CommentsONE MAN’S OPINION-Political philosophy pre-dates our trek out of Africa.
When our first ancestors wanted to run the group differently, they were fashioning a better political philosophy. There may be a civilization somewhere in the universe where the maxim that power tends to corrupt is not true, but no such society has been found on Earth. As a result, all human societies grapple with the problem of how to constrain powerful from trampling on everyone else.
Rather than discussing mankind’s political philosophies for the last 150,000 years, let’s begin with 1776. The Declaration of Independence foreshadowed Nixonization when we got rid of King George. The Constitutional Convention had to deal with the issue which Lord Acton turned into a meme 100 years later: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Because the weak central government created by the Articles of Confederation proved the necessity for power, the Convention focused on ways to constrain corruption, which is inherent in power. Not only does power corrupt, but corruption destroys. First, it ravages the weak, and eventually, it destroys the cohesion of society itself.
Although a democracy allows the masses to have power over the elite, democracies tend to devolve into yahooism. Thus, the framers decided on a republic because it best limited the corrupting influence of power. Since government’s power must derive from the consent of the governed, however, republics need certain elements of a democracy.
The House of Representatives was and is directly elected by the people, but originally, Senators were indirectly elected. The voters in each state would elect their state legislatures which then elected the U.S. Senators. (The 17th Amendment later provided for direct election of Senators.)
Since a democracy was an inferior and unstable form of government due to the masses’ penchant for Yahooism, i.e., electing charlatans and morons, the President is not directly elected. Rather, voters in each state vote for electors who are then supposed to use sober judgment in selecting the President. Alexander Hamilton explained why.
“It was equally desirable, that the immediate election [of the President] should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.” Federalist Paper 68
Over time, the irrational rabble has gained power and the electoral college has been reduced to a mere pass-through. No matter what fool the people want, almost every elector now votes as his or her state’s voters want. This makes the electoral college worthless. In 2016, it allowed a moron to become President. (Ironically, in 2016 the popular vote was the prudent vote.)
The Framers’ Back-up to the Electoral College: Impeachment
The Convention asked itself, “What if a President goes loony during his tenure, as happened with King George?” Just as the framers thought the electoral college’s men with the integrity would make prudent judgments for the national welfare, they thought the Senate would do likewise as well. After all, the framers did not let the Senate be directly elected by the Yahoos.
Next, We Tried the 25th Amendment
The 25th Amendment is similar to impeachment but is based on a President’s physical condition rendering him incapable of making mental decisions, e.g. being in a coma. It also allows a President to be removed if he is mentally incompetent, as is the case with Donald Trump. Due to the direct election of both the House and the Senate, yahooism makes the formal process of removal unworkable.
Nixonization to the Rescue
During Watergate, the leaders of the two parties recognized that Nixon had to go and that the only practical way to achieve that was to have the leadership of both parties visit him in the White House and show him that both parties already had all votes committed to his removal. He could resign or be removed and then sent to prison. Nixonization accomplishes informally what the framers hoped the official structure could do formally.
The advantage of Nixonization is that it requires a consensus of Washington’s leadership (including the military’s assent, lest a moron like Trump think the armed forces might keep him in power). When the nation’s political center agrees, it freezes out the fringe crazies. The GOP right-wing zealots who would destroy the nation to keep Trump as God’s regent on earth and the left wing who want him thrown into prison for life, will not cooperate with each other to overturn a Nixonization.
Where Did the Nixonization Go Wrong?
Nixonization embodies the framers’ belief that a group of seasoned and prudent men will intervene to stop corruption and yahooism. Civic duty, however, depends on the integrity of Washington’s elite, which no longer has integrity. Prof. Noah Feldman and Prof. Jonathan Turley warned Nancy Pelosi to reverse her yahooist impulse to aggrandize her personal power by abdicating Congress’s duty to remove a corrupt and mentally deficient President, but she ignored them. Pelosi stopped the House’s evidence gathering and thereby killed the incipient Nixonization among moderate members of the GOP. Pelosi’s power depends on her control of the Democrat purse strings during a national election and Congress doing its constitutional duty to save the Republic would diminish her personal power. No Dem has had the integrity to oppose her.
The Purpose of a Republic
The framers knew that the populace often elevates men of ill repute to lofty positions. Thus, they devised a Republic where Corruptionism and Yahooism could be counteracted by a group of thoughtful persons of integrity. While the direct election of Senators somewhat increased the power of Yahooism, the lethal threat came from the decades-long denigration of the Republic’s individual inalienable rights in favor of the rise of Group Rights. Yascha Mounk’s The Rise of McPolitics may best describe America’s alea jacta est moment when we turned from a Republic to corrupt yahooism. Winning elections in order to gain power has become everything, while integrity based on the rule of law means nothing. Power corrupts, and corruption destroys.
(Richard Lee Abrams is a Los Angeles attorney and a CityWatch contributor. He can be reached at: [email protected]. Abrams’ views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of CityWatch.) Illustration courtesy Delpixart/Getty Images. Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams