And if an issue supported and promoted by the GOP is not in the best interests of America? GOP FIRST! What happens to the "Oath of Office" wherein elected officials are expected to swear allegiance to the Constitution? Does that oath become subservient to the loyalty demanded by the GOP? When political parties demand knee-jerk support from its officials, how soon will they expect their constituents to follow? Is the right to express political dissent dead when it comes to the GOP? To America?
The Second obvious threat is the rampant hypocrisy of Americans. Yep I said it - again. Due to the emergence of ideologically oriented for-profit media (including social media), Americans have become more tribal in nature than ever before. So many believe whatever they have been told because of one thing and one thing only - it's from their "tribe." And anything to the contrary that may come from the "other tribe" is to be dismissed immediately as "unworthy of consideration." Think I'm wrong? If I was to speak to any group in America, you can bet that a large percentage of the group would ignore anything I would have to say if they thought I was not a member of their "tribe." There would be plenty of excuses not to listen to me, because, well, "he's a _______" (whatever word fits their needs). And this is exactly what is dangerous. Complacency when it comes to politics leads to tyranny. Following "orders" because it is considered better to be "loyal" than "disloyal" has become routine, instead of questioning authority of any kind. Why are you taking this position on a particular issue? What are the ramifications of taking such a stand? Whom does it benefit? Whom does it harm? Is it in the best interests of all Americans? All legitimate questions that get suppressed when "loyalty" is demanded!
Along this line, President Trump issued additional Executive Orders this week. Unlike most folks, I believe the president should have the authority to act unilaterally when Congress is unwilling or incapable to acting. Allow me to explain. The Framers created an elaborate system of Checks and Balances with Separation of Powers. When one branch of government exceeds its authority, the other can (and should) step in to "check" it from seizing too much power. But when Congress has become so dysfunctional to be unwilling to address critical issues facing our nation, is it unreasonable for a president to step in and take action (See "Take Care Provision" under Article II, US Constitution)? So I am not opposed to Trump utilizing Executive Orders to move matters along. Just like I was not opposed to Obama using Executive Orders when Congress would not act. Which is why I opposed the ruling by the Court that the president cannot make a recess appointment because the Senate alone can determine when it is not in session (see Pro Forma Sessions). When the Senate refused to do its job and provide any confirmation hearings on Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, the president should have had the ability to utilize the recess appointment option. IF the American people were really weary of the use of Executive Orders by a president, they would insists Congress do their jobs and eliminate the ability of the president to act unilaterally on matters by passing legislation addressing the issues the Executive Order affects. If Congress acts, there would be no room for Executive Orders would there? What I am opposed to is the incessant hypocrisy expressed by Americans who choose to follow their "tribe" rather than think for themselves (all the while claiming some higher "Patriotic" ground than those not joining their tribe).
Which gets me to my last point. Due to the required loyalty of tribal members of any political party, we saw a huge outcry against Obama using Executive Orders while president. (www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/02/06/executive-order-tyranny-obama-plans-to-rule-america-with-pen-phone.html). Yet, now that Trump issues weekly Executive Orders, those previously slamming Obama now seem to rejoice. And the hypocritical rationale for supporting Trump? "Unlike his predecessor who abused executive authority to expand the size and scope of the federal government in an end run around Congress, President Trump is using his legal authority to restrain Washington bureaucrats," said White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders." (See: www.mprnews.org/story/2017/04/25/trump-touts-executive-orders-he-once-lambasted). I am not opposed to Trump because he is a Republican and I am not. I was not opposed to certain efforts by Obama (Foreign Policy) because he was a Democrat and I was not. I am opposed to any elected official that leads through hypocrisy for policies that I perceive to be bad for America. I do oppose Trump because he is obviously so unfit to lead and serve as president, not because he is a Republican and I am not. If it wasn't for Party/Tribal loyalty, wouldn't Congress already begin acting to isolate him? Isn't that what we really need to get back to? Dissenting for legitimate purposes, despite faux "loyalty" demanded by any fellow American, let alone political party.
As President George Washington once wrote; "I have no other view than to promote the public good, and am unambitious of honors not founded in the approbation of my Country." Sadly, it seems we still have a lot to learn as a nation from Mr. Washington. Have a great week!