The Death of Civil Discourse

On May 22, 1856, Preston Brooks, a Representative from South Carolina, entered the Senate chamber with two other Representatives: Laurence Keitt, a fellow South Carolinian, and Henry Edmundson of Virginia.  All three men were pro-slavery Democrats, and they had come to the Senate to confront Charles Sumner, an abolitionist Republican from Massachusetts.  Brooks was enraged at Sumner for a vitriolic speech he had given two days earlier in which he leveled scathing (and at times crude) attacks at South Carolina Senator Andrew Butler, a second cousin of Brooks.

Two years earlier, Butler, along with Stephen Douglas, a Senator from Illinois, had helped write the Kansas-Nebraska act, which created the Kansas Territory; by 1856, the question of Statehood was being discussed, with particular emphasis on whether or not slavery would be legal within Kansas.  When the territory was created, Butler and Douglas, along with the other authors and supporters of the bill had decided to let the citizens of Kansas decide the issue of slavery for themselves.  In a microcosm of the debate that was dividing the country (and would later lead to the Civil War), a series of violent and lethal clashes (now referred to as the Bleeding Kansas crisis) had erupted between pro- and anti-slavery activists.  Sumner blamed the authors of the bill for the violence because they opted to leave the issue of slavery up to the citizens instead of making a choice themselves.  In addition to attacking their bill and the institution of slavery, he attacked them personally, using lurid insults and allusions to cast them as idiots, amoral hypocrites, and sexual deviants.  Brooks was understandably furious at Sumner for berating his cousin, and he went to the Senate to seek revenge for what he deemed nothing but slander. 

What followed was one of the most shocking incidents to ever occur in any part of our government. 

Trump and the Anonymous Op-Ed

Two weeks ago, the New York Times published a damning,anonymous Op-Ed by a Senior Official in the White House.  The picture the author painted is a terrifying one, showing a White House nearly crippled by an incompetent, amoral, petty president.  They confirmed all the things we feared about Trump, and they showed that those within the White House are just as afraid.  The author attempted to assuage our fears by explaining how they and others in the White House were resisting Trump’s worst urges and behavior; that they were trying to keep him in check for the sake of the country.  But I also feel that this essay was an attempt at bolstering their own conscience.

On the one hand, I think the author was very brave to publish this essay, as was the New York Times for taking the extraordinary step of agreeing to keep their identity secret.  Whoever wrote this has every right to worry about their job (and possibly more than that) as Trump has shown time and again that he is an incredibly vindictive man.  Indeed, within hours of its publication, Trump tweeted a demand that the New York Times unveil the author’s identity, claiming that national security is at stake.  But under the bravery the author showed is cowardice, born of the extreme partisanship that permeates every nook and cranny of this administration.

Trump's North Korea Deal

When I got up this morning, I turned on the news as I always do. I expected it to be dominated by the late-night developments at the summit in Singapore, but instead, it seemed like any other news day. There were certainly references to it, but little actual coverage, at least in the half hour or so I watched. But having now read the document signed by Trump and Kim, I now know why.

First, before diving into my analysis, let me say I am pleased with the way the summit went. Given Trump's crass nature and lack of anything even resembling diplomatic skills, I was terrified of him causing a major international incident. Fortunately, my fears have not come to pass, at least not yet. The summit seems to have gone fairly well, though how well is up for debate.  This summit could be a good first step towards peace with North Korea, but only time will tell this.

Are Liberals Obsessed With Trump?

Since the day Trump won the Republican nomination for president, there has been endless discussion about him.  People have examined his polices and dissected his words to understand exactly who and what he is, as well as what kind of agenda he would set.  There has been virtually constant disagreement and divisiveness about his effectiveness as a leader, the effect his policies will have, and even whether or not he is fit to serve as president.  Like many, I discuss Trump in various contexts quite frequently, both in person and online, and I admit that I sometimes do this too frequently; as a result, I have been accused of “obsessing over Trump,” as have many who oppose him and most of the major news outlets.  But is this a valid criticism?  Are we obsessing, or are those criticizing us simply missing the point?

Another Day, Another Shooting

Eleven days ago, the country watched in horror as yet another school shooting took place, this time in Parkland, Florida.  Yet again, young lives were cut short, with at least 17 dead and 15 injured as of this writing.  Yet again, the country cried out for justice, for change, for a stop to these tragedies.  Yet again, politicians around the country offered thoughts and prayers to the victims and their families while clearly showing they have no intention of actually doing anything.  So the cycle goes.

That I can even write these words shows the depth of this problem.  School shootings, along with other mass shootings, are becoming the norm.  We know exactly how things will play out in the days and weeks following them because we repeat the exact same cycle over and over again.

The Truth About Why the GOP Won't Stand Up to Trump

Since the Republican party nominated Trump in 2016, many have asked numerous questions about the GOP.  Why would they do this?  Do they no longer have any scruples?  Why are they deaf to their own constituents, who are among the growing number of people opposing Trump’s agenda?  Most of all, people ask why the GOP doesn’t stand up to Trump, particularly when his behavior is at its most egregious.  I’ve pondered this question a great deal myself, and I’ve only recently come to understand the answer.

Like many, my initial assumption had to do with the poison that is party politics.  As we are in a system ruled by political parties, loyalty to those parties is put above all else.  It is nearly impossible to rise through the ranks of a party, win an election, or accomplish anything of substance without the support of your party (which is precisely why political parties are so antithetical to the vision our founders had for this country).