America in 2025: Democracy to Oligarchy (& Kakistocracy)

With the inauguration of convicted Felon Donald Trump today, we have to consider where we are at. And it does not look good. While some praise it as a New America. Something we have heard criminals claim at various times in the past, always proven to be untrue. Those like Joseph McCarthy with his "red scare" who, as with Trump, is just a calling of others to arms to empower himself, first and foremost. 

Donald Trump as POTUS47. It this the beginning of the end for us? Or the end of the beginning? Is this the beginning of an authoritarian America, or simply growing pains to strengthen America from ever again going down this anti-democratic and authoritarian path of disingenuity, disinformation, disruption, and destruction?

Kakistocracy. by the way, refers to a system of government in which the leaders are the least qualified, most corrupt, or most incompetent individuals available. The term comes from the Greek words kakistos (meaning "worst") and kratos (meaning "rule" or "power"), and it describes a government run by those who are corrupt, inept, or unfit to govern. In a kakistocracy, power is typically held by individuals who act in their own self-interest rather than for the benefit of the public, often leading to mismanagement, widespread corruption, and poor governance.

Why? Because this IS what (and who) Trump is, in nominating to lead our government institutions people lacking proper qualifications for their nominated positions. 

Why?

Putting unqualified individuals in positions of power and institutions can happen for a variety of reasons, often influenced by political, economic, or ideological factors. Here are a few common reasons why this might occur:

1. Political Patronage and Loyalty: In some cases, leaders or political parties may prioritize loyalty and personal connections over qualifications. Appointing friends, allies, or political supporters, regardless of their competence, helps maintain power and solidify political support. This can lead to positions being filled by individuals who lack the skills or knowledge required to perform effectively.

2. Ideological or Partisan Goals: Political leaders might appoint individuals who share their specific ideological or partisan views, even if they are not qualified for the role. The goal may be to advance a particular agenda rather than ensuring competent governance. This is often seen in the appointment of judges, agency heads, or other key figures in the administration.

3. Cronyism and Corruption: In some cases, the appointment of unqualified individuals is a result of cronyism or corruption. Individuals may be chosen because they are willing to engage in corrupt practices or because they offer financial or personal benefits to those in power. This often undermines the effectiveness and integrity of institutions.

4. Political and Business Influence: Large corporations, interest groups, or wealthy individuals may influence the appointment of unqualified people to positions of power to protect their own interests. By placing their allies in positions of influence, they can shape policies that benefit their business or financial goals, sometimes at the expense of public welfare.

5. Lack of Accountability: In some systems, especially those with weak checks and balances, leaders may be able to appoint unqualified individuals without facing significant public scrutiny or consequences. In such environments, there may be little to no pressure to ensure that the most qualified individuals are appointed to positions of power.

6. Short-Term Political Gains: Some leaders may prioritize short-term political or electoral gains over long-term governance and effectiveness. Appointing individuals who can mobilize a certain voter base, or who are seen as symbols of a particular movement, may be seen as more beneficial in the short run, even if they lack qualifications.

7. Ideological Disregard for Expertise: Some populist or anti-establishment movements deliberately place unqualified individuals in power as a rejection of traditional elites, experts, or institutions. This is often framed as a way to "drain the swamp" or challenge the establishment, though it can lead to ineffective governance.

In all these cases, the decision to place unqualified people in power can harm institutions, diminish the quality of governance, and erode public trust in the system. It may also result in poor decision-making and the mismanagement of critical issues, potentially leading to long-term damage to a country's political and economic health.

While some may believe that Donald Trump is saving them from our government (apparently by destroying it), it is an irrational and disreputable view regarding our most immoral (and effectively nearly our worst) POTUS...a convicted felon who was re-elected under circumstances of delusion and frankly, criminal intent. 

In presidential rankings, Abraham Lincoln rated #1. Barack Obama rated #10. Donald Trump...#41 out of our 46 presidents as of today (with tomorrow being convicted felon Donald Trump's inauguration as POTUS47.

The image above illustrates themes of power dynamics and collective action. It depicts a transformation from oppression to liberation: initially, a figure wields a whip over a submissive group, but the group eventually rises against the oppressor. The image suggests that solidarity and collective action can overpower tyranny.

In the context of the past 20 years in America, and particularly with the framing of Donald Trump as either a savior or a manipulator, interpretations vary depending on political alignment. But it's quite obvious to anyone paying close, or even distant attention (as with our friends worldwide) that Donald Trump is part of a tyrannical orientation with an easily uncovered disreputable career.

Conservative Perspective:

Many conservatives see Trump as the figure fighting against entrenched elites, "saving" the people from oppressive systems like "the swamp," big government, or globalist agendas. To them, Trump represents the individual who breaks the whip held by these powers. "Conservatism" today, is not what it once was. Or as it's still claimed to be.

While both forms of conservatism value national identity, personal liberty, and tradition, Trump’s conservatism has brought a more combative and populist tone to the forefront, often challenging the status quo and the institutions that traditional conservatism sought to preserve.

Opposing Perspective:

Critics argue that Trump himself embodies the authoritarian figure, concentrating power and leveraging divisive rhetoric to maintain control. From this perspective, his actions and policies (e.g., tax cuts for the wealthy, environmental deregulation, and alleged undermining of democratic norms) disproportionately serve elites rather than ordinary citizens, contradicting the notion of him as a liberator.

Overarching Theme:

The image underscores the potential for manipulation of collective belief systems. Trump's supporters might view themselves as the liberated group, but critics could argue that their alignment with Trump perpetuates systemic oppression under the guise of populist rhetoric. The image invites reflection on how leaders use narratives of "us versus them" to wield influence and whether true liberation is achieved or if the cycle of oppression continues under a different guise.

Pointing out how the objective view about Donald Trump is not a good one as he is a convicted felon and has been a lifelong and career criminal.

The claim that Donald Trump is a "convicted felon" is inaccurate as of now. While he has faced numerous legal challenges, including indictments and civil lawsuits, none have yet resulted in a felony conviction. However, he has been found liable in certain civil cases, including one involving sexual abuse and defamation. It is critical to distinguish between criminal convictions and civil liabilities when discussing his record.

That said, Trump has faced significant legal and ethical controversies over the years that invite scrutiny. Here's an objective overview of some of the major issues often cited by critics:

1. History of Fraud and Business Misconduct

• The Trump University case resulted in a $25 million settlement after allegations that the program defrauded students.
• The Trump Foundation was dissolved in 2019 following a lawsuit alleging misuse of charitable funds for personal and political purposes.
• Multiple contractors and employees have accused Trump of failing to pay for services rendered.

2. Tax and Financial Irregularities

• Trump was the first president in decades to refuse to release his tax returns voluntarily, raising questions about transparency.
• The New York Times' investigation into his taxes revealed years of aggressive tax avoidance, claiming substantial losses to offset income and paying little to no federal income tax in some years.

3. Criminal Indictments (2023–2024)

• Trump has been criminally indicted four times in connection with:
  • Classified documents case: Mishandling sensitive national security documents after leaving office.
  • 2020 election interference: Allegations of attempting to overturn election results in Georgia and on a federal level.
  • Stormy Daniels hush money case: Alleged falsification of business records to conceal payments.
  • January 6th Capitol attack: Charged for conspiring to defraud the United States, obstructing an official proceeding, and inciting insurrection.

4. Evasion of Accountability

• Critics argue that Trump's tactics often involve delaying and deflecting through lawsuits, appeals, and public attacks on institutions like the judiciary, FBI, and DOJ. This behavior erodes trust in the rule of law and democratic norms.

5. Ethical Concerns During His Presidency

• Emoluments clause violations: Accusations of profiting from the presidency by promoting his properties for official government and foreign delegations.
• Nepotism: Appointing his children and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to key advisory roles despite their lack of qualifications.
• Use of presidential power for personal gain: Pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden (which led to his first impeachment).

6. Patterns of Manipulation and Deception

• Trump has a documented history of making false or misleading statements, with fact-checkers counting tens of thousands during his presidency. Critics argue that his frequent use of misinformation undermines public trust.

7. Social and Political Impact

• Trump's divisive rhetoric has exacerbated polarization, emboldened extremist groups, and fueled distrust in democratic institutions.
• His role in the January 6th Capitol insurrection marked a low point in American democracy, with many viewing it as an attack on the peaceful transfer of power.

The Broader Implications

While Trump’s supporters delusionally view him as a fighter against corrupt elites (which he is himself), critics and most rational thinkers argue his actions consistently reflect self-interest, authoritarianism, and a disregard for democratic norms, the US Constitution, and the law.

Controversies surrounding Donald Trump and those from his inner circle, suggest patterns of prioritizing personal and political gains over accountability, ethical governance, or public service. To wit, a career of criminality and abuse.

With convicted felon Donald Trump's inauguration on Monday, January 20, 2025, a new era of America arises under the auspices of an authoritarian and convicted criminal as POTUS47. 

US institutions and the US Constitution, aside from the Department of Justice (recognizing its own failures in holding Trump accountable after he left office in 2021), politically swelter under the weight of the Trump crime organization, now being assimilated within the US Government as it reforms it from an oligarchy or plutocracy, with elements of kleptocracy, into a kakistocracy.

As of January 19, 2025, the most fitting description of the United States, based on current political and economic trends, could be oligarchy or plutocracy, with elements of kleptocracy and meritocracy also being relevant, depending on the specific issue being discussed.

• Oligarchy: Many critics of the U.S. system argue that power is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a small number of wealthy individuals, corporations, and interest groups, who influence policy through lobbying, campaign contributions, and media ownership. This has led to concerns that the government serves the interests of the elite rather than the general population, especially on issues like tax policy, healthcare, and corporate regulation.

• Plutocracy: With the growing influence of wealth in politics, such as the rise of super PACs, the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few individuals, and the outsized impact of billionaires on elections, the term "plutocracy" is often used to highlight the role that wealth plays in shaping political outcomes. This has raised concerns that economic inequality has reached levels where the rich can effectively control government policy.

• Kleptocracy: While the term "kleptocracy" generally refers to the outright theft of state resources for personal gain, there have been instances where government officials or business elites have been accused of corruption, embezzlement, and self-dealing, particularly in relation to issues like government contracts, tax policy, and regulatory capture. Critics of the current system sometimes use the term to suggest that corruption is pervasive at the highest levels of power.

• Meritocracy: Despite its ideal, the U.S. is increasingly criticized for not functioning as a true meritocracy, especially with regard to social mobility. Structural inequalities related to race, class, education, and geography have made it difficult for many Americans to succeed based purely on merit. However, meritocratic ideals are still often used to justify policies, particularly in education and employment.

As of January 19, 2025, the most fitting description of the United States IS, based on current political and economic trends with Donald Trump's inauguration tomorrow, is that of a plutocracy or oligarchy, where wealth and concentrated power shape the political landscape, limiting true democratic representation. 

However, aspects of kleptocracy (with lingering remains of an ever-decreasing meritocracy), still play roles in the broader discussion of American governance, depending on the specific issue being discussed.

Much of the problem is Donald Trump's divisional tactics to divide and conquer America. WE can do better together. We all need to see that.

We can do better. But not if one cannot see beyond one's partisan, especially when delusional, beliefs.

Do we even want to do better anymore? Because it doesn't seem like it as those on the right denigrate democracy, praise authoritarianism and autocratic enemies of Western democracies, and continue to confuse reality with fantasy and tribalism.

We CAN do better. Easily. 

Reality still matters. While we are welcome to our own opinions, we are not welcome to have our own personal (or tribal or partisan)...facts.

Let's end with these two thoughts:

Twenty Lessons On Tyranny, From the Twentieth Century - Timothy Snyder.

And finally...

Why I remain hopeful about America Even as darkness falls - Robert Reich

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

The Gospel of Power: Trump, Crime, and the Illiberal Republican Vision via Christian Nationalism

Christian Nationalism in a liberal democratic constitutional republic, is a blight, as is American Evangelicalism when fused with things outside (and inside) the realm of religion (see also, mega-churches, and RICO) that is leading to a Kakistocracy.

From Democracy to Theocracy, from Oligarchy to Kleptocracy: 

Trump’s Exploitation of the nightmare of Christian Nationalism (see also, pre-WWII German and the rise of Hitler's Nazism), and the advent of Kakistocracy.

• Democracy: literally, rule by the people. Democracy is vital for a civilized society. When a country or community is democratic, it lets everyone have a say in who runs the country, makes the laws, and governs the people. If only some people are allowed to make these decisions, it is not fair to everyone else who has to live by them.
• Theocracy: Theocracy is a form of government where it is believed that a god, deity, or group of deities, or a deity is in charge. The supreme being is usually thought to rule through human figures, like politicians and clergy, who are believed to be in direct contact with and/or of direct descent from the supreme being.
• Oligarchy: A system of government in which a few individuals are responsible for ruling over or making governing decisions for a country. The word has Greek roots and is derived from oligoi, which means ''a few,'' and arkhein, which means ''to rule.'
• Kleptocracy: Most explanations of kleptocracy – derived from the Greek for ‘thief’ and ‘rule’ – stress the aspect of ‘grand corruption’ whereby high-level political power is abused to enable a network of ruling elites to steal public funds for their own private gain using public institutions. Kleptocracy is therefore a system based on virtually unlimited grand corruption coupled with, in the words of American academic Andrew Wedeman, ‘near-total impunity for those authorized to loot by the thief-in-chief’ – namely the head of state.
• Kakistocracy (see also, Donald Trump, POTUS45, & POTUS47): A government run by the worst, least qualified, or most unscrupulous citizens: Kakistocracy is one of those words so seldom heard that it might be taken to represent some­thing that never existed. It means “a government by the worst men.” Lowell gave the term an intolerant but more colorful definition, “a government… for the benefit of knaves at the cost of fools.” To wit: "Trump’s kakistocracy invites possible catastrophe."

First, here are a couple of references, the first from a recent blog of mine:

• Changes in American Conservatism Over the Past 50 Years
• A History of Christian Nationalism
• Meet The Christians Pushing Back On Christian Nationalism

Now, to detail how Donald Trump has abused Christian Nationalism to bring their illiberal fantasies to fruition, in giving them the power to empower him, to breach our separation of church and state, to bring about their anti-American, nonsensical and dangerous, Christian delusions.

Donald Trump has leveraged Christian nationalism to consolidate support among religious conservatives and bolster his political power. By aligning his rhetoric and policies with the movement's goals, Trump has become a figurehead for an illiberal vision of governance that intertwines religion with state authority, undermining the separation of church and state.

Christian nationalism promotes the idea that the U.S. is divinely chosen as a Christian nation and that its laws and governance should reflect conservative Christian values.

This...is utter bullshit.

Trump exploited this narrative by casting himself as a defender of "traditional" Christian values against perceived secular and liberal threats. For instance, he frequently invoked religious themes, such as protecting "religious freedom," while implementing policies that aligned with Christian nationalist priorities, like restricting abortion rights and favoring policies seen as discriminatory against LGBTQ+ individuals.

Trump's courtship of Christian nationalists often involved overt displays of religiosity, despite his personal history being at odds with evangelical values. His appointment of conservative judges, particularly to the Supreme Court, fulfilled a long-standing goal of Christian nationalists to shift American jurisprudence in a direction more sympathetic to their worldview, particularly on issues like abortion and religious exemptions in public policy.

This strategy has roots in the Republican Party's historical alignment with religious conservatism, dating back to the "Southern Strategy" of the Nixon era. The approach used race, religion, and cultural issues to polarize voters and diminish the salience of class and economic concerns. Trump took this further, employing more explicit appeals to xenophobia and racism while maintaining the focus on culture wars. His framing of liberals, secularists, and immigrants as existential threats to the nation echoed the Christian nationalist narrative of defending America from both internal and external enemies.

These tactics have mobilized a substantial base of religious conservatives while drawing criticism from other Christian groups and secular organizations that view the movement as a distortion of democratic and religious principles. Many have argued that Christian nationalism's focus on power and dominance conflicts with the pluralistic ideals upon which the United States was founded, and they see Trump's exploitation of this ideology as a direct challenge to the constitutional principle of separating church and state​.

What is the fix to this crap perpetrated by an ever-increasing illiberal Republican Party and a criminal element as exemplified by Donald Trump, his crime family, and the criminals Donald Trump has empowered in his cabinet, and his administration?

Addressing the rise of Christian nationalism and its impact on American governance requires a multi-pronged approach that reaffirms democratic principles, protects the separation of church and state, and fosters a more inclusive society. Here are key steps to mitigate this trend:

1. Civic Education and Advocacy

• Promote Constitutional Literacy: Increase public understanding of the First Amendment and the principle of church-state separation. Educational programs and public campaigns can help counter misinformation.
• Empower Advocacy Groups: Support organizations like Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which work to uphold secular governance and challenge policies that undermine religious neutrality.

2. Strengthening Legal Protections

• Enforce Church-State Separation: Courts should continue to uphold rulings that prevent religious influence from dictating public policy, such as school prayer mandates or preferential treatment for specific religions.
• Challenge Misuse of Religious Freedom: Monitor and contest laws that misuse the concept of religious liberty to justify discrimination or erode rights.

3. Building Broad-Based Coalitions

• Interfaith and Secular Collaboration: Encourage alliances between religious and secular groups that oppose Christian nationalism, emphasizing shared values like justice, equality, and respect for diversity.
• Community Engagement: Foster dialogue within communities to address the concerns of religious conservatives while advocating for policies that are inclusive of all faiths and beliefs.

4. Political and Electoral Strategies

• Counter Culture War Narratives: Politicians and public figures must articulate alternative visions that focus on unity, economic fairness, and individual freedoms rather than divisive cultural issues.
• Encourage Voter Turnout: Mobilize voters, especially among younger and more diverse demographics, to elect candidates committed to upholding secular democracy.

5. Promote Religious Diversity

• Highlight Pluralism in America: Showcase the rich diversity of religious and non-religious traditions in the U.S. to combat the notion that the country belongs to one faith tradition.
• Support Public Religious Dialogue: Encourage discussions that emphasize the role of religion as a personal, not political, force in society.

6. Media and Counter-Narratives

• Fact-Check and Debunk Propaganda: Actively counter misinformation and conspiracy theories propagated by Christian nationalist movements.
• Support Independent Media: Fund and follow outlets that provide balanced reporting and expose the dangers of merging religion with state power.

7. Grassroots Action

• Empower Local Communities: Encourage grassroots efforts to resist the imposition of Christian nationalist policies, such as organizing against book bans or curriculum changes that promote religious indoctrination.
• Engage Youth: Invest in youth programs that teach critical thinking, civic responsibility, and respect for diversity.

Long-Term Cultural Change

Ultimately, reducing the influence of Christian nationalism requires cultural change that embraces pluralism, reinforces democracy, and rejects authoritarianism. This involves creating spaces where diverse beliefs can coexist peacefully and ensuring that political power is not monopolized by any one ideology or group​.

How do we address the challenges posed by an increasingly illiberal Republican Party and the influence of Donald Trump, his associates, and policies that have empowered a criminal and authoritarian political culture, a multifaceted approach is essential?

Here's what can be done:

1. Restore Accountability in Government

• Strengthen Oversight Mechanisms: Bolster independent bodies like inspectors general, ethics committees, and watchdog organizations to monitor and investigate abuses of power.
• Legal Reforms: Close legal loopholes exploited for personal or political gain, such as strengthening laws around emoluments, conflicts of interest, and obstruction of justice.
• Prosecutions and Transparency: Ensure that alleged crimes and misconduct are investigated and prosecuted, no matter how high-ranking the official, to restore faith in the rule of law.

2. Reaffirm Democratic Norms

• Election Integrity: Counter voter suppression efforts, enhance election security, and make voting more accessible to combat undemocratic tactics.
• Strengthen Civic Institutions: Support nonpartisan initiatives that promote democratic norms, media literacy, and informed participation in governance.

3. Combat Authoritarian Narratives

• Fact-Checking and Media Accountability: Actively counter misinformation and lies, especially those propagated by high-ranking officials and partisan media outlets.
• Public Education Campaigns: Promote an understanding of democratic principles, emphasizing the dangers of authoritarianism and corruption.

4. Rebuild Ethical Leadership

• Cultivate Moral Leadership: Elect leaders who prioritize public service and ethical governance over personal enrichment or party loyalty.
• Promote Whistleblowing Protections: Safeguard those who expose wrongdoing within administrations.

5. Engage Grassroots Movements

• Mobilize Local Action: Empower communities to resist undemocratic policies and advocate for reforms through local government, protests, and voter education.
• Support Nonprofit Advocacy: Strengthen organizations that fight for justice, transparency, and democratic governance.

6. Strengthen Judicial Independence

• Depoliticize Judicial Appointments: Advocate for reforms that reduce partisanship in selecting judges to maintain impartiality in the judiciary.
• Review Supreme Court Policies: Consider measures like term limits or ethical standards for justices to ensure accountability.

7. Reduce Corruption's Influence

• Campaign Finance Reform: Limit the role of money in politics to reduce the power of wealthy donors and lobbyists over public policy.
• Transparency in Governance: Require robust financial disclosures from public officials and enforce anti-corruption laws.

8. Foster a Unified Resistance

• Cross-Partisan Coalitions: Work with conservatives, moderates, and progressives who share concerns about authoritarianism to build a broader defense of democracy.
• Promote Unity Around Democratic Values: Focus on shared goals like fairness, accountability, and the rule of law to bridge divides and counter authoritarianism.

By taking these steps, it is possible to restore democratic principles, resist authoritarian tendencies, and ensure that the government serves the people rather than entrenched power structures or criminal elements.

I wish us all the best...

Image by & Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

Veterans Day - Echoes from the Past: Ben Franklin on Pres. re-Elect Trump & America

Today is  Veteran's Day. I'm a vet. I wish all veterans a better future than we now seem to be diving into. I know, that against all rationale, reality, and proof to the contrary, many believe in Donald Trump. What the Hell America? 

First...Thomas J. Brennan - Military Journalism in “The War Horse” & “Shadows of Fallujah” | The Daily Show

We look at the entirety of someone in their character, actions, beliefs, and how they (and we) treat our weakest citizens. And it hasn't been well. 

Mahatma Gandhi is often quoted as saying, "The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members."

Hubert H. Humphrey, former U.S. Vice President, also famously stated: “The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.”

Fyodor Dostoevsky, the Russian novelist, wrote in The House of the Dead: “A society should be judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens but by how it treats its criminals.”

The election of Trump spawned the foul and disgusting: "Your Body My Choice", response from the worst of Trump's supporters.

We can do better. Far better. Eventually, we will.

Moving on...

Considering Donald Trump's history, demeanor, felony convictions, being an adjudicated sex abuser, an insurrectionist, malignant narcissist & a famous pathological liar, what might Ben Franklin say about such a person being elected?

The actor and producer Michael Douglas, having played Franklin in a very enjoyable series recently, was asked, "What would Ben Franklin say about the state of America today?"

Douglas' response?

"Oh, I think he'd have another drink."

If Benjamin Franklin, one of America’s founding fathers, were to witness a figure like Donald Trump being elected president, he might have strong reservations, given his well-documented views on public virtue, integrity, and democratic principles.

Franklin believed deeply in the importance of character, humility, and public responsibility. He saw democracy as fragile, needing a foundation of informed, virtuous citizens and leaders to flourish. His famous response to the question about what kind of government the Constitutional Convention had created:

— "A Republic, if you can keep it" — speaks to his concerns about protecting the new democracy from corruption, power grabs, and the erosion of public virtue.

For Franklin, leadership required moral fiber and self-restraint, values he articulated through his writings and public actions. He warned against leaders who pursued personal gain or who lacked humility and honesty. He often highlighted the dangers of pride and self-interest, considering them pitfalls for both individuals and society. Given Trump’s documented behavior and legal issues, including instances of dishonesty, personal attacks, and various convictions, Franklin would likely view him as an embodiment of the qualities that threaten democratic governance.

