Oh, my golly, as this is written it has just been announced that Trump guru Steve Bannon has been indicted and arrested on two counts of mail fraud.

Bannon is charged as having been involved in a scheme that extracted $25 million from contributors who were told the money would be used exclusively to privately finance construction of President Trump’s big beautiful wall on the Southern border to protect us from being overrun by those nasty brown people.

As detailed in the criminal indictment, big chunks of the amounts collected from supporters of the wall found its way into the pockets of the four men indicted, including Mr. Bannon. While the defendants claimed in their solicitations that all the money would be used for the wall, the indictment charges that much of it went to support what was described as the accused’s “lavish lifestyle.”

All together, with feeling: Surprise! Surprise!! Surprise!!!

Putting on my Carnac the Magnificent turban (Note for younger readers: generational reference to fictional character made famous by late night talk show host Johnny Carson), I can predict the probable response from cloud cuckoo land, “Nothing in the charges pertain to Mr. Bannon’s relatively short tenure with the Administration, during which the president had only limited contact with him. If the charges in this liberal witch hunt turn out to be true, the President would, of course, be shocked and appalled, although it should also be said that Steve Bannon is a ‘good’ man.”

Whereupon Mr. Bannon will be thrown under a bus that has proved to have room beneath it to accommodate any number of malefactors who have turned out to be inconvenient to the administration.

To be fair, and what a concept that is in our current political climate, our president is not involved in this this bit self-aggrandizement, but that is not the point. The folks who were separated from their money did so because they believed and trusted in our president and in his representations that a wall was necessary for their own protection. This trust made them sheep ready for the shearing. In Trump world, and among the bottom feeders who can be found there, the shears are always kept in good working order.

There is very little new under the sun. Even the latest bruhaha over QAnon, an internet-based conspiracy movement implicitly having presidential approval, that, among many other theories, holds that evil liberals are killing and cannibalizing babies to extract life-extending chemicals from their blood, has more than a passing resemblance to Johnathon Swift’s (of Gulliver fame) early 18^th century “A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People from Being a Burthen to their Parents or the County, and for Making them Beneficial to the Publick”, or “A Modest Proposal” for short.

Mr. Swift’s thesis was that the children of Ireland’s extremely poor should be fattened up and taken to market in order provide a new source of nutrition for those higher up the socioeconomic scale.

Mr. Swift was, of course, being satiric and sarcastic. Sadly, if a similar “Modest Proposal” came today from the mouth of Donald Trump, and was reported by certain right-wing media outlets, it seems it could be taken as gospel by perhaps 35 percent of our adult population.

Such is the degree of trust placed by his followers in Donald Trump.

That trust has, like the folks hoodwinked into the “Build the Wall” scam, been abused repeatedly since January 20, 2017. It is likely being abused today and will be abused in the future.

Perhaps as the campaign zeroes in on November 3, 2020, there will be a growing recognition that we are being taken for ride that could spell the end of our democracy.

In a state as red as Indiana, it would take a miracle to wean folks from their fascination with Mr. Trump and their willingness to be repeatedly scammed by his blandishments.

Providentially, miracles have been known to happen, but I am not holding my breath.

In the meantime, please pass the gravy.

Folks tell me I should write something. This is easier said than done because what “thing” in “something” should be written about?

I suppose I could pile on in criticizing our impeached president, but what can be said that hasn’t been said (and probably said more artfully) already? Who wants to be a member of the chorus if the fat lady has already sung?

The Great Trump Faithful are always worth a skewering or two. “Well, the thing is, Captain Trump is doing the best he can to save the ship, and we passengers on the RMS Titanic owe it to him to remain loyal and steadfast in our belief that only he… blub, blub, blub …”

Long term, you wonder what will happen to his devoted followers when the Trump In Whom They Trust is no longer around. I mean, the ranks of those assumed body and soul into heaven are rather thin. More than likely he will occupy a six-foot-deep scrap of earth similar to that which lies in wait for most of us, albeit his will undoubtedly be in a much more upscale cemetery.

Will they take the Rip Van Winkle approach and suddenly awaken, look around, and exclaim “What the heck just happened?”

Or maybe there will be denial, which is always a convenient out. It obviates the need for an apology, since no apology is needed for that which never is admitted having occurred in the first place.

To illustrate, my late mother was with the British Occupation Forces in Germany in the immediate aftermath of World War II. The Third Reich had just been defeated. Remembering those days, she would say, with tongue firmly in cheek, “In all the time I was in Germany, I never met a Nazi.”

(Before the angry cards and letters begin to come in, no comparison is being made between the Trumpistas and the Nazis – beyond the universal human tendency to distance one’s self from membership in a divisive movement once that movement has run its course.)

Alternatively, there is also the Argentinian model. Long after Evita asked her fellow citizens not to cry for her, and long after her husband Juan had followed her into the great whatever, if anything, that comes after, there was a continuing Peronist faction in Argentinian politics that survives to the present day.

The trouble with pontificating about Trump World after Trump is that while there are gun-toting thugs, science deniers, social-distance violators, conspiracy aficionados, and religious and political loonies among the faithful, it is also true that, if among a demonstration by Tiki Torch-bearing neo-Nazis, it is possible to find good people, then so it is possible to find good people among The Donald’s faithful. No blanket characterization should be made unless, of course, one is a gun-toting thug, science denier, social-distance violator, conspiracy aficionado, or religious or political looney. In that case, at a minimum, professional help is indicated ASAP or the dark forces embedded in the Trumpian ideology may spread and infect  those good people whose existence in the flock is the only apparent saving grace of our impeached president’s dystopian vision of our country.

This upcoming election is likely to be very close and will probably turn on who gets their voters to the polls – either physically, or by other means.

Should the current tenant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue win re-election, it would not necessarily be the end of the world. However, it could be the Gotterdammerung of our republic as we have known it. The institutions that give meaning to “We the People” may not weather another four years of being constantly undermined, even when the undermining sometimes has the vocal support of a demonstrably undemocratic populist fringe.

Sweet dreams, America.

If you tried to make this stuff up, nobody would believe you.

The Director of National Intelligence holds a briefing for members of Congress. Attending the meeting is a leader of the political opposition, who, nevertheless, is a member of Congress and has every right to be in the room.

The DNI shares some troubling news. Current intelligence assessments find there is credible evidence that a foreign government, namely Russia, is attempting to influence the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. Their candidate of choice is the incumbent president of the United States, Donald John Trump.

The reasoning behind the Russian interference is incomplete, but it appears they believe they are in a better position to do “business” with him than they would be should a Democrat be elected president. Or maybe it’s because President Trump’s isolationist tendencies have been more successful in unraveling this country’s leadership position in the free world than the former Soviet Union’s feeble attempts ever were.

Another possibility is simply to add chaos as an additional element into an already volatile stew of contending factions in an already destabilized and divided American public.

The Russian factor is a sore point with President Trump. He has just survived impeachment in the House of Representatives and a politically inspired escape in the Senate based on an unwillingness on the part of the Republican caucus to cross their president for fear of political reprisals.

The president denies any coordinated activity with the Russians in 2016, and it is unlikely his cause would be helped with the repetition of rumors of Russian meddling in 2020.

You would think at this point damage control measures would include a strongly worded public statement again denying any personal wrongdoing on his part in 2016, another couple of victory chants about “no collusion, no obstruction,” and a warning that stern measures would be taken should the new charges be substantiated at some indeterminate point down the line.

Such a response would more than satisfy his political base who account for over 40 percent of the electorate. They are predisposed to believe anything the president says. Many believe he is doing God’s work. Some believe he was sent by God to save the country from the ungodly.

With such support, it is more than likely the story would fade from the headlines after a couple of news cycles and life would go on – even if the Russian bear was, in fact, trying to put its paw on the scales.

Not our president.

Instead, he focuses on the fact a Democrat was allowed in the room to hear the assessment of the nation’s intelligence network firsthand. He fumes that the DNI did not allow him to vet the content of the report before it was presented to members of Congress. He is livid that the unexpurgated version could be used by Democrats for political purposes.

After dressing down the DNI for his temerity in doing his job, he fires him, and names a Trump loyalist as his “acting” successor. As a result, the country’s intelligence apparatus is headed by an individual who has absolutely no intelligence-gathering experience and whose only obvious qualification is a demonstrated slavish devotion to the person of the president.

I don’t claim to know the truth about Russian involvement, or Ukrainian, or Chinese, or whoever, but the response of the president is telling. It is indicative of a man who interprets everything in terms of his interests only – not the interests of the country he swore on a Bible to defend.

These views may not be popular in this neck of the woods, but increasingly, and especially given the carte blanche conferred upon him recently by his Senate enablers, the president appears to equate his own interests as being those of the state as well.

This does not describe a president. It describes a king. It is a chilling perversion of the rule of law and limited government – complete with checks and balances – established by “We the People” in the Constitution of these United States.

Hopefully, people will begin to wonder out loud, and in increasing numbers, whether this is the precedent we wish to bequeath to our children, and to our children’s children.

Time will tell.

The founders of the republic argued long and hard to establish a balance between the executive and legislative branches of their new, unprecedented, and untried model of government.

Under the nation’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, there was no executive branch. There was, however, a functionary known as “the President of the United States in Congress Assembled” carried over from the Continental Congress that predated adoption of the Articles.

This individual was elected by the other members of the Congress, had little power, and was supposed to serve as an “impartial moderator” and presiding officer during meetings of Congress.

There is still a debate among historians (who love to engage in wars of words over arcane historical details) as to the identity of the first such “president” of the United States.

There are partisans for both Samuel Huntington and John Hanson. Take your pick, but don’t lose sleep over it. The identity of the real first “president” isn’t important unless you’re a historian.

If this model had persisted, that is, a member of Congress being elected to preside over the Congress, the United States may well have developed into a parliamentary democracy not unlike that of the United Kingdom.

The model did not persist, because the founders concluded the model did not work, or at a minimum, did not work well enough.

It was felt there should be an executive, with powers independent of the Congress. The executive branch would be strong enough to push back against the legislative branch but would not be so strong as to overpower Congress.

It’s all part of the “checks and balance” thing you might have learned about in middle school civics class if you hadn’t been so busy passing notes back and forth about who was doing what with whom.

Of the three branches of government, it is the executive branch that has morphed into something that the founders would be least likely to recognize.

Over the 231 years of our republic, strong and ambitious presidents, often with the cooperation of Congresses all too anxious to avoid the hard decisions, have expanded the functions of the office to an extent that under the current president, it is argued that there are few limits to what a president can do. Congress is seen as little more than a debating society whose debates have little to do with the course of the nation.

The prerogatives claimed by the current president make it plain that he believes the Constitution gives him the power to overpower Congress in pursuit of goals he himself has the sole power to determine.

This era of our national journey will pass, either by electoral defeat, term limitations (assuming they are honored,) or the discovery by Mitch McConnell that he is not the only Grim Reaper on the field of play.

We are probably talking about no more than five years. There are new car warranties that last longer.

What follows Number 45 could become interesting.

Republican caucuses in the House and Senate, freed from the sword hanging over their heads wielded by a president whose mere words can conjure primary opponents out of thin air, may rediscover their long lost spines and resolve to never find themselves at such a disadvantage ever again.

They may well find Democrats, also reduced to impotence, who would be more than willing to cooperate in clipping the wings of a presidency grown too powerful and overbearing.

There are ways this can be done short of amending the Constitution –assuming the will to do it.

Once the ball gets rolling, it may well become impossible to stop.

A campaign to redress presidential overreach could easily become a crusade to neuter future occupants of the White House.

Wouldn’t it be ironic if the administration claiming the most radical expansion of executive power ever could become the proximate cause of the reduction of the executive branch to a role as close as constitutionally possible to the much more limited presidency originally envisioned by the framers of the Constitution.

The opportunity for congressional overreach is obvious.

Lest we forget, the President of the United States in Congress Assembled proved inadequate to the reality of governing.

There is no reason to expect an improvement the second time around.

Judiciously clipping the wings of a presidency that might need some trimming is one thing. Cutting off the wings is something else entirely.

Will that future Congress have the self-discipline to trim and not eviscerate?

Hey, I’m totally confident in a future Congress’s ability to exercise self-restraint.

How about you?

Meanwhile, back at the impeachment trial …

You do remember the impeachment trial?

Before the evening of January 3, 2020, American political discourse revolved around the intricacies of a Senate trial on articles of impeachment preferred against the president of the United States, and yet to be transmitted from the House to the Senate by the House’s crafty speaker, Nancy Pelosi.

On the evening of January 3, 2020, one of Iran’s top generals was taken out by a missile launched from an American drone. Neat, surgical, and with real-time footage of a mass of twisted metal being consumed by fire.

The Iranians were not amused.

The events of that evening moved impeachment stories off the front page and the impending trial was no longer the lead story on the evening news.

While the trial of an American president is a juicy story, the possibility of another Middle East war is even juicier. The story was irresistible to a media whose battle cry translates loosely as “If it bleeds, it leads.”

In political science jargon, a “rally point” is defined as “a significant jump in presidential approval that occurs during a national crisis; the term refers to the tendency of Americans to ‘rally round’ the flag and the chief executive when the nation is in trouble.”

It is not a stretch to interpret the facts of the story and the reaction to those facts as describing one such “rally point.”

“Rally points” are intended to describe a spontaneous reaction to unplanned and unfolding events. Nevertheless, the temptation exists, given the political benefits, and the ability of a rally point to distract from other, less agreeable, subjects, to artificially manufacture such an event for the positive, albeit temporary, political points to be gained.

As noted in the definition, we Americans are a patriotic bunch. In times of crisis, we rally around our flag, and our president.

But what if the crisis that animates our patriotic response is a crisis that our own leaders created in the first place?

This is not the first time during this administration that the war drums have begun to beat.

In 2017-18, the country was fed the narrative that we were on a collision course with North Korea. Matters became so charged with predictions of impending doom that a rogue erroneous warning of missiles approaching Hawaii pulled folks off the beach and sent them scurrying for the fallout shelters.

In the end, after months of escalating tensions, American and Korean leadership kissed and made up. Crisis over – for now.

Within four days of the Bagdad Barbeque, Iran had launched missiles at U.S. Air Force bases in Iraq suspected to have been the source of the avenging drone. The attack seemed targeted to  minimize American bloodshed, and, indeed, no casualties were announced, which is more than can be said about the results of the drone attack.

American leadership took advantage of Tehran’s limited response to reduce the tone of its rhetoric from apocalyptic to merely bellicose – a tone with which the American people have become familiar, and relatively immune to overreacting, over the last few years.

Let me be clear. I am not suggesting that we are witnessing a manufactured rally point. I am confident in saying this because I cannot conceive of an American leader, worthy of the office they hold, who would jerk around the American people in such a manner for political gain.

This realization allows me to sleep quietly through the night, trips to the bathroom excluded.

I must admit, however, that sometimes in the wee hours, the words of James Madison, founding father and primary author of the Constitution, rattle around in my brain: “Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant.”

I’m not sayin’, I’m just sayin’ …

OK. I’m running a little behind again. I’ve got a meeting 100 miles away that’s supposed to start in an hour. Going the speed limit, I’ll be 40 minutes late. What choices do I have?

Well, I could drive down the highway at 100 miles an hour. The benefit of this course of action is that I might just make the meeting on time.

But there would be potential costs.

I would be using significantly more gasoline than if I were going the legal speed limit of 60 miles an hour.

The strain on my engine could lead to avoidable engine damage.

Going 40 miles an hour over the limit would probably draw the attention of local law enforcement (especially if I were navigating through the Westfield-Carmel speed trap!). In that case, I would be facing the probability of a heavy fine, several points on my license, possibly losing my license, and a substantial increase in insurance rates, if not outright cancellation.

Moreover, at that speed the car would be more likely to go out of control, causing a major wreck that could injure or kill me, other family members in the car, or strangers having the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

My life would be ruined.

It’s a lousy choice, but it’s still a choice.

You would likely find yourself weighing the benefit of getting to the meeting on time against the potential costs of radically exceeding the speed limit.

It’s called a cost-benefit analysis.

National leaders are often faced with the necessity of doing the same thing for much higher stakes.

Based on the information he was given, George W. Bush concluded that the benefit of neutralizing the threat of  weapons of mass destruction reported to be in Iraq justified initiating the Second Gulf War, even at the cost of American lives and the further destabilization of the Middle East – a choice that still has ramifications today.

Based on the information he was given, Barack Obama made the decision that the benefit of eliminating Osama Bin Laden outweighed the risk of retaliation by a weakened and disorganized Al Qaeda.

The choices may be proven good or not so good by history, but both presidents did due diligence before pulling the trigger.

Or not pulling the trigger.

Both presidents also had Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in their crosshairs. Both concluded that the benefit of ridding the world of this man with so much American blood on his hands was outweighed by the potential cost of an inflamed Middle East, and potential retaliation against United States interests worldwide.

This is not to say that their decision was the correct one, or that subsequent presidents should be bound by that decision.

What is important is that there was a process that was followed to assure that any decision was a decision based on the best information available and something more substantial than personal pique or seat-of-the-pants gut feelings.

While there is unquestionably a benefit to the United States in no longer sharing the planet with Soleimani, there is no evidence that any substantial cost-benefit activity took place before the fact, and the multiple justifications offered after the fact are less than convincing.

There is a difference between decisive and discerning. Bottom line, a leader who acts upon impulse or emotion on a regular basis, without seriously pursuing an orderly process to consider the possible consequences of their actions, is a leader who is a danger to the country being led. Inevitably he, or she, will be betrayed by their intuition.

In a republic, where the population has the opportunity to participate in regularly scheduled elections, it can be argued that the benefit of changing leaders outweighs the cost of waiting for the inevitable to occur.

As this is written, it appears likely that President Donald J. Trump will be the subject of two articles of impeachment voted by the House of Representatives. The charges will be sent to the Senate for trial.

So, what can be expected?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) has given us a preview: “Everything I do during this I’m coordinating with White House counsel… There’ll be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this.” Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was equally emphatic when he said in an interview on CNN that he wouldn’t “pretend to be a fair juror.” He didn’t need evidence. His goal was to “make it (the trial) die quickly … I will do everything I can to make it die quickly.”

While it is hard to take issue with McConnell and Graham’s assessment of future events, how do their prejudgments square with their duty under the Constitution?

The Framers of the Constitution saw impeachment and removal from office as an extraordinary remedy to be used to protect the Constitution from endangerment in extreme circumstances. The solemnity of the process was recognized by a subsequent Senate rule that requires senators, prior to the commencement of an impeachment trial, to take a separate oath. In that oath, senators swear “in all things appertaining to the trial of impeachment … (to) do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you God.”

Which brings us to the question. If a senator swears to “do impartial justice” in an impeachment trial, does he break that oath by prejudging the matter and indicating the intention to act in cooperation with, if not at the direction of, the defendant, as Senator McConnell clearly inferred? Or to do all in their power to short-circuit the process as quickly as possible, evidence of guilt or innocence notwithstanding, as promised by Senator Graham?

To be fair, a similar duty of impartiality is incumbent on several senators currently hoping to oppose President Trump next November.

So, who in their right minds would expect partisans like Mitch McConnell, or Lindsey Graham, or the presidential hopefuls, to render “impartial justice” as jurors in an impeachment trial? Would you expect them to do so despite their partisan political ties favorable or unfavorable to the defendant?

How about the framers?

To those 18^th Century gentlemen, honor and duty were paramount, and inextricably linked. If there were a duty, honor demanded that the duty be done – regardless of other considerations, including partisan ones.

It is said that impeachment is a political act. The Senate trial, the more consequential element of the impeachment process, however, should be anything but political. The duty imposed upon the senators, as jurors, is that the trial outcome should be based on a sober consideration of the misconduct alleged in the Articles of Impeachment and a finding of whether the allegations, if true, merit a finding of guilt. Politics has no place here, because the framers believed defense of the Constitution to be an imperative superior to political partisanship.

Anything less, in their minds, would be dishonorable.

What Senators McConnell and Graham have telegraphed is that the Senate will act based on partisan-driven considerations, and not the sufficiency or insufficiency of the facts underlying the charges, which could be determined only after an impartial assessment of the charges preferred by the House.

The course of action endorsed by the senators falls far short of what the framers intended, or expected, from their successors. It is a sad commentary on how far we, as a country, have drifted from where we began.

It is equally unfortunate that some of those charged with defending the Constitution in the present day are proving themselves to be such lesser men than those who wrote it.

I haven’t written much recently. From time to time, folks have asked me why. I have asked myself the same thing.

The answer I came up with was really a question. Was it worth the effort to try to present largely middle-of-the-road observations of the passing national political scene in one of the reddest states north of the Mason-Dixon Line, in a town that just voted in an entire slate of local GOP candidates? What were the odds of changing minds and hearts, or encouraging an outbreak of critical thinking rather than blind tribal allegiance in such a equivocal political atmosphere?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not slamming our local winners or their supporters, many of whom I count as friends, or at least as honorable sparring partners. For the record, I wish them all well in their efforts over the next few years. After all, I live here too.

No, my frustration is with my fellow citizens who have apparently swallowed the hoodoo voodoo of a second-tier real estate hustler named Donald J. Trump.

Unlike Tiki-torch-bearing neo-Nazis, there really are good people in this group, like the nice folks a few doors down with their Trump 2020 banner (undoubtedly made in China) fluttering in the breeze.

I have, I really have, tried to understand the phenomenon of absolute loyalty to a man who has shown no loyalty to his associates, or to those members of the public who would willingly march into Hell at his request. Most distressingly, I can’t understand the blind adulation of a man who swore to his fellow Americans – of all political stripes – that he would, to the best of his ability, “preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States.” Try as I might, I can’t square his subsequent actions with the promise he made to all of us that chilly day in January of 2016.

I must allow for the possibility that the lack of understanding might lie with me, and not with those around me. I am jealous of the certainty of those who appear untroubled by such a possibility. Life would be easier if I had their clarity of faith, rather than having to entertain my own reservations.

I must admit that among the reasons for my case of writer’s block, there is a sense of “what difference does it all make” when we are all the victims of political beliefs set in concrete – unable to change minds or win over hearts?

Why bother?

Then a few days ago, I sat down with an old friend for breakfast. (Yes, even the town liberal has friends, be they ever so few!) He chided me for my withdrawal from the public forum. He argued that I was leaving the field to the president’s apologists. The measure of success, he said, was not in changing minds and hearts but continuing to provide a counterpoint to the blarney propagated daily by spokesmen whose only loyalty is to perpetuate this chaotic administration, and their own employment, beyond 2020.

I felt rather guilty!

Today I came across a quote attributed to Garry Kasparov, a former World Chess Champion and a current Russian political dissident, “They know that, you know, they can get people exhausted, they exhaust critical thinking.” Kasparov was talking of Putin’s Russia, but it occurred to me that the template is the same one currently being utilized by our own administration.

I’ll be darned if I will play along, because enough craziness, if left unchallenged, becomes the norm.

So, for what it’s worth, here in the soybean belt, I’m jumping back in into the debate.

And if I never change a mind, or capture a heart, at least I will have had my say.

While it’s still possible to do so.

The following exchange is from the 1995 movie “The American President:”

Lewis Rothchild (Michael J. Fox): “People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership they’ll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They’re so thirsty for it they’ll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there’s no water, they’ll drink the sand.”

To which President Andrew Shepard (Michael Douglas) responds,

“Lewis, we’ve had presidents who were beloved, who couldn’t find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don’t drink the sand because they’re thirsty. They drink the sand because they don’t know the difference.”

Enter President Trump and the 2020 presidential campaign.

Americans in Trump World believe they have been left out. Their skills have often been superseded by automation or more competitive technologies. Their industries have become antiquated or exported overseas in a race to the bottom of the wage-and-benefit scale by those who remain unaffected by the economic and social upheaval they leave in their wake, and over which those who are affected have no influence.

Many feel their place in society is under attack by “the others.” There is little left of their comfort zone other than a fond, perhaps idealized, memory of what once may have existed, and an uneasiness that it exists no longer.

They feel ignored by the political elite in charge of the government that all too often opts for expressions of sympathy and rhetorical platitudes rather than risking tough choices that might upset a status quo that currently all but guarantees re-election in perpetuity. The institutions that underpin the structure of that government not only are no longer seen as sacrosanct but are actively seen as being part of what ails the body politic or, more ominously, as obstructions to be circumvented.

The academicians, pundits, and “experts” who have not walked in the shoes of those to whom they presume to lecture are actively resented.

At issue here is not the legitimacy of the concerns, but rather the legitimacy of President Trump’s assertion that he is uniquely qualified to address those concerns.

President Trump was astute enough to the grab the microphone and proclaim loudly that he was, and is, the only one willing to fight for the issues important to Ordinary Joe and Joanne. More importantly, only he has been consecrated from on high to reveal to Joe and Joanne what those issues should be.

As millions of Americans navigate their way across a desert of political grievance and discontent, the open question of 2020 is whether, when they reach the end of their journey next November, does President Trump provide water – or sand?

President Trump works most effectively in a state of perpetual chaos. What is important is not so much reaching a solution, but rather the electricity and drama of a public fight to reach a solution on his own terms.

It keeps his base energized, engaged, and loudly supportive.

It feeds his view of himself as always being the alpha male.

Arguably, for him, reaching a solution to a problem may even be counterproductive because it takes the issue off the front burner, whereas stringing out the fight keeps the base in turmoil and in an ongoing state of agitation.

Using controversies as political red meat rather than as problems demanding resolution has little down side. Failure to resolve can always be laid off on others – the Congress (especially the Democrats), the “deep state,” the courts, or whatever happens to be the bete noir of the moment.

Being able to claim loudly “I’m fighting for you” apparently is presumed enough to command absolute loyalty.

Is it really? Or are words alone nothing more than just words?

What remains to be seen in 2020 is whether the American electorate demands that their leader delivers on his promise to provide them with water, or are they willing to settle for a fistful of sand?

And will they have the wisdom to distinguish one from the other?

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.