Readers: this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about the Revenge Revolution and author, Entry #1. List and general description of entries to date.
Note: most entries are formatted as conversations. Characters appear in a number of entries, with many entries building on previous conversations. Profile of characters (see link at top of page). You’ll catch on quickly. Thanks for your time and interest…and comments.
Scene: Jordan’s office, Washington, DC. Conversation began Entry #289.
Jordan: “OK, break’s over. Any more thoughts on having Leviticus as the standard for behavior inside the Beltway?”
JC: “Look, I like the idea of ‘treat thy neighbor as thyself’ as the standard for behavior. But let’s not be naïve. What do we do about those people who don’t follow the rules?”
Greenie: “You mean like Trump and his gang?”
JC: “Exactly. Trump’s behavior pointed a flaw in the Constitution – the assumption that members of the Legislative and Executive branches would behave reasonably civilly. And, with a few exceptions, that assumption proved correct for 200+ years.”
Greenie: “Until Trump. Then he and his gang basically gave the finger to everyone. He even trashed people in his cabinet who supported him from the get go. Some display of appreciation and loyalty, huh?”
Jordan: “So what can be done to stop Trump-like behavior in the future? What do we recommend to the post-Revenge-Revolution Congress…assuming some of them are willing to listen.”
JC: “Listen or not, we’ve still got to try. Greenie, any ideas on how to enforce more civilized behavior?”
Greenie: “A start would be to reinstate the 60-vote rule in the Senate for approving appointments, whether for the agencies or the courts. A 60-vote rule would force the White House to offer nominees toward the middle politically…not the extremes.”
JC: “Good start. We’d eliminate some bomb throwers from the courts and the agencies – like Trump’s Pruitt at EPA and Mulvaney as Budget Director and head of Consumer Protection. Behavior of both was way out of line. I mean, Pruitt and his quest for a used mattress from a Trump hotel. That sounds almost kinky.”
Jordan: “On the Judicial side, even with the 60-vote rule, what about limiting tenure of Senate-approved judges? Right now these judges have lifetime appointments.”
Greenie: “Maybe there could be an appointment period – say 20 years – and then some way to renew the appointment.”
JC: “I don’t have any idea what the average tenure of a Federal judge is but being on the bench without a review for 20 years seems more than fair.”
Greenie: “Maybe add a clause about a renewal option. Whadda say in the military when you agree to extend your time?”
Jordan: “Re-upping.”
Greenie: “That’s it, re-upping. Maybe the default is the judges re-up automatically unless reviewed and denied by the Senate. But make the re-up period for 10 years, not 20 years. Think about it – 30 years on the bench is a long time.”
JC: “Would you apply the 30-year limit to all time spent on the Federal bench or a specific court?”
Jordan: “The only judges that I think are approved by the Senate are for the Appellate, Circuit and Supreme Courts.”
Greenie: “I don’t know if the limit should be at the court level or in total. For now, let’s assume the limit applies to a specific level. Otherwise someone might get to SCOTUS with only 6-7 years left out of the 30-year limit. That doesn’t seem fair.”
Jordan: “What about rules for enforcing behavior in the agencies and in Congress, especially the Congressional committees.”
JC: “Such as the Judicial Oversight Committee in the House? During the Trump Administration, good ol’ boy Chairman Nunes took classified information from the Mueller investigation to the White House? Some oversight, huh? Tried to give the keys to the henhouse to the fox.”
Greenie: “OK, Jordan, any ideas how to stop such behavior? And what about all the obvious ethics violations by Trump, the Trump family and some cabinet officials? How do we stop that going forward?”
Jordan: “We need to be realistic. Whatever the rule, someone is going to try and get around it.”
JC: “You going to answer Greenie’s question or mumble like some politician?”
Jordan: “I’m trying to buy time while I think of a good response.”
Greenie: “What about this idea as a start? The office of Ethics…or whatever it’s officially called…used to have some power and was respected by the Executive and Legislative branches…at least until Trump. Why not give the office more teeth?”
JC: “More teeth and more transparency. I realize there’s some information cannot be disclosed. But, and this should be a big but…no comments, please about personal appearance…the baseline should be to make the public as aware as possible of the shenanigans and unethical behavior by people inside the government, especially members of Congress and high-ranking agency personnel. The disclosures might force some people to stop.”
Greenie: “For those who don’t stop, then give the Ethics Office the right to take them to court for a public trial. No plea bargaining, no consent decree, no sealed documents or other copout. Make the record public.”
Jordan: “Court instead of impeachment?”
Greenie: “Make it in addition to impeachment. Some of the behavior will be illegal. Why shouldn’t that behavior get punished like the rest of us are subject to?”
Jordan: “Theoretically the behavior is subject to punishment.”
Greenie: “Two words you just stated are the problem – ‘theoretically’ and ‘subject.’ Too often the SOB’s in Congress or the Executive Branch who blatantly screw the public are given a slap on the wrist at worst, then sent home with most of their pilfered goodies.”
JC: “You’re getting tough, Greenie.”
Greenie: “We need to get tough on these bums. Otherwise the Revenge Revolution will have been for naught…and I don’t like naught.”
JC: “Agreed. Now, ought naught we should take a break?”
Greenie: “I agree the president and cabinet need to pass the same end-of-year test given to 8th graders. Let me add another, ‘Duh, are you serious?’ idea.”
JC: “You mean the idea of treating your neighbor the same way you want to be treated?”
Greenie: “I don’t know if Sessions had kids or grandkids but do you think he’d want his kids or grandkids separated from their parents?”
JC: “Maybe there would a cabinet officer or some high-ranking staffer whose job it is to go around and ask ‘Would you want this whatever-idea-is-being-discussed to happen to your family?’ The person could be titled the ‘sanity-check maven.’”
JC: “Let’s hope going brain-dead is past tense. We have a new opportunity to begin rebuilding American values post Revenge Revolution. Even if it is kindergarten like, using ‘treat thy neighbor’ as a check mark for policies and legislation seems like a good way to keep things from getting too out of control again.”
Greenie: “You mean like when public pressure force king Trump to stop separating children from families at the border?”
JC: “Don’t make me laugh? Not know what an 8th grader know? Still not sure what you’re talking about.”
JC: “Now I think I see where you’re headed. What about Trump implying…or at least asking…if Canada burned down the White House in 1812? No that was the British. Gee, Donald, in case you didn’t know Canada has been a long-time friendly neighbor. Canada is north of the continental US, except for one area near Detroit, and a major trading partner until you tried to ruin the relationship.”
Jordan: “So, Greenie, exactly what are you proposing?”
Greenie: “I don’t know how we’d test for some things but by forcing candidates for Federal office and Cabinet nominees to take 8th-grade end-of-year exams, you can assume that those who pass at least paid some attention to teachers along the way. And anyone who failed…”
Greenie: “Why not be straightforward? No reason to sugarcoat. I think we give some examples of basic information that Trump and the Cabinet members did not know. There are lots of examples where it looked as if they hadn’t graduated from 8th grade and/or should have been wearing dunce caps. It was embarrassing for the country.”
JC: “Alright, now I have an idea for how to make America great again.”
Greenie: “I shouldn’t even smile at that one…but it was pretty good. Now, JC, stop the puns and tell us your idea.”
JC: “Two prongs. (i) Reconfigure existing roads into smarter roads. Smarter roads can carry more traffic with a lot less congestion; (ii) rebuild and expand the rail system to handle more passenger trains and freight traffic.”
Jordan: “Commuting by rail in metro areas is easier, more pleasant, less expensive and faster. Plus, you can work on the train.”
Jordan: “High-speed rail needs to be defined given the barriers that exist. High-speed in the Northeast corridor is not going to be like a bullet-train in Japan. Making that happen would be outrageously expensive and disruptive.”
Jordan: “Don’t know exactly but I’ll bet you’re pushing 85-90%.”
JC: “This sounds great but what about resolving the conflict between freight and passenger traffic? The little that I know about rail, the freight railroads seem to keep resisting any efforts to add passenger traffic to certain rail lines…in fact, most rail lines.”
Jordan: “Other than difference in speed between freight trains and passenger trains, I don’t know of a technical reason the two can’t share the tracks.”
Jordan: “The article was in the Harvard Business Review and written by Theodore Levitt. The title was ‘Marketing Myopia.’ An example of the myopia was the railroads viewing themselves as being in railroad business and turning thumbs down to considering being in the transportation business. As a result, the railroads lost a huge share of the logistics business to the trucking industry.”
Greenie: “Before the break, I said I thought at first Jordan’s idea of reinstating conscription was stupid. Then I came around and supported it.”
JC: “What’s your logic? Something wrong with charter schools?”
JC: “Not that I disagree with you but why do you think charter schools are a band-aide?”
JC: “We need to get more specific about the issues. Besides we know that merely throwing money at schools does not necessarily make schools better.”
JC: “I agree that many were top-notch, especially those teaching math and English. To think we were so motivated we used to diagram sentences for fun!”
Jordan: “What about teacher pay?”
Jordan: “OK, I’ll be the bad guy. Why do we need free public education? What percent of the public thinks education should be privately provided and not publicly provided…forget who pays for it?”
Greenie: “…an educated populous. And how did the US populous become educated? Not just an education for the elite but an education for everyone, including immigrants, many of whom arrived here illiterate. They were educated through a free public education.”
JC: “While we’re throwing out ideas about education, what about banning busing? Busing seems like a waste of time and money.”
Greenie: “Tell me how a politician is going to campaign against free, quality public education for all? That type campaign, especially in this post-Revenge Revolution environment would be suicide.”
eenie: “Ready for another idea how to really make America great again?”
Jordan: “You mean like Trump, Limbaugh, Hannady, and the former right-wing truthsayer, Bill O’Reilly.”
enie: “Jordan, pulleeeze. Be a bit more diplomatic, will you?”
Jordan: “For now, we’ll include both men and women.”
Jordan: “Eligible at 18 but must begin service by say age 26. A person could get a deferment to attend trade school or college but would need to start by age 26.”
Jordan: “Federal agencies that have operations in most parts of the country. Agencies that serve people locally or work with the states to service people locally.”
Jordan: “Same with EPA. There are lots of areas where an ‘EPA corps’ as it were, could help gather data or fix an issue before it becomes difficult and costly to solve. Just like that old commercial, ‘pay me now or pay me later.’ But later is almost always much more expensive.”
JC: “I can hear it now. Some people are going to claim what we’re proposing will be taking away jobs from others. Or worse yet, conscription will interrupt little Johnnie’s or little Susie’s career that mommy and daddy paid so much to prepare them for. How are we going to counter that argument?”
JC: “…Let me try. #4, forced diversity. Exposure to a wide range of people and backgrounds never hurt anyone. Maybe we, that is societal we, could become a bit more civil if we understood others’ perspectives. Brilliant statement, huh?”
JC: “You know, the time might be right to reinstitute conscription. Since the Revenge Revolution people seem more willing to explore old and new ways of trying to solve problems.”
Greenie: “Jordan, that’s quite a list of ideas about how to make America great again. We’ve got to call this project something else but let’s not spend time on that now. Which item on the list seems like a good place to start?”
JC: “Let’s say there’s no major legal issue. Then how should Federal funds be allocated to the candidates?”
Jordan: “Good points. Try this. Presidential elections get the full $10/head funding. Off-year elections get $5/head allocated.”
JC: “Let me try the math. If I remember Ester’s Algebra class, that would be 200X+435X=$1,700,000,000. Using my hand-dandy phone, x equals almost $2.7 million. So Senate races get about $5.4 million and House races about $2.7 million.”
JC: “3rd-party candidates?”
Greenie: “Now, JC, I mean really. What’s a few billion in a trillion-dollar Federal budget – a rounding error? I agree the approach seems expensive until you begin to add up all the hidden costs with today’s approach to funding elections…and all the backroom deals connected to the funding.”
Greenie: “Because funds will be limited, the approach will likely also force candidates to get out on the campaign trail and meet the voters. Maybe we’ll get fewer negative ad blitzes and more time on the campaign trail.”
Greenie: “Oh, you mean like South Carolina’s Mick Mulvaney? What chutzpah. He bragged to a group of bankers that before he became part of the Trump Administration, he only talked to lobbyists who paid him. Wonder if he stopped the practice when he became director of OMB and consumer protection bureau for Trump? Pardon me — that seems like a rhetorical question.”
Greenie: “He retired from the House. I guess you call it retired if not seeking in November 2018 qualifies as retiring.”
JC: “C’mon, you love it. Now what’s the idea?”
Greenie: “Let’s keep in mind the past does provide some guidance to the future. You do agree with that, don’t you, Jordan?”
Jordan: “For one, Greenie’s articles about the Revenge Revolution. We might have more understanding about the causes of the Revenge Revolution than anyone in Congress, especially incoming members or staffers.”
(Following is the list from the brainstorming session about how to really make America great again. Over the coming blog entries, a number of these ideas will be discussed in more detail.)
JC: “Grande, medium roast.”
JC: “And, so what?”
Sandy: “Hi, Jordan. If I recall, it’s JC, right?”
Sandy: “Sure you did. You wanted to ban the sale of all assault weapons…and even make owning one illegal.”
JC: “You’re right. I don’t understand. The assault ban still allowed ownership of all kinds of hunting rifles, shotguns, pistols. I’m not a hunter but why would you need an assault rifle to kill a deer? Where’s the sport in that? Maybe we should arm the deer. That would make it more fun.”
Sandy: “So why have a ban on owning assault weapons?”
First, it appears more and more people are realizing what the military and gun enthusiasts have known for some time – the AR-15 is not a sport rifle, is not a hunting rifle but is an assault weapon designed for killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible.
Why such a harsh recommendation? First and foremost, these type weapons are not needed outside the military. For those who insist on firearms to protect self and/or property, hunting rifles, shotguns and pistols are more than adequate. For hunters, using AR-15’s is hardly sport, even if hunting elephants, lions, tigers or bears, which you shouldn’t be doing anyway.
Banning assault weapons is not unprecedented. Beginning in 1994 Federal law banned the sales of newly manufactured assault weapons. Former presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan, wrote to the U.S. House of Representatives in support of banning “semi-automatic assault guns”. The law passed with bi-partisan support. Congress let the law expire in 2004.
ll not be infringed.”
In that context, the Second Amendment seems perfectly logical. Guys, get it? The regular citizens of the country made up the military when the Constitution was written. And, if you’re a strict “Constitutionalist” and interpret the Constitution as originally written, the weapons were single-shot flint locks, not AR-15’s.
Get serious conservatives. If you understood government, you might realize that you already live in a country where the government allows you basic rights. That piece of property you think you own? Your right to ownership is a function of government. The freedom to travel? That freedom is a function of government. Hate to burst your conservative bubble, but the freedoms that you have are because the government lets you have those freedoms.
I hope these students ask their grandparents to coach them about how the grandparent protested the Vietnam War. Then the kids can go to Washington, march in front of the White House and chant, “Hey, hey, Donald J! How many kids did you kill today?”