President Donald Trump celebrates after his speech at the presidential
inauguration. (photo: Saul Loeb/AP)
The World Stands Aghast at the Moral Vacuum of American Leadership
By William Boardman, Reader Supported News
04 April 17
I speak as a child of God and brother to the suffering poor
. I speak for
those whose land is being laid waste, whose homes are being destroyed, whose
culture is being subverted. I speak for the poor of America, who are paying
the double price of smashed hopes at home and death and corruption
I speak
as a citizen of the world, for the world as it stands aghast at the path we
have taken
.
Rev. Martin Luther King, Riverside Church, New York City, April 4, 1967
Fifty years later, with direct references to Americas genocidal war in
Vietnam removed from the speech, Dr. Kings words have more relevance than
they did then: the world is more aghast now than ever at the path the US has
taken, but the US itself has less resilience, less coherence, less national
vitality than ever. In the years leading up to 1967, even as the US
escalated war in Vietnam, the country also passed culture-defining
legislation supporting civil rights and voting rights and addressing
poverty. Now the energy and vision the country needs for resistance remains
diffuse, unfocused, ineffective, while ridiculed or ignored by those in
power. The country seems subsumed in a moral numbness where only the
powerless majority of humane people shares the global horror at the path
down which the powerful in our government and corporate society are taking
us without our consent.
The Supreme Court hijacking is but one vivid example among hundreds now, if
not thousands. Republicans shredded the Constitution by refusing even to
consider President Obamas choice for the court. It did not matter to
Republicans that Merrick Garland was a relatively tepid political choice, a
compromise candidate by all appearances (Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch called
Garland a consensus candidate in 2010). Republicans dont work toward
consensus, Republicans dont compromise, Republicans shoot the wounded. Such
Republican behavior is as thoroughly corrupt and reprehensible as it is now
all too predictable. Given the unacceptability of Republican actions, what
is one to make of Democrats responding to these political high crimes with
little more than token whimpers? Why did President Obama leave Merrick
Garland to twist slowly, slowly in the wind for almost a year (while he,
himself, went golfing how many times)? Where was the public outrage of a
Democratic president, of the Democratic Party, of that partys presidential
candidates, or even a single courageous senator or congressman willing to
hold Republicans feet to the fire in preference to letting them burn the
Constitution?
On March 16, 2016, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme
Court. On January 20, 2017, that nomination lapsed with the swearing-in of
the new president. In the interim, the White House and Democrats in general
mostly maintained radio silence on the nomination. (Google searches for
Obama defends Garland and Democrats defend Garland produce nothing more
recent than May 2016 until after the election.) Nowhere in his presidency,
despite some real and worthwhile achievements, did President Obama come
close to rising to the moral profundity of Dr. King. Early on in the Garland
farce, the president was remarkably callow:
The way Ive thought about diversity is not to think about any single seat
as Ive got to fill this slot with this demographic.
at no point did I
say oh you know what I need a black lesbian from Skokie in that slot. Can
you find me one?... Yeah [Garland is] a white guy, but hes a really
outstanding jurist. Sorry. I think thats important.
Certainly its important to have an outstanding jurist on the Supreme Court,
but it wasnt important enough to the president to go to the mat for his
nominee, it wasnt enough for the president to defend presidential
prerogative in appointing Supreme Court justices, it wasnt important enough
to put a centrist justice on the court for President Obama to make it a
daily issue on which the Republicans had no principled defense. Neither the
president nor his surrogates lobbied the Senate on a daily basis, as they
could have. Nor did they maintain a daily media campaign, as they could
have. Nor did they go to court to compel the Senate to perform its
constitutional duty, as they could have. Collectively, they rolled over and
died. Even the American Bar Association was more vocal later in support of
Merrick Garland than Democrats. Even Neil Gorsuch has had nicer things to
say about Merrick Garland than Bernie Sanders has.
Garlands year of hanging quietly as an ignored piñata is mystifying when
viewed through a lens of principle. Its less mystifying as reflected in the
distorting mirror of politics, especially the remarkably corrupt Democratic
presidential politics of 2016. (A Google search of Hillary defends Garland
finds her backing him in March and denigrating him in September.) A year
ago, remember, pretty much everyone thought the Democrats were going to win
the presidency and likely the Senate, too. On March 15, 2016, Clinton won
every contested state (OH, NC, FL, IL, MO) and Trump did almost as well,
losing only Ohio to Kasich. Heres a whiff of the March magic thinking those
primaries produced:
Crafty of O [Obama] to wait until the morning after Trumps backbreaking
wins last night to stick McConnell with this [Garland nomination]. Now
Senate Republicans will face maximum pressure from both sides.
If they cave and decide to give Garland a hearing after all, Republican
voters who are still cool to Trump might decide to vote for him in a burst
of burn it all down rage. A betrayal here hands Trump the nomination
assuming theres any doubt that hes already on track to win it. If, on the
other hand, McConnell stands firm, hes blowing an opportunity to confirm a
nominee whos likely to be more moderate than what President Hillary will
offer next year. The conventional wisdom on Trump right now is that hes a
dead duck in the general election barring some sort of national crisis. I
dont agree with it, but its not out of left field: His favorable rating,
for instance, is toxic and its an open question whether he could organize a
national campaign capable of matching Hillarys. If McConnell agrees with
that CW, that Hillarys a prohibitive favorite to win and that the backlash
to Trump will hand Democrats the Senate, then refusing to confirm Garland
now clears the path for Democrats to nominate and confirm a young
hyper-liberal justice next year. Garland is already in his 60s and is no
far-lefty; if Hillary wins big, liberals will insist that she exploit her
mandate by engineering a new Warren Court. (Garland, ironically, clerked for
the most liberal member of the Warren Court but he hasnt followed the same
trajectory as a judge.) So what do you do if youre Mitch the Knife? Accept
a quarter-loaf here by confirming a guy whose centrist credentials will be
used to show just how unreasonable and obstructionist the GOP is in blocking
him? Or risk having no loaf at all when Democrats win this fall and ram
through whoever they want?
This commentator (identified as ALLAHPUNDIT) goes on to consider the
possibility of a Trump presidency with a Democratic Senate. And he predicts
that Merrick Garland will be confirmed sooner or later. He does not even
imagine what we have come to know as reality. In this new reality we have
Neil Gorsuch nominated to the Supreme Court, where his stone-cold inhumanity
will work to shape the quality of our lives for a generation. Sure, Senate
Democrats, most of them, eventually, are putting up a last-minute fight, and
maybe they can win it. But even the Republican trashing of the Constitution
over Garland wasnt enough to bother Democrats like Joe Manchin or Heidi
Heitkamp or Joe Donnelly to reward that daylight robbery (to which none
objected at the time), behavior for which The Washington Post, without
apparent irony, dubs them three moderate Democrats.
As this is written late on April 3, the outcome is undecided. But whether
the country gets Justice Gorsuch or some other Trump nominee, the credit
goes to Democrats. They chose politics over principle for most of 2016 and
this is what they achieved. And even now, having lost and lost and lost, the
party shows little sign of being able to see itself clearly in a mirror,
much less identifying all the ways it needs to change to become anything
like a democratic party ever again.
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV,
print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont
judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation
for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination
from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission
to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader
Supported News.
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner