Part III THE RESPONSE
The Fundamental Conundrum
(Thoughts at the Finish of Rob Reiner’s Podcast,
“Who Killed JFK?” 1/24/24)
As Rob Reiner said towards the end, it is probably less important now to determine with certitude the names of the individuals who fingered the triggers than to consider the larger implications of the facts of a plot and of a cover-up. The conclusion that he reached was that it was not the CIA, or the Mafia, or the anti-Castro activist network, but rogue elements within these groupings.
This writer is no student of the now 60-year-old controversy. I have no skin in that game beyond personal memories of where I was when I heard, and of seeing the televised shooting by Jack Ruby of the in-custody, alleged suspect. So, beyond affirming that Reiner’s presentation is persuasive on its face without verifying the truth of the facts and documents that he reports, his conclusions are not my subject.
My thoughts are two-fold as to topics. The second is on Conspiracy Theories, pro and con. The first is on the fundamental conundrum in the quest to preserve USAmerican democracy. That quest requires first a common acknowledgement of the basic sine-qua-nons of USAmerican democracy.
1) All humans of USAmerica were born politically equal, neither master nor servant.
2) Political authority lies with the People of USAmerica collectively. Through the US Constitution and the several State Constitutions, the People have ceded certain portions of their political autonomy to certain established offices and departments of government to manage and operate the functions of government on their behalf.
3) Further, the People collectively have chosen from amongst themselves certain individuals for defined periods of time to do the work of government on their (the People’s) behalf.
4) Those individuals so chosen—especially those directly or indirectly chosen by election to high offices of responsibility for making and effectuating decisions of policy—remain responsible to the collective People (the Public) to give account as to what they have done and the reasons for their so doing.
5) The human person falls short of any ideal. All of us are fallible and corruptible. Therefore, effective measures must be in place to check those weaknesses from gaining traction within the halls of government.
This, of course, is my opinion on the quintessential heart of our compound republican democracy. To pass it over the flame one more time, I might distill it to this briefer version:
Because We have accepted by our Constitution that all are born politically equal, neither master nor servant, political authority in this country rests with the People of the United States. The individuals whom the People, whether directly or indirectly, invest with governing authority and power remain responsible to the People to account for their decisions and their actions. The Nation’s (i.e., the People’s) allegiance is or properly ought to be to each other and to our Constitutional principles and institutions, not to the individuals temporarily holding office. They deserve only our watchful gratitude—or opprobrium.
So now to my topic 1: The fundamental conundrum in the perpetual quest to preserve US democracy.
Of all the categories of character flaw to alarm the Framers, they cast their most caustic expressions on ambition—the love of, the desire for, power. Descendants of 5,000-plus years of monarchical rule, they knew the equation between Monarch and subject. They understood that that passion burns hot within certain persons. They recognized it for the Arrogance it is, the self-regard that exalts oneself to pre-eminence among all others. They knew it to be a flaw for all time and all societies, from Pharaonic Egypt to Marco Polo’s China; from East India Company encounters in south and southeast Asia to Montezuma and the indigenes of the New World. They knew that its dynamic force once lighted becomes a flame eternal until snuffed by death, natural or bloody. They knew its methods—deceive, distract, divide, and rule. They knew it as a moral flaw because its unjustifiable presumption manifests the iniquitous inequity encased in the attitude, that MY desires matter without regard for their consequences to you.
The Framers also knew and acknowledged that the weakness of democracy lay precisely in the internal bickering to which it is so highly susceptible. The bickering they understood to be a natural trait of the human condition, of itself neither good nor evil but a mere expression of differing opinions, tastes, desires, temperaments, interests, abilities, conditions, occasionally rising to actual conflict, more often merely annoying or confounding. Who of us, fortunate enough to have grown up in a relatively stable family, has not learned this lesson, that we differ from one another. Our siblings, our cousins, our parents, aunts, and uncles differ from one another. But familiarity gained through shared family experience educates us to understand that there is more to a person than any one expression. Even those of us who learned from family members that loving acceptance was not always the default attitude recognized that abuse within the family is a complicated matter.
Madison articulated this notion and its consequences: As long as our human reason continues fallible and we are at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection persists between our reason and our self-regard, our opinions and our passions will exert a reciprocal influence, such that our opinions become objects to which our passions attach themselves. Hence, the natural bickering of the human condition.[18]
Jefferson elevated to the highest level of morality the innate right of us all to our opinions:
The opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds;
Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; (Witness Alexei Navalny.)
our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than [on] our opinions in physics or geometry;
the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction;
truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless [she is] by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate;
errors ceas[e] to be dangerous when [we are] permitted freely to contradict them.[19]
And Madison again: So strong is the propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities that when no substantial occasion presents itself the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.[20]
And Hamilton: Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.[21]
They knew all this from study of history and from observation and experience, especially in political contexts. They had, after all, succeeded in arguably the second greatest political act—overthrowing the rule of a government they could no longer abide. They so far had failed, in 1787, in the greatest of political acts—forming atop their visionary principles a governmental structure that could endure the slings and arrows of outrageous humanity. Seventy-three years later, their effort was mortally challenged by a four-year Civil War. One hundred fifty-nine years after this country survived that catastrophe, we seem once again to be facing another.
The kernel, the corcle, of the visionary principle was their recognition that all humans shared the same desire to choose their own life’s course, to hold their own beliefs, to form their own network of friendships and relations. The slings and arrows were recognized to be the consequence of our all-too-common failure to remember the principle as extending to others. “Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.”
Reason and justice. Reason—if for all, then for each and every one. Justice—as for one, so for every one. Union—the aggregate community; one family, whether you like them all or not, whether you agree with them all or not; the collective People, the Nation of USAmericans.
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation (under God), indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” That allegiance passes through the emblem, the flag, through the country, the United States of America, through its republican form of governance, which is of, by, and for the People, to the one Nation, its collective People, whether in 1832, 1952, or 2072. Our allegiance is to each other, including those yet to come.
Our identity as USAmericans is and ought to be found in the political proposition that all humans are created equal, because without that we none of us have any basis to hope for the Blessings of Liberty. Disagree to your heart’s content, but do not disparage (make unequal) others of the family. Do call out those who act or speak to disparage. Resent their efforts to flatter your self-regard as more worthy than another’s. Those efforts intend to divide you from your strength, to cut off your hair and thus so to weaken you that you can be chained. Deceive. Distract. Divide and Rule.
The fundamental conundrum in the quest to preserve USAmerican democracy is just that—a conundrum. How can we expect to preserve our democracy when we cannot agree on anything and we don’t even like each other? We must internalize the fact that Democracy is a political concept and politics is the never-ending effort to live with one another. The fact of our USAmerican Democracy is the sole fact common to us all who are USAmericans, regardless of how or when we came to be USAmericans.
The political concept centers on the equal right of each and every one of us to lead our private lives according to our own opinions, inclinations, and capacities as we see fit—short of depriving others of the same right; AND on the provision of orderly, peaceable processes to resolve conflicts that will inevitably arise, wherefore we agree to certain restrictions on our actions.
The political concept centers on the absolute right in the collective People of this country to the authority of power. The United States of America is a crowd-sourcing governmental structure. We don’t make or enforce or adjudicate the laws; but we choose people and authorize them to do so on our behalf. And we tell them whether we approve of what they do or how they are doing it.
The political concept centers on the failure of perfection in each and every one of us, and on the need to prevent the mis-use or abuse of power invested in any one of us. Vigilance, constant and redundant vigilance, with the expectation of correcting or removing bad actors when discovered.
The political concept centers on the effort required of us to teach each rising generation the fantastic fortune of fantastic freedom offered by the Framers; that it will never be perfect because it is a human endeavor; that nevertheless it remains the last, best hope for challenging the ills that afflict us.
The political concept centers on the expectation that the country and the Nation will grow over the decades, perhaps centuries, perhaps even eons, as more people from away are attracted to the beckoning prospect of a free life securely lived. Those PFAs will want help to understand that their new identity as USAmericans is precisely to be found in their allegiance to the political construct which is this country. Or perhaps, more often, they will help to remind US of that perception.
The Long Clasp 