The answer to the question posed in my last blog, "Who turns on the water [to quench the fires of despotism]? is provided in the Constitution.  The system of checks and balances defined therein provide ample authority and opportunity for legislative branch and the judicial branch to hold the executive branch in check.  Over the past eighteen months, we have seen the judicial branch perform its constitutional function of examining executive orders as challenges to those orders have risen through the court system.  And we have seen the legislative branch fail to fulfill its constitutional responsibility to hold the executive branch accountable.  Congress has failed because the Republican majority in both houses has put the partisan objective of protecting their party's president ahead of what is best for our country.  

The best evidence for this assertion are the dueling memos released by the House Intelligence Committee Republicans [1] and, later, by the House Intelligence Committee Democrats [2].  The crux of the issue is this:  in the summer and fall of 2016, the FBI sought and obtained a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor the communications of Carter Paige, a named foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign.  The Republican memo asserts that the Department of Justice and FBI abused the FISA process in order to spy on the Trump campaign.  They claim that the FBI used a controversial dossier produced by a former British intelligence agent without making clear to the judge that the dossier was funded by political opponents of President Trump.  But what the Republican memo completely fails to mention is the fact that Carter Paige first came to the attention of the FBI in relation to their investigation and subsequent conviction of members of a Russian spy ring operating in New York in 2013.  At that time, well before Trump came to the forefront of the political stage, Paige was identified by name by the Russians--in recorded conversations--as someone who wanted money for information. The FBI presented that history, along with some activities by Carter Paige in Russia in the summer of 2016 (comments critical of the U.S. government), as part of their case to the judge when seeking the FISA warrant to surveil Paige.  Omitting this history of Paige's prior entanglement with Russian spies is an unreasonable omission on the part of the House Intelligence Committee Republicans.  This omission undermines the credibility of the Republican memo.  By omitting the most important facts that directly refute their central allegation, the Republicans stoop to the level of publishing mere propaganda, and they sully the credibility of the entire United States Congress in the process.

The National Security Editor of National Public Radio--the closest thing we have to unbiased media in America these days--sides with the Democrats and makes quite clear in his analysis that the Republican memo is at least incorrect and perhaps intentionally misleading.  In this blog on April 8th, I also argued that the Republican hypothesis of some conspiracy to unjustly undermine President Trump is simply not supported by the facts [3]. The Grand Jury supporting the Special Counsel's investigation--16 to 23 Americans chosen for jury duty just like in your home town--has handed down nearly 20 indictments, including 13 Russians accused acting to interfere with the 2016 US election.  Five Americans have plead guilty to perjury or other charges in connection with this investigation.  The text of both memos may be found at the links provided in footnotes [1] and [2].

Congress' failure to hold the Trump administration accountable for illegal activities, both during the campaign and since taking office, is a serious breach of each Congressman's duty to uphold the Constitution.  We are a nation of laws.  The Constitution is our master law.  A major premise of our democratic republic is that no person, party or group is above the law.  A reasonable definition of despotism and tyranny is a state in which the elites apply the law to control the population without themselves being subjected to the law.  The pattern of perjury, violation of campaign laws and apparent obstruction of justice by members of the Trump campaign staff and administration are a serious challenge to the very core of our identity as Americans.  The fact that the Republicans in Congress are unwilling to put country in front of party is a serious wake-up call: the very people who are supposed to write and uphold our laws are willing to look the other way to protect their party's control of our government.  This November, when we have the power to replace 87 percent of Congress, we must vote against any Member who has so egregiously failed to uphold their oath to support and defend the Constitution. 

