“Well I called my congressman and he said quote, ‘I’d like to help you son, but you’re too young to vote’” Summertime Blues”, Eddie Cochran, (1958).

In the days since the latest school massacre, this one at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., I have become increasingly impressed with the maturity and commitment of the survivors as they speak truth to power about the need to rein in our wide-open gun laws.

Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School is named for an environmentalist best known for calling for the protection of the Florida Everglades at a time when common wisdom considered the Everglades as “a worthless swamp.” It is more than a little ironic that history juxtaposed this woman with another historic event.

On the same day in 1993 that Marjory Stoneman Douglas received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Clinton, the highest civilian award that can be bestowed in the United States, she also was invited to witness the signing of the Brady Handgun Violence Act, which established a federal background check for those wanting to purchase a firearm.

This is the same background check an 18-year-old Nikolas Jacob Cruz successfully passed to purchase the AR 15 semi-automatic assault rifle that would later be used to gun down 14 students and three staff members at his former school.

It is equally ironic that, according to published reports, the Florida State Pension Fund holds more than 41,000 shares in American Outdoor Brands, formerly known as Smith and Wesson, one of the many manufacturers of the style of weapon used in the Parkland bloodbath.

In other words, the Florida State Pension fund was, or is, in effect funding a manufacturer of the type of weapon used to murder 17 members of one of its high school communities, whose only crime was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

But getting back to the surviving students …

After each of these incidents of societal mayhem, be it 49 revelers in a club in Orlando catering to the LGBT community, 58 country music fans at a concert in Las Vegas, 20 first-graders in Sandy Hook, or 17 youngsters and teachers in a high school in Parkland, we are subjected to the same shopworn and empty platitudes: “Our thoughts and prayers are with you” or “We ask that prayer will comfort you.”

I am reminded of a quote attributed to St. James the Apostle: “Faith without works is dead.”

This is why I so much respect the surviving Eagles from Marjory Stoneman Douglas.

Prayer and condolences are not enough for them; for them, there must be concrete action.

“Shucking and jiving” can be defined as “the use of misleading or deceptive talk or behavior, as to give a false impression.”

Rather than falling for the shucking and jiving of elected politicians in the thrall of special interests, most notably the National Rifle Association, who would like to leave the impression that they really care, the kids from Marjory Stoneman Douglas are calling for an end to the BS.

Act to control the sale of weapons, often euphemistically called “modern sporting rifles,” whose only “sport” is to kill as many human beings as possible as quickly and efficiently as possible. Enact responsible gun safety legislation, or we are coming after you to end your amoral, or even immoral, political careers.

Politicians pay attention to those who can help them … or those who can hurt them. Today, many of the Marjory Douglas Stoneman kids are too young to vote, so all they are likely to get are empty words and patronizing expressions of sympathy.

Crocodile tears and sanctimonious cant. Cue “Summertime Blues.”

But their time, the time for the kids from Marjory Stoneman Douglas and their peers from one end of this conflicted country to the other, is a’coming—and very soon.

I am a boomer. In our day, back in the Sixties and early Seventies, many of us set out to change the world. Sad to say, all too often, the world changed us.

I wish today’s teens a better fate.

Learn from the failures, be self-effacing in the victories. Keep the faith. Keep your idealism. Don’t give up on your goal of a better, safer world – starting with America’s schools.

Good luck.

Make America proud.

“Well I called my congressman and he said quote, ‘I’d like to help you son, but you’re too young to vote’” Summertime Blues”, Eddie Cochran, (1958).

In the days since the latest school massacre, this one at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., I have become increasingly impressed with the maturity and commitment of the survivors as they speak truth to power about the need to rein in our wide-open gun laws.

Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School is named for an environmentalist best known for calling for the protection of the Florida Everglades at a time when common wisdom considered the Everglades as “a worthless swamp.” It is more than a little ironic that history juxtaposed this woman with another historic event.

On the same day in 1993 that Marjory Stoneman Douglas received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Clinton, the highest civilian award that can be bestowed in the United States, she also was invited to witness the signing of the Brady Handgun Violence Act, which established a federal background check for those wanting to purchase a firearm.

This is the same background check an 18-year-old Nikolas Jacob Cruz successfully passed to purchase the AR 15 semi-automatic assault rifle that would later be used to gun down 14 students and three staff members at his former school.

It is equally ironic that, according to published reports, the Florida State Pension Fund holds more than 41,000 shares in American Outdoor Brands, formerly known as Smith and Wesson, one of the many manufacturers of the style of weapon used in the Parkland bloodbath.

