PART II – Is There a Religious Basis for Reconstructing Our Justice System?

Perhaps we need to return once again to our religious roots to find some answers to our biases and prejudices that are determining our confusion and misrepresentation about law and justice.  In the New Testament, within the confines of constructs of divine intervention and godly titles assigned  to the man known as Jesus of Nazareth, there are some clues as to what he was teaching about Law and living. This season of celebration is an appropriate time perhaps to recapture some of those teachings. 

(1)   Jesus tried to say that the Torah was not just a book of rules or a program for winning favor with God, or a way to order a society of conformists that tends to suffocate a creative and innovative society and nation rather than inspiring and invigorating either individuals or society.  He offered something called ‘THE SUMMARY OF THE LAW’ by which he summarized the Law’s essence, not just its words.  ‘LOVE God with all your heart and love your neighbor as you love yourself.’  That, by the way, was seen as blasphemy by the religious leaders of his time.  This man was presuming to speak for God and had no standing or credentials to do so – he was thus presumed to be a ‘trouble-maker’ a ‘rabble-rouser’ even a threat to the leadership of the religious establishment of that time. As more people began to listen and to accept his teachings, the establishment began to plot his removal from their bailiwick.  A corrupt Roman Governor made the perfect accomplice in their plan to remove this Jesus from their midst and so retribution in the form of crucifixion was arranged.

(2)   Meanwhile the Teacher kept trying to overcome the burdens and shortcomings of legalism by emphasizing the actual demonstration of what laws are meant to do which is to protect and nourish people so that they can formulate a ‘kingdom’ or realm in which ‘others’ are regarded as neighbors, and perhaps as prodigal or wayward sons who need to be welcomed not punished or disowned.  He told a strange story of a Samaritan (“The Samaritans embraced a religion that was a mixture of Judaism and idolatry (2 Kings 17:26-28). Because the Israelite inhabitants of Samaria had intermarried with the foreigners and adopted their idolatrous religion, Samaritans were generally considered “half-breeds” and were universally despised by the Jews”).  This Samaritan was on a journey until he discovered a distressed injured person on the side of the road.  The Samaritan interrupted his own journey and mission to bind up the man’s wounds and to see that he was safe before proceeding on his way.  By contrasting a despised Samaritan with a priest and Levite who did not stop to help but quickly passed by, this Teacher challenged the prevailing notion of superiority of a chosen people, the smugness of law-abiding conformity, and the concept that the mission of God’s chosen people is to be concentrated not on punishing wrongdoing , but rather on taking action to do what is right and best for others in need.  He thus again redefined the purpose of law which is to be a concerned and loving neighbor to all in need no matter who or what they may be perceived to be. 

We find an expansion of these outlandish teachings in the ‘Sermon on the Mount’ and in the ‘Parable of the Sheep and Goats’ defining what  it means to be not just an observer of the Law but a practitioner of its essence.  He had the audacity to suggest that certain practitioners of the Law’s essence – often seen as troublemakers or undesirables by authorities -- will find vindication and validation of their efforts in a social construct (he called it the ‘kingdom of God or of heaven’) that approves of just such people: the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,  the merciful,  the pure in heart, the peacemakers, those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake when others revile them and persecute them and utter all kinds of evil against them falsely…”.

Note this:  “ The Beatitudes are built on the Greek word Makarios which means happy or flourishing but is often translated as “Blessed” in the English bible. They show us a countercultural vision of “the good life”. One where even in our brokenness and discomfort we can flourish as renewed human beings. Happiness is built around living out love for one’s God and love for one another.”

And therein lies what may be the main point of his Sermon,  also related to our  problems with Law and Justice” 

Jesus invites his disciples and listeners to find happiness and flourishing lives in their loving relationships with their God and his people by putting the essence of the Law into practice.

 

These statements of blessing go against how the world would define a meaningful or successful life.  It amounts to turning a cultural vision of life’s fulfillments and blessings upside down and inside out.  (See my Blog of 4/15/2017 for more on conflicting values).

 

 Contrary to prevailing  thoughts, and controlling beliefs and myths, we may be at a point in our culture where justice, law and punishment or arrest, sentencing and incarceration are just not the best way to bring about either beneficial order or the true well-being and flourishing of our people and our culture. This talk of flourishing and of happiness tends to remind us that we are not far off here from our own founding purposes which boldly included the “pursuit of happiness” as one of the aims and rights of our form of governing.

 

Jesus invited his disciples and followers to find happiness and blessing or flourishing in their relationships. The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats enshrines flourishing and living well and righteously into a pattern of serving one’s God by caring for those who most need goodness, love and caring.

 

Where then can we start to reverse the inadequate meanings and norms we have laid upon our justice system?

(1)    I suspect we must begin with what we consider to be the main PURPOSE of law and justice. Is it the forcing of order in society – is it law enforcement that is the main purpose with all the military accoutrements that such a definition implies?  Is the law meant to bludgeon citizens into compliance producing a sort of conformity that reduces dissent, dismisses, or condemns non-conformity and dispenses with required reform and change?  Is it the use of force and intimidation  to extract a price from certain groups so that others may prosper and grow more secure in their privileges and their acquisitions?  Or has it become, after all, the structuring of divisions and  classes so that everyone will know their place and not try to take from the ruling class what they regard as their privileged entitlements?

 

How do we manage to reverse the trends we now observe?  How can we manage to diminish the influence of violence, revenge, and division?  How do we manage to pass laws that nurture instead of neuter?  How do we manage to incorporate flourishing and well-being into our justice system?  How can we make obeying the law an experience of building flourishing communities not hastening of their destruction? 

It will help simply to know our Purpose for having Law and law 'enforcement'.  How many law enforcement agencies ever take a look at their Purpose for being?  How many ever draw upon members of their service area to join in a thorough discussion of their Purpose?  Jesus the Teacher tried, in my opinion, to say that the Law begins with acting like a neighbor who cares about and for others: for their safety, their healing, their well-being, their flourishing/blessing/happiness - their lives.  Discussions of Purpose can begin a dialogue that opens up a world of new possibilities and understandings.

 

(2)    I think the key is transitioning from arresting people as a form of punishment and denigration to a procedure we might call community intervention or community protection (or other titles like habilitation, interjection, involvement, infusion mentorship). The main difference would be the aim of the intervention.  

And here is where things get complicated and dicey.  For interventions are not all the same.  Some arrests require forceful intervention; many do not. In some cases, what started as enforcement might turn into an opportunity to grasp something that could cause a flourishing or enhancement of personhood.  Some potential arrests might be able to be turned into opportunities to present or consider a range of options that provide opportunities for improving not diminishing someone’s life.  That brings us back to Purpose.  

Is the Purpose of law enforcement broad enough in most jurisdictions to allow for and to encourage such possibilities?  It's certainly a question worth asking.  Perhaps the role and the Purpose of police work could change from being seen only as enforcers to being seen as enhancers or builders of individual lives and community well-being.  

 

Is any of this realistic?  Of course not -- not if one buys into current cultural values, definitions, and practices..  But it is a necessary beginning if we want to make a profound move from militancy to builders of flourishing communities.  WOULD IT WORK for violent criminals?  Probably not, at least not until the crime situation was somewhat resolved.  But it might work even with violent perpetrators when they are able to make choices.  We would have to try it, adjust it, reform it, and try again. Would it result in some taking advantage of the system?  Of course it would.  Would it demand that police become trained social workers, or that social workers be added to police departments?  It would require a different kind of training for officers and perhaps the adding of staff who were experts in social relationships.  

(3)    The justice system from thereon would need to follow-up on the concept of intervention, infusion, inspiration (‘breathing spirit into someone’) rather than the concepts of punishment, of irreversible criminality, of incarceration – all of which tend to destroy a person’s spirit, along with family units. 

        

        Once the Purpose is clear for what Law enforcement might be (protection, safety, and opportunity for flourishing), it becomes necessary to get down to nitty-gritty concerns, beginning with some principles that are accepted and practiced as an integral part of carrying out ones' Purpose.  We actually have some pretty good models already available to us, including the "Peelian Principles" (see my Blog of  8/17/2014) , the Kerner Report (see Blog of  12/7/2014) and a report on policing from the Obama administration (see Blog of   6/7/2020).  Since I have covered these topics before, let me simply say that the need still exists for community members and police in many jurisdictions to come together to consider the principles that are needed and necessary.  Peel's first principles of community relationship to law enforcement are crucial and cannot be avoided if law enforcement is to become community enhancement along with protection.

  

 3) Once a clear Purpose. principles and aims are in place, it is time to talk about recruitment, training and practicing what is being preached!  It is time for implementation -- often the trickiest step of all.  This is where community members and trained advisors/consultants/trainers can be of particular use, presenting material in a non-threatening but forthright manner, using official leaders as endorsers when that is most fitting.    

        It is also essential that newly minted Purpose, principles and outcomes be conveyed to others in the justice system.  Seeking flourishing and choice plus personal growth would need to be practiced by lawyers, judges, attendants, and even guards. 

For instance the use of choices would be necessary at the point of sentencing following a verdict of guilty. In some cases, a sentence to mental health rehabilitation might have to be imposed.  The choice of incarceration may also be needed for those who want separation from life’s demands.  Other possibilities might include: working to pay for damages or losses suffered by the victim(s) of crime, community service, probation, exile, or attendance at college courses, attendance at a rehab center, and even a choice to be tutored or instructed in a program of personal living skills might be a choice for some.  The point is that sentencing must also incorporate Purpose and principles that begin to draw judges, prosecutors, defenders, and probably jurors toward opportunity for change and building rather than punishment and denigration.  Perhaps whatever process police go through toward change, others in the system should also attend so they can lead their own departments in a similar exercise of discussion and reformation.

(4)     Finally, every person in the new system should be required to accept the new values and periods of training supporting their implementation.  Until we change the essence of the system, we will continue to be controlled by the negative and legalistic mythical and religious concepts that have skewed the system from its true North Star.     

(5)    Is there more to consider?  Of course, and soon, like:

 

Habilitation

Mental Healthiness

The Right kind of Righteousness

Grace as strengthening others

Community Welfare

The power of ‘trouble-making’

The ability of community service to empower us all

 

Have a Flourishing New Year!  

Part I – Is ‘Justice as Retribution’ Grounded in Religious Beliefs?

Our relatively young democracy – once a beacon of light in this world – has, over  the past four years, become an authoritarian regime wed to the principle that a strong leader (Fuhrer) with a cultish following is what AMERICA needs to beat back the forces of social progressivism and liberal philosophy to preserve our American  ‘way of life’ and our freedoms *generally meaning white race domination and the right to tote firearms wherever one wishes without restriction.  In essence this is an outgrowth of the slogan “don’t tread on me” or the concept that freedom is essentially non-intervention of the federal government into daily life and work.

While a fear of abusive government intervention and control was certainly behind our Declaration of Independence and parts of our Constitution, that is not what those documents support as the essence of the government they and their authors helped construct.  Our Constitution is not based on fear but on confidence in the unique nature of the form of democracy they formulated. 

For instance, government is perceived in those founding documents as the protector of rights and freedoms, exemplified in more modern times as protecting the well-being of its citizens by requiring seat belts, or masks, or the abolition of chemicals harmful to society’s food supply.  If government does stray from its main purposes, such behavior can be  criticized and protested – that is a citizen’s right and responsibility.  But the current disregard for our centralized system of government is not just a protest but a repudiation and a source of division and discord for it seeks to invalidate the structure itself and in so doing, undermines the very nature and soul of that system. Advocating violence to make its views heard and feared, this authoritarian movement uses people as pawns in its efforts to subvert democratic tenets.  It uses questionable means to seek vengeance or revenge against its detractors or against those who propose solutions or policies that are contrary to its own ideology or beliefs.  It is a seditious movement that threatens to overthrow the bedrock principles and values that have been at the core of this democracy for centuries, such as the right to vote.

In that regard, let us briefly address the subject of Justice and the Law.  The Law is many things: it is based on our Constitution and expanded by legislation, regulations, and even common law or oral tradition, as well as some Supreme Court decisions.  The law can serve as a protector of people and their property, it can also, with the wrong twist and some abuse,  become a glaring example of intimidation, threat, restriction and false arrest. The Breonna Taylor casg one tragic example.  The concepts of law that we carry with us are probably most clearly revealed in the “bumper sticker-like phrases” we often hear, like:

“The law will catch up to them”

“If you do the crime you must do the time.”

“Lock her up”

“Throw away the key”

“I just want justice”

 

The Law forbids certain ways of behaving, for instance stealing, killing, or exceeding speed limits and prescribes others, like paying taxes or driving in the right lane.   Such rules and laws are usually promulgated by legislation or court order.  As such, the Law or laws tend to bring order to the natural chaos that exists when laws are absent.  That order is generally seen as positive and good for the society and its people.  However, sometimes the rule of law goes off-kilter and becomes flawed because its main purposes have been skewed or twisted into being a tool of someone seeking absolute power rather than being a building-block that secures justice and peace for the many.  For example:

·       The law should not be a club or cudgel used to beat people unto submission. Such use of law as a weapon rejects the notion of equal justice and peaceful existence for people by undermining both with violent disorder.

·       The Law should not be a mechanism or tool for keeping certain people (like those living in poverty or those of a certain race) separate and isolated from the mainstream of a society by means of rules, norms, and standards that other groups or individuals are not required to observe or to be held  to account

·       The Law should not be an instrument of torture or unusual punishment to restrain or attack certain people for their behavior, origin, background, or grievance.  It is not unusual for authoritarian regimes to use laws formed by them to intimidate, frighten, or torture  those they define as ‘trouble-makers’

·       The Law is not meant to be a definer of enemies or friends; it is rather meant to be an instrument and bellwether for equal treatment and unbiased judgment

·       The Law is not meant to divide and alienate certain people from the full range of opportunities that a well-ordered society has to offer.  Authoritarian governments often promulgate decrees that open certain opportunities to  chosen groups while preventing others from any chance at participation

·       The Law is not meant to be the creator of classes defined purposefully to exclude certain people from consideration as ‘privileged’ or ‘elite’ and define others as ‘untouchables’ or undesirables’

Which brings me to a subject considered controversial -- the religious basis for much of what we accept about ‘the Law’ and ‘law enforcement.’  We do not have the time, the space, or the patience to trace the mythologies of the ancient world or the tenets of our major religions.  Suffice to say that our concepts of justice, law enforcement, sentencing and incarceration have much to do with the worldwide absorption of religious and mythological concepts and precepts that have held sway over us for almost as long as human beings have existed.  Those concepts show up in ancient stories of Greek and Roman Gods or even in the ancient Gilgamesh Epic.  Let us take just one pearl from the bunch because it is a saying so familiar to many:

“An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”-- a famous quotation taken from The Code of Hammurabi, a law code designed by Hammurabi, a Babylonian king.  As if to prove my point, this saying existed in more than one society or religion, with the meaning:  if someone does something wrong, that person should be punished by having the same  or similar thing done to them. 

This saying is also found in Hebrew Scripture (the Old Testament) in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy indicating its widespread use in ancient Israeli culture.

Unfortunately, the concepts in that saying do not end in ancient Israel.  They are also interwoven in something Christians call the Story of Redemption which, they say, began in the Religion of the ancient Hebrew nation and culminated in the sacrifice of the one called Jesus the Christ.  Part of that story contains the concept that a price had to be paid for the sinfulness, disobedience, idolatry, and apostasy that characterized the chosen people of Israel as they turned away from the laws delivered to them by God’s servant, Moses. Their acceptance of the gods, mores, rituals, laws, plus the idols and societal norms of peoples of that region constituted a breaking of God’s Law and there was no way out except that a valued leader (such as a Messiah or King or Prophet would have to atone for those law-breaking sins). 

The story of Jesus, a descendant from the House of David, and an itinerant story-teller and teacher, who had a reputation for capturing and teaching new concepts that filled old tenets with new insights, who may also have had some followers who incorporated ideas of divine origins.  Certainly, some in the early Christian community --like Paul the Roman citizen-turned-Christian who had acquaintanceship with the mythical gods of that era, assigned divine intervention and origins to this poor young man from the Lake country of Galilee, who often denied the titles and approbations sent his way by Paul and other disciples who were part of his band of followers.  That band of followers included his brother James who became a leader in the early Christian community that stayed in and around Jesus’ home region. James and his group were much more oriented to following a teacher/prophet than they were in worshipping a divine being.   

 The Story of Redemption that grew up around this man-God had within it a basic principles that some major price would need to be extracted from the Hebrew nation as recompense or payment for the sins of their errant ways.  And so, the divine origin and mantle placed on this Jesus became the key to the price to  be paid.  As God’s Son, he would be the perfect sacrificial Lamb acceptable to God and representative of the people.  A Perfect Sacrifice that would right the wrongs of Israel’s history and placate an angry God because this was his only Son.  This angry God could then be reclaimed as a loving God who gave his Son to death on a Cross as a loving act of Atonement initiated and received by him as payment due him for man’s rebellion, apostasy, and immorality, including a bonus of forgiveness of sin that was attainable by anyone who confessed allegiance and made a total commitment to God at any future time.

Again, unfortunately, we have been the recipients of just enough of that story in our culture to remain saddled with the notions of a universe where ‘revenge is sweet’, and we often speak and act in terms that reflect our acquired sense of justice as payment, as revenge for wrongs committed, as having to sacrifice something of value to ever be consider a lawbreaker as a worthy person.  A few of those phrases come to mind because they get used so often, especially in courtrooms:

§  “I just want justice to be served”

§  “I hope she has to pay with her life”

§  “I want him to suffer like he made us suffer”

§  “I hope they get what they deserve”

§  “I hope you rot in hell”

§  “I don’t want anyone else to have to go through what we’ve been through because of this person”

§  “execution is one way to deter others from doing the same thing”

§  “I’m seeking payback for what he did”

§  “They deserve to go away for a long, long time”

 It could be said, then, that deep in our understanding of Law and Law Enforcement lie concepts of revenge, getting even, punishment, retribution and pay-back or recompense.   If that is true, then we may need a drastic  re-thinking and re-formulation of our concepts of law and law enforcement.  Perhaps first and foremost, we need to affirm strongly that the issue we face today is not primarily one of good cops versus bad cops, with the solution being to get rid of the bad cops.  That is too narrow a definition and too naïve a solution for what we call ‘law enforcement’ and ‘police brutality.’

Law enforcement forces exist within the same ethos that accepts and promotes the ancient ‘eye for an eye’ concept.  But more, it now has added components that make it suspicious if not pernicious.  Militarism has been added; shoot to kill has been accepted and sanctioned, and internal cover-up of wrongs is now endemic to too many departments.  Law enforcement has too often been seen as a war between police and the people in the neighborhoods or areas they patrol.  And the police have used  their assigned budgets to acquire all the paraphernalia necessary to engage in war tactics and war strategies to fight those battles.   They possess such accoutrements as toxic gas which they use freely on protestors and looters.  They acquire riot gear including nets and bullet-proof vests.  They have  an assortment of military armaments, including semi-automatic weapons, military transport vehicles, bullet-proof armored transport and even a few tanks, flash-bangs, armored cars with .35-caliber ammunition, and MRAPs. They are prepared for any ‘battles’ that may ensue.  Some say the very presence of the police and their military equipment provokes rioting and violent reactions that were not necessarily contemplated before they arrive on a scene  in battle gear.  

 Observing the tactics of the police on television, even when they know they are being watched, is enough to make one wonder how we got to this point of enforcement without restraint.  I think mainly of two images: one, the image of a white elderly gentlemen who approached the police on a mission of some sort, in Buffalo, NY, appearing to want to bring something to their attention. He did appear to be somewhat agitated, but certainly not acting as a threat.  He was pushed to the ground by an officer and, although he hit his head on the pavement, and appeared to be in some distress, no one moved to help him until an officer broke ranks to assist him or to ask his condition.  The young officer was summarily restrained by a superior and told to leave the man alone and to move on.  As it turned out, the man was injured slightly, and the cop who knelt to inquire as to his condition was reported to be none other than the junior officer who had originally pushed the poor man to the sidewalk.   The two officers involved in pushing the man down were suspended, but the Blue Wall of resistance to such action went up almost immediately.  Jun 05, 2020 · (CNN) “Fifty-seven police officers in Buffalo, New York, have resigned from the force's emergency response team following the suspension of two officers who are seen on video pushing a 75-year-old.”  Is such support of misbehavior justified or is it partly what keeps us from  serious and profound reform?

 My second most vivid recollection is that scene of the police violently clearing out the peaceful protestors in Lafayette Park near the WHITE house so that DONALD J. TRUMP could walk across that space unhindered to stand in front of historic St. John’s Church awkwardly holding a bible and having his picture broadcast to his followers and others.  Later, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs who had originally marched with the so-called president (more accurately designated as Fuhrer at that moment) rightly apologized for taking part in that debacle, reiterating the proper role of the military is to remain above partisan politics to concentrate on their mission and duty as military officers.  The offices of president, of the military  and of the police as the protectors and defenders of peaceful protest by peaceful citizens were being so blatantly and violently abused as to make one wonder if we are living in a police state encouraged and manipulated by the president of this nation similar to the machinations of some tin-horn dictator.

 Which brings us right back to the main theme of this essay. Our problem with equal justice and law in this country is not because we have some misguided or miscreant cops on our streets. The problem runs far deeper. We as a sovereign people have allowed our own biases constructed from age-old mis-readings and myths about justice and the law to fashion an atmosphere, an environment, an ethos in which a militant police state can grow and prosper even though we have thousands of “good cops.”  We have allowed an ideology or philosophy of militaristic enforcement to be the means by which we exact a price for law-breaking or non-conformity to societal rules – too often involving rules determined by an elite over whom there are no checks and balances because they have purchased the privilege of being exempt from the restraints of legalities. 

 The poisoned atmosphere of law and order as restraint, as enforcement, as punishment, as a war, as retribution, as a price or sacrifice that must be paid and as a means of restraining certain groups such as immigrants, minorities, progressive and socially-conscious youth, or LGBTQ – all the “undesirables” defined by the elites of society – is what lies at the base of our problems with law enforcement and with equal justice for all.  We are living right now within a State that accepts police brutality as a norm, that embraces violence as an acceptable form of policing (but not of protesting).  We live in a State where police have few checks on their power to bring unusual force to bear on ordinary citizens. 

Expecting a mayor or a city manager or a local district attorney to counter abuse of police power is an illusion at best and a tragedy at worst.  Arrest, sentencing, and incarceration can be one more area of justice  in which mythical and religious messages prevail.  The infamous ‘War on Drugs’ begun under Nixon and then exacerbated by Reagan, is an example of exacting a price, punishing, and casting-out certain groups within our culture.  That war goes on now under the guise of dealing with opioid addiction. Rarely do we approach such societal problems anymore from the more rational viewpoint of rehabilitation or healing.  Instead,  punishment for miscreant behavior or for some stereotyped group characteristic seems to be most prominent.  

(Go on to Part II for some Jesus teachings that may speak to Justice reform)

Let's Talk 'Turkey' About Where We Are

Trump may be defeated, but “Trumpism” is alive and kicking!  In fact, Trumpism is now the “Deep State,” for, in every department of the federal government, there are holdovers from Trump appointments, Trump contracts, Trump grants and even Trumpist civil servants who joined the federal workforce in the past four years by the usual means of civil service testing, vetting and hiring. How many of these ‘deep staters’ are there? We may never find a definitive answer to that question, no matter how hard we try. 

 But there is a recent fascinating excerpt from the Planet Money newsletter (carried on the npr.org website), written by Greg Rogalski and titled: ‘Are There Too Many Political Appointees?’ In that article are some facts and figures that may not be known to the average citizen: 

“Thousands of victorious campaign staffers, donors, glory seekers, and hangers-on will soon be swarming the capital in search of jobs in the new administration. And, in a few weeks, there will be a convenient guidebook published for them. The book is officially called United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions, but it's better known as the Plum Book because of its purple cover — and also probably because it's filled with plum jobs, many of which are appointed by the winning presidential candidate. The book is published every four years after presidential elections…a long list of positions around the federal government, typically providing information on who last held them and what their salary was.” 

“The last Plum Book was published in December 2016 and it listed around 4,000 positions appointed by the president. Some of the jobs…everyone has heard of like White House Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense, and Chair of the Federal Reserve. But the book also lists thousands of jobs most people haven't heard of — like Deputy Scheduler at the Department of Energy (at least $37,000 a year), Commissioner…and Chair of the Railroad Retirement Board…about $181,500 a year.” 

David E. Lewis, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University...studies presidents and the federal bureaucracy and is the author of The Politics of Presidential Appointments: Political Control and Bureaucratic Performance. ‘Most people who study this — including me — believe there are too many political appointees,’ Lewis says. Sure, he says, political appointees help the president get control of the federal bureaucracy and keep it accountable to voters. They help presidents get stuff done. But, he says, there are way too many. "We can get the same amount of accountability with dramatically fewer politically appointed positions." 

The main problem with so many political appointees, Lewis points out, is the exodus of professionals after each president leaves office is followed by a prolonged period of vacancies. Two years into the Trump Administration, over a third remained vacant. It takes a while to nominate and confirm political appointees. Then they have to learn what they're doing. This lack of continuity, Lewis says, hurts government performance. 

He believes we would all be better off if more of these jobs were filled by civil servants who do not have to leave every time there is a new president. Other nations, Lewis says, have nowhere near the same percentage of political appointees working in their governments. ‘There are countries like Denmark where there's an election and maybe 12 administrative jobs change,’ he says. ‘In ours, it's multiple thousands’." 

Rogalsky offers some hope, citing pending legislation and the fact the process may be undergoing a fresh look and some possible changes from the in-coming administration. “Last week, the Biden-Harris transition announced "agency review teams" who are heading their search for staffers… and leading the effort to help set up the new White House Council of Economic Advisors (CEA)…” 

All well and good. But, another holdover issue also threatens the viability of the federal government, and that is the revolutionary takeover of about one-third of the federal judiciary by Trump loyalists who have been approved by the Mitch McConnell-led Senate to the tune of about 300 judgeships. Just think of it – one third of the federal judiciary is made up of Trump loyalists, prepared to act on principles that defy and undermine the functioning of the Biden-Harris administration, and to go even further to undo long-standing decisions like Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education, while also waiting to pounce whenever they smell ‘socialism’ ‘labor rights’ ‘women’s rights’ ‘regulation of business’ or ‘public education’. 

 In other words, many of those district court and appeal court decisions are going to belong to the Alt Right movement left in the wake of the Trump administration. A recent book by Tom Hartman, the New York Times best-selling author of over 25 books, as part of his “Hidden History” series, presents the hidden history of the Supreme Court and The Betrayal of America.

 In it, he addresses our current situation, and raises some issues that every concerned citizen should be considering. Among them is the long-held concept of judicial review that had started much earlier, but which became part of the decision in the 1803 case of Marbury vs. Madison. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice John Marshall declared: “It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.” In other words, he unilaterally declared that the Court’s powers, according to Hartman “included interpreting the meaning of the Constitution and applying that interpretation to federal legislation.” According to Hartman, that decision enraged Thomas Jefferson who essentially felt that those who control the law, control the nation. For him, Marshall had in a single stroke put the Court above the Congress and the president, making “a constitutional monarchy with the Supreme Court wearing the crown.” 

 Jefferson’s rebuttal had to do with the people speaking through their elected representatives in constitutional convention, and using Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution to regulate the Court.

 Hartman goes on to declare the preposterousness of the idea that “five men (or women) on the US Supreme Court, trained and promoted through their lifetimes by the billionaire-funded Federalist Society, can magically read the minds of the long-dead framers of the Constitution and dictate to Americans that they are the framers’ only true spokesmen.” Hartman then points to a study done in 2014 by Giles and Page that found that the political goals of Americans at the bottom 90% of income are essentially ignored by the Congress, the Supreme Court and the presidency. The goals of the top 10% however, predictably become law.

 Hartman comes to this conclusion on our current situation in this context: “while the idealogues control the Court and dance to the tunes of those with great wealth and corporate power, the Court will likely continue to deny Americans the policies, no matter how popular, that could improve their lot in life and American democracy. “ 

 So, let us talk Turkey. These examples of Trumpism left behind in the federal bureaus and in the federal court system are perhaps but the tip of the iceberg! There is still the issue of legislative control to consider as the Georgia run-off elections loom ever larger for the two senators from that state. Georgia’s voters may hold the key to the Biden-Harris administration’s ability to legislate forward-looking, democratic reform and re-structuring. And that suggests the main concern with what has been left behind by this de-construction-of-democracy Trumpism. 

 We tend, I think, to minimize the deeper meanings of 74+ million votes cast for Donald Trump (and Mike Pence). What does it mean? It surely means that: 

1) a sizeable number of citizens of this country do not support constitutional principles but are inclined to support unbridled power and control however it may manifest itself; 

 2) there are way-too-many voters who have no idea what is at stake when a leader proposes absolute power to do anything he/she wants or believes, and then proceeds to use established legal means to attain those aims; 

3) there are many who are lacking basic knowledge of the purposes, aims, ideals and legitimate workings of government on behalf of the people; they have reached the mistaken conclusion that government is their enemy and that their responsibility is to block any attempt by government to interfere in their lives 

4) but more troubling perhaps are those in this phalanx of voters who are simply following the biases and prejudices that they have learned or that have been thrust upon them by some entity, force or simple neglect; resulting in the inability to think critically, to reason clearly and to act wisely in relation to their part in making democracy, government, community, country, society work in a manner that benefits everyone not just a few 

5) and then there are those who went ahead and voted for Trump and Trumpism even though they felt uneasy doing so – that uneasiness may have had reason to increase over the last few weeks as Trump played fast and loose with the election, charging that it was ‘rigged’ ‘crooked’ and incorrect as well as ‘corrupt.’ 

We are simply poorly prepared for the onslaught of Trumpism that is being left behind. 

  we do not have nearly enough understanding of how government works or what principles underlie and support that work, and no movement has yet emerged to address that deficit (unless you count Stacey Abrams movement to register new voters) 

 we do not have nearly enough understanding of what constitutional principles form the inviolable basis for our democracy nor do we clearly understand the means and tools available to protect and enhance those principles 

 we are missing the damage being done to our ideals and principles by the courts and by those wealthiest corporations defined as individuals who have been given the green light in Citizens United to bribe politicians and office-holders with political money defined as a form of free speech 

 we just do not understand how certain policies and practices can undermine our principles and structures if we fail to block them whenever and wherever they occur – like undermining our election system by slowing mail delivery 

 we still carry within us the false belief that “let someone else do it – I don’t care to get involved” is a viable choice for a citizen; citizen rights are well-defined, but citizen responsibilities are not 

 our public education system is failing to ameliorate any of these deficits 

 we do not understand the depth and breadth of the damage done by the Trump administration to either our democratic structures like supply lines, schools, law enforcement or immigration, or to our principles like an unbiased judicial system and equal opportunity for all. 

Trump leaves office on January 20, 2021. Trumpers will be hanging around in every nook and cranny of our complicated federal system, including the federal courts for at least another 50-60 years in some cases. We must not ignore their presence or their mischief. De-construction of our representative system is still their goal. 

 Get prepared to meet their challenges and to stand firm against their non-constitutional values.