[1] https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/02/full-text-nunes-memo-fbi-transcript-385057
[2] https://www.npr.org/2018/02/26/584585889/fact-check-read-the-democratic-memo-from-the-house-intel-committee
[3] http://www.accountabilitycitizenship.org/blog/if-youre-buying-the-deep-state-conspiracy-theories-its-time-to-think-again

"We tend to think of the United States government as a thing apart from other types of government.  We are democratic, and they are nondemocratic.... Despotism could never happen here, we think, because we are a republic....  Dictators can be benevolent--the problem is there is little chance of reliably sustaining benevolent leadership without the kinds of public mechanisms to control the leader that are usually absent in a dictatorship.  There can be despotic abuses of power in our system, just as in other systems, if we are complacent and let them happen.  The fact that there is a fire engine parked at the corner will not keep your house from burning down if no one turns on the water."
Accountability Citizenship, by Stephen P Tryon, XLibris 2013, p. 77.

In Act III of Hamlet, the title character opens a famous soliloquy with the phrase, "To be, or not to be, that is the question--"  He uses the phrase to compare the state where he lives to the state where he dies (he is considering whether or not to commit suicide).  In using this construct, however, Shakespeare illustrates a broader form of reasoning that is sometimes referred to as the "exclusive or". Either A or Not A, but not both. To be, or not to be. The light switch IS in the "on" position, or the light switch is NOT in the "on" position.  Either Hamlet will kill himself, or he will continue to live, but it is not possible for both of those things to be true at the same time in the macro world we inhabit.

The minor premise then presents evidence to establish one or the other of the exclusive elements.  If the evidence supports A, then the negation of Not A follows logically (NOT Not A).  If the evidence supports Not A, then the negation of A follows (NOT A).  It is important to note that the "exclusive or" is not a suitable description of every possible "or" statement.  Some situations allow for an "inclusive or".  In these cases, the "or" means either A is true, or Not A is true, or BOTH are true.  Either Joe lives in Philly, or Joe lives in Arizona, or Joe lives in both places at different times of the year.

It is also worth noting that some situations are not describable by EITHER the inclusive or the exclusive or.  In cases where there are more than two options (or three in the case of the inclusive or), neither of the or statements offer a true description.  For instance, it makes no sense to say, "Either it is 32 degrees or it is 64 degrees."  That statement makes no sense because we know there is a very large number of possible temperatures above, below, and between 32 degrees and 64 degrees.  That may seem obvious, but sometimes we see people try to reason as if there are only two alternatives when in fact there are more than two alternatives.  That kind of reasoning can be deceptive.  It is an example of a logical fallacy:  it may appear to have the form of a logical argument, but it has no real logical power because the use of the "or" statement doesn't accurately correspond to the possibilities that exist in the world we inhabit.

Why all this prattle about logic?  Because, if you have been paying attention to the news for the past eighteen months or so, you have witnessed the President of the United States in what appears to be multiple, discrete contradictions--situations that are accurately described by the "exclusive or" and in which Donald Trump has stated, or allegedly stated, that both A and Not A.  I will focus on just three such situations.  First, and most recently, there is the case of whether or not Trump spent a night in Moscow during the Miss Universe Pageant.  This became an issue when a former British intelligence operative released a dossier that claimed the Russians had compromising video of Trump cavorting with prostitutes during his stay in Moscow for the Pageant.  In response, President Trump allegedly told then-FBI Director James Comey that he did not stay overnight in Moscow for the Miss Universe Pageant.  Comey documented these statements in contemporaneous memos prepared and distributed while he was still FBI Director.  Just this week, when flight records were released showing Trump arrived in Moscow on Friday and departed on Sunday, the President said publicly that "of course" he stayed overnight in Moscow and that the Comey memos were a lie. [1]  Second, there is the case of the infamous Access Hollywood video, in which Donald Trump (long before he ran for President) was caught on tape describing his practice of sexually assaulting women--grabbing and kissing them--without their consent.  At the time this came out, candidate Trump acknowledged the comments and apologized.  Later, shortly after becoming president, several reports surfaced in which he allegedly denied that it was his voice on the tape. [2] Third, in March of 2016 Trump introduce George Papadopoulus as one of five members of his foreign policy team, describing him as "an energy and oil consultant.  Excellent guy."  After Papadopoulus plead guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russians during the campaign, Trump tweeted that "few people knew the young, low-level volunteer named George, who has already proved to be a liar." [3]

I could go on, but the point is clear.  If the reports of the President's comments about Moscow and Access Hollywood are true, then he has, at different times, asserted mutually contradictory things about his behavior.  And viewers can watch Trump's position regarding George Papadopoulos change from citing him as a key member of his foreign policy team to calling him a "low-level volunteer."  The President appears to be either lying, delusional, or horribly misinformed.  His supporters appear willing to support him, no matter what.  And Republicans in Congress have shown a troubling pattern of putting loyalty to their party and their party's president in front of what is good for the country.  It is up to all of us to raise our voices to spotlight behaviors that, in my opinion, make Trump unfit to be President of the United States.






[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/04/23/trump-has-some-explaining-to-do-about-his-2013-russia-trip/?utm_term=.afc0e5c65cb2
[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/billy-bush-infuriated-report-trump-denied-access-hollywood-tape-n826506
[3]  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/31/us/politics/trump-manafort-papadopoulos-mueller.html

"Our Declaration of Independence states that all people have certain natural rights and that goverenments exist to secure those rights.  But there is an inherent tension between the notion that we are all equally endowed with natural rights and the role of a government to secure them.  After all, sooner or later, people exercising their rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness are certain to come into conflict with others exercising the same rights in the same society.  And government, according to the Declaration, exists to secure the rights of all citizens.  Government can only secure the maximum liberty for all of us by creating boundaries that limit the right to liberty for each of us."  Accountability Citizenship, by Stephen P. Tryon, XLibris 2013, p. 57.

"The Constitution addresses the legislative branch in Article I, with a few additional clauses throughout the rest of the document.  Of the 4,446 words that make up the Constitution, 2,267 words--nearly 51 percent of the document--spell out the powers of the legislative branch....By contrast, only about 1,025 words describe the powers of the executive branch."
Accountability Citizenship, by Stephen P Tryon
​XLibris 2013, p. 6.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America."[1]

The preamble to the United States Constitution offers the purposes for which the founders created this framework for our government. These six purposes, then, are the yardstick by which we are to measure what our government is and what our government does.  Proper attention to these six purposes will not prevent disagreement over how to achieve them for two main reasons.  First, people can disagree about what measures will best achieve any one of the purposes.  Second, people can disagree about the relative priority of measures aimed at achieving different purposes.  Nonetheless, the purposes enumerated in the preamble create a set of boundary conditions that should guide our disagreements. The six purposes also offer a way to evaluate the performance of elected officials sworn "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

The content of the purposes are important, but it is also very important that the founders chose to place the framework for our government squarely within the moral tradition wherein the "goodness" or "badness" of a thing is to be judged by its effectiveness in achieving a certain goal or end.  The fancy philosophical term for this type of thinking is "teleological".  Another way of judging the goodness or badness of a thing is by an appeal to the inherent nature of that thing.  The fancy word for this alternative standard is "deontological."  In the Declaration of Independence, when the founders cited natural law and stated that people were endowed by their Creator with "inalienable rights" that included life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, they were appealing to a deontological standard.

I am not trying to suggest that one way of reasoning is better or worse.  I do think it is important for citizens to recognize the difference.  This is particularly true because the Constitution would not have been ratified without the commitment to pass the first ten amendments, collectively known as the Bill of Rights.  And the first of those amendments guarantees freedom of religion.  So the Constitution guarantees the equal protection of the law to everyone, even to people who do not believe in a "Creator."  Atheists might still reason deontologically about human rights--they might simply argue that human beings have fundamental, inalienable rights because they are the kind of creatures who write constitutions.  

If you can imagine a conversation between an atheist and a Christian who are both moral deontologists, you can see immediately that the two will differ on the source of the natural law from which our inalienable rights emerge.  There is no such conflict when we shift to the teleological argument.  Regardless of whether you believe in a Creator or not, you can agree that the purpose of government is to achieve the ends enumerated in the preamble to the Constitution,
without any appeal to why those ends are the right ends for any framework of government.  In this sense, then, the teleological argument is the lowest common denominator for the people protected by our Constitution.






[1]  From the Constitution as originally adopted, at http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/ac001/intro4.html

Well, if the government is involved in the transaction, it depends on which agency is involved and which baseline they are using. 

"Government officials measure and report on the federal budget using different baselines and techniques that can create honest confusion about the effect of a proposed policy.... Two distinct agencies provide budget estimates: the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provides budget analysis for the president, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) provides analysis for Congress.  Each agency uses something called a baseline, which projects the current level of spending into the future.  Each baseline incorporates assumptions about inflation and other economic variables.  OMB's baseline, also known as current service estimates, covers five years while CBO's baseline budget projections cover ten years.  Policy, budget proposals, and legislation are "scored" in reference to one or the other baseline.  The normal procedure assigns a score based on the impact of the policy, proposal, or legislation over the full period of the baseline used."  Accountability Citizenship, by Stephen P. Tryon, Xlibris 2013, p. 44.

The elections coming in November of this year are incredibly important.  Even though we like to spend most of our media time talking about the President, it is really Congress that should attract most of our attention--constitutionally, it is the most responsive part of our federal government.  Structurally, the Constitution gives us more power over Congress than over either of the other branches of government.  Every two years, if we choose it, we could replace 87 percent of Congress:  one-third of the 100 Senators and ALL of the 435 Representatives in the House.  Also, we have a more direct relationship to our Representatives and Senators than to the President.  Members of the House represent 500 times FEWER American citizens than the President.  That means that the ratio of voters to elected official is much lower for Members of Congress than it is for the President.  Our individual voice is therefore more powerful relative to our Representative than to our President.  These structural signals embedded in our Constitution make Congress the "steering wheel" for our government.  We must make our individual Members of Congress feel they will be held accountable for their inability to solve problems, pass legislation, or craft a balanced budget.

When I published Accountability Citizenship in 2013, I defined the information stream as the sum of all the information that surrounds us, whether from radio, television, newspapers, magazines, tweets, blogs, flyers, billboards, email and junk mail.  Furthermore, I identified five myths that are popular in the information stream because they increase engagement by us, the target audience.  And the more of us that a given media channel can engage, the more money that channel can attract from advertisers.  Here is an excerpt from page 27 of the book where I present and define the myths:

​"The conspiracy myth assigns the blame for some social ill to a conspiracy of some specific subset of the population.  The quality myth asserts that Americans are not as smart, enterprising, or honest as Americans of the past.  The accountability myth tells us that individual members of Congress are powerless to change a system that seems stuck between dysfunction and gridlock.  The complexity myth tells us that the problems and issues we face are so complex that they exceed the capacity of average citizens to resolve.  The polarization myth tells us that our country faces overwhelming problems which have polarized our systems and citizens to the point that we can't agree on solutions."

​Now, five years later, I believe more than ever that Americans need to develop and improve their skills for discerning fact from fiction.  The myths are alive and well.  But while the myths in Bullfinch's Anthology, pictured, were kept alive to transmit valuable ideas about virtue and other societal constructs, the myths I describe serve to "increase voter apathy and a general sense of hopelessness among passive consumers of the [information] stream."  They are more a function of the way the information stream has evolved over the past 50 years than they are an accurate reflection of our society.  Don't give in to the myths:  learn to discern fact from fake news.  Following this blog is a great way to continually refresh your critical reasoning skills.

On this day in 1776, the American Revolution began with the battles at Lexington and Concord.  A British force from Boston was searching for stockpiles of arms and ammunition.  They were confronted by militia on Lexington Green at 5 am.  A few hours later, at the North Bridge near Concord, colonial militia engaged the British for the first time, killing two.  As the British withdrew to Boston, about 4000 militia engaged them along what has come to be known as Battle Road.  By about 7pm, the British were back in Boston, and Boston was under siege by the colonial forces.  Near the reconstructed North Bridge is the inscription of a verse (above) written about the fighting there.