the Union.  For this reason, they included various clauses (Article I, Sections 2 and 3, as well as Article II, Sections 2 and 4) that would safeguard our democracy.  It has always been acknowledged that the reason the Constitution didn’t include provisions that more clearly delineated corrupt behavior was because the insertion of impeachment clauses would present a mechanism for establishing and addressing such.  (Bear in mind, also, that when Kennedy’s assassination made evident that our Constitution lacked a provision for presidential succession, the 25^th Amendment was ratified, a piece of legislation that can be generously interpreted.) We always have impeachment, one might comfortably aver; yet history shows a fair amount of dust accumulates on top of that part of the Constitution.  

 

Why the stubbornness?  And why the “paralysis by analysis”?  In this moment we would do well to adopt General Ulysses S. Grant’s position when all his aides were fluttering around him, waiting for signs of General Lee’s next move in the Battle of the Wilderness, May of 1864.  (See: https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/05/politics/ulysses-grant-trump-impeachment/index.html).  The implication here is (and I direct my comments to our United States Congress): take control of the situation; don’t make your next move a reaction to this dangerous adversary’s.  You’re in possession of the facts; take action.  Remove this president.

 

 

Considerate judgment of mankind

I turned on ABC/Good Morning America to catch the local weather report, which then happened to fly by me without me paying attention till the last second.  Instead, I clued in to the next piece, a disturbingly familiar one these days:  an African-American father with his teenage son were passing through the lobby of a hotel in which they were guests when a young woman accosted the son, accusing him of having stolen her phone.  The short video clip shows a white woman raving and demanding intervention on her behalf by strangers; she appears to be certain, both in her claim of victimization and her belief that surrounding “witnesses” will automatically step in and take the young black man’s phone and hand it to her.  Each part of that is so troubling.   

It took the murder of George Floyd under the knee of a malevolent police officer in May of this year to force an uncomfortable national conversation about a loathsome pattern (and practice) in American society.  I can’t even bring myself to say “current” society, because, as much as I do believe our 45^th president has shown himself to be perfectly and embarrassingly giddy about the way his worshipful followers have carried out his own hateful designs, if there is one truth I have come to better appreciate this year it is that the components and characteristics of a racist society have always been there, waxing and waning in intensity. 

 

We are all complicit if we avert our collective gaze when, for example, neo-Nazis strut in our midst, aggressively wagging their AK-47’s (as if to proclaim, we know we’re inadequate; that’s why we carry guns). We are complicit if we tsk-tsk and mumble a how unfortunate – thinking that’s good enough to convey our opposition – when peaceful protesters are teargassed by federal marshals.  We are complicit each time a person of color is unfairly kept from profiting from the “American Experience” that the rest of us enjoy.  And, historically speaking, on every occasion when efforts have resulted in seemingly ironclad promises to level the playing field, the counter-response has revealed an ugliness about how we treat our fellow citizens.  

 

We never really did critically (and adequately) examine the Emancipation Proclamation when we studied it in 11^th grade (or, at least, I didn’t give it close scrutiny).  Crafted foremost with a mind toward potential military advantage, it was conceived for the wrong reasons; as such, despite Abraham Lincoln’s invocation of “the considerate judgment of mankind”, it didn’t free all slaves, only those in Confederate states, and it neatly avoided all matters of citizenship.  (The thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments to the Constitution would have to legislate what should have come naturally in a so-called “evolved” and humane society.)  What the measure couldn’t adequately do was squelch the rise of Jim Crow laws.  In essence, what it couldn’t do was put into place safeguards so that freed slaves – ultimately all African Americans – wouldn’t be subjected to predictable, hostile acts of bitter resentment.  

 

Jumping ahead nearly one hundred years, a similar reactionary behavior was exhibited in the wake of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  (For an engaging read – but one that will break your heart, get a copy of Jerry Mitchell’s 2020 release of Race Against Time: A Reporter Reopens the Unsolved Murder Cases of the Civil Rights Era).  Once again, we bear witness to our nation endeavoring to right a wrong, only to provoke repugnant displays of miserliness and indecency.   Apparently, we just can’t help ourselves; at every opportunity to right the wrongs, in every historical moment when the moral high ground generously presents itself as an option, we reflexively show cowardice.  Are we that afraid of forfeiting privileges that we merely inherited?   I freely admit that I have been a lousy Catholic; I don’t attend mass, so the practicing piece of my faith is regularly challenged.  I often, however, find myself saying, there but for the grace of God go I.  That’s not enough, though.  I shouldn’t simply be grateful that I don’t suffer the injustices that others endure by virtue of skin color.  I ought to be uttering these words, whatsoever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.

 

As this distressing year comes to a close, I vow to more critically examine how I personally respond when witnessing instances of injustice, and to do a better job of voicing opposition.  Opposition is clearly not enough, however.  If I can say I’m part of the solution, then maybe that will put me on the right path.  Nothing ventured, nothing gained, right?  Oh, and that young woman who ranted like a lunatic in the hotel lobby?  Her Uber driver found her phone in the back seat of his car.  Worth thinking about:  what if the roles had been reversed, and it was – in all its unlikeliness – the black man and his teenage son charging into a random hotel, grabbing the young white woman and accusing her of theft?  Right now, she’s not in jail (and would not even be under investigation were it not for the fact that a video of the event went viral), but would the black teenager have been graced with the same consideration, the same “deliberate and measured” approach? Moreover, shame on the hotel manager who insisted that the boy comply with the deranged woman’s exhortation that he produce the phone for her inspection when she wasn’t even a guest at the hotel.  Really!  Sometimes outrage is the perfect and necessary response.