Make America Governable Again

Asked, for example, how he felt about Trump's having been found liable for sexually assaulting E. Jean Carroll, one of many women who have accused Trump of misconduct, [Ohio Republic Senator J.D.] Vance waved it away.

"I think it's actually very unfair to the victims of sexual assault," Vance said, "to say that somehow their lives are being worse by electing Donald Trump for president, when what he's trying to do, I think is restore prosperity." — Washington Post

Reading about US politics is — to channel Yoga Berra — like deja vu all over again.

First, there's the constant barrage of politicians relentlessly advancing the frontier of lies, cynicism, bigotry, sycophancy, and gluttonous pursuit of power. It's painful.

And then there's the deja vu sting of being the mute target of these incessant one-way broadcasts of mendacity and doom.

You read. You watch. You listen. You can't reply.

That's an expressway to gastric ulcers.

What put me over the edge today was reading the article cited above, about J.D. Vance. Read it. But not on a full stomach.

There is the traditional political right: the party of Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, and John McCain.

And then there is the MAGA political right. People like Vance. Those are the right-wingers who are utterly out of control. They must be curbed.

My answer to the Vance article, and the thousands of others that have led us to this precipice, is a set of recommendations for drastic changes in how we regulate national office.

This is not about politics. I don't agree with every policy proposal of the left, nor all of their philosophy. Sometimes, I object to their behavior and gamesmanship.

This is about civics. The left is not pushing the boundaries of democracy or legitimate rhetoric. Nor are mainstream Republican politicians, like Liz Cheney, Lisa Murkowski, or John Bolton. The MAGA right is the radically disruptive group. Everyone knows this.

Are there problems inherent in the recommendations below? Absolutely. I could easily pick them apart. So could you. But I'm not so inclined. We're beyond that point.

Are these measures realistic? No. If there were a Vegas line on them being implemented vs. Kim Jong-Il making a guest appearance on Curb Your Enthusiasm, Larry David's the odds-on favorite.

But sometimes, you have to take a stand.

Holders of national office must demonstrate knowledge of the Constitution

As an incoming senator, Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala) said,

"Our government wasn't set up for one group to have all three branches of government — wasn't set up that way," Tuberville continued, saying incorrectly: "You know, the House, the Senate, and the executive."

And then there's Donald Trump.

As a candidate for president, Donald Trump didn't understand the Constitution — and didn't want to learn about it, a key campaign aide said.

"I got as far as the Fourth Amendment, before his finger is pulling down on his lip and his eyes are rolling back in his head," Sam Nunberg, a former adviser to the Trump campaign … — Newsweek

This is unacceptable. Let's administer a test to every candidate for elected national office or nominee for Cabinet-level position. If you don't pass the test, you don't get on the ballot.

In the case of Cabinet-level nominees, if you don't pass the test, you are barred from holding a Cabinet-level position for six months, at which point you can try again.

Apply the same rule to temporary office-holders appointed by governors to fill terms due to vacancies.

Candidates for and holders of national office must demonstrate cognitive acuity

Age limits are illogical. Everyone ages differently. Cognitive tests are practical and needed.

Candidates should pass tests that prove cognitive acuity.

Officeholders should take these tests annually. A failure to pass should trigger a resignation within three months, or a retest.

They must also demonstrate psychological stability and a commitment so service

Ironically, the very people who carry the most psychological baggage are the most likely to run for high office.

This was not always so in this country. It is widely known that George Washington hated being President, and desperately wanted to return to Mount Vernon after his first term. He ran again only because he was pressured to do so by others who felt his service was badly needed.

Most politicians today do not share Washington's commitment to service. Many officeholders in the US today pursue either 1) power, 2) a national stage for vengeance, rage, and righteousness, or 3) both. Some pursue office to avoid possible imprisonment. We are saddled with narcissists and even a few functional psychopaths.

We need tests to demonstrate psychological stability, which candidates must pass. Officeholders should take these tests annually. A failure to pass should trigger either a resignation within three months or treatment followed by a retest.

Additionally, all candidates should sign an apolitical standard pledge that they are motivated to run for office to serve their state and/or country, and for no other reason. We should require them to read their pledges word for word in a televised statement, in front of a live audience of citizens whose political views range widely. This should be a solemn occasion, with no speeches or press questions allowed.

Officeholders should renew their pledges annually.

Explicit rules on contesting national elections

Establish a uniform national standard process for contesting a federal election, detailed a prescribed series of steps.

Candidates must sign a legally enforceable agreement to follow the process if they choose to contest an election. Candidates must also post a bond.

If a candidate veers from the process, they forfeit their right to contest, the results are declared final, and the candidate loses the bond.

Explicit rules on accepting federal election results

Candidates must sign a legally enforceable agreement to publicly accept, verbally and in writing, the final election results after the standard process for contesting an election is completed. Candidates must also post a bond.

A candidate who fails to do so permanently forfeits the right to hold national office and loses the bond.

The Lindsey Graham Rule

Incumbent national officeholders are barred from contacting state and local election officials between Election Day and the day newly elected candidates take office. Officeholders agree to this practice verbally and in writing when they take office, and post bond. If they violate the practice, they forfeit both the bond and their office.

Eliminate all loopholes for bypassing federal election results

Establish a clear process for the final declaration and implementation of federal election results. No multiple slates of electors. No special role for the Vice President regarding election results other than ceremonial ones. No loopholes.

Bar felons from holding Federal office

Why doesn't this rule exist? Two sentences on this topic are two more than needed.

Limit Presidential powers

End this nonsense about Presidential immunity and the right to retain confidential documents. There should be no such immunity and no judicial review of it. Any national office-holder who appears to have broken a law — any law — must be prosecuted.

National officeholders have no rights beyond the rights of ordinary citizens. That includes current and former presidents.

If we need a law, or even an amendment, to make this clear, pass it.

Disclosure of tax returns

To get on the national ballot, candidates must disclose their previous five years of tax returns.

Abolish the Electoral College

It may have made sense in 1789. It doesn't now. One person, one vote. It's unfair to give citizens of states with smaller populations greater weight in selecting presidents, and it's unfair to render the votes of people who are in the minority in those states meaningless.

Votes on Supreme Court nominees must occur within 30 days

Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to serve on the Supreme Court nearly eight months before the 2016 election. Mitch McConnell and the Republican Judiciary Committee intentionally sat on the nomination until the nomination expired at the end of the 114th Congress.

I call bullshit. These blatant political games are unacceptable. Bar them.

Term limits for holders of national office

Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has been a senator for 43 years. Is this necessary?

There are excellent reasons for not limiting terms. Unfortunately, the reasons to limit them are more compelling.

If we can limit a President to two terms, there is no reason why we cannot similarly limit Senators, Representatives, and Supreme Court Justices.

Most people — and certainly not the sort of people who end up being politicians — simply cannot withstand the corrupting influence of power. Let's acknowledge this frankly and finally deal with it.

Committee and sub-committee chairpersonships rotate every term

Stories of powerful chairs exerting outsized influence are legion. This rule guarantees term limits for these powerful chairs, even shorter than office term limits.

Speaker of the House must be a House member

There has been talk of Donald Trump becoming the Speaker of the House. A nine-year-old would know this violates every rule of common sense.

Eliminate holds in the Senate

Our government allowed one man, Tommy Tuberville (again!), to single-handedly delay over 400 military promotions for nine months. In what universe is this logical?

Expedited trials for current and former holders of national office

Donald Trump inspired an insurrection three years and twenty days ago. The justice system is like a pinball machine, where the ball keeps careening from bumper to bumper, with no forward trajectory.

True, Merrick Garland didn't get off the pot quickly enough on the insurrection charges. But there are four pending criminal cases against Trump, with a total of 91 felony counts.

Are we going to allow him to run for President with these charges unresolved? That is, in a word, stupid. Any government that would allow that to happen is dysfunctional.

Our legal system should guarantee that this never happens, by doing whatever it takes. Maybe there are hard trade-offs, but I'd like to see a concise explanation of why there are legal rights and processes that outweigh the self-inflicted gutshot of allowing someone facing 91 felony counts to run for President.

Restricted social media for holders of national office

We elect people to quietly solve our nation's problems. Instead, politicians conduct gang wars on social media, trying to badger and humiliate their enemies and present themselves as righteous gladiators.

It's all bullshit. Not only is it a time-sucking distraction, but it exacerbates the paralytic gridlock that is now chronic.

National officeholders should remain free to consume all of the social media they want, though if they had common sense, they would use their time more effectively. They should not be generating any social media content.

Social media, and by this I primarily mean X and its knockoffs, does not have any value for constructively advancing civil discourse. There is no reason for lawmakers or Cabinet members to use it as a communication tool, when they have television, news outlets, email, and long-form social media, like blogging platforms.

Uniform law for holders of national office on accepting financial remuneration

The House and Senate have binding rules limiting gifts.

The Supreme Court does not. It has disclosure requirements.

There is no reason for this discrepancy. Let's enact a single law imposing uniform limits on Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Executive down to the Cabinet level.

Conclusion

Are there gotchas with these recommendations? Absolutely. But there are also tradeoffs. Any objection to these recommendations must weigh the cost of maintaining the status quo, or it's nothing more than an intellectual exercise.

Is it likely that these recommendations will be enacted? Certainly not. But that doesn't mean we can't discuss them.

I'd like to see journalists routinely ask candidates whether they support these ideas. And if not, why not? Any objection should factor in the cost of not making these changes.

If we continue on our present course, we're going to pay a dreadful price. It's time to start insisting on drastic changes. Because our leaders aren't going to take the lead.

Thanks to Patricia Jeanne for her keen editorial eye!