Franklin’s views on narcissism and personal ambition were also critical. In his Poor Richard's Almanack, he wrote about the risks of excessive pride and selfishness, warning that such traits could mislead leaders and erode public trust. Given Trump’s self-promotional style and contentious relationship with truth, Franklin might see him as potentially destabilizing, particularly due to his challenges with accountability and divisive rhetoric.

In short, Benjamin Franklin would likely express concerns about a leader like Trump, fearing that such a figure might prioritize personal gain over the public good, challenge the balance of democratic institutions, and weaken the very "republic" that Franklin and his peers sought to establish.

But what about Americans electing Trump because of the economy, casting off values of honesty, integrity, decency, humanity out the window to do so?

Americans, in electing a leader primarily for economic reasons while disregarding qualities like honesty, integrity, and decency, Benjamin Franklin, as a moral philosopher, would likely have viewed this as a grave concern for the health of the republic. Franklin and many other founding figures believed that the moral character of leaders directly impacted the wellbeing and ethical grounding of society as a whole. For them, good governance wasn’t just about material prosperity; it was about promoting civic virtue and ensuring leaders upheld values that aligned with the nation's founding principles.

Franklin viewed democracy as something inherently fragile and requiring continual effort and vigilance. His belief in the importance of civic virtue is evident in his writings, where he emphasized that the success of the American experiment depended on the moral character of both its citizens and leaders. To him, sacrificing ethical standards for economic promises might weaken the republic's foundation and lead to a leadership that pursues self-interest over the public good.

Furthermore, the founders warned about the dangers of prioritizing immediate gains over long-term integrity. John Adams, another prominent founder, famously said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” This suggests that when a society sacrifices moral standards — even for economic stability — it risks undermining the very framework that upholds democratic governance and freedom. For Franklin and others, the erosion of values could lead to a citizenry more vulnerable to authoritarianism or corruption.

In Franklin's view, democracy was an ideal rooted in trust, transparency, and respect for each citizen's inherent worth. Leaders without these values, no matter their promises, could ultimately compromise the republic by fostering division, undermining democratic norms, and destabilizing the very economic systems they claim to protect. Thus, he would likely urge Americans to consider both character and competence, as an honest, ethical leader would be more likely to truly serve the nation's best interests.

So, what might Franklin say about Donald Trump?

If Benjamin Franklin were to comment directly on a leader with Donald Trump’s characteristics — including the issues of integrity, accountability, and divisiveness — he might express his concern in strong terms, emphasizing the importance of moral character in leadership. Franklin was a pragmatist, but he held firm beliefs about the need for leaders to embody virtues like honesty, humility, and public-spiritedness. Here’s a potential statement Franklin might make based on his principles and writings:

"A republic cannot stand if it places wealth or economic gain above virtue, for what is sacrificed in integrity shall be paid tenfold in discord. The pursuit of power devoid of honor or honesty is not leadership, but tyranny by another name. When we elevate those who scorn decency, truth, and unity, we invite the decay of our own liberty. A society governed by self-interest and bereft of moral character is a society undone."

This hypothetical statement captures Franklin's likely concerns that prioritizing material gain over moral integrity could weaken the republic. He feared that without an ethical foundation, leaders might exploit their positions, and citizens might become more divided, thus endangering the democratic fabric of the nation.

In his writings, Franklin frequently warned against pride, deception, and selfishness. He believed these traits, if present in leaders, could harm the public and set a dangerous example. If Franklin saw a leader who rejected norms of honesty and respect, he might argue that such a person’s influence could corrupt civic life, encouraging citizens to adopt similarly divisive and self-serving attitudes, ultimately weakening the democratic system.

What might Franklin say about the close support of Elon Musk and of both of their collusion with Vladimir Putin, considering that man's murderousness, war criminality, and abuse of American culture and social media intrusions?

If Benjamin Franklin were to observe a close alliance between powerful figures like Elon Musk and a leader aligned with Vladimir Putin’s actions, he would likely express deep concern over their influence on American values, democracy, and sovereignty. 

Franklin was committed to principles of independence, civic responsibility, and an aversion to alliances that could threaten the integrity and self-governance of the fledgling American nation. His writings make clear his skepticism of unchecked power and his fears about foreign influence corrupting the republic.

Franklin might specifically highlight a few key concerns:

1. The Dangers of Aligning with Autocrats: Franklin was highly wary of foreign influence on American affairs, especially from powers that opposed democratic values. His views align with George Washington’s later warning against “entangling alliances.” Given Putin’s record — including war crimes, alleged election interference, and human rights abuses — Franklin would likely view any collaboration with him as endangering democratic principles and aiding a regime that opposes freedom. He would be particularly troubled by the possibility of American leaders or influential figures giving moral or strategic support to someone he would consider a tyrant.

2. Wealth and Power Over Public Good: Franklin believed strongly that leaders should be motivated by public welfare, not self-interest. If he saw a figure like Musk prioritizing economic or strategic gains from foreign alliances over loyalty to democratic principles, Franklin might argue that such behavior exemplifies the kind of greed that undermines public trust and threatens the stability of the nation. He wrote extensively about the moral obligations of the powerful, believing that those with wealth and influence bore a duty to uphold civic virtue and set an example for society.

3. The Erosion of American Values: Franklin valued the American experiment as a beacon of democracy and enlightenment ideals. He would likely view any support for autocrats or human rights abusers as a betrayal of those values, fearing it could lead to an erosion of American identity. Furthermore, he would be wary of social media’s potential for manipulation and division, viewing it as an affront to reasoned public discourse and civic harmony, which he valued deeply.

4. Manipulation of Information: Franklin, a proponent of a free press and transparent communication, would likely view foreign exploitation of American social media as a threat to the republic’s informational integrity. His experience with print and public discourse would inform his stance on the dangers of propaganda, misinformation, and foreign meddling. He might see social media manipulation as undermining an informed electorate, which he viewed as essential to democracy’s survival.

Here’s a hypothetical statement Franklin might make:

“To serve the interests of tyrants, whether by open support or silent collusion, is to forfeit one’s allegiance to liberty itself. Wealth and influence should not grant license to betray the principles that uphold a free people. If we are to maintain a republic, we must guard against those who would place profit above patriotism and power above public virtue. To consort with despots, or to aid in the degradation of our own information and discourse, is to invite tyranny upon ourselves.”

In short, Franklin would likely condemn any alliance that prioritized personal or economic advantage over democratic values, viewing it as a serious threat to both the republic and the moral integrity of American society.

If Benjamin Franklin observed the modern situation of Donald Trump re-elected amid ongoing controversies, legal evasions, and allegations of undermining democratic principles, he would likely be deeply troubled. Franklin, a staunch advocate for the ethical conduct of public servants and a critic of unchecked power, would see such developments as a dangerous erosion of the democratic values he and other founders fought to establish. Franklin’s writings reflect his strong views on the necessity of integrity, accountability, and civic virtue in leadership, as well as his deep distrust of those who wield power irresponsibly.

Here’s how Franklin might have responded to these circumstances:

1. Defense of Accountability and the Rule of Law: Franklin believed that a government’s legitimacy rested on the rule of law. In fact, he advocated for laws and systems that could hold leaders accountable. In this scenario, he would likely argue that Trump’s avoidance of judicial responsibility compromises the integrity of the American justice system. Franklin’s sense of justice was rooted in fairness and accountability, principles he would expect leaders to uphold above all. He warned against leaders who believed they were above the law, recognizing this as a pathway to tyranny.

2. Safeguarding Elections and Democratic Institutions: As a staunch defender of democracy, Franklin would be alarmed at any efforts to subvert the electoral process. He viewed free and fair elections as the cornerstone of the republic, essential for maintaining the consent of the governed. If he saw efforts to subvert elections or avoid accountability, Franklin might have advocated for measures to reinforce the resilience of electoral institutions. He was also keenly aware of the dangers of factionalism and would have seen election interference as a divisive, destabilizing force on the republic.

3. Moral Character as a Requirement for Office: Franklin was a fervent advocate for the moral character of leaders. He believed that personal integrity was a foundation for public service, famously quoting that “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” Given Trump’s history of accusations regarding personal conduct, including alleged assaults and disparagement of adversaries, Franklin would likely criticize the acceptance of such behaviors as setting a dangerous example for the nation. He believed that the character of leaders influenced the character of society, making personal ethics inseparable from public service.

4. Speaking Out Against Corruption and Abuse of Power: Franklin consistently spoke out against corruption, both in public office and private conduct. His life was marked by efforts to limit the influence of those who would use power for personal gain at the expense of public welfare. He would have likely called for those who witness abuses to speak out and take action, viewing civic engagement as essential in preventing the rise of autocracy. Franklin famously cautioned that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety,” a sentiment he might extend to those willing to compromise democratic principles for personal or political gain.

A potential statement Franklin might make under these circumstances could be:

“A republic built on the principles of liberty, justice, and virtue cannot endure under the weight of self-interest and corruption. To preserve our democracy, we must demand accountability from all who hold office, lest we descend into the very tyranny we once fought to escape. The freedom of the people is safeguarded not by wealth or power but by the unwavering commitment to truth, honor, and the rule of law. When a leader disregards these values, they invite the downfall of the republic.”

In essence, Franklin would see today’s events as a profound warning about the fragility of democratic institutions and the necessity of an informed, vigilant, and virtuous citizenry to preserve the republic. He might call on Americans to actively oppose corruption, strengthen democratic norms, and demand accountability from their leaders, reminding them that the ultimate power lies in the hands of the people.

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

One Motto, One People: Reclaiming E Pluribus Unum to Heal America

With the concern of Christian Nationalism and the recent orientation of forcing "God" into our government, we have to start looking at what the problem is, where it started, why it started, and how to end it. Another concern is how Donald Trump has weaponized things like religion to regain power and get re-elected.

Worries over him and his desires for autocracy, power, greed, and kleptocracy with people like Elon Musk are a serious concern now more than ever.

From the Center for Religion in Public Life - Why E Pluribus Unum Is a Better Motto for Today than “In God We Trust”

1. Embracing True Diversity and Unity

The motto E Pluribus Unum was chosen by the Founding Fathers as an ideal that would unify a country of people from various places, backgrounds, and beliefs. The phrase encapsulates the American experiment: a diverse group of individuals coming together to form a stronger whole. It tells us that every American, no matter where they come from or what they believe, is part of that “One.”

Today, with even greater diversity in the United States than in the past, the meaning behind E Pluribus Unum is as relevant as ever. It serves as a reminder that our differences don’t divide us but make us stronger when they’re harnessed for a common purpose.

In contrast, In God We Trust doesn’t convey the same inclusivity. It implies a shared faith in a single religious concept, which isn’t true for everyone. America is home to a wide array of faiths, as well as people who don’t adhere to any faith at all. While “God” has different meanings for different people, In God We Trust is often interpreted as favoring a specific monotheistic view, alienating those who don’t share that view. In short, E Pluribus Unum brings people together, while In God We Trust can unintentionally create distance between them.

2. Reflecting the Constitution’s Religious Neutrality

One of the cornerstones of American identity is the freedom of religion enshrined in the First Amendment. This amendment ensures that individuals are free to practice any religion or none at all, and that the government doesn’t endorse any particular faith. By choosing In God We Trust as the national motto, the government has unintentionally aligned itself with a specific religious sentiment, creating tension with the very freedoms our Constitution is built to protect.

E Pluribus Unum, on the other hand, doesn’t favor any one religious belief. It’s a motto that respects both religious and secular viewpoints equally, making it a better fit for a country founded on the principle of religious freedom. Returning to E Pluribus Unum would reaffirm our commitment to a government that serves all its citizens, regardless of their personal beliefs.

3. Avoiding Division and “Othering”

Sadly, In God We Trust has sometimes been used to define what it means to be a “real” American, creating an “us vs. them” mentality. This mentality has led to a pattern of "othering" fellow citizens who don’t identify with that phrase—whether they are atheists, people of minority faiths, or those who interpret “God” differently. This approach risks dividing us along lines of belief when what we need, especially now, is unity.

The language of E Pluribus Unum shifts us away from viewing people as “insiders” and “outsiders.” It reminds us that we’re all part of one nation, and even when we disagree, we still share a commitment to one another. As a motto, it leaves no room for creating enemies out of fellow citizens. Instead, it creates a sense of common purpose that helps bring people together.

4. A Return to American Values

E Pluribus Unum has deep historical roots, representing the original vision of the Founding Fathers. It reminds us of what they hoped America would be—a united country formed by people of all backgrounds. Adopting In God We Trust as the motto in 1956 was a Cold War move to distinguish the U.S. from the atheistic Soviet Union. While it served a purpose at the time, the Cold War is over, and today we face different challenges that call for a more inclusive approach.

By returning to E Pluribus Unum, we can return to a motto that reflects the diversity and openness our country was built upon. It’s a step back toward the founding principles that united people from all walks of life in the first place, and it can help us create a national identity that’s positive, inclusive, and forward-thinking.

5. Promoting a Motto for All Americans

In a nation that prides itself on democracy, a motto should be for everyone. A motto that only reflects the values of certain groups isn’t fully representative. While In God We Trust speaks to a large portion of Americans, it does not speak to everyone. There are millions of Americans who don’t connect with it and may feel left out or excluded from the national identity it represents. This isn’t just a minor concern; feeling excluded can lead to greater disillusionment with government, less civic engagement, and a more fractured society overall.

In contrast, E Pluribus Unum speaks to every American. It focuses on our common humanity and the shared commitment to creating a unified nation from many backgrounds, cultures, and perspectives. This kind of unity is essential to strengthening our democracy and ensuring that all citizens feel valued and included.

6. Focusing on Civic Values Over Religious Identity

E Pluribus Unum emphasizes civic unity, not religious unity. It doesn’t ask us to believe the same things or see the world the same way, but it does ask us to work together as one people. In times when polarization is high and public trust is low, a national motto that focuses on our civic values rather than our religious identity could help to bring people back together.

It would encourage Americans to see themselves, first and foremost, as citizens who are in this together—not as people divided by religion, politics, or ideology. At a time when we need less division and more common purpose, E Pluribus Unum offers an ideal that transcends our differences.

---

In sum, returning to E Pluribus Unum would help us refocus on the importance of unity across diversity, respect religious freedom, avoid divisive “othering,” and foster a civic identity that includes all Americans. It reminds us that no matter who we are or what we believe, we’re stronger when we’re working together as “One.”

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT