Democracy: RIP

 

As the old adage goes, the operation was a success, but the patient died. The American experiment with democracy failed and, while the patient is not yet dead, it is in the ICU without health insurance and there is a DNR on file. As we approach our 250th birthday, celebrations are being planned. We can only hope there is at least some reason to celebrate. Perhaps an end to the war in Iran would be a reason enough.

Another adage goes that, when you “assume” you make an “ass” out of “u” and “me.” In this case the founding fathers assumed that if a person could get elected, they would be of good character. They expected that elected officials would be ethical, virtueous, and intelligent. While they wanted this to be true, they built into our system, checks and balances and a separation of powers specifically to manage the risk of ambitious or corrupt leaders. What they couldn’t foresee was that, if corruption became rampant and pervasive, those in charge of checking and monitoring would not be so motivated.

They never foresaw the erosive influences of corruption and greed that would bring our democracy to ruin. They included an Emoluments Clause (Article 1, Section 9, Clause in the constitution but that only covered foreign states, kings, or federal or state governments buying favor with politicians. While not in the Constitution, payments meant to influence elected officials is outlawed in federal criminal statutes under Title 18 of the U.S. Code. The problem here is that Title 18 is enforced by the Department of Justice. Yes, the same DOJ, which is once again fully controlled by the Executive Branch of our government. Therefore a corrupt president in control of the DOJ could operate with impunity.

The DOJ was created by President Ulysses S. Grant in 1870, and Congress passed “An Act to Establish the Department of Justice” to manage the growing legal business of the United States. At inception, the DOJ was under direct control of the president. Reasonable people were in charge and all was O.K., if not perfect. There was a gradual erosion, first with Truman in Korea, and then with Johnson with Vietnam. Both expanded the executive powers they wrenched from congress. Then there was Watergate and Nixon’s claim that, if the president did something, it was always legal. That’s when the manure hit the fan.

The Watergate incident, under the Nixon administration, showed the nation that the finger in the dike was no longer working. The backlash from Watergate saw the establishment of “norms” and firewalls to prohibit political interference in prosecutions of government officials. The problem here is that norms are not laws but merely voluntary cultural expectations for behavior. The only major codified change in the law after Watergate was the passage by congress of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. This act established the independence of the DOJ and allowed for independent counsels to investigate executive branch corruption.

The independence of the DOJ was one of the first things President Trump nullified at the start of his second term. His “stacked” Supreme Court, in Trump v. U.S. (aka presidential immunity case), explicitly permitted the president to direct DOJ prosecutions. Donald Trump needed this to begin his promised “revenge tour.” He had campaigned on a platform of “retribution” against his perceived political enemies. He could now sic the DOJ on anyone without cost to him but at significant cost to his enemies or anyone who crossed him. His repeated 2024 phrase was, “I am your retribution,” and it garnered support from his MAGA constituents who believed he would attack those they too disliked.

While the courts used to be able to rely on the candor and good-faith actions of the DOJ, this abandonment of legal foundation for prosecutions means all matters brught by DOJ must now be viewed through the lens of political influence. Ethical attorneys have left the DOJ and all that remain are faithful sycophants or the job-loss-frightened.

With the SCOTUS corrupted from the largesse of personal and corporate entities with matters before the court and by personal and religious bias, there has been a severe twisting of legal interpretations, sometimes reversing long-established legal precedents. The president and his extended family have abandoned all pretense of avoiding corrupt influence. They now openly flaunt their ability to exploit “the system” for personal benefit. Their patriarch, Donald Trump, has more than doubled his net worth in the first eight months of his second term.

If there can be a silver lining behind this earthquake of political corruption on our once proud republic, it may lie in the ballot box. While that too is being targeted by the existing party faithful seeking advantage, it will take an overwhelming response in the midterms and on November 7, 2028. I see some rays of hope with evidence of a few cracks in the MAGA facade. With the Carlson brothers, Buckley and Tucker, apologizing for their support of Donald Trump, and the likes of Marjorie Taylor Green now opposing the imperialism of the Trump regime, it may be time for others to “see the light.” Barring that light being the headlight of some unexpected oncoming train, there is a glimmer of hope.

A post-Trump era will require a complete evaluation of what went wrong. We can only hope that this evaluation is not a post mortem. We need to minimally isolate the DOJ from political influence. We need to expand the Supreme Court, establishing term limits, a code of ethics, and a more balanced method of appointment. Once the courts are “fair and balanced”, we can address money in politics and its corruptive influence. If our democracy can be brought back from the brink, it will take a herculean effort. Our constitutional republic combines a representative democracy with limits of governmental powers to protect individual liberties. At least that was the intent of our founders, but it has not been the reality, at least under King Trump.