Politics As Usual

The Greek philosopher Socrates who lived from 470 until 399 B.C.E. sought to withdraw from the hurly-burly of ordinary political life in what was one of the very first democracies. He insisted that it was impossible to participate in the political life of Athens and at the same time retain one’s integrity. And in his view integrity, living a virtuous life, was of paramount importance: it led him to eventually accept the decision of a corrupt court and drink Hemlock.

 Socrates

Socrates

Politics has always been a bit of a dirty game, but it is a game that is played for high stakes and a great many have discovered how to become very wealthy playing the game, doing what they are told, and collecting their reward from the special interest groups. I have not counted recently in our political system (which is not a democracy, strictly speaking) how many can be readily identified as corrupt. But the number must be rather large. We are now caught up in a bind with “representatives” who only represent special interests and who are determined to bring government to a halt if their candidate does not win the presidency. Partisanship has replaced citizenship in this country and there are very few like Socrates around — or even those who are convinced that they can play the dirty game of politics and still keep their hands clean. I can count those few on the fingers on one hand. But there are a few.

Socrates, it has always seemed to me, was a bit too uncompromising. Surely it is possible for a person to be actively involved in politics and to remain a person of integrity? Or is it? Think of the temptations from the immensely wealthy who have millions of dollars to spread around buying the people who will make the decisions that will favor their particular business. There is no question whatever but that the corporations call the shots, especially since the Supreme Court decision Citizens United that gave the corporations the right to directly influence elections. Is it possible for a politician like Elizabeth Warren, for example, to continue to play the dirty game without getting soiled? That is an interesting question and one which will not be answered for a few years yet. But the siren song of wealth and power is always playing in her ear and she will have to be one tough cookie to remain far enough out of the mud to remain clean.

There are a great many people in this country that are sick and tired of “politics as usual.” They are convinced that it is a dirty game and that everyone who plays it is soiled. Of late, to be sure, it gives the impression of a large group of very well paid men and women who spend time talking and doing nothing. Thus these voters turn to an outsider, one who is outside of politics if not outside of reality itself, and they hope and pray that this man with the funny hair and tiny hands will deliver this country from the muddy world of politics as usual. In the process, they expect, they themselves will be recognized and their hopes and dreams will become a reality, because politics as usual has passed them by and they have been left in the lurch, clutching at straws.

Unfortunately, politics is a dirty game. That is a fact, and anyone who chooses to play must get their hands at least a bit dirty. The problem that faces this country at this juncture is whether we are realistic enough to accept the fact that politics is a dirty game and seek the one candidate who is the cleaner of the two and who promises to play the game in such a way that the country will remain relatively strong and survive as at least a shadow of the republic the founders envisioned. Or will the citizens of this country be so sick of politics as usual that they will blindly choose a man who is completely unqualified to head up this government and play a game whose rules he does to fully understand, a man who is used to making up his own rules on the go?

Socrates was right. But he was also wrong. It is possible for some to play the game and retain their integrity. But it is mighty difficult and there are few who can manage to play it successfully. In the meantime, we must accept reality as it is given to us and accept the candidate who will do the best job for the country and for each of its citizens — the best under the circumstances. It’s time for realism, not pie-in-the-sky-fantasy that ignores the fact that an unqualified president will flounder and fail miserably in the dirty world of politics, a world he is totally unfamiliar with and one that will eat him alive.

Advertisements

Abortion

I have chosen the title of this post with some fear and trepidation. This is a red-hot topic and there is almost always much more heat than light at the core of the discussion argument. But I do believe that the abortion issue may help us to understand why women would vote for a misogynist such as Donald Trump who regards women as so many trophies to be collected and spoiled in a way only he is privy to. Thus, as we ponder the whys of this election I think at some point this issue needs to be addressed.

The battle between the “pro-lifers” on the one hand and the “women’s rights” on the other comes down to a matter of faith, not reason. This is why the argument becomes so heated so fast. One either believe that life begins at conception or one believes that life begins when the child is removed from its mother. If one does not believe that life starts at conception then there are grounds for the claim that the mother’s rights over her own body are paramount. There is no scientific evidence that either of these claims is the correct one. It all depends on how we define “life.” Those who oppose abortion are convinced it begins much earlier than those who favor abortion. And the courts have determined, somewhat arbitrarily, that is begins after “fetal viability.” Again, there is no evidence that any of these views is the correct one. And since there is no evidence one way or the other the argument comes down to which group has the larger pile of rocks to throw.

