Seeing the Forest Through the Trees … And Lighting the Entire Woods Ablaze

A Consideration of the First Month of the Trump Presidency

by Mike Broemmel

People I respect fall into three camps when it comes to President Trump and the Trump Administration. In category one are about 50 percent of my cohort who despise the President. I do not think I exaggerate either the percentage nor the adjective I utilize to describe the depth of their feelings.

About 30 percent of my cohort are supportive of the President. Indeed, I would imagine at least half of this group are enthusiastic about the Trump presidency. The other half are quietly, privately supportive of the President. I need to note that despite what those folks that despise the President presume, my associates in the group of active and quiet Trump supporters are not of one demographic cluster. What I have found since sitting in a diner in Iowa the day before the Iowa caucuses, supporters of Donald Trump break across different demographic classifications.

Finally, there is grouping of about 20 percent of my cohort that are not at this moment highly critical of the President and his Administration. I can best describe them as holding their collective breath, perhaps hoping for the best.

I have always maintained friendships from across the political spectrum. Indeed, I have always voted across the political spectrum, from the very first time I cast a ballot in 1980. During that election, I voted for Ronald Reagan for President and Patricia Schroeder for Congress. (Unfortunately, many folks will not remember, perhaps even know of Pat Schroeder. I encourage those who do not know her to look her up.) Politically, perhaps no two people differ as sharply as President Reagan and Representative Schroeder.

I could vote for both of them because I respected them personally. My own politics have always been and remain that of a raving moderate. Yes, I cherry pick when it comes to issues. In other words, I agreed with President Reagan on some, but not all issues. And, I agreed with Representative Schroeder on some, but not all issues. But, I digress.

As I listen to people who despise Trump speak, as I listen to individuals who admire Trump speak, I tend to (up to now) privately reflect that I’m not sure if anyone is really seeing the forest through the trees. Emotions are running so profoundly high at this juncture in time across the political spectrum, that I sometimes wonder if a good deal of facts get lost in the process.

I’m not being accusatory by suggesting this. I am just making a personal observation. For example, in posts put on social media from both sides of the Trump debate, there rarely is anything put forth by pro-Trump folks and anti-Trump folks that doesn’t contain misinformation.

I necessarily note that I do not oppose all of the proposals of the Trump Administration that thus far at least appear on paper. I am unabashed in my deep concerns about the Affordable Care Act and its collapse. I think the nation’s infrastructure does need major intervention of the type mentioned by the President and the Democratic Leader in the U.S. House of Representatives.

In watching the machinations of the Trump White House over the course of the past month, I’ve reached the conclusion that – at least at this time – my thoughts about folks across the political spectrum not fully seeing the forest through the trees has become utterly irrelevant, and here is why:

It’s pointless to try and see the forest through the trees when the owner of the woods has doused the foliage with gasoline and lit it ablaze.

I have written, and spoken, about the importance of symbolism, what oftentimes is called optics by political hacks (of which I am one). Reagan got it. Schroeder got it. Bill Clinton got it, until he stopped getting it. Obama, not so much. Trump, not at all.

Let me explain.

I rarely hear anyone discuss the constitutional reality that the U.S. President is both head of government and head of state. When I do hear it accidentally discussed, the concept of the President also being the head of state is chortled about derisively, as if that role doesn’t matter in the U.S.A. in the 21st century.

The President as head of state does matter, and I suggest perhaps more at this juncture in history than at any time since World War II.

When entering the Oval Office for the first time, the President not only assumes the role of overseeing the mechanics of running the executive branch of government, he assumes another mantle in which he (or she) embodies the nation itself. As head of state, the President legitimizes the sovereignty of the nation in his (or her) person, by his (or her) actions. This is not some outdated concept. This remains the reality of governments established by human beings.

I was appalled when President Obama made a milquetoast statement about the killing of James Foley, the first U.S. civilian to be beheaded by ISIS, and then was on a golf course doing hand-bumps a full eight minutes after making his remarks. Symbolism matters. Optics matter. As people, we are visual creatures.

I perfectly understand that 50 percent of my associates, those that despise the President, believe the President and his Administration are failing across the board when it comes to matters of policy. I suggest that facts do not support that extreme conclusion. On the other hand, I recognize that my associates that are supportive of the President believe that all of the Administration’s policies are spot-on. I suggest that facts do not support that extreme conclusion.

I return to the seeing the forest through the trees analogy. When it comes to policy issues and the Trump presidency, I tend to think neither partisans nor opponents of the Administration are seeing the trees clearly.

But. (And this is crucial.) At this moment in time, I don’t think this lack of clarity matters. As I made mention, seeing the forest through the trees becomes irrelevant when the owner of the woods douses the foliage with gasoline and lights it all ablaze. And that is precisely what Donald Trump and his key advisors are doing at this time.

President Trump, and those around him, are failing to understand the duality of the U.S. Presidency. Not only is this exemplified by a good deal of the conduct of the President himself, but underscored in a frightening fashion by some of the principals of the White House staff, including Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, Sean Spicer, and Kellyanne Conway.

The symbolic importance of the Presidency, and its central place in the life of the nation, is threatened when those charged with its preservation include a President seemingly more worried about an upscale department store snubbing his child, not to mention stewing about attendance figures at his inauguration four weeks past, than the manifold array of issues we face.

The unifying potential of our nation’s head of state is destroyed when minions of the chief executive behave like ignorant, and even sinister, tiddlywinks in front of the media and to the public time and time again. I speak of Sean Spicer and the newest entrant to that category, Stephen Miller.

(I must digress and confess that when I first witnessed Stephen Miller in action on clips of the major Sunday news gabfests, I wondered what in the world Agent Smith from the Matrix was doing on Face the Nation … and Fox News Sunday … and This Week.)

Not only the unifying potential of the Presidency, but the very office itself, is jeopardized when lurking in the shadows is a person like Steve Bannon, with demonstrable racist beliefs topping the tip of the iceberg that is the Counselor to the President.

The fire is lit. The President and his minions pour more gasoline on the conflagration every day.

At this moment, the blaze is yet to rage out of control. Only the President and his team can put it out. If they do not gain control of the raging fire, this Presidency will collapse.

Fond as I am of predictions, Donald Trump will not face impeachment. Rather, if Donald Trump and his key advisors do not start behaving like the guardians of the Presidency itself that they are, this Administration will end in an ignoble whimper. The provisions of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States will be invoked by a majority of the Cabinet and the President will be removed from office.

I do not want the Trump presidency to fail any more than I wanted the George W. Bush or the Barack Obama presidencies to fail (and I was never an enthusiastic fan of either … one made me switch parties, the other oftentimes made me regret that decision). In the end, the Trump presidency fails not because of the work of its opponents. It fails because of the actions of those slinking down the narrow halls of the West Wing as I write this essay.

The Presidency burns.

Mike Broemmel

Top 10 Bizarre Deaths of Roman Catholic Popes by Mike Broemmel

According to the tradition of Apostolic Succession in the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope traces his authority back to the Apostle Peter. Some Pope’s served with distinction while others reigned amidst scandal and degradation. Some of the successors to the Apostle Peter died peacefully while others experienced brutal and bizarre deaths. This list examines 10 of the most bizarre deaths of Roman Catholic Popes throughout the history of the Church.

10 Peter

According to the history of the Roman Catholic Church, the Apostle Peter was the first “Pope.” He did not bear the moniker of Pope but