In other words, the Florida State Pension fund was, or is, in effect funding a manufacturer of the type of weapon used to murder 17 members of one of its high school communities, whose only crime was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

But getting back to the surviving students …

After each of these incidents of societal mayhem, be it 49 revelers in a club in Orlando catering to the LGBT community, 58 country music fans at a concert in Las Vegas, 20 first-graders in Sandy Hook, or 17 youngsters and teachers in a high school in Parkland, we are subjected to the same shopworn and empty platitudes: “Our thoughts and prayers are with you” or “We ask that prayer will comfort you.”

I am reminded of a quote attributed to St. James the Apostle: “Faith without works is dead.”

This is why I so much respect the surviving Eagles from Marjory Stoneman Douglas.

Prayer and condolences are not enough for them; for them, there must be concrete action.

“Shucking and jiving” can be defined as “the use of misleading or deceptive talk or behavior, as to give a false impression.”

Rather than falling for the shucking and jiving of elected politicians in the thrall of special interests, most notably the National Rifle Association, who would like to leave the impression that they really care, the kids from Marjory Stoneman Douglas are calling for an end to the BS.

Act to control the sale of weapons, often euphemistically called “modern sporting rifles,” whose only “sport” is to kill as many human beings as possible as quickly and efficiently as possible. Enact responsible gun safety legislation, or we are coming after you to end your amoral, or even immoral, political careers.

Politicians pay attention to those who can help them … or those who can hurt them. Today, many of the Marjory Douglas Stoneman kids are too young to vote, so all they are likely to get are empty words and patronizing expressions of sympathy.

Crocodile tears and sanctimonious cant. Cue “Summertime Blues.”

But their time, the time for the kids from Marjory Stoneman Douglas and their peers from one end of this conflicted country to the other, is a’coming—and very soon.

I am a boomer. In our day, back in the Sixties and early Seventies, many of us set out to change the world. Sad to say, all too often, the world changed us.

I wish today’s teens a better fate.

Learn from the failures, be self-effacing in the victories. Keep the faith. Keep your idealism. Don’t give up on your goal of a better, safer world – starting with America’s schools.

Good luck.

Make America proud.

Where to begin, and where will it all end?

I realize I live in ruby red Indiana. Furthermore, I have no desire to gratuitously insult the political judgement of a majority of my fellow Hoosiers. For these public reasons (as well as some private ones), I have been somewhat circumspect when it comes to my evaluation of the current tenant in the White House.

It’s not been easy. OMG, it has not been easy. But I try, I really do try. When it all becomes too much, I drag out my trusty Kindle and burrow into totally non-enriching recreational, albeit historical, fiction as an escape. Or I kick up the volume on my bagpipe tunes for a few hours. To voluntarily subject one’s self to blaring bagpipes for significant periods of time is surely indicative of a psyche in deep, deep trouble.

Problem is, I think I understand the man’s appeal.

For folks fed up with slick politicians of all spots and stripes, his take-no-prisoners approach has its appeal. Without skipping a beat, today’s ally can be tomorrow’s enemy of the people, or vice versa.

He keeps his campaign promises, kind of, even if the promises themselves are less than practical. Eighteen billion dollars for a wall. Really? Commune with the shades of the various Chinese emperors who built the Great Wall … or the Roman wall builders, emperors Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. Ask them how things worked out.

In the case of the Romans, the fact most of us do not converse in Latin is probably a clue.

As for the Chinese, well, they pretty much own us, so it’s not politic to twist the dragon’s tail.

The current tenant in the White House and his Republican fellow travelers have gifted us with a really great middle-class tax cut. I know a professional couple who estimate that they stand to save about $38,000 annually, which is substantially more than a Costco membership. Most of those of us in the proletariat will not do quite as well, but heck, we can dream. Try to forget that it is only a dream.

I applaud his willingness to take on those snooty foreign countries and demand they pay their fair share of the expenses of defending freedom around the globe, or we will pick up our marbles and go home.

I love the idea of making America great again, but I do sometimes (as in, always) wonder when America was un-great? I guess it must have been during the tenure of his predecessor, He-Who-Must-Be-Blamed, who gets the rap for most everything that cannot be laid at the door of Her Hillaryness, the Wicked Witch from the East.

I appreciate his concern that there be due process for accused wife beaters, even if he advocated locking up you-know-who without the preliminaries of a trial.

I want to believe the whole Russia thing is a Deep State plot, but if that is the case, why is everything being done to wreck the investigation that will undoubtedly exonerate him? If one were of a suspicious nature, one might suspect the coin of the realm being used to keep his private businesses afloat is measured in rubles rather than dollars.

I want to be able to believe what comes out of the mouth of my president, despite accusations that he has only a passing acquaintance with the truth, or at least truth backed up with demonstrable facts.

