Democracy Summer! Week 3 and Psychological Constitutional #2
The tyranny of monarchy vs. the liberty of the people
Hi all,
First:
Psychological Constitutional #2
The questions that plagued and compelled the founding fathers are still at loose, unresolved. The framers rebelled against the tyranny of King George III spilled over to questions of potential tyranny in the Executive office. The questions they posed remain unresolved, and now here we are, the day after President Shrimp bombed nuclear sites in Iran, seemingly violating the War Powers Act and International Law – both of which have been precarious for decades at least.
Is President Trump a tyrant? Has the elected office of the president become a de facto monarchy? Stay tuned. Me no like, to say the least. To say much more, I wrote this at the 70 day mark. About 7000 words, that perhaps reads even better now.
Somewhere out there, somebody, or some kid, is wondering how they can grow up to hold the nuclear biscuit in their hand, the new "brass ring" of ascendancy to ultimate “power”.... but power without empathy and responsibility is extraordinarily dangerous. Any ambition to power must be exceeded by the ambitions for empathy and responsibility, a welcoming of the restraints imposed by relatedness, and the focus and guiding light of compassion.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I found some solace in what I heard of the UN Security Council’s debate on ceasefire. We have international debate. The US, Israel, and Iran can learn from the debate (as can the Russian Federation, China, India, and Pakistan, to name a few other players on their tenterhooks about violence), or they can continue to escalate. It’s my personal opinion that this crisis could have been averted by pushing for stronger inspection regimes. Diplomacy had by all means not been exhausted.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Democracy Summer Week 3
Just completed week 3 of Professor Danielle Allen’s course on Civic Engagement, all about the Bill of Rights, and continuing the conversation on changemakers and influence in democracy. Again, this took about 3 hours of work.
We the People: Civic Engagement in a Constitutional Democracy.
“The Bill of Rights provides precisely the protections that the colonists had argued in the Declaration had been violated by the Royal Government. If we look closely, we can see that the grievances in the Declaration of Independence are closely aligned to the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights.”
I see the First Amendment guarantees to freedom of speech and assembly absolutely critical for a functioning democracy. We depend on an informed and engaged populace. We thrive on expression, freedom of speech and mind - and relationship. Expressive and receptive capacity are absolutely vital for relationship and building mutual understanding. But these have broken down, as we have not used expression fully to cultivate virtue and understanding.
“Because our minds are not filled with the virtues of relatedness, the streets of the world have flowed with blood.” — Ravi Chandra, M.D.
That’s just me reading the insani-tea leaves.
“The powerful central government that emerged in 1789 was unthinkable in 1776. After all, many of the provisions in the Constitution that granted the government considerable power over taxation, property, and commerce looked eerily similar to the imperial arrangement with a monarch that patriots had just fought a bloody and protracted war to leave. And in the figure of the president, had they after all and despite their intentions reinvented a king? Americans have been asking this question perpetually since 1789.”
Document: "Executive Orders: Washington - Biden" (The American Presidency Project) (Executive orders have grown tremendously with modern presidents, partially overreach and partially because of loss of Congressional efficacy, in my view.
“The moment the president declares a “national emergency”—a decision that is entirely within his discretion—more than 100 special provisions become available to him. ... For instance, the president can, with the flick of his pen, activate laws allowing him to shut down many kinds of electronic communications inside the United States or freeze Americans’ bank accounts.…[T]he president has access to emergency powers contained in 123 statutory provisions. ... Even if the crisis at hand is, say, a nationwide crop blight, the president may activate the law that allows the secretary of transportation to requisition any privately owned vessel at sea… so far, even though presidents have often advanced dubious claims of constitutional authority, egregious abuses on the scale of the Japanese American internment or the post-9/11 torture program have been rare, and most of the statutory powers available during a national emergency have never been used. But what’s to guarantee that this president, or a future one, will show the reticence of his predecessors? To borrow from Justice Robert Jackson’s dissent in Korematsu v. United States, the 1944 Supreme Court decision that upheld the internment of Japanese Americans, each emergency power “lies about like a loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need.”
Elizabeth Goitein, "The Alarming Scope of the President's Emergency Powers", Atlantic Monthly, January/ February 2019
And this seems remarkably prescient from the Revolutionary era:
“A conspiracy against the freedom of America, both deep and dangerous, has been formed by an infernal junto of demagogues. Our thirteen free commonwealths are to be consolidated into one despotic monarchy…. Who can deny but the president (general) will be a king to all intents and purposes, and one of the most dangerous kind too; a king elected to command a standing army?
Philadelphiensis IX," Philadelphia Freeman's Journal via the Center for the Study of the American Constitution at the University of Wisconsin - Madison.
Power has always been centralized, with purported checks and balances. However, in the modern presidency, the legislative branch has broken down, and it seems judicial restraints are being sorely tested if not abrogated, thus the executive has had increasing power and authority. We are left to public opinion about the executive - and then, primarily about his actions, and not simply his abuse of authority. Can we get to a point where we're talking about process and centralization? I guess we are, in our circles, but it has not become a mainstream conversation. Sigh. Historians must be frustrated! So are psychiatrists, or at least this psychiatrist and citizen! Also, the executive has become a demagogue of monied interests in the modern era. The unelected 1%.
“Not everyone was included in the body of free and equal self-governing citizens, but even those who were not included analyzed power, pursued agency, and found their own pathways to influence.”
This course is really essential for understanding how "the mind" or psyche - and relatedness works - from the position of a psychiatrist.
How is our “executive functioning” as individuals? Perhaps only as good as our relatedness. We are who happens to us and what we make of the happening.
Democracy can help us become better related and more deeply understanding.
We should use our agency to those aims - not simply to pursue a policy goal per se.
Thanks, and please like and share!
Warmly,
Ravi
