#102 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Wednesday July 28)
Good morning,
THE DEPLORABLES
I initially thought that Hillary Clinton was unfair in her designation of certain folks on the other side of the 2016 election as “deplorables.” But then I started to think…
Hillary was right on the term but wrong on the target. While there is a lot to be said against the conspiracy theorists, those marching on the Michigan state house, the nasty and racist sentiment and the seething anger erupting into violence, I’m not sure these people are as much deplorable as they are uneducated, ill-informed, or feel themselves trapped by their beliefs and their lots in life.
The true deplorables, to my mind, are the ones who should know better. There is a cottage industry of people fanning the fires of the “big lie,” that the 2020 election was stolen and/or the result of multiple massive ballot frauds in multiple states, all unproven and yet all presumably coordinated efforts to thwart the “correct” result (but without a single recantation or deathbed confession). Most of these people are lawyers and lawmakers.
I have always held the legal profession in high regard. I still believe the quaint idea that the law is all that separates us from mob rule, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, anarchy and, perhaps, warfare with an external foe or among ourselves. When I was admitted to the bar, I actually believed that lawyers were subject to the highest of standards—obligated as officers of the court not only to zealously represent their clients, but to do so within the confines of rules, practice and decorum. Importantly, the rulings of courts and the generations of case law, together with the sanctity of our institutions of democracy, were above reproach, to be defended, protected and explained to others.
We speak often about access to higher education to be one of the key determinants of economic success and social mobility. But with the increased opportunity for such success, we as a society have a right to demand ethical, informed behavior consistent with the standards of a chosen profession. When we admit students to institutions of higher learning, we are clearing a path for them to be the arbiters of important decisions that come with such education—in other words, there is a duty, a responsibility, associated with the degree they receive. We educate people in any number of disciplines and expect these people to become our “proxies” in areas in which they are experts. We would never allow an engineer to design something that does not meet applicable tests for acceptable stress. We would not want a physician spending years of medical school and residency to then go forth and conduct their own experiments on patients, or willingly neglect to apply accepted standards of practice in caring for their patients.
So, if we hold these other professionals to the standards of their professions, why not those educated in the law, history, philosophy, American Studies and other similar disciplines? Should they not bear witness to the events occurring around us and provide meaningful, helpful input and guidance, based upon their education, their knowledge, and their critical analysis? In the light of the over 50 lawsuits decided against Mr. Trump and his band of sycophants, did they learn so little as to not be able to come to grips with the lack of evidence? Can they not articulate to their followers that courts of appropriate jurisdiction have ruled and the effect those rulings should have on our judgment of the election? Can they not “translate” for John Q. Public the nature of the election disputes in Michigan, Arizona, and Georgia, and the actions taken by the election officials in those states that validated the election results? And can they not now point out the cravenness and absurdity of modifying elections practices to allow that election officials—ostensibly non-political figures—no longer be the arbiters of compliance but instead empower a political body (the legislature) with such powers? Remember that the people with whom the Trumpists and conspiracy theorists within the lock-step Republican anti-democratic machine are most upset are (a) a Republican Secretary of State in Georgia, (b) a Republican election commissioner in Michigan, and (c) a Republican controlled Arizona legislature. Is not the irony worth exploration?
The bottom line is that each of these elected representatives and lawyers, in so flaunting the law and coming out publicly denying the merit of the judicial decisions and state election results, are no less than criminals. They attended our greatest institutions, often with federal and state aid, obtained degrees and are licensed by their states (at least the lawyers are), and they have a duty to the system and to us. Yet they have failed in that duty and, in so failing, have left themselves for all to see for the people of bad intent, self-aggrandizement, and political opportunism that they are. They are deplorable for these reasons and more.
The grave danger of these traitors to the Constitution and the rule of law is the corrosive and destructive message delivered to our citizens and, most importantly, to our children. They are playing games with the facts and playing fast and loose with the faith that our people have in their legal system, their Congress and their country. And they do this based on specious arguments that have been refuted by multiple judges and election officials—all unable to unearth any evidence of wrongdoing. Their arguments of a stolen election are validating a growing disdain for our institutions—at a time when we should most be looking to precedent and these very institutions to provide the guard rails for the orderly management of our democracy and the peaceful transition between administrations. But they don’t care for our institutions, for our values, for the sanctity of our elections, or for the sanctity and the finality of decisions within our judicial system. It is all about the quest for power and if that means misleading people and lying, they will do anything.
Physicians take the Hippocratic Oath, pledging to “first, do no harm.” It seems so simple. These people who have been supported by our nation, trained by our institutions and granted license to practice law should be held at least to this standard. Yet it seems that many are rushing to do as much harm as possible. They are deplorable.
Best, Glenn
Click here to subscribe to Musings.
From the archives: