I haven’t written a whole lot recently, which isn’t to say I haven’t been doing a whole lot of thinking.

It’s time to move on.

If the focus of the 2020 presidential campaign is a rehash of the events alleged to have occurred during the 2016 campaign, there is little to be gained. Trump partisans will disbelieve anything leading to the possibility of malfeasance or illegality on the part of the president or his associates. Anti-Trump partisans will dismiss any evidence that tends to exonerate the president or his associates from misconduct on a massive scale. We end where we began, status quo antebellum.

In the face of “go slow” and delaying tactics orchestrated by the White House, the Republican House and Senate caucuses, not to mention the president’s “new Roy Cohn,” Attorney General William Barr, there simply isn’t enough time left to  resolve  the controversy conclusively and tie it up with a pretty ribbon by November 2020.

Rather than fixate upon where we have been, it may be more constructive to determine where we will be going as a nation in the future.

There are any number of issues that warrant a spirited debate.

It is generally accepted that a significant percentage of the Trump vote was a protest vote registered by those who felt (and feel) “left behind.” The president was sent to Washington to “shake things up.” There are many who would say not only have things been shaken up, they have been blown up.

What government do we want in the aftermath?

Do we want an imperial presidency with almost autocratic power at its command, or do we wish to retain a viable system of checks and balances as set out in the Constitution?

And if we opt for the former, are we comfortable with that precedent going forward after Trump vacates the White House?

While there is support for “shrinking” the size of government, what has been shrunk, or is on the list to be shrunk in a second term? Are the primary beneficiaries those who voted for the president, or do those already having power and influence have the most to gain from looser government regulation?

How did that “massive middle-class tax cut” work out for those in the so-called “middle class,” or were the big winners those who needed tax relief the least? Should tax fairness be revisited?

Is it equitable that, in the strong economy that began under President Obama, 40 percent of Americans cannot come up with an extra four hundred dollars to cover an emergency expense? If not, is there a remedy, or is extreme income disparity an unavoidable side effect of a capitalist society?

America has an admittedly patchwork public health system. Should it be taken back to ground zero, or can the present system be salvaged, and if so, how so specifically?

Most folks who pay attention have a good idea what the two major parties are against. Should candidate’s feet be held to the fire to disclose, in reasonable detail, what they are for, and how, specifically, they intend to get there?

What would be a sane, and humane, immigration policy?

The list of matters that should be addressed is long, and the only thing known for sure is time devoted to 2016 is time stolen from addressing the issues of 2020 and beyond.

Don’t get me wrong. In my opinion, history will judge this to be one of most misbegotten, mismanaged, and corrupt administrations in the history of the republic. There are times, however, when the judgment of history must be left to the historians. The rest of us need to soldier on.

And that time is upon us.