The Spirit of '76....

I am 76 years old. According to my doctor, I am blessed to be hale and healthy with no serious physical threats on the horizon.* I exercise regularly, daily if your definition of “mixed cardio” is generous enough. I continue to be mentally active, reading, writing, thinking critically. I’m confident I could complete multiple tasks in my skill set. 

But probably no more than one or three in the same day, depending on their complexity. And I certainly don’t have the stamina or mental agility to be President of the United States. Or President of Anything. Those leadership days, however limited they were “back in the day,” are clearly in my rear view mirror. Actually, cataracts have diminished even that clarity, although I’m assured that can be fixed. Someday. I’m not happy about any of this, it frustrates me on an almost daily basis, but (I like to think) I’m a pragmatic realist who tries to place mindfulness over denial; thus, “it is what it is,” to co-opt the cliché. 

The point (“The boy does ramble,** doesn’t he?”) is that I strongly support adding (upper) age limits to the Constitution. Not just for President, which is the most important, but for all listed offices, including the Supreme Court. 

I do not deny that we will force some competent, experienced men and women out of jobs they are more than capable of doing, especially because they all have minions. No doubt institutional memory may take a hit. Youthful vigor and new ideas/ways of thinking seem to be a worthwile tradeoff, to me. We already keep talented young men and women out of offices due to age now, as well, so I’m okay with paying that price. 

In fact, I believe age limits is a more important delimiter than term limits, although I’m coming around to supporting that as well, if only because it would, eventually, serve more or less the same function. Presidents are already term-limited, but we have seen both major candidates (and other leaders) exhibit innumerable examples of declining mental acuity over the past few years that should give any objective voter pause.

Do not expect the establishment to jump on this bandwagon, of course. Giving up power (and wealth and prestige) is an uncommon sacrifice. But if there’s a petition out there, sign me up.

* Of course, because I trust him and pay him lots of money, I also follow my doctor’s advice on things like medical tests, lifestyle recommendations, vaccines, etc. iI I don’t trust my doctor to give me good advice, I probably need a new doctor, right?

** NOT age-related, as many witnesses will attest.

The USA Needs You (And who is "You"?)

I had an exchange with one of my right-leaning (well, in his case, it’s clearly more proudly living than leaning) formers on Facebook.  He is a self-described Constitutionalist who could not abide Obama’s politics or Clinton’s character (I’m sure her political positions didn’t help, either). He was and is, a stand-up member of the brass division, although not the Trumpet section, even if he did vote for him, with at least some misgivings, it seemed.

Instead of adding on to our conversational thread after we had found some common ground, I thought I’d generalize the challenge I thought about leaving with him, in the hopes there are enough more like him to make a difference. Just call me Pollyanna. Here’s what I wanted to add:

We (the Clinton voters and/or liberals), but more importantly, the country, need you to stand up for us and challenge President Trump when he (as he will) tries to blatantly ignore the Constitution. We need you to challenge him when he makes up facts (like the recent Boeing kerfuffle) or reinforces his reputation as the “Fastest Tweet in the West.” We need you to ask thoughtful questions when he makes head-scratching appointments to his cabinet or other federal positions.

We can’t do it (try as we might, and some are trying mightily) because as soon as someone like me opines anything critical of the president-elect, the Trumpet section blares into a cacophonic crescendo of defensiveness. But Pollyanna here does have some (slim) hopes that the true-believing Trumpet section perhaps just might listen to someone who actually voted for the man.

Stand up and be counted. Please. Your country needs you. Patriotism is not just flag waving. It is looking past partisan politics to the long-term good, the morality if you will, of your country. I like to think I am a patriot. Are you?

Wrong Side of History

I am posting this on both my blogs, because it has obvious Hancock roots and memories as well as the more obvious general application. (Slight) apologies to the Hancock Place Hancock Place followers if this has more political overtones than you are generally accustomed to seeing (t)here.

I noticed a FaceBook meme last week, pointing out that amidst all the celebration over American Olympic medals, there was little if any credit given to Title IX.

Talking to my softball girls the other day after practice, I noted that when I started teaching, there was only the GAA, a club for the “sporty” girls, but no interscholastic sports. The same was true when Carolyn attended Centralia HS – no Orphan Annies had she wished to play. Girls were limited to May Fete, a kind of dancing thing in white dresses around a May Pole. 

When forced indoors, my Tigers practiced in the “Girls Gym” (the one with the warped floor and no locker rooms and bleachers right next to the sidelines). One year I got permission to order new uniforms for the girls; the local sporting goods store ordered men’s slow pitch sleeveless uniforms. The huge (really huge, gigantic, biggest ever) arm slots were embarrassing. We rejected them and reordered from a company that specialized in women’s sports and equipment. 

In 1994 when it came time to select the St. Louis Post-Dispatch Scholar Athlete, there were two eminently worthy, 3-sport choices, ranked one and two in the class (only a B in one class separated them). Originally the coaching staff and administration picked the male candidate. “Obviously it’s --------------.” I dissented (not an uncommon position for me), despite the respect I had for the male candidate. “Ummm, [the female candidate] has a D-I scholarship offer and also played three sports, all at an exceptional level. This award is for an exceptional athlete who is also a (and in this case, also exceptional) scholar. Had the male had this resume, then it would be obvious. To my view, the choice is clear.” To the credit of the Athletic Director and others on the coaching staff, we rethought our choice and Hancock nominated the (IMO) most worthy candidate (of two almost equally worthy students).

Note, we had had previous female scholar athletes, so this is not intended as any kind of criticism of the coaching staff, administration, or process. In this case, however, the seeming tie at first went to the male, “obviously.”

My real point is this. Women’s sports did not progress because of the generosity of their male counterparts or because they recognized the long-standing inequality or sexism. Women’s sports and athletes progressed because people, mostly women, recognized their importance and worked and fought to create tools to elevate that status. When you were cheering the incredible accomplishments of the female athletes in Rio, you were also, like it or not, cheering for Title IX. Yes, that same Title IX that was decried, derided and disrespected by conservatives.

Those same conservatives also opposed (in their time, of course) declaring independence in 1775-76, the ratification of the Constitution in 1789, abolition in the mid 1800s, women’s suffrage in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries, integration of the armed forces in the 1940s and 50s, civil rights for African-Americans in the 1950s and 1960s, women’s rights (including Title IX) in the 70s and 80s, gay rights at the end of the 20^th century and beginning of the 21^st.... 

I understand that change is scary, that people want to keep the things the way they were. And conservatives play a vital role, forcing those who would rush, without sufficient thought, into change, because, The.Law.Of.Unintended.Consequences.  But (and I’ve never had anyone offer any kind of counterpoint, coherent or otherwise) conservatives have been on the wrong side of history for centuries. [Addendum: to be fair – I hate that – conservatives probably DO get credit for the Bill of Rights, but that was before compromise was a dirty word.] I’ve noted my disinclination and skepticism about labels, so I’m not claiming any particular one for myself, but I could never be a conservative (unless we’re talking about the environment, which I definitely want to conserve, and, ironically, some so-called conservatives seem to discount).

Filling the Void

I understand there is no joy in Mudville, that the mighty Scalia’s light’s gone out. Some of my conservative friends are just that, conservatives; others are outright Obama haters (if he died, they’d complain that he didn’t do it soon enough AND that he stuck them with Joe Biden). Assuming that the 2016 election result will be more to their liking, I understand them cursing their bad luck in the timing of Scalia’s involuntary departure.

I even understand the call to delay the appointment, at least from a political and philosophical perspective. But such a position is an epic fail of the smell test. You will never convince me that if the situation were reversed, that if it were the end of a conservative presidency facing the death of a liberal justice, there wouldn’t be screams of outrage and ridicule were liberals to call for delay. Senator Mitch McConnell had no trouble voting to confirm Anthony Kennedy in 1998, the last year of President Reagan in office.

Yes, I know that technically Kennedy was nominated in late 1997, but in terms of the timing for the sessions of the Supreme Court, the 2-3 month difference means nothing; he didn’t start hearing cases until the 1998 session, just as whomever Obama appoints won’t start hearing cases until the 2016 session, assuming Senate Republicans don’t subvert the process. If they do, it won’t be until 2017 that the court has a full roster and a whole year will be spent one justice short.

Again, I get politically why conservatives and Republicans might see this as a good thing. And I suppose it might be for them, but only in the short term. (Or maybe not – click this link.) It seems to me, however, that such a move increases the acceleration of the decline of people’s faith and confidence in a government that is supposed to serve the citizens, not whatever political party has power at the moment.

Such politics of convenience and expediency over principle would have offended even Justice Scalia, I think, because he was, himself, a man of principle. I disagreed with the foundation of his principle (original intent, or textualism, as he came to call it), and would suggest that the existence of the elastic clause in the Constitution provides evidence that the framers expected it to be a living document, that they recognized the country would grow and change in ways they could not imagine and that the government needed the flexibility to grow and change with it. That legacy was part of their genius. I also think he was imperfect and inconsistent on when he chose to apply that principle.

But principled he certainly was. The attempted perversion of the process for filling vacancies (purely for anticipated political gain) by those calling for delay is not.

The Ironic Argument of Birth

Let me be clear. I think Ted Cruz is something of an extremist maniac and would only vote for him in a forced choice between him and someone named Trump. Cruz is at least a more intelligent and less mean-spirited maniac.

I have always assumed the interpretation of the Constitution of “natural born citizen” to be universal and mean a person who was a citizen by birth. However, apparently there are some who question that, although it seems patently unfair and manifestly ridiculous to eliminate someone who was, for example, born to an American serviceman or woman or diplomat at a foreign hospital. It would also eliminate my brother (born in Belgium), although I think there are plenty of other disqualifiers in his case. But I doubt he would vote for me, either.

In any case, if this is the best shot Trump can take at Cruz (both being denizens of the same wing and attractive to [essentially] the same constituent demographic), he should bow out now, because it’s a weak argument, even if some Constitutional scholars argue to the contrary. 

But wait. If you agree that the birth argument against Cruz is bogus, but entertained that same argument (no matter how briefly) against Obama (even if he HAD been born in Kenya, an allegation disproved so often and thoroughly it’s absurd that so many continue to believe it over fact), check your irony meter.

Also, please note that the Constitution is now, and has always been, open to interpretation, from Day 1. Please keep that in mind when you start quoting Justice Scalia about “original intent.” Part of that brilliant document’s great strength is its flexibility as a living blueprint for our government, built to change with the times.  That, above all, in my view, is the supreme testament to the foresight of the founders who supported its creation.

You can’t have an argument both ways to fit your support of a candidate or issue, although I have no doubt some will try.