The irony, of course, is that many of those who claim to be “pro-life” are also in favor of war and capital punishment which gives the lie to the claim that all life is sacred. And those who argue for women’s rights are frequently quite happy to see women in the workplace held down by a glass ceiling and making less money than the man next to them doing the same job. We are not known for our consistency, we humans.

My thesis advisor at Northwestern, Eliseo Vivas,  wrote a book titled The Moral Life and The Ethical Life in which he said, at one point, “the soldier goes to battle with a heavy heart.” In other words, there are times when we must take another human life. It is a matter of expediency: kill or be killed. St. Augustine insisted that the only time war was justified was to defend oneself and one’s group against direct attack. A “preemptive strike” is not justified. But the moral question is whether the taking of another human life is ever justified. St. Thomas Aquinas tells us that life is a human right and if we take another’s life we forfeit our own and he therefore justifies capital punishment on those grounds. Vivas would say “no.” The taking of a life may be a matter of expediency. But that is not a reason that carries any moral weight whatever. Since we cannot ever justify the taking of another human life under any circumstances (Augustine and Aquinas to the contrary notwithstanding) we can only attempt to reconcile ourselves to the fact once it has occurred: this is a psychological, not a philosophical, problem. The soldier with the heavy heart must somehow learn to live with the fact that what he did was wrong. And societies must seek humane alternatives to capital punishment.

Thus the abortion issue becomes increasingly cloudy as we try to deal with two questions at the same time: when is a human being alive? and once alive are we ever justified in taking that life? I confess that I do not have the answer to either of these questions, though I find the second question the easier one. I think Vivas was correct: we cannot justify taking another life; we can only seek to reconcile ourselves to it if it happens.

In the current frenzy of a political contest unlike any previous political contest I suspect these questions are at the core of the explanation why 30-35% of the  women in this country might want to support such a candidate as Donald Trump: they hope he would appoint a conservative judge to the Supreme Court who might somehow “overthrow” Roe v Wade and make abortion illegal once again. Hillary Clinton is sure to nominate a liberal judge and we will have more abortions and more death, in their view of things. For those who see this election through the wrong end of the telescope, thereby missing all the larger issues, I suspect this argument wins the day for many of the devout — whose faith I shall never question, but only ask that it be recognized as faith, not reason — and wish they would turn the telescope around.

 

The Wisdom of Aeschylus

 

I recently shared this on Facebook and it was well received. So I decided to share it with my blogging friends.

Acknowledging the audience’s emotions [following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.],  Robert Kennedy referred to his own grief at the murder of his brother, President John F. Kennedy and, quoting a passage from the play Agamemnon (in translation), said: “My favorite poet was Aeschylus. And he once wrote: ‘Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, until in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.’ What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence and lawlessness; but [what we need] is love and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or whether they be black … Let us dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world.”

There’s really nothing to add.

Wanting It

Relax. This post is not about sex. Nor is it about the political race, which has become tiresome. It’s about sports psychology, which is something I find most perplexing and even at times interesting.

Recently the Minnesota Vikings travelled to Philadelphia, city of Brotherly Love, to play the Eagles in football. The Eagles had lost two games in a row on the road whereas the Vikings were 5 and 0 and had just had a bye-week. I suspected going into the game that Philadelphia would have the edge and indeed they did, winning 24-10 — and the game wasn’t even that close. I watched the first few minutes of the game and then turned off the television: the Eagles clearly wanted the game more than did the Vikings. It was that simple. And yet, none of the talking heads I watch on Mondays even mentioned the psychological dimension of the game. They talked about how Minneota’s young offensive line couldn’t handle Philadelphia’s excellent pass rush, their weak running game without Adrian Peterson, and other elements of the game that were supposed to explain the embarrassing loss the Vikings suffered (coach Zimmer’s words).

I have been around sports for years and have coached football, basketball, and (mostly) tennis for years. I have always thought about the psychological problems my players might have going into a game or a match and I attempted to head off any jitters or loss of nerves the players might face. In tennis, especially, I always told my players that as long as they played their best that was all anyone could ask. I looked for effort. Period. I never talked about winning or losing. I figured if they played their best they would probably win and if they lost their opponent was simply better than they were on that day. It happens. By not criticizing them after a loss and getting them to focus on their own games my teams had pretty good success. It helped raise their self-confidence, which is essential to good performance.

The psychological element in sports is fundamental and a key to how a player performs on the field or the court. If two players, or teams, are facing each other and they are of equal, or nearly equal, ability levels, the team that wants the win will win. It is the power of positive thinking. The golfer who knows he will sink the 6 foot putt will almost always do so. The basketball player who knows he could make the free-throw will almost ceretainly make it. It is all about wanting something and having the confidence that one will attain it. But beware cockiness! A coach must keep an eye on that possibility. Confidence is a good thing; over-confidence is not. In golf a bogey often follows a birdie; in tennis a double-fault frequently comes on the heels of an ace. Watch out for P.B.F. —  post-birdie-foul-up.

I suspect the Vikings went into the game in Philadelphia a bit cocky. After all, they were 5-0 and their opponent was 3-2 with two losses in a row. The media had hyped up the Vikings and the players doubtless watch ESPN and may even read the newspapers — who knows? They came in figuring all they had to do was show up. But that sort of cockiness, an over-abundance of confidence, is a danger to a good performance. P.B.F. Balance is the key: knowing that one can win if he or she performs well but not taking it for granted. After all is said and done the mental aspect must translate into excellence of performance.

I suspected that Mike Zimmer would have a difficult time getting his players ready for that game, getting them into the mindset that would prime their engines and make them want to win more than their opponents. It was apparent form the start that this had not happened. The Eagles players were “pumped.” They wanted the game more than their opponents. And wanting it, once again, gained the upper hand.

Coaching is an art more than an science. And getting players motivated, keeping up their confidence, and convincing them that a game somehow matters in the grand scheme of things is something very few men or women seem to be able to do. (On the other hand, if a player is too keyed up, the coach must convince them that the game really doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things. After all, it’s only a game. The key is to know the players and to know which “buttons to push.”) But in the end the one who wants it more, given more or less equal skill levels, will win.

Will the Republic Survive One More Election?

I am reblogging this piece here because it is wrong-headed and as it originally appeared it didn’t allow for comments. I shall ignore the majority of the article, which appeared to be carefully reasoned and is correct in many ways in order to focus on the heart of the message: a Democrat must not win this election because that person will select the ninth Supreme Court justice and swing the court to the left.
The problem with this argument is that it cuts both ways: if a Republican were to be elected that person would nominate Supreme Court justice who would swing the court to the right. But, as history has shown, in many cases the judges are independent of political forces and vote their conscience: politics does not always rule the Court.
In the case of Donald Trump we have no idea whatever whom he would choose and the gamble would be unwise, to say the least. The choice of a Supreme Court justice is central to this election and we need to have someone making the nomination who understands what the republic stands for and how wise judges are to be selected. It should not be left to the whimsy of a rattle-brained narcissist.

Constitutio Fidelis

This article is written to convince you, the reader, that the Democratic candidate MUST NOT WIN the 2016 election for President of the United States of America.

It does not matter whether you are a Democrat or Republican, Libertarian or Bernie supporter, never-Trumper or a stay at home protest voter. It doesn’t matter who the Democratic candidate is, whether Hillary Clinton or some replacement if she somehow does not finish the race. The bottom line is the Democratic candidate MUST NOT WIN.

The United States is NOT a democracy. It is a representative republic. The people do not vote on each law at the national level. They do not write laws directly. The people elect representatives and the chief executive to do that work and handle the day-to-day operation of the Federal government. The elected officials are replaced or continue then at the will of the people at each…

View original post 1,762 more words

The Relevance of Thomas Paine

I have been reading Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” about which Wikipedia has this to tell us:

Thomas Paine has a claim to the title The Father of the American Revolution,which rests on his pamphlets, especially “Common Sense,” which crystallized sentiment for independence in 1776. It was published in Philadelphia on January 10, 1776 and signed anonymously “by an Englishman.” It became an immediate success, quickly spreading 100,000 copies in three months to the two million residents of the 13 colonies. In all about 500,000 copies total including unauthorized editions were sold during the course of the Revolution.

The pamphlet came into circulation in January 1776, after the Revolution had started. It was passed around, and often read aloud in taverns, contributing significantly to spreading the idea of republicanism, bolstering enthusiasm for separation from Britain, and encouraging recruitment for the Continental Army. Paine provided a new and convincing argument for independence by advocating a complete break with history. Common Sense is oriented to the future in a way that compels the reader to make an immediate choice. It offers a solution for Americans disgusted with and alarmed at the threat of tyranny.

Paine was determined to get the colonies to unite and especially to write a constitution. He felt that as long as the colonies were “lawless” they were subject to usurpation by a despot who would be king. As he himself says:

A government of our own is our natural right: And when a man seriously reflected on the precariousness of human affairs, he will become convinced that it is infinitely wiser and safer to form a constitution of our own in a cool and deliberate manner, while we have it in our power, than to trust such an interesting event to time and chance. If we omit it now some [opportunist] may hereafter arise who, laying hold of popular disquietudes, may collect together the desperate and the discontented, and by assuming to themselves the powers of government, may sweep away the liberties of the continent like a deluge.

Now, while the minions who blindly follow today’s popular would-be-despot can hardly be described as merely “desperate and discontented,” they are certainly ready to follow the man who would be king. I would describe the minions in stronger terms than did Paine, but we get the picture. When men and women are “desperate and discontented” they are subject to the lure and promises of anyone who presents himself as the one WITH THE ANSWERS, who knows all, and who will sweep away the corruption he sees all around him and RESTORE this country to greatness — the greatness that followed upon the American Revolution, perhaps.

But, as Paine was careful to point out, the only king this country could possibly allow and remain free is the constitution, a body of laws that would make it possible for the citizens to protect their property and retain their freedom. They never looked to one man to deliver them from England and protect their property and freedoms, though they held George Washington in very high regard. He himself realized the dangers of allowing the executive in the new constitution to have too much power and he was, by all reports, a very restrained president.

The irony of the parallel I seek to draw here is that the man who would be king appears to be ignorant of the constitution (one of his first acts as president, he says, would be to jail “corrupt Hillary”) and to place himself in the place of that constitution as a law unto himself. But the truly sad thing is that his minions actually appear to believe that he can do just that and they are ready to support him and follow him wherever he leads. They desperately need to read history and take a course in civics to see how things are supposed to work in a republic defined by the balance of power.

This country is founded on the principle that no one person will have the power to determine the course of the country. The constitution is law and it rules in place of a king. The coming election will see this principle sorely tested and my hope is that we are the people that the founders hoped would make this country strong enough to reject tyranny and despotism no matter what form it might take.

The Babysitter

I have been thinking about the subject of my most recent post, the peculiar twists and turns of the collective psyches of Donald Trump’s minions. It is a fascinating subject and like a kid at the circus who can’t tear himself away from the freak show despite the fact that he keeps telling himself to leave and get some cotton candy, I am drawn to the perplexing question: what on earth are these people thinking — the followers of Trump, that is? I have come up with an analogy that has helped me see more clearly.

Years ago when my wife and I had to leave for a couple of days we decided to leave our two sons, about seven and eight respectively, with one of my tennis players who was a Junior and someone we liked and trusted. Now, we were a bit strict and passed along some of the ground rules to Kathy (we’ll call her that because that’s her name), including the fact that the boys could not have dessert until they ate all the food on their plates. That is, they didn’t have to eat something like, say, broccoli, if they simply couldn’t do so, but they didn’t get desert if they didn’t eat it. Yeah, it was a bribe. But it worked like a charm and allowed the boys to make their own minds up about what they could and couldn’t eat. They usually cleaned their plates.

In any event, after we returned we discovered that Kathy let the boys do whatever they wanted to do, eat what they wanted to eat, stay up way past their bedtime, watch whatever TV shows they wanted to watch, and she played with them like a third child. They had a blast. All restraints were off and this wonderful girl was their best friend. We had a dickens of a time getting them to settle down afterwards, needless to say.

Trump is the babysitter and his minions are the boys — though they have a collective IQ well below that of my two sons even at seven and eight. The babysitter has told them the old rules no longer apply. They are free to do and say whatever they want with no repercussions whatever — as long as they restrain from criticizing the babysitter. That’s Taboo. From what we can gather of the rallies, it is bedlam with shouting obscenities not only allowed but encouraged. They are rallies of hatred and all restraints are off as the minions can scream all those insults that have been repressed for years.

In Dostoevsky’s seminal novel The Brothers Karamazov, Ivan Karamazov has a theory that since God is dead “all is permitted.”  This theory eventually drives him mad, but in the meantime he infects his adoring half-brother with the doctrine who then summarily kills their father. In other words, in Dostoevsky’s view, the absence of moral restraints can lead to murder and madness. This is certainly the view of that author who was, by all accounts, one of the most brilliant thinkers of the 19th century. But, after all, what does a nineteenth century Russian author have to tell us about ourselves in this sophisticated day and age?

Civilization, according to Ortega y Gasset the Spanish intellectual, is the will to live in common. In the minds of Trump’s minions it is all about self and letting it all hang out. Restraint and denial are things of the past. Donald is telling them that “all is permitted.” If this were to become the rule of thumb in our nation the suggestions of the two men I have mentioned would lead us to the conclusion that our civilization is at risk and as a people we may well be headed for murder and madness. When I shy away from this dire conclusion I recall my two sons, whom I love dearly, and the looks on their faces when we told them that the fun was over and things were back to normal. Kids love to play and to have their way. But maturity and growth require self-control and self-denial because the rewards later on are much greater and their absence leads to chaos. Our boys have learned that, but I wonder about Trump’s minions. Are they capable of growing and maturing?

Could This Be It?

For months now I have been trying to figure out why thousands of ordinary folks would blindly follow a candidate such as Donald Trump — given all we know about his innumerable shortcomings and character flaws. I had always thought (hoped?) that my fellow citizens were smarter than that. But I no longer think it’s all about smarts. It is partly that, of course, and a course in civics and a couple of years in seminars discussing difficult books would give these people heightened critical thinking skills. That would certainly help. But, again, I don’t think it’s all about thinking or intelligence.

I have tried to put myself in the minds (such as they are) of those who adore this man. It has been a difficult and frustrating task and has cost me some health problems that I hope will pass after November 8th. But I do think I have begun to get a glimpse of the truth here. Those who follow this man do so out of a sense that he is “one of us.” That is to say, he won’t take our guns away; he doesn’t approve of abortions; he talks like us; he hates Hillary; he wants to take this country back from the smart-asses. The bluster and braggadocio, the scattergun thought-bites, the insults, the hatred, the bigotry, the racism, the man-in-the-street persona this bogus billionaire has managed to pull off seems to have struck a chord deep in the psyches of a great many people.

He’s one of the guys. He “tells it like it is,” he is anti-establishment; he hates they very same things I hate and he tells us he will fix things. Whether he does or not doesn’t really matter, because we know he will, at the very least, stir up the mud. And there is plenty of mud in Washington where the elite bastards who run this country sit on their butts and collect large paychecks for doing absolutely nothing — or at least nothing that benefits me in any way.

It is this sense of fellow-feeling, that Trump is a blue-collar guy in a $2,000.00 suit, that determines the followers to follow. It matters not where he leads. It matters not that he lies because he is speaking from the heart and attacking those we fear. It matters not what the critics say because they are all establishment types who really don’t understand the man and are out to smear him. This sense that their man is being picked on simply fans the flames of adoration: if the establishment fat-cats criticize him that simply proves his worth to these folks.  It makes him a sympathetic figure. The fact that establishment Republicans are abandoning him is also a good sign, in their view, because it emphasizes the point that this man will not play by their rules. His “locker room comments” simply underline the fact that, in their minds and hearts, he doesn’t hold anything back. He may tell lies, but he is honest about his feelings and that’s what matters.

In a word, the connection between Donald Trump and his mindless minions is not about reason and logic in any way whatever — note the contradictions in their feelings about this man. It’s visceral, all about gut feelings. It is about the connection between this man and those thousands of people in this country who feel left out and ignored, who are insecure, like the Donald, and who are filled with the same confused thoughts their leader is filled with and a deep hatred of the status quo — and of others who differ from them in unimportant ways. It is easy to identify with this man for so many of them because he really is just like them. This helps us to understand why the surveys tell us  his followers are devoted while Hillary’s are lukewarm: she’s very hard to identify with.

Those who are still sitting on the fence, I suspect, feel much the same way but they are also leary about his shortcomings and have doubts that keep them from giving in completely to their gut feelings. They are drawn toward him and repulsed at the same time. And the fact that they find it hard to like much about Hillary Clinton simply makes their struggle that much harder. After all she’s decidedly Establishment (with a capital E) and, moreover, she’s a woman. For many, that’s enough.

It’s hard to say, in the end, which side of the fence they will come down on, because it will depend own how strong is the pull toward someone they feel a connection with and how strong is their sense that this man is, in the end, a total fraud. For these people, too, reason and logic play a small role, if any. It will all come down in the end to how they feel about each of the candidates. That’s not the way it is supposed to be, but I suspect that is the way it is.

I Hate Hillary!

I purposely used the “H” word as I did recently in connection with a comment about Lucy Ricardo because the word seems to be all the rage these days — it or one of its synonyms. But I actually hate neither woman. I don’t know either of them so how could I hate them? And yet, there are thousands of people waiting to vote who claim to hate Hillary — or at least to not be able to stand her — even though they do not know her either. What they “know” is a political caricature that has been created over the years by her political opponents and the air-heads on Fox News.

I suspect she is a very private person, perhaps secretive. But that is OK with me because I’m a bit private myself and I realize that on the international stage when one is privy to information dealing with national security one has to be secretive. But, as I say, I don’t know the woman and I cannot say, therefore, that I hate her or that I love her. I simply don’t know her. Neither does anyone else, for that matter — except for her immediate family and a few close friends.

I have made the point a number of times that how we feel about the two candidates should not enter into our calculations of which one we will vote for. This is not to say that character and personality do not count. They do. My blogging buddy, Sue Ranscht, politely pointed this out to me after I insisted that they do not. Even though we do not know either of these two people, we know enough to allow character flaws and personality glitches to enter into the equation. But this does not reduce our decision of whom to vote for to the level of gut feeling. One would hope.

In the end it is the person’s record of public service, their C.V., that is most important. Which candidate has the better qualifications for the office? And while personality does enter in — just imagine Donald Trump in that office dealing with professional politicians and international dignitaries who have walked the world stage for years while he was firing people on reality TV — it shouldn’t weigh enough to allow us to accept or reject that person.

I recently quoted a woman who is determined to vote for Donald Trump (can you imagine?) who said she cannot stand Hillary and that, apparently is her main reason for voting for Trump. I noted that this involves a leap of immense proportions, one that I cannot even follow. How does one get from “I hate Hillary” to “I am determined to vote for Trump”? This leap ignores several alternatives: (1) one could decide not to vote any all; (2) one could vote for the libertarian candidate; (3) one could vote for the Green Party candidate; (4) one could write in someone like, say, Monica Lewinsky — or anyone else. The leap itself cannot be made logically and can only be accounted for in this woman’s case as a leap based on blind faith. At this point it is up to the psychologists out there to determine why someone would take such a leap of ignorance in a matter of this importance.

In the end, however, what matters is the candidate’s record and there is only one candidate who is fully qualified  for this job and that is Hillary Clinton. It doesn’t matter if you can’t stand the woman, what matters is that she is almost certainly the best qualified person for the presidency since the birth of this nation. If we were to like her that would be icing on the cake. But if we don’t it really doesn’t matter in the end.

This is a must-read. A brilliant piece of research and writing. This woman is good!

Filosofa's Word

“The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.” –  Albert Einstein

“Dictatorships lock up the opposition, not democracies.” – Stanford University Professor Michael McFaul

“It smacks of what we read about tin-pot dictators in other parts of the world, where when they win an election their first move is to imprison opponents.” – Michael Chertoff, a former federal appeals court judge who also served as the secretary of Homeland Security and head of the Justice Department’s criminal division

“You would like a president with some idea about constitutional limits on presidential powers, on congressional powers, on federal powers.” – Randy E. Barnett, Georgetown University Law Professor

From the outset, the Republican National Convention in July was more about Hillary Clinton than it was about Donald Trump.  T-shirts reading “Hillary for Prison” were sold outside the venue, Governor Chris Christie led a crowd in a ‘trial by…

View original post 1,309 more words