It's Springtime for Trump and America!

Actually, it's the second springtime since the White House was taken over by this strange orange guy who, according to the media, everyone hates and no one likes (except the usual deplorables), and yet no one has been able to do anything about it as yet.  Which is kind of remarkable considering the magnitude, breadth, and depth of forces arrayed against Trump.  Think, now -- has it ever happened before, in all of American history, that the entire government outside of the White House (and possibly excepting some of the military) has been arrayed in open opposition to, and defiance of, the president?  Including the vast bulk of the Executive Branch, which he is supposedly the head of?  I'm not sure how many people are fully aware of how exceptional -- and unsustainable -- this is.  It seems as if "something's gotta give" and yet we go along, one day after another, living with this impossible but very real situation (which, by the way, must have our “allies” quivering in their boots and our enemies helpless with laughter).  As I've observed before, if this is a coup d'etat it's not only the slowest one in history but the least competent.  But I know, they all want to make sure it's “legal” -- that it doesn't create a “Constitutional crisis”, as if we're not already in the middle of one.  (Any time the entire federal government is arrayed against an elected and sitting president, we have a Constitutional crisis; let‘s not quibble on that point.)

But it's easy to overlook the benefits (if that is the word) of all of this – the long-term “lessons learned” for anyone with a modicum of awareness and reasoning power.  One is that journalism is dead – and has been for quite a while.  Another is that “comedy” is dead, as is “entertainment” in general.  Another is that the “Deep State” really exists and that it can exert a considerable amount of influence through sheer inertia (and there's nothing like the federal government when it comes to inertia; they pretty much invented it).  Another is that the Constitution is dead and buried, as is the rule of law.  (Regarding the latter, Robert Mueller’s rule of thumb seems to be “You show me the man, I’ll show you the crime.”  In this he shares a view of “justice” with Lavrentiy Beria, Stalin’s top henchman.)  It has also become obvious that “separation of powers” is no more meaningful or reliable than a game of paper, stone, and scissors.

So in a sense it's refreshing – a relief in a way.  We can finally get down off our high horse of superiority (moral and otherwise) as a nation, society, and culture and admit that we're just slobs like everyone else – impulsive, delusional, greedy, wrathful slobs.  Now the rest of the world, which has been saying for decades that we're no better than they are, can claim vindication.

But both within that context and in a broader sense, it now seems that what we fancifully term “democracy” has been fatally damaged.  Our election process, which has always been considered a pillar of our supposedly democratic system, has been called into question regarding its integrity and its vulnerability to influences both internal and external.  Starting with primary campaigns and extending through the election campaign to the result, and the reaction to that result, the whole thing seems about as substantial as a decaying scarecrow dressed in rags that is buffeted about by anything that comes along, from a gale down to the mildest zephyr.  This is, in fact, fodder for the argument not just that we need to “clean up” the election process, but that we should do away with elections altogether, at least at the national level.  If the system is that vulnerable, in other words, it might be better to do away with it and simply appoint a committee of wise men (assuming there are enough to form a committee) to appoint a president... or, perhaps, to simply eliminate the office altogether.  (But then what would replace it?  I supposed we could create some sort of figurehead post that has no real power, and let the government pretty much run itself.  Oh, wait – that's what we have now.  But it does seem to be working, after a fashion.  Let's give the Deep State that much credit, at least.)

Once in every generation an event occurs that is widely described as a “loss of innocence” for American society.  The Vietnam war, especially when lumped in with Watergate, is one example.  Then we had 9/11.  And now we have the Trump debacle – and it's becoming more clear, with each passing day, how it will end, even though specific details have yet to be worked out.  And along with each loss of innocence there is the general understanding that now we've learned our lesson:  “Never again!”  And yet we invariably wake up the next morning, wide-eyed and virginal like Doris Day, with nary a hangover, and no memory, and blunder at full speed into the next folly.  So no, we don't learn, and yet each experience deposits another layer of corrosion, demoralization, and decay.  We've never recovered from Vietnam, and we're still fighting the “War on Terror” that began in earnest on 9/11... and I don't expect that we'll recover from the Trump Era either; we will be permanently scarred as a nation and a society.  And it's not just because of the “lessons learned” cited above.

There is nothing new about the idea that we are not masters of our own fate (socially, economically, and politically) – that there are things -- people and powers, unseen and nameless (and, needless to say, unelected) -- who are really in charge.  And by this we mean not in total and complete charge of everything down to the gum machine at the corner convenience store, but everything that counts.  And there is also the idea – equally as old – that these controlling elements, whoever and whatever they are, are not confined to nations, but are international, i.e. global, in their reach and in their concerns.  And those divisions and distinctions (nation, race, creed, ethnicity, etc. -- now including gender) that mean so much to us mean little or nothing to them – that they are, if anything, an annoyance and something that would it be well to get rid of. 

These are age-old suspicions and the basis for what are derided as “conspiracy theories” (as opposed to the endless stream of propaganda put out by the Regime, which we are expected to believe without questioning or hesitation).  Well, yes – we are talking about conspiracies, and we are also talking about "theories" insofar as solid and conclusive data are hard to come by.  But in most cases, the facts we do have, plus the ability to link them up in a logical way, plus plain common sense, are sufficient to come up with at least a tentative model as to what is going on – who's in charge (or, at the very least, who isn't), how things are really done, and perhaps even the motives of the ruling elite (assuming they go beyond simply raw power and money – which is an assumption that may not always be justified).  And of course there is the natural human need for coherence – for structure – for evidence of an orderly universe.  No one wants to live in a state of perpetual chaos – that would be a symptom of severe mental illness, and the last time I checked there weren't that many people who relished being in such a chronic state.  (The last hippie who relished that life style was recently seen wandering aimlessly through the forest near Eureka Springs, Arkansas.)  So we attempt to impose order – and that drive to impose order can be given credit for all sorts of things... like civilization itself, philosophy, economics, science, and, yes, politics.  The difference, perhaps, is that politics usually amounts to an attempt by one person or group to impose their notion of “order” on everyone else – witness The New Order of the Third Reich, and Bush I's New World Order (how's that coming along, by the way?).  Not to mention the words “Novus Ordo Seclorum” which appear on the dollar bill – a currency being, among other things, a sign and symbol of an ordered economy. 

Another way of looking at it is that conspiracy theories, so-called, thrive on incomplete information -- missing data and information that is regarded as unreliable or manipulative -- propaganda, in other words.  If we knew all there was to know about a given event, there would be no need for a theory, “conspiracy” or otherwise.  If an event just comes out of the blue -- seemingly random -- then it’s hard to know where to begin in terms of developing an explanation or theory.  (Witness the frequency with which crimes are committed “for no reason” -- at least for no reason that anyone can discern, except perhaps for the perpetrator, and if he’s dead it’s pretty much a lost cause.)  So, basically, conspiracy theories grow and thrive in a sort of gray area of information -- just enough but not too much.  In this they are not unlike scientific theories, which attempt to fill in some sort of structure when all available data have been exhausted.  (Note, by the way, that Evolution is still technically a theory, although it is almost universally marketed as fact, or as “settled science”.  But I digress… )

So there is nothing new or novel about a desire for order – for structure, even in everyday life.  (See what happens when the buses, trains, and airlines don't run on time.  People get upset.  Things that seemed reliable now seem out of control and chaotic.)  Likewise, there is nothing new or novel about the puzzlement and dismay that occur when orderly existence is threatened or disrupted.  The difference is that whereas some people accept disruption and chaos with resignation, the way they would accept a natural disaster, there is an alternative point of view that contends that disruption and chaos are, far from random and unpredictable, nearly always part of a plan – that they are not accidents but are imposed on us by higher powers for their own purposes.  And we see evidence – usually revealed far after the fact – that things like stock market “crashes”, depressions, recessions, inflation, etc. are not universally negative – that they benefit some people... some quite handsomely.  Then the question arises, were those who benefited just lucky?  But you take a look at who they are and the positions of power they occupy, and you have to imagine that the notion that the event in question was entirely accidental and unpredictable is far more fanciful than the notion that it was, at least in large part, part of a plan, or strategy, or conspiracy.

What I'm saying is that so-called “conspiracy theories” are far from unreasonable, despite the criticism heaped on them by tools of the Regime.  But if you accept that, the question remains, what does it have to do with events of the day, i.e. the Trump maelstrom?  Well, what would it look like if those in charge – call them the Regime, or cabal, or ruling elite --  decided that, for whatever reason, Donald Trump should never have been elected president, he shouldn't have been allowed to take office, and now that he has it's vitally important to remove him from office as soon as possible?  Skipping over the question of motive here, as important as it is – what would the result of said decision be?  You would expect anyone who was, either knowingly or unknowingly, working for the Regime to spend every waking hour participating, in some way, in the effort to depose Donald Trump.  Furthermore, you would expect them to work together and cooperate in a remarkable way – to establish a kind of symbiosis that puts all previous political alliances to shame.  And – this is key – you would expect them to, day after day, week after week, and month after month all appear to be working off the same script – to not only be doing the same things but saying the same things, word for word in many cases.  That’s what one would expect, and -- lo and behold! -- that’s exactly what’s happening.  

But now we move on to a more subtle matter.  Given that there are millions -- tens of millions -- of people actively and vociferously opposed to Donald Trump and all of his works... and that a goodly number of them are willing to take time off work (assuming they have jobs, which may be a stretch) to fill the streets, chant, protest, carry signs, and so on... are they all doing what they're doing for the same reasons?  By which I mean, for the reasons they think, because my theory is that they are all, ultimately, working for the same entity, namely the Regime, which, among many things, is profoundly globalist in its origin and purpose, and perceives Trump as an existential enemy of globalism -- although, frankly, you‘d never know it from his foreign policy.  And after all, mobs are, almost by definition, mindless and acting primarily on the basis of impulse and mass hysteria -- if not a simple desire to escape the boredom and dreariness of their existence.  And yet they are invariably equipped -- by someone -- with tools like signs, banners, or -- in more extreme cases -- weapons.  And they are encouraged and coached, by minor demagogues operating at street level, to mouth words -- to chant -- and especially to fit any notion they might have into that ubiquitous 11-syllable format (you know, the one that always begins “Hey hey, ho ho“).  And do they just materialize spontaneously wherever the focus of that day's protests is?  Far from it -- they are marched, bused, even flown in for the occasion.  Who organizes all of that?  Who pays for it?  In some cases, we know the answers; in others it's as mysterious as those "large character posters" that used to appear on walls in Maoist China.  There is a point beyond which -- if one gets past those leading the chants and those standing on a wall with a bullhorn -- the controlling element becomes invisible... just fades into the mist.

So we have, basically, the questions of what motivates these people subjectively (i.e. in their own opinion), what motivates them objectively (i.e., the real, deeper motivation, but still personal), and then who is exploiting them, and what is their motivation?  Let's admit that most of the people who take to the street on a regular basis to protest the existence of Donald Trump are not deep thinkers.  They've been fed a laundry list of things to hate about Donald Trump -- but the fact that they so readily cling to it and adopt it as their own says a lot about their fears, insecurities, paranoia, and desperate need for social approval -- for belonging.  And believe me, their puppet masters in the ruling elite know about this; they are under no illusions as to the level of sophistication of the mob.  In fact, the last thing they would want is to have people actually start to think; much better to have them available to mindlessly chant slogans. 

But the question remains, what is the source of all of the -- at times almost demonic -- energy behind the "Resistance"?  It's not as if presidents and administrations have not, in the past, come under fire for any number of things, but it seems to me that there was always a grain of truth there somewhere.  In other words, the protesters basically knew what they were talking about, and the magnitude of the protests was reasonable given the magnitude of the problem.  We can say this about, for example, protests against the Vietnam war and civil rights marches.  But this time around, so much of the rhetoric seems totally out of proportion and unhinged from reality.  It is "full of sound and fury", but not much else. 

Now, if you surveyed a few of these protesters on any given day, and asked them if they were committed to globalism and protesting on behalf of elite globalists, most of them would probably give you a blank stare.  "No, it's because Trump is.... (insert insult of your choice)."  Or, "He's ruining everything" -- but what, specifically, they might be hard pressed to say.  Or, "He's destroying the country" -- OK, what part of the country is he destroying?  Or what aspect?  Or, "He's destroying democracy and introducing fascism" -- but the last time I checked people were still voting, and I've already discussed what a lousy job he's been doing if he's serious about being a fascist dictator.   

So it just doesn't add up, and what I suspect is that what I referred to above as objective motivation may provide at least part of the answer.  Because we are a deeply troubled, dysfunctional society on many levels, and that pathology both percolates up from the citizenry and trickles down and impacts them in their daily lives.  Whenever someone quotes that old chestnut "lives of quiet desperation", I have to say, whaddaya mean "quiet"?  We're getting noisier all the time, and desperate people naturally look to their leadership for either salvation or blame -- savior or scapegoat, this is the lot of the politician in our time (and probably any other time as well).  And even if the leader is a figurehead, he's still expected to perform those functions; the people who voted for him as a savior may turn against him and make him a scapegoat, and the people who didn't vote for him will declare him a scapegoat the instant he takes office (if not before).

At this point it bears mentioning that those whom everyone sees as the leaders of the opposition -- the high command, if you will -- are tools as well, and none more than the leader of the pack, Robert Mueller.  He stalks through the corridors of power daily, craggy as an Old West gunfighter (have you ever noticed that he’s always photographed from ground level, as if to emphasize both his physical and moral stature?), and clearly sees, as so many others do (James Comey, for one) that it’s his patriotic duty to rid the country of this boil… this tumor… this invasive alien life form named Donald Trump.  And the law and the Constitution won’t be allowed to get in the way!  And for that, he and his colleagues are willing to put everything on the line -- respect, reputation, career if need be.  So yes, they are making sacrifices, but they are also victims of the Regime, which cares not for their hallowed reputations or for anything else.  To the Regime, they are mere tools… operatives… middle men.  And expendable, as shown by the number who have fallen by the wayside, mourned by few, and undoubtedly with more to come. 

And again, the ruling elite -- the people who ultimately control the mob, and who control the visible high-level players -- don't fall for any of this.  They care not for the neurotic alienation of the mob, and they care not for the delusions and grandiosity of the middle men; they are not impacted by mere human foibles.  A cooler-headed bunch cannot be found anywhere else on the planet.  (Think of them as a cross between Swiss bankers and robots, and you’ll be getting a bit closer to the truth.)  All that matters is the agenda, and they will do whatever it takes to further it... and being master manipulators (if they weren't, they wouldn't be in the position they're in) they will exploit any sort of weakness, and in fact aggravate it and amplify it in pursuit of their goals.  So yes, the mob is their victim, and if Trump becomes their victim as well the mob will rejoice because they will see it as their personal victory.  But the real victory will belong to the elite, and the mob will be in for some unpleasant surprises when the real agenda starts to unfold.  Who will provide the signs, slogans, and "talking points" then?            

          

 

Impeachment and Revolution

This has to be one of the slowest coups d'etat in history, if not the slowest. I mean, most of the time it only takes a few days... or a few hours... or a few seconds (if the hapless leader in question is slain by his or her opponents). But this one has been dragging on for.... well, actually, since Trump announced his candidacy on June 16, 2015... for two years and seven-plus months. Of course, some fussbudget is going to argue that a bonafide coup d'etat can, by definition, only be launched against a sitting leader, but we can ignore such quibbles, since the planning got underway, it is safe to say, before Trump got back on the escalator at Trump Tower after making the announcement.

And someone else is bound to argue that since impeachment, and the procedures thereof, are included in the Constitution, the removal of Donald Trump from office is not a coup d'etat after all, but a perfectly legitimate, lawful exercise. But again, this is a mere quibble, since if no actual “high crimes and misdemeanors” are proven, then Trump will have to be impeached – call it Plan B – simply for being Donald Trump. (That may, in fact, be a high crime and misdemeanor, but it has yet to appear in the U.S. Code, as far as I can tell.)

The one question no one asks as this process unfolds is: “What happens then?” And by that, I don't mean Constitutional technicalities like who then becomes president; I assume it would be the sanely, and saintly, white-haired Mike Pence. But maybe not! If it should turn out that Trump's presidency is declared illegitimate because he “stole” the election (try finding a legal precedent for that!) then his entire administration would be declared illegitimate as well. And then what? A new election? Or – more likely – Hillary will ride into D.C., climb the White House steps with flag in hand, and declare herself rightful president, in the great tradition of revolutionaries down through history. And who would argue? In any case, I'm sure the Supreme Court would be called upon sooner or later to settle the question. (I should point out that a “Constitutional crisis” is not, as most people seem to believe, something that happens when the Constitution is quite clear as to what course of action to take. It happens when the Constitution provides no guidance.)

That brings us to the heart of the matter. Regardless of how, or when, Trump is impeached, or the rationale thereof, the message to his supporters will be crystal clear: Elections mean nothing; the results of elections mean nothing; your vote means nothing; and you mean nothing. You are, indeed, “deplorable”. Now this message will not fall on the ears of snowflakes and pajama boys; it will fall on the ears of regular people – denizens of flyover country – who preferred a loose cannon named Trump to a known totalitarian and would-be dictator named Hillary. And those people are, indeed, “bitter clingers”, as Obama said – and one of the things they cling to is guns.

I pointed out recently, in another context, that the most dangerous enemy is one who has nothing to lose. What happens when the entire electoral process turns out to be a sham and a lie? What if the results of an election are allowed to stand only if the Regime approves of them – or at least does not strongly disapprove? What if it turns out that any election can be overthrown for any reason if it results in the wrong people taking office (or attempting to)? Aren't we talking here about one of the alleged pillars of democracy? How, in fact, is democracy even possible without legitimate elections? And isn't democracy one of those ideas for which – for better or worse – we are supposed to show utmost reverence and loyalty, even unto venturing overseas and killing perfect strangers in its defense, and possibly getting killed in return? And aren't the “deplorables” the ones who usually wind up doing this – i.e. joining the military and following orders handed down by schemers, plotters, and cynics for purposes which bear absolutely no resemblance to supposed American ideals? Would this not mean that the last mask has been stripped away, and it's “the man behind the curtain” who has been in charge all along?

Well, how would you react? Or – how do you expect the masses of the trodden-upon, despised citizenry -- the ones who don't enjoy any sort of victim status but who are only expected to pay their taxes and shut up -- to act? Sure, they could shrug and go on about their dreary lives, resigning themselves to the newly-clarified reality. But what if they don't? What if even a small fraction of them don't? There are, after all, marches on Washington all the time – almost daily, it seems. And most of them seem to be by the people who are already in charge – or at least whose interests are regularly preferred over the interests of others. And, on occasion, the “under-privileged” march on Washington – but they are still working within the system; they have a well-defined role to play. But what if the system turns out to be totally corrupt? What, then, do those who grew up fervently believing in it do? Has anyone thought about this? Perhaps they have; there is a team of snipers who are regularly assigned to man the roof of the White House in case of trouble (this is when the wrong people are marching or demonstrating).

The Trump voters were characterized by Trump (and by themselves, on occasion) as those who were “silent no more”. But historically, there are plenty of times when those who were silent no more also decided to be passive no more, and to fight back – not just in the voting booth but in the streets – and this is especially likely when the voting booth has turned out to be no more than a pint-sized house of mirrors.

Nothing would serve to confirm what many people, all across the political spectrum, believe – that we have become a banana republic – than a coup d'etat followed by a revolution. I hope that all of this can be resolved peacefully, but when you awaken a sleeping giant one too many times you may not like what happens.

A Red Letter Day

The Republican senators' letter to Iran is a curious document – not only because of the circumstances involved but because of all the delusional and wishful thinking it contains. If it was supposed to be a civics lesson for the mullahs, it has failed in that mission. Consider, first, the letter as composed:


An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran:

It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system.  Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution — the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices — which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.

First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them.  In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote.  A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate).  Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement.

Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics.

For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms.  As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then — perhaps decades.

What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei.  The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.

We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.

The following version (which I urged the worthy senators to use, but to no avail) would have been more accurate, and more edifying not only to the leaders of Iran but to the American public:

An Open Letter to the Leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran:

It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our formerly constitutional system.  Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution — the power to make binding international agreements and the different character of federal offices — which you might want to consider for your own amusement as negotiations progress.

First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them. This quaint notion predates the point at which the presidency became, for all intents and purposes, a dictatorship. Not that Congress doesn't still ratify treaties; it's just that it makes no difference what Congress does, since the administration will conduct foreign affairs as it pleases anyway. 
 
In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote. Again, this is strictly a formality designed to provide some semblance of purpose to an otherwise impotent and obsolete body. The president can come to any agreements, both overt and covert, with any government at any time, and the same applies to breaking agreements. The Senate's role varies along a continuum from mute passivity to helpless rage. 
 
A so-called congressional-executive agreement requires a majority vote in both the House and the Senate (which, because of procedural rules, effectively means a three-fifths vote in the Senate).  Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement – which, under our current system, has exactly the same weight as anything approved by Congress, especially since it can be backed up by the military, which is under the sole command of the president.

Second, the offices of our Constitution have different characteristics.

For example, the president may serve only two 4-year terms, whereas senators may serve an unlimited number of 6-year terms, and in fact many of them have what amounts to a lifetime appointment, not to be terminated for any cause, including senility and insanity. As applied today, for instance, President Obama will leave office in January 2017, while most of us will remain in office well beyond then — perhaps decades. There is no way to get rid of us, since all election laws overwhelmingly favor incumbents, which is not surprising since it was incumbents who wrote and passed those laws. 
 
What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. This will, of course, have no bearing on how the president sees any such agreement, nor on how it is interpreted or enforced.  The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could attempt to modify the terms of the agreement at any time. The success of any such attempt will, of course, be entirely contingent on the whims of whoever is president.

We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our formerly constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.

For further reading, please refer to the extensive writings of President Obama, formerly a professor of Constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School.

Parliament of Fools

Oh, the indignation! The outrage! That sinking feeling that you've been made fools of and rendered obsolete, and you may as well pack up and go home, and leave the job of running the country to the people who are already in charge, and quit pretending you have any say in the matter. Yes, this is the “feeling tone” we're getting out of Congress these days, and even though it's nothing more than feelings, it's quite on target. Congress is obsolete, but their obsolescence is of their own making, since they have always found it more politically expedient to cede their Constitutional powers and privileges to the sitting president (whoever it happens to be at the time) and to the Supreme Court (by refusing to redefine its scope, which it has the right to do) than to take responsibility. The courage to speak up and defy the president might be found in, say, 1 in 100 at best – the rest are all too eager to robotically raise their hands in the best Supreme Soviet style, and to sign pretty much anything that's placed in front of them. And as for the theory that the American people elect the best out of their number to represent them, well... how many Congressmen are the slightest bit more intelligent, rational, and non-impulsive than the average voter? I prefer to think most politicians are sent off to Washington just to get them out of our face (and to get them to shut up as well).

There has to be a theory somewhere that explains all this. All I know is that we regularly send people to Washington because they appear to have ideas... some of them seem downright bold; courageous, even. But the minute they get there they're grabbed up off the street and taken in a windowless van to some underground surgical facility where a plate is implanted in their head which turns them into petty, thieving, submissive, compliant nobodies. It's like something out of a “body snatchers” film. And when asked to explain their transformation, they mumble something about “compromise” (also known as pleasing no one by trying to please everyone).

In the meantime, the presidency rides triumphant, having accreted unto itself virtually all of the meaningful and significant powers and privileges that the Constitution explicitly assigns to Congress – and much more besides. So Congress becomes a rubber stamp in the best Warsaw Pact tradition, and you will hear nary a whimper about this from anyone in that “august body” (but more than a whimper from people on the outside). And it's not as if Congress has ceased to “make laws”. It's just that their laws typically originate somewhere in the executive branch, and the ones that don't are subject to, first, veto, and second, being completely ignored by the president and his minions. And as if that weren't enough, the Supreme Court reserves (un-Constitutionally, I might add) the right to declare any law passed by Congress null and void, which they do with alarming frequency. So much for the delicate and exquisitely-designed “separation of powers”.

So what are we talking about here? A flaw in the Constitution, or a flaw in human nature? I say both. The Constitution was a marvelous document as long as men of good will were in charge, but it started, fairly early in our history, to fail various stress tests, chief among them being wars. Wars have a magical way of turning presidents into dictators, and when the war is over not all of those dictatorial powers are returned to whence they came; a good deal are held onto because, well, it's good to be king, and you never know when they'll come in handy again. And anyone knows it's easier to rule by diktat than by vote; tyranny is for lazy people.

But does Congress take this lying down? Not a bit of it! They pass various “war powers acts” which are designed to restore the balance of power – but those acts are ignored, and there's nothing they can do about it. Any American president determined to be a “war president” can ask, paraphrasing Joseph Stalin, “How many divisions does Congress have (compared to me)?” And the answer, of course, is zero. And this doesn't bother anyone in Congress on a day-to-day basis; they would just as soon someone else take charge and thus be responsible, accountable, and blamable when things go wrong. The ideal for a Congressman is to be elected, go to Washington, and go into a state of suspended animation until it's time to campaign for re-election; that way he avoids making mistakes and taking blame. His record is pure and spotless, because it contains nothing – but that is apparently preferable to taking risks. (And, please note, the voters agree with this premise, or at least behave as if they do. They would rather send a bland nonentity to Washington than someone with ideas, because ideas are – somehow – threatening.)

Oh wait, I almost forgot – Congress also has “the power of the purse” (and I'm not talking about hitting a masher over the head with it, although that might be more useful than what is actually done). The president can't do a thing – can't move a muscle – unless Congress approves the funds. Yeah, well... by the time enough palms are greased, and enough late-night phone calls are made, those funds generally get approved even if no given individual will say they approve. And in those rare cases when there's a “showdown”, and a threat by one or both sides to (Shudder! Shake!) “shut down the government”, Congress always buckles and the president always gets his way.

So really, Congress is powerless, hopeless, and ridiculous. It doesn't even have a clearly-defined mission any more – at least not one that can't be readily taken over by someone else (in the executive branch, with far more efficiency). But they have to be kept in business for the sake of appearances – because we're busy “spreading democracy” throughout the world, based on the premise that our system is the best ever devised by man, and besides, look at how well it works, etc. Besides, if the president dissolved Congress the way leaders in other countries can dissolve parliament, and established himself as dictator, he'd still have to deal with the courts. (But how many divisions do they have, hmmm? You can see how long a two-branch system would last – about as long as it would take the president to have the Supreme Court demolished.)

So if it's all for show, and everybody knows it, why all the fuss over the CIA? Well, you don't have to dig very far down to figure out that the fuss isn't about the CIA per se, or even about anything it does or has done, but whom they did it for, namely George W. Bush and his team of Eeeeevil (as Rush Limbaugh would say) Republicans. Do you honestly think Dianne Feinstein would be freaking out if these offenses had occurred under a Democratic president? Please. They wouldn't even be holding hearings. What they seem to forget, of course, is that the CIA under Bush and the CIA under Obama are.... mmmm... probably just about identical. “Oh, but Obama told them to quit doing those naughty things!” Well, maybe he did and maybe he didn't, but it hardly matters. The CIA is going to do things their way no matter what, because they are accountable to nobody, and that includes Congressional committees and presidents. Oh sure, every once in a while they'll offer some low-level chump up as a sacrificial animal, but that's only to satisfy everyone and keep the pitchfork-wielding peasants at bay. The notion that Congress can “reform” the CIA is like saying that sheep can “reform” wolves.

And some will say, to be perfectly frank, that this is, maybe, the way things ought to be. After all, the CIA is full of smart, dedicated people who are not only much smarter than anyone in Congress, but probably much less corrupt (at least in the material, vs. moral, sense). And I am not one of those who believes that the CIA, along with other intelligence agencies, constitutes a “parallel government”. Most of what the government does matters little to them, or not at all. They don't mind letting it just fumble and lurch along on its merry way. What counts is power, connections, information – and, most of all, The Game. Give the intel guys a game to play, and they're happy. Start to criticize, or attempt to thwart, the game, and you get push-back, which is what is happening right now. Not only push-back, but push-back directed at the same wretches who gave them all that power (and money) in the first place, namely Congress. What ingrates!

So yeah, the CIA thing is just the latest in a long line of insults – the immediately previous one being immigration policy, and before that Obamacare, and waging war on Syria (which, fortunately, got vetoed by Putin – doing the job the U.S. Congress should have done). Obamacare, for that matter, has reared its misshapen head again because of the Gruber kerfuffle – which has added a new expression to the American lexicon. Getting “Grubered” is defined as getting lied to by the president in order to get a bill passed by Congress (them again!). And as to who to blame for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they've been going on so long that no one knows, any longer, who to blame – so they wind up blaming no one (an ideal outcome if you're a president or an ex-president). Unlike homelessness, which magically disappers whenever a Democrat takes over the White House, wars have a pesky way of lasting, and being highly visible (not to mention costly).

And it's not as if this is anything new. Who, among American liberals and Democrats, does not basically blame the Vietnam war on Richard Nixon, even though he inherited it from Johnson who inherited it from Kennedy? Someone who is only "anti-war" as long as they don't like the guy in the White House isn't really anti-war, are they? And someone who is only anti-CIA if we're talking about stuff that happened when someone from the other party was in the White House isn't really anti-CIA, are they? And the trouble with Congress – one of many – is that they are regularly subject to this sort of completely irrational, politically-based thinking... and they don't even realize it, or see it as a problem. “Of course we hate everything the other side does, and of course we love everything our side does!” It has nothing to do with moral absolutes, or principles, or even coherent policy. And yet we keep electing them, again and again. But maybe, at this late date, it doesn't matter, since they have given away any power they may have once had, along with all discernible integrity. Rather than rely on Congress to do the right thing and dissolve itself, maybe it's us who should be the realists and just pay attention to the president and his empire, and reserve Congress for occasional comic relief.