What the Newspaper Headlines Should Really Look Like
Somehow the press is normalizing every single thing that the administration is doing. I think it’s because there’s a built-in coping mechanism in normal adult behavior to not overreact, which in turn has a weird result when extreme behavior is right in front of us in our political leaders.
This coping mechanism is perfectly functional when the extreme behavior is from a child; in such situations, we need to be the adults and teach civil behavior by example. Contrast this to times when extreme things occur in nature (not nurture) or the financial markets; massive earthquakes and weather catastrophes are met with massive headlines and shocked reporting from distant news faces. If another earthquake occurs the next week, the headline is just as big.
But when the child who is acting out is the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth, the moderating behavior responds as if with any other child, and the adults in the room go into moderating mode… the headlines get smaller with each occurrence; the descriptions use soft language that — relative to the offense — becomes proportionally less appropriate by the instance. This is how and why our press is deserting us in our time of greatest need. One excuse is that to react in proper proportion to each new offense would be hysterical, Chicken-Little-ish. That’s bullshit and it’s going to kill us.
There’s also another subtlety to the problem of the press that became clear as I crafted the new headlines: creating our democracy was very complicated. Most people don’t have the patience or skill for the complexity. And commensurately, its dismantling involves more complicated headlines than the press is accustomed to… whether much of the public has the capacity or not.
Here’s what the headlines should look like.
Americans Vote their Frustration by Electing Jingoistic, Hate-Spewing, Failed Businessman Again
With 50% of Americans having wealth under $8,000 and unable to pay an emergency expense of $400, they voted against both the Democrats and Republicans who have allowed 50 years (1970–2020) of progress to be supplanted by “rich-get-richer” and “I-got-mine” politics. Ultimately the problem is Congress, ossified by age and self-interest, not the president. Even if you want to put some blame on the citizenry for their sorry state of civic aptitude, we must all take responsibility for that as keepers of our brothers. Pretending otherwise just digs our hole deeper.
Administration Obliterates Constitution: Violates Nation’s Most Fundamental Principle by Sidestepping Congress’s Control of Spending. Most Brilliant Construct of Founders Completely Violated
Congress Abdicates Responsibility of Check on Executive Cabinet Selections
Administration Installs Cabinet to Dismantle Federal Benefits, Disregard Science, and Eliminate Economy of Scale
They have chosen not just unqualified but anti-qualified stooges, for two reasons. One, they only have to destroy their respective fiefdoms, not produce anything; and two, they’re so incompetent they are no threat to the dear leader.
Administration Trashes the Constitution Preamble’s “Promote the General Welfare” by Destroying Federal Programs
While capitalism — the word not to be found anywhere in the constitution — has been a keystone in America’s success, the founders chose to explicitly call out “general welfare” right in the first few words of our law, knowing that a healthy, peaceful nation would be most enduring. The administration is intent on eliminating all such programs at the federal level.
Nation’s Chief Executive Abdicates Role by Installing Strongman Oligarch with Carte Blanche Power
Congress Abdicates Responsibility of Controlling Spending
If ‘due process’ is the most important ethics component of our country’s DNA, then possibly the congressional control of the purse might be the most important moral component. I say that because we’re seeing that in the wrong hands — the hands of one single man — the purse strings have the power to inflict unimaginable harm. Wow, it was really smart of the founders to put that power in the hands of Congress. How could 535 people simultaneously become immoral? They can’t. Brilliant. One of their most genius contributions to Democracy. If Congress lets this slip away, they would be criminals against the Founders.
Administration Rapes Another 250-Year-Old Norm: Independence of DOJ
I thought about this for a while. What’s the right word for undoing a practice — justice — that is the veritable intersection between ‘moral’ and ‘ethical’? I tried ‘attacks’ and that was insufficient because the attack is over and it was a wild success for the attackers. Then I tried ‘besieges’ but same problem; the siege is over. ‘Destroys…’? OK, but it doesn’t describe the amorality. So I really sharpened my pencil, and that’s what I’ll leave it at until I think of something more accurate.
Whatever the case, it proves my contention, which I think I realized even before the administration’s first term: the Justice Department should be under the Supreme Court, just like a company under a board of directors. Why is that idea so hard… “Justice Department”… “Judicial branch”??? Why did the founders do it the way they did?
First Branch of Government (Congress) Fails to Enforce Ethics of Third Branch (Supreme Court)
Administration Steals Crown Jewel of American Jurisprudence: 250-Year-Old Due Process of Law
In the hierarchy of democracy’s tenets, none is above due process of law. While it’s true that free elections and the civil transfer of power are ultimate overall goal of democracy, due process is the legal foundation of it all.
Administration Destroys America’s Secondary Jurisprudence Achievement: 250-Years-Long Rule of Law
By pardoning those who assaulted our seat of government, it ended the presumption that we are a “government of laws, not men.” “Rule of law” and “due process” are two sides of the coin of jurisprudence. One is for the poor and powerless; the other is the for the rich or powerful.
Administration Destroys 250-Year Achievement of Respect for Rule of American Courts
Americans have just learned that when courts make a pronouncement, such words only apply to individuals.