I want to believe that, in his heart of hearts, he respects everyone’s wives, mothers, daughters, and sisters, even if his mouth seems incapable of saying so with any sincerity.

Mussolini made Italian trains run on time. Hitler put Germany back to work. I want my president to make such accomplishments seem puny by comparison, but, hopefully, without the negative consequences.

I want a demonstration that somewhere in that cheeseburger-chiseled body there reside a few ounces of compassion and empathy for the folks who have voluntarily placed their trust, hopes, and dreams in his hands.

In short, I want to believe in this guy.

I want to toast his successes with champagne.

My fear, however, is that we will find the only beverage on offer is Kool-Aid.

It’s a question of trust, when trust has been in short supply.

It is a question of courage, when courage has yet to be tested.

Recently, Senate Democrats, frustrated with playing the role of Charlie Brown to the president’s Lucy (having deals to provide a fix to the plight of 800,000 DACA recipients set up and then snatched away at the last second), took the politically risky step of filibustering a stopgap spending bill.

With the failure of the bill in the Senate, the U.S. government ground to a halt.

As far as government shutdowns go, it wasn’t much. It marked the 18th time the federal government has been shut down since the modern budgetary process began back in 1974. In terms of length, it was significantly shorter (three days) than the average seven days of most prior shutdowns, and significantly shorter than the 16 days of a GOP-instigated shutdown in 2013. It fell far short of the Newt Gingrich/GOP-led record shutdown of 21 days in 1995-1996.

While shutdowns are a lousy way to do business, both parties have resorted to them from time to time. They do, however, serve to signal that a point has been reached when, in the words of Twisted Sister, “we ain’t gonna take it anymore!”

In this case, on two occasions, Democrats felt they had reached a deal on DACA with a president who prides himself on his ability to make deals. Both times, whoever got to him last was apparently able to encourage him to renege on commitments, sometimes made only hours before.

So much for trust. Please pass the Jell-O.

Trust is also a rare commodity in the Senate, where Democrats are dealing with a Senate majority leader who had been moving the goal posts on DACA for months.

It doesn’t seem to be such an insoluble problem. According to many polls of all stripes, 80 percent of Americans believe that DACA recipients – brought into the country as children, through no fault of their own, and who voluntarily, at the government’s request, self-reported their undocumented status – should be given permanent residence in the United States, and a path to eventual citizenship.

A “clean” DACA bill, one focused on that sole issue, would take care of the problem, assuming the majority leader would allow a DACA bill to come to a vote.

But that’s not what the majority leader wants. Rather, he sees DACA as being part of a comprehensive immigration bill.

Sounds reasonable, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist (or even rocket man) to see the cynicism in the strategy. Comprehensive immigration reform is certainly a subject for discussion and action, but a full discussion cannot be had between now and a drop-dead date on DACA in early March. As that date approaches, DACA will be used as a carrot, or more likely a club, to pressure Democrats to accede to the nativist demands of the radical right of the Republican caucus.

Meanwhile 800,000 Americans, in all but legal status, remain as pawns, wondering what the next knock on the door portends.

In the end, the Democrats shut down the shutdown after extracting a quasi-promise from the majority leader to at least allow a DACA bill to come to the Senate floor for debate and a vote.

This is where the trust comes in. The “quasi-promise” has a big loophole. The majority leader’s precise words were that it was his “intention” to allow a bill on the floor if certain conditions were met. There is a lot of wiggle room between “intent to allow” and “allowing.”

If the majority leader snatches away the football, there will be a price to be paid.

Hopefully, the Democrats’ trust in the majority leader’s word will not be misplaced.

Of course, whatever happens in the Senate must pass muster in the House, which is where the issue of courage becomes germane.

There is little doubt that, between Democrats and center to center-right Republicans, there are more than enough votes to pass a bill and send it on to the White House.

The problem is that the House Republicans have a convention called the “Hastert Rule.” This convention holds that the speaker of the House will not allow any bill to come to a vote unless it has the prior approval of “a majority of the majority.” Following this rule, despite overwhelming Democrat support for a DACA bill, they would never get a chance to vote on such a bill because the bill would never come to the floor unless a majority of House Republicans approved it first.

Given some of the more radical anti-immigrant factions within the Republican caucus, obtaining such a majority is questionable.

Thing is, the “Hastert Rule” isn’t really a rule at all. It is a convention, a tradition, a non-binding custom.

The speaker of the House has the power to ignore the so-called Hastert Rule, and speakers have done so in the past.

The question is this, does Speaker of the House Paul Ryan have the courage to defy the radical right of his own caucus and allow a DACA bill to come to the floor for debate and a vote?

Should he do so, he puts his speakership at risk. Which is more important to Paul Ryan? His speakership, or close to 800,000 young men and women whose fate would be in his hands?

Trust, courage. Traits and virtues in short supply.

Even if the Senate and House agree upon DACA legislation, it all comes down to the gentleman in the White House. Given his prior positive comments about the “Dreamers,” perhaps if he is caught on a day of the “Good Donald,” while all immigration issues would not be resolved, but at least this one would be.

And something is better than nothing.

It’s been a while since I’ve taken up space on this page.

It isn’t that I haven’t had anything about which to write. The problem has been finding the time to put it on paper.

I’ve been preparing for a new semester, and I’m working with a new textbook. This means that all those lectures based on the old textbook, the ones I’ve become very comfortable with over the last several years, are out the window. Yes, students, your instructor has sometimes recycled class materials, all of which are now irrevocably obsolete.

American government being my discipline, I’ve been spending much of my time mulling over the Constitution, and melding some (hopefully) original, thoughts into lectures based on the new tome.

When I go through this exercise, my takeaway has always been the same. I am, at the same time, both encouraged and discouraged.

This time has been no different.

I find encouragement in the fact that this one document, adopted 229 years ago when 13 colonies became states, remains the foundation for a nation that has grown to more 330 million people, a nation that now spans from the Atlantic to the Pacific – and then west to tropical islands and north to what was once termed “Seward’s Folly.”

By comparison, according to one source, in the 69 years from 1789 to 1858, France had 16 different constitutions

What I find amazing is how much practical wisdom is packed into just over 4,500 words of prose.

It has only seven articles, or sections. The Constitution of South Africa (adopted in 1996) has 244.The Constitution of India (1950) has 395.

It has survived almost intact since its adoption, along with the Bill of Rights shortly thereafter. Since 1791, more than 11,600 amendments have been proposed, but only 17 have been successfully adopted. The California state constitution has been amended more than 520 times.

The document was not written by angels, or philosophers arguing over how many of those angels would hypothetically fit on the head of a pin. It was hammered out by men with serious disagreements – some of which would lead to the Civil War only 70 years later – but they persisted, because failure was not an acceptable option.

I am impressed by the fact that the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, were not intended to empower the government, but to protect the governed from government overreach – and from leaders with totalitarian tendencies.

I am in awe of a system of checks and balances that has functioned, like a well-tuned clock, as intended, down to the present day.

As noted, I am also discouraged.

I am disappointed in elected leaders who seem more committed to achieving their political agenda than they are in the maintenance of the Constitution itself.

I am appalled at the willingness of some to prevaricate, which is a fancy word for “lie,” to curry favor with a chief executive who has exhibited limited understanding of the Constitution’s content or intention, for short-term political gain, and at the risk of undercutting the institutions and procedures intended to protect our long-term freedom and independence.

I am afraid of damage to our national soul that may long outlast the perpetrators of the damage itself.

I think we take the Constitution for granted. Perhaps we should not. According to that new textbook, if 18 delegates in New York, Virginia, and Massachusetts (that’s just 3 percent of the 580 votes cast in their state conventions) had changed their votes in the ratification process, the Constitution would never have been adopted in the first place.

But it was, and my thanks go out belatedly to folks like James Madison, who wrote, with uncanny foresight, in the Federalist Papers that “enlightened statesmen may not always be at the helm.” Again, from the textbook, “The Constitution did not ask people to be virtuous, instead, it developed a government that would operate smoothly even if its citizens were greedy and its leaders corrupt.”

I think this new textbook (By the People, Brief Third Edition/Marone, Kersh) might just have some potential.

Call it the winter of my discontent.

It began with the manner in which Al Franken was run out of town on a rail by his fellow Democrat senators.

Don’t get me wrong. I understand that Al was not, and is not, everyone’s cup of tea. Overall, however, I thought he was one of the more reasoned, and reasonable, voices on the progressive side of the political spectrum.

When the sophomoric photograph of Mr. Franken, in his former life as a standup comedian, surfaced with him leering over, but not touching, Sleeping Beauty, I along with most of the country, cringed. I thought, “Oh, Al, the times they are a-changing,” and what just looked silly 11 years ago is going to take on a sinister edge in the hyper-judgmental “Me, too” moment upon which the country is currently embarked.

Things didn’t get any better when Sleeping Beauty, now a conservative radio talk show host on the West Coast, went into excruciating detail about a slobbery kiss perpetrated upon her by Mr. Franken during a rehearsal for their USO comedy skit.

Wasn’t right then; isn’t right now.

Franken followed the damage control handbook to the letter. He immediately made a public apology, and requested a Senate ethics investigation into his own conduct. The victim said she accepted the apology, and furthermore, was not calling for Franken’s resignation. So far, not so good, but survivable.

Then the “Me, too” accusations dribbled in, and if those accusations were to be believed (and why shouldn’t they?), Al was revealed to be a serial kisser, and a touchy-feely guy of the first order.

These charges are serious, but on a continuum, they are clearly different in degree from molesting 14-year-old girls or wandering through beauty contest dressing rooms sizing up the semi-clad (and often underage) contestants. Nevertheless, the charges against Franken were serious and would be legitimate subjects of investigation in the context of an ethics investigation. Given the notoriety of the scandal, the media, if no one else, would guarantee transparency of the process.

During such an investigation, Franken would have the opportunity to present a defense, admit to some charges, or take issue with others. If he admitted to charges, he would still have the option to offer exculpatory evidence to mitigate possible sanctions, of which there were many, ranging through private reprimand, public reprimand, letter of reprimand, letter of censure, loss of committee assignments, loss of seniority, or ultimately, to expulsion from the Senate.

But all of this would take time, and time was not on Franken’s side.

A group of female Democrat senators, led by Kristen Gillibrand of New York (currently on the list of possible presidential candidates in 2020), called for Franken’s immediate resignation.  Gillibrand wrote: “While Senator Franken is entitled to have the Ethics Committee conclude its review, I believe it would be far better for our country if he sent a clear message that any kind of mistreatment of women in our society isn’t acceptable by stepping aside to let someone else serve.”

Shortly thereafter, a couple dozen male Democrat senators, including our very own Joe Donnelly, scampered to get on the right side of the issue and added their calls for Franken’s ouster—which will make interesting reading should any of their own peccadilloes ever go public.

I do not take exception to a full investigation of the charges against Franken. What I do take exception to is Senator Gillibrand’s implication that any accusation is a charge, any charge is automatically an offense, and every offense charged is presumed to be a hanging offense.

I have rarely, if ever, seen a one-size-fits-all policy that does not, in the long term, lend itself to abuse, and grotesque results.

Some have said that if we are talking about the comparative seriousness of the charges, we are having the wrong conversation. Actually, it is precisely the discussion we must have, and it is a public discussion that can only take place in a forum wherein due process is honored, and not in a rush to judgement that resembles, more than anything else, a political lynching.

It is unbecoming for those who would berate the president for short- circuiting long existing norms of fairness and due process to resort to the same sort of tactics themselves when it furthers their own political ends.

As we know, Franken bowed to political pressure and resigned. I don’t know if he would have survived an ethics investigation. Given the multiplicity of similar allegations, and with his fate in the hands of Republicans as well as Democrats, I doubt it, but as it is, we will never know.

And, for many reasons, that is unfortunate.

The following diatribe is not directed at all conservatives. I have friends who are conservatives, and from time to time, they make significant contributions to the national discussion.

The following diatribe is not directed at all Republicans, per se. From time to time, they have stood for things that are worth standing for.

The following diatribe is, however, specifically directed at those conservative Republicans who, by their silence, are enabling a radical movement to hijack and destroy their party—and perhaps the country along with it.

You know who you are.

Why, you might ask, should a card-carrying member of the vast left-wing liberal conspiracy give a flying fig about what happens to the GOP?

Well, that answer is a bit more complicated, perhaps even bordering on convoluted. With just a touch of armchair philosophy.

The partisan side of my brain dreams of triumphant election nights with happy progressives dancing in the streets to the strains of Happy Days Are Here Again, or Fleetwood Mac encouraging all and sundry to Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow.

Or even something more current, assuming there is anything worth listening to.

On the other hand, the rational side of my brain persists in pushing the pesky proposition that this country works best when there are at least two adult political parties engaged in debate over fact-based ideologies as to which is the better course for this republic of ours.

The country works best when there is respectful disagreement, with a bias in favor of building consensus. Its shouldn’t be a zero sum proposition. We need both major parties, each complementary to the other.

If you will, we need some bacon to go along with our eggs. We need some jelly to go with our peanut butter. We need some cream for our coffee.

And so do you.

While the first approach above appeals to my political instincts, the better angels of my nature lead me to conclude that the second approach is better for the ongoing civic health of our union.

In short, if the choice is between party and country, I choose country.

I wish more of you did as well. If you’re out there, I wish you were more vocal about it.

Before you grab a pen to compose vituperative Letters to the Editor about your patriotism being impugned, ask yourselves some questions.

Are you proud of the fact that a president currently leading the party of Lincoln has endorsed a Senate candidate who has been removed from the bench twice because of his unwillingness to obey the law, not to mention having been implicated in multiple sexual improprieties, including sexual assault on a 14-year-old girl?

Are you proud of a Republican National Committee that withdrew financial support from that candidate, only to reinstate it a week before the election? How about Senate leadership which fulminated about the moral fitness of this candidate to sit in the Senate, only to throw up its hands and say, “We will see how the vote goes.”

Is it worth selling your political soul to gain one vote in the Senate?

Don’t tell us what the good people of Alabama think, or how congressional leadership has rationalized its about-face. What do you think?

Are you proud that the party that once stood for fiscal responsibility and small business job creators has pushed through a tax cut that increases the deficit by 1 trillion to 1.4 trillion dollars, which mainly benefits the already wealthy, and which tosses only a few temporary crumbs to the rest of the taxpaying class—including those small businessmen of whom your party is supposedly so proud?

In your heart of hearts, are you comfortable with this?

Are you proud of the fact that your leadership, while cutting taxes on the already wealthy, is saying we must jettison insurance coverage for disadvantaged children, or take aim at cutting non-discretionary spending on programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security because we can’t afford a safety net that provides some modicum of sustenance and dignity of life to millions and millions of your fellow Americans?

You go to church on Sunday. Where do you suppose Jesus would stand on these issues?

The face of a Grand Old Party more responsive to its big donors than to its faithful, or to an angry fringe cheering as the norms that have guided this country for 228 years are, one by one, consigned to the trash heap of history, is not a pretty sight.

It is not enough to quietly lament the death of the Republican party. You must make yourselves heard, because by your silence you enable what is happening, and by being enablers, you become co-conspirators in the demise of a political institution that this country needs as an honorable, and honored, counter-balance.

Your party needs you now more than ever before.

Bacon for our eggs. Jelly for our peanut butter. Cream for our coffee.

Together.

I have rarely, if ever, written about local office holders in these columns.

There are reasons for this reticence.

On the one hand, there is the fact that I know most of these folks. Many I count as friends, some as only nodding acquaintances. None would I count as implacable adversaries. I prefer to keep it that way.

On the other hand, most of these folks know me, if only peripherally. I’m the tall guy who used to smoke a pipe before I morphed into becoming the town’s pointy-headed liberal. If they know something unflattering about yours truly, I’d prefer they keep it to themselves.

Suffice to say, there are good and sufficient reasons for maintaining the status quo.

But I’m going to make an exception.

I saw on the front page of the local newspaper awhile back that Judge George Hopkins has announced his intention to retire from the bench in 2018.

Back in my prior life as an attorney, you had to be very careful about what you said about judges. Say something nice, and it could appear you were trying to curry favor. Say something not so nice, and it was, in the words of the song, like “tugging on Superman’s cape, or spitting into the wind, or pulling the mask off the old Lone Ranger.” None of these actions would be conducive to a constructive long-term relationship with the local judiciary.

However, my law license has been in “retired” status for several years now, and I suppose I can speak more freely.

I understand that George was, and is, a pretty good judge. I don’t think I ever appeared before him. I tried to keep out of courtrooms as much as possible, because bad things happened to me there. I would tell people that if I represented someone for jaywalking, the odds were they would probably get the death penalty.

People laughed.

I never did.

Anyway, back to George.

Frequently in these columns I mention that one can be partisan and yet have folks on the other side of divide with whom you can find common ground.

I hope I’m not “outing” him, but when I make such references, I often have George Hopkins in mind.

Over the years, and behind the scenes, I suppose George and I have solved the problems of the city, county, state, country, and universe, several times over.

George and I would often disagree, but George was never disagreeable. He would stake out his position and defend it. He did so with grace, wisdom, self-awareness, and a touch of self-deprecating humor.

The world could use more folks like George, and so could our politics—even if he is a diehard Republican.

At least he likes IU.

How do you honor a guy like George, beyond posting his picture on a wall in the courtroom?

Looking to the future, let me suggest a way.

The law is neither Republican, nor Democrat. It is, or should be, apolitical.

In Indiana, trial judges run under party labels, but party affiliation should be the least qualification for the office.

In the next several months, candidates for George’s seat will be coming out of the woodwork. I don’t know who they will be, but as sure as God made little green apples, they will be.

Pay attention to those races. Try to evaluate the qualifications and judicial temperament of all the candidates—from all sides of the political spectrum. Go to candidate forums. Ask questions. Ask around.

Winnow out the ones coming from so-so private practices and in need of the salary, the ones looking towards the pension, or in need of the health insurance.

Find the ones who are sensitive to the majesty of the law, and are willing to apply it based upon the facts, without favoritism, and without concern as to how their rulings will be perceived—even by the public.

If you want to honor George Hopkins, find a successor in whom he can take pride.

Let me be very clear about this, the tax code has never been my favorite subject. In fact, in law school, I grabbed my “Gentleman’s ‘C’” and ran for the hills before my professor had time to reconsider.

However, one does not need to be a tax expert to suspect that the so-called “tax reform” bills trumpeted (pun intended) as middle-class reform measures are yet another example of congressional sleight of hand masquerading as something of real substance.

Proponents claim that most average Americans will see immediate annual tax savings. The estimated amounts vary, but $1,200 annually for a hypothetical family of four is not an unreasonable expectation. Of course, that’s not all Americans. Americans in high tax states might pay higher federal taxes off the bat because of proposed limits on the deductibility of state and local taxes. Most “high tax” states are in the Northeast and West coasts—and most are a deep shade of Democrat blue, so who cares? Elections have consequences after all.

Getting back to the $1,200 initial tax savings, daily, assuming a 365-day year, the average taxpayers filing jointly would save a whopping $3.28 a day in tax liability.

The use of the word “initial” is intentional.

The proposed tax plans, House and Senate versions, provide tax “relief” to both business and individuals. A small detail not often mentioned is that most of the provisions favoring business are permanent. Most of the provisions favoring individuals are temporary for purposes of making these changes possible under the shell game also known as “reconciliation.” Most individual provisions are set to sunset roughly 10 years from now.

Of course, these individual provisions could be made permanent by a future Congress, more than two presidential elections from now, or maybe not, depending on which way the fiscal winds are blowing by 2027.

In addition, most of the tax policy wonks are predicting that the amount saved will shrink over the next several years with the result that in the latter years of the 10-year tax window, most taxpayers will be paying more taxes than they would under present tax provisions.

What average taxpayers get in return for immediate tax savings is the accumulation of up to $1.5 trillion in lost tax revenues over the next 10 years being tacked on to the national debt.

A long-term booming economy over the next 10 years might produce increased tax revenues that will more than make up the anticipated shortfall.

Or maybe not.

Look your children and grandchildren in the eye and decide whether this is a bet you want to make. If things don’t work out, it is they who will be paying the tab after many of us are dead and gone.

These tax proposals being shoved through the Congress – without meaningful debate or examination – aren’t about taxes at all. They are about politics.

The party currently in power, a party that once claimed to be the champion of fiscal responsibility and a bulwark against big-spending do-gooders, is desperate for a win, any win, any way. After a year in control of both the Congress and the White House, there is little to be shown for their stewardship.

The temptation to ram something through is too great. If it can be claimed more money was put into the family wallet in the short term, victory can be declared—and long-term consequences are, well, long down the road.

Moreover, an impatient donor class must be placated. Its members have pumped millions into the political system over the years and are looking for a return on investment in the form of favorable tax treatment. Both the House and Senate bills are weighted in favor of this constituency – making good on years of promises carefully veiled as promises to everyone. After all, who wants to kill the golden goose?

Very few Americans would be opposed to honest tax reform, but the bills currently being promoted in the public forum by political shills fall far below that bar.

Even I, with my “Gentleman’s ‘C,’” can recognize that.

There is a reason why you do not find the word “democracy” in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of these United States.

It is the same reason that, until the adoption of the 17^th Amendment in 1913, the only Federal officer elected by a direct vote of the public was their local member of the House of Representatives.

Senators were elected by state legislatures. Presidents were, and still are, elected by the Electoral College.

The underlying reason for the absence of the word “democracy” in our founding documents, and the reason for the very limited role given to ordinary voters in Federal elections was the same: for all their anti-monarchy rhetoric, our founders did not trust the ability of ordinary Joes to make wise decisions on matters as important as selecting senators or presidents.

In the latter part of the 18^th century, the word “democracy” connoted rule by the rabble, by the mob. Prior democracies in history had had only short-term success, and often ended badly, not to mention, violently.

The critics of democracy argued that what usually happened to democracies was that the citizenry grew tired of actively participating in the drudge work of maintaining a democracy, and were only too willing to leave the work of governance to would-be autocrats, flimflam artists, and false prophets.

Moreover, the concern was that the rabble would be motivated by appeals to their passions, and not to their reason. Factions would appear that would make the success of their own agendas paramount, the health of the commonweal be damned.

It is for this reason that the founders were very careful to establish a “republic,” and not a democracy. Inherent in this idea of government-by-elected-officers was the unspoken expectation that such representatives would come from the ranks of the social, economic, and political elites.

These expectations have not come to fruition. As the years passed, more democratic institutions gained ascendancy. The nomination of candidates passed from caucuses composed exclusively of members of the political aristocracy, to nomination by convention, to political primaries wherein candidates are selected by direct vote of ordinary citizens. In addition to the direct vote for senator, political exercises such as initiative, referendum, and recall increased the role of ordinary citizens beyond that originally foreseen by the founders.

But the basic question remains: Can government be left in the hands of the governed?

The answer is still in flux.

Increasingly, our default response to political debate is to retreat into our political faction—our tribe—rather than engage in rational conversation with the other side. This leads to grotesque pronouncements such as a state official taking the position that, even if the charges are true, the official would rather vote for a child molester than a Democrat.

Such blind adherence to faction is why, despite rating Congress slightly above, or below, cockroaches, we continue to return congressional incumbents election after election—creating a class of permanent career officeholders more attentive to the wishes of their donors than the folks they allegedly represent.

The fear of losing, or perhaps sharing, political points is why on major issues such as health care or tax reform, the emphasis is on jamming a partisan plan through the process rather than regular-order consideration and debate—which is what the framers had in mind.

Politicians pay attention to two classes of citizens: those who can help them and those who can hurt them. Those who opt out of active participation in the political process get what they deserve: ignored.

In creating this country, the founders got a lot of things right, but we can hope they got a few things wrong—such as their low estimation of the capacity of ordinary citizens to constructively contribute to their own self-governance.

We are in a period of trial. The outcome is, unfortunately, still in doubt.

It’s often the bit players who do you in, not the main actors who get all the limelight.

Back in 1973, a Deputy Assistant to the President named Alexander P. Butterfield disclosed, in a closed congressional committee hearing, that both the Oval Office and the president’s office in the Executive Office Building were wired for sound, and had been since 1970.

“Deputy Assistant to the President,” impressive as it sounds, is not too far up the White House chain of command. But Mr. Butterfield’s little footnote in history provided the critical bit of evidence that eventually answered the questions that lay at the heart of the Watergate Hearings: “What did the president know, and when did he know it?”

The existence of the audiotapes, and the content therein, led directly to the resignation of the 37^th President of these United States, Richard Milhous Nixon, the following year.

That resignation ended one of the gravest constitutional crises in the history of the republic. The institutions built into our system of government by the founders to protect the integrity of the republic held, and the nation, despite major divisions, survived.

Recently, the first two criminal indictments were handed down in our current constitutional crisis – whether a foreign government attempted, or perhaps succeeded in, affecting the course of the 2016 presidential election.

A couple of things off the bat. An indictment is not a finding of guilt. Even if guilt is ultimately found to exist, the current charges revolve around old-fashioned greed, money laundering, false statements, and financial chicanery. As the current administration is quick to point out, the potential criminal conduct does not involve the president, his campaign, or his tenure as president.

Under the law, there is a presumption of innocence, and the main actors, Paul Manafort, former chairman of the Trump campaign, and Rick Gates, Manafort’s right-hand man, are entitled to that presumption until guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, there is a latter-day Alexander Butterfield. His name is George Papadopoulos, He is described as having been a “volunteer” working on the Trump campaign. Not unlike Butterfield, he appears to be a bit player, but for two salient points: He has already pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI … and he is now a cooperating witness through that plea agreement with the Feds.

From his guilty plea, it appears Papadopoulos actively sought to contact Russian interests, communicated that fact to Trump campaign officials not yet officially identified, and was encouraged by campaign officials to continue his efforts to find “dirt” on Hillary Clinton from Russian sources who claimed to be in possession of information previously hacked from Clinton’s emails, and those of the Democrat National Committee.

On the surface, this would be nothing more than a case of “opposition research,” a common practice in all campaigns, except for one thing – to pursue and accept such information from a foreign government, or that government’s operatives, is illegal.

If true, Mr. Papadopoulos’ contribution to history is to provide the first provable connection between the Trump campaign and a foreign power.

It moves alleged illegal conduct from the realm of conjecture into questions of fact, and moves the whole sorry mess closer to1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Let’s stop right there. The point is not to prejudge the outcome; the point is to allow our democratic institutions to come to an outcome one way or the other.

This will not be as simple as it sounds. Things are going to get rough. Partisans on both sides will be whipped into a fever pitch by their respective talking heads and loyalists.

There is little an ordinary citizen can do to affect the eventual outcome. However, how we treat each other during this time of national angst is within our control. We can disagree without being disagreeable. We can respect competing views if they are grounded in fact and not in some alternate reality.

We can allow our institutions to work.

The country survived Watergate. The country can survive this current test as well – if we can agree to do that.