This is another crack at an editorial that never took off. I was teaching Norman and Plantagenet England at the University of Richmond and the Plantagenet portion spoke to me in a way it hadn’t theretofore. President Supersize Me was much on my mind because of his “acquittal” in the impeachment trial early in February 2020. Henry III of England seemed a little “Trumpy” to me in ways big and small; moreover, the sense of limited executive authority as understood by Simon de Montfort and the rebelling barons, to say nothing of their courage and commitment to their cause, offered a counterpoint to the behavior of the national GOP, a contrast further sharpened by subsequent events.
I put a thing together and sent it to a couple of outlets (The Washington Post, The Virginian-Pilot), who passed on it but were nice about it.
A Medieval Presidency?
2020 seems to have completed President Trump’s seduction of the Republican Party. The unwillingness of GOP senators and representatives to rebuke Trump in the impeachment process for disregarding rule of law, violation of constitutional principles, and flouting of political norms was telling. Now congressional Republicans largely stand aside while the president removes inspectors general, interferes in judicial processes, smears his predecessor with baseless conspiracy theories, and employs the military against peaceful protestors.
A cottage industry devoted to finding historical analogies for Trump’s misbehavior has emerged. Does he belong with the twentieth century’s totalitarian despots or does his clownishness place him alongside tin-pot dictators of banana republics? Or is he a throwback to the Ur-tyrant of the American mind, England’s George III?
One of George’s medieval predecessors may be a more apposite historical precursor. Henry III (r. 1216-72) was the successor to John of Magna Carta fame and father of Edward I, the Longshanks, the opponent of Braveheart’s William Wallace. Henry had exaggerated personal qualities. He loved sumptuous living and was enchanted by construction projects. He built castles and palaces and rebuilt and enlarged Westminster Abbey, all the while fussing over furnishings. He judged character poorly and surrounded himself with foreign favorites, to his English barons’ displeasure. He took advice only from a small, intimate circle except when he dispensed even with this and made decisions unilaterally. His autocratic tendencies were barely concealed.
His arbitrariness and profligacy reached a crisis when he agreed to purchase the kingdom of Sicily for his younger son. Unable to raise enough money, he asked his barons for an extraordinary tax. This request engendered baronial resistance led by his brother-in-law Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester. The barons compelled Henry to accede under oath – a grave commitment in the medieval mind – to the Provisions of Oxford (1258). Henry was obliged to consult a council of barons on state matters and to “parlay” three times a year with a larger council in a “parliament.” The immediate crisis passed, Henry voided his promise and left his opponents with little choice but to submit or fight. The barons bested Henry at Lewes (1264). Henry and his son Edward were captured, the latter made hostage to ensure the king’s good behavior. Simon and the barons became England’s de facto rulers for fifteen months.
Political poems reflecting the baronial viewpoint appeared, the most famous perhaps “The Song of Lewes.” The “Song” underscores how a king must govern for the community’s benefit and honor the rule of law: “We give first place to the community; we say also that the law rules over the king’s dignity; for we believe that the law is the light, without which. . .he who rules will wander from the right path. . .” The poem’s broader community was the king’s natural counsellor: “Therefore let the community of the kingdom advise; let it be known what the generality [of the people] thinks to whom their own laws are best known.” Indeed, the leader’s submission to the law would not weaken but ennoble him: “And this constraint [of a free law] is not one of slavery but is rather an enlarging of the kingly faculty. . .” The “Song” emphasizes where the ruler’s focus should be: “And let the king never set his private interest before that of the community. . .” “He who does not know how to rule himself will be a bad ruler over others. . .” The “Song” leaves a disquieting impression: The barons, many of them little more than semi-literate armed thugs, surpassed the Solons of today’s GOP in understanding rule of law and separation and balance of powers.
The story has a coda. Edward broke his confinement, rallied his father’s supporters, and defeated the barons at Evesham (1265). Simon died in battle and his corpse was hewn to pieces. For the earl’s supporters, his remains became sanctified and the field where he perished hallowed ground. Miracle-stories spread. Henry could not abide this and in the Dictum of Kenilworth (1265) mandated that “[t]he injurious damnable acts of Simon and his accomplices. . .are nullified and have no force” and that “the vain and fatuous miracles told of him by others shall not at any time pass any lips. And that the king shall agree strictly to forbid this under pain of corporal punishment.” Simon’s rectitude, courage, and commitment to good governance were “fake news” to be suppressed. Henry had learned no lesson, though at least the barons had tried to instruct him. Would that the same could be said of today’s GOP. The Republican Party seems capable only of narrowly transactional impulses. Its abdication of its responsibility to the community leaves that community of voters to restrain Trump by every legal means and to ensure his departure from office.
[1] “The Song of Lewes,” in E. Amt (ed.), Medieval England 1000-1500: A Reader (Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, 2001), pp. 253-61.
[2] “The Miracles of Simon de Montfort,” in E. Amt and K. Allen Smith (eds), Medieval England 500-1500: A Reader, 2nd ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2018), pp. 248-50. “Dictum of Kenilworth 1265,” The National Archives (www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/magna-carta/dictum-of-kenilworth/ [accessed 16 February 2020]).
I continued my survey of the Bluegrass’s print journalism in late September 2019. The Ukraine story was developing by the hour and dominated cable news. The (Elizabethtown) News-Enterprise, a regional daily, approached the story unconventionally. By picking up an Associated Press story by Dmytro Vlasov and presenting no other coverage, the only news its readers received was that the Ukrainian president was miffed by the release of the written record of his conversation with President CrowdStrike. The accumulating substance of the affair wasn’t mentioned. Welcome to the “news” in Red State America, I suppose. To The (Elizabethtown) News-Enterprise’s credit, it printed my critique of its news judgement.
Dmytro Vlasov, “Ukrainian Leader Bristles at Release of Trump Transcript,” The (Elizabethtown) News-Enterprise, 27 September 2019, A6; Associated Press, 26 September 2019 (https://subscriber.thenewsenterprise.com/node/426409/, ). The above link leads to the e-edition of article in The (Elizabethtown) News Enterprise. Access to this is likely limited by the newspaper’s paywall. If the paper posted an online version of this article, its search engine is unable to locate it. The following link is to the Associated Press’s online version (https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-ap-top-news-international-news-joe-biden-politics-6454968c0e3642b59ffbece30abeefd4).
“Questions Selection of Ukrainian Story,” The (Elizabethtown) News-Enterprise, 7 October 2019, A6 (www.thenewsenterprise.com/opinon/letters_to_editor/letters-to-the-editor-oct/article_0ef65466-8050-5176-8371-7cb1944d53f4.html).
By the time I departed for the biannual hajj to the Bluegrass, The Gaslighter in Chief’s conduct had become so egregious that Nancy Pelosi could no longer temporize on doing something about it. I had my customary I-64 sleepover in Lexington and bought a copy of The Lexington Herald-Leader. The paper had picked up The New York Times’ reporting by Nicholas Fandos on the speaker’s announcement of the opening of an impeachment inquiry regarding President Perfect Conservation’s alleged shakedown of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. I did a riff on Representative Adam Schiff’s soliloquy regarding what is “okay.” The Lexington Herald-Leader was not sufficiently amused to print it.
Nicholas Fandos, “House Opens Impeachment Inquiry of President Trump,” The Lexington Herald-Leader, 25 September 2019, 1A, 2A (www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/us/politics/democrats-impeachment-trump.html). If Lexington Herald-Leader posted an online version of this article, its search engine is unable to locate it. The link above is to the version that appeared the The New York Times.
This past week’s torrent of events demands an updating of Representative Adam Schiff’s litany of questions to his colleagues on the House Intelligence Committee on 28 March. The GOP members of the House and Senate should ask themselves whether it is okay that a president’s personal attorney dabble in foreign affairs outside of official channels. Is it okay that a president pressure a foreign head of state to gather and perhaps even to concoct damaging information on a domestic political opponent? Is it okay that a president, whether tacitly or explicitly, dangle the provision of congressionally appropriated assistance as a carrot or the withholding of it as a stick to compel the head of state to bow to his wishes? Is it okay that a White House flout the whistleblower statutes and stonewall Congress in its performance of responsible oversight of the executive branch? Would any of this be okay if done by any Democratic president or White House, past or future? The nation waits and watches. It is a sad reality that the GOP’s answer may already be easily enough guessed.
Is it any surprise that Victor Davis Hanson, as a personal project, endeavors to perpetuate a hoary conservative fable: Socialism is precisely equivalent to rule by Mao, Lenin, Stalin, and Castro and even uttering the word socialist will transform the US of A into Venezuela overnight. “The gentleman doth protest to much, methinks.” Hyperventilation such as Mr. Hanson’s says one thing to me: His fear is not that a more expansive safety new won’t work but that it will. The Richmond Times-Dispatch printed this response to Mr. Hanson.
Victor Davis Hanson, “Historical Ignorance: Why Socialism and Why Now?” The Richmond Times-Dispatch, 30 August 2019, A9 (www.providencejournal.com/opinion/20190831/my-turn-victor-davis-hanson-why-socialism-and-why-now). If The Richmond Times-Dispatch posted an online version of this article, its search engine is unable to locate it. The link above is to the version that appeared the The Providence Journal.
“Hanson Offered Outdated Analysis of Socialism,” The Richmond Times-Dispatch, 7 September 2019, A10 (https://richmond.com/opinion/letters-to-editor/letters-to-the-editor-sept-7-2019-drug-price-discrepancy-infuriates-reader/article_24217b96-d6da-5b7e-bcd7-be6acf1a4ca0.html). (Scroll down).
It was another Fourth of July weekend in Portsmouth-Norfolk, so there were editions of The Virginian-Pilot to read. In a letter written to respond to another letter, a gentleman named Ed Harvey defended the Electoral College’s antidemocratic bent. Mr. Harvey seemingly suffers existential dread of being ruled by California and was unconcerned with the distorting effects of the Electoral College on the heft of the individual ballot from state to state. One must wonder whether Mr. Harvey would feel the same if Ronald Reagan were still ensconced in the Golden State’s executive mansion. Cue the Dead Kennedys’ “California Über Alles.” The Virginian-Pilot didn’t print my explication of the Electoral College’s perverse math.
Ed Harvey, “Thank Founders for Electoral College,” The Virginian-Pilot, 4 July 2019, 12 (www.pilotonline.com/opinion/letters/article_aed183e8-9d08-11e9-9483-7bd082037a0b.html).
Behind Ed Harvey’s support for the Electoral College’s anointing of Donald Trump as president in 2016 lurks a morass of undemocratic assumptions. Mr. Harvey blithely casts aside the ideal of one person, one vote without explaining why a vote cast in California should have only one third the value of one cast in Wyoming, the product of the Electoral College’s distorting impact on democracy. Is Mr. Harvey pleased that a vote cast in our own Commonwealth likewise had only a third of the weight of a Wyoming vote? (“Population vs. Electoral Votes,” FairVote [https://www.fairvote.org/population_vs_electoral_votes]).
Mr. Harvey’s apparent embrace of minority rule is troubling in an age of efforts to distort yet further electoral outcomes through high-tech gerrymandering, voter suppression, manipulation of social media, and meddling by malign foreign powers.
Mr. Harvey should bear in mind that the arc of the nation’s history bends toward the forging of a more inclusive democracy, whether through the Thirteenth Amendment (abolition of slavery), the Fourteenth (Black suffrage), the Seventeenth (direct election of Senators), the Nineteenth (women’s suffrage), or the Twenty-Sixth (suffrage for eighteen-year-olds). The Electoral College has subverted the will of the majority twice in the past two decades. Wouldn’t any thinking citizen want every voter to have an equal say in the outcome of the democratic process? Or are we to assume that Mr. Harvey’s attitude toward the Electoral College would be less sanguine if it had yielded a different result in 2016?
The Grey Lady failed to smile again, this time by proxy. June of 2019 found me in the Golden West and The (San Jose) Mercury News had picked up a David Brooks column. It’s difficult not to wonder whether Mr. Brooks assumes that no reader recalls who William F. Buckley Jr. was. Mr. Man-and-God-at-Yale was many things; a paragon of tolerance wasn’t one of them.
David Brooks, “The Generation Gap and the Imminent GOP Apocalypse,” The (San Jose) Mercury News, 5 June 2019, A7 (www.nytimes.com/2019/06/03/opinion/republicans-generation-gap.html). If The Mercury News posted an online version of this article, its search engine is unable to locate it. The link above is to the version in The New York Times.
David Brooks correctly diagnoses the demographic and electoral buzzsaw into which the GOP is pushing itself through its stance on “immigration, diversity, (and) pluralism,” but he misses the mark on two points. Progressive multiculturalism is in no wise pessimistic. It merely recognizes that the sine qua non for redemption, whether for individual or society, is acknowledgment of and contrition for past misdeeds, something Mr. Brooks, with his boundless capacity for moralizing, surely understands.
Mr. Brooks, moreover, does not acknowledge how a calculated brand of intolerance has been inextricably woven into the Republican Party’s DNA since the adoption of the “Southern strategy.” The GOP has no credibility to assert an “optimistic multiculturalism.” It is rich that Mr. Brooks mentions in this context his “mentor” William F. Buckley Jr., a man whose homophobia is enshrined on videotape (see Gore Vidal) and whose racial attitudes cannot withstand cursory scrutiny.
In the beforetimes, when the coronavirus was just a gleam in a pangolin’s eye, I took in the odd concert. Richmond has a wonderful venue, the National, where I’ve attended many shows. The National has a sister venue – the NorVa – and I found myself in Portsmouth-Norfolk in May 2019 for a double bill: The Last Internationale (awesome!) and Tom Morello (transcendent!). It was an evening of music to move my pale white booty along with politics to take to the street. Check both out, if you haven’t.
While in town, I sampled the region’s local paper, The Virginian-Pilot. A letter in it defended the inclusion of a citizenship question in the 2020 census. The newspaper took a pass on the letter I sent. The census remains vexing. The worst efforts to skew it – the citizenship question, President Id Personified’s call to purge the undocumented from the numbers used for reapportionment of legislative seats – were thwarted; nevertheless, the pandemic likely ensured a flawed count that will serve right-wing interests.
Maurice F. Conner, “Citizenship Status Is Needed,” The Virginian-Pilot, 16 May 2019, 12 (www.pilotonline.com/opinion/letters/article_6b097382-772e-11e9-bb92-cbbec9217c7c.html).
Maurice Connor (The Virginian-Pilot, 16 May 2019, 12) rightly calls for Congress to address immigration reform and decries President Trump’s divisive rhetoric but he misreads the reasons why the citizenship question will potentially reappear in the 2020 Census after having been deemed unnecessary and counterproductive more than a half century ago.
There is no legal requirement that the census ask about citizenship. The Constitution mandates that the census count people, not citizens, because the nation has always been home to multitudes of non-citizens, documented and undocumented. The Census Bureau estimates that the question will reduce participation by non-citizens by 5.1 percent and cause an undercount of 6.5 million.[1]
Far more troubling is the probability that the resurrection of the citizenship question was politically motivated. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who initially asserted that the question arose from a Justice Department request, conceded last October that he had discussed the matter with then Trump adviser Steve Bannon, who encouraged Ross to contact Kris Kobach, [2] the Kansas secretary of state infamous for efforts to disqualify voters and for leadership of Trump’s farcical voter fraud commission. Beyond any dishonesty by Ross in congressional testimony, the question’s origin smacks at best of an attempt at demographic gerrymandering and at worst of the pursuit of alt-right, anti-immigrant policies through the vehicle of the census.
The Supreme Court should not permit Trump and his minions to corrupt yet another institution by politically weaponizing it.
[1] Dana Milbank, “Saving White Hegemony in Four Little Steps,” The Washington Post, 24 April 2019, A21 (www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-census-case-presents-how-to-preserve-white-hegemony-in-four-easy-steps/2019/04/23/ef2b6712-660b-11e9-82ba-fcfeff232e8f_story.html).
[2] Glenn Thrush and Adam Liptack, “Wilbur Ross Changes Story on Discussion of Citizenship Question in Census,” The New York Times, 12 October 2018 (www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/us/politics/wilbur-ross-commerce-census-citizenship.html).
Drat, Grey Lady. Have you no sense of humor? This may be the blog’s shortest entry. The boy scout for all seasons, James Comey, wrote an opinion regarding The Spray Tan Man as the eater of souls. The obvious point Mr. Comey missed is that the already soulless need not fret.
James Comey, “How Trump Co-opts Leaders Like Barr,” The New York Times, 2 May 2019, A25 (www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/opinion/william-barr-testimony.html).
James Comey’s explication of how President Trump corrupts and reduces those around him is well taken. However, Attorney General William Barr’s conduct suggests his soul was well masticated before he entered the administration and Mr. Trump devoured whole what little remained of it.
Muddying the findings of the Mueller report became a cottage industry in GOP World. If obfuscation is the game, who better to enlist than Victor Davis Hanson? Ever the good soldier, he applied himself with gusto to a willful misreading – if there was a reading – of the Special Counsel’s conclusions. This was not a difficult letter to write, since George Terwilliger III had served as Mr. Hanson’s warmup act.
Victor Davis Hanson, “Progressives Face a Bleak Post-Mueller Landscape,” The Richmond Times-Dispatch, 10 May 2019, A9; Yahoo, 9 May 2019 (https://news.yahoo.com/progressives-face-bleak-post-mueller-103001666.html). If The Richmond Times-Dispatch posted an online version of this article, its search engine is unable to locate it. The link above is to the version that appeared on Yahoo.
“Hanson Misrepresents Mueller Report Findings,” The Richmond Times-Dispatch, 16 May 2019, A10 (https://richmond.com/opinion/letters-to-editor/letters-to-the-editor-may-16-2019-hanson-misrepresents-mueller-report-findings/article_26be70e6-9913-57d2-88a5-e83a1a4b74ca.html).
Former Attorney General William Barr had his defenders. Whether Thorazine should be prescribed to address their sapiential disarrangement and their tenuous contact with reality makes for good cocktail conversation. Maybe they’re just cynical and dishonest. Whatever the case, onetime acting Attorney General George T. Terwilliger III’s portrayal of William Barr as a paragon of rectitude and the lion of rule of law was perhaps the zenith of Barr apologetics. Then again, Mr. Terwilliger’s balletic skirting of inconvenient, displeasing facts is perhaps a primer on the genesis of the proclivities fueling Trumpism. The Former Fabricator in Chief is not the aberration that GOP worthies would have everyone believe he is. A letter was sent to The Washington Post.
George Terwilliger III, “Barr Acted by the Book,” The Washington Post, 19 April 2019, A15 (www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/william-barr-did-this-nation-a-great-service-he-shouldnt-be-attacked/2019/04/18/a2e83760-6221-11e9-9412-daf3d2e67c6d_story.html).
“Fallout from the Mueller Report,” The Washington Post, 24 April 2019, A22 (www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-mueller-report-is-out-now-what/2019/04/23/cbcaab9a-6537-11e9-a698-2a8f808c9cfb_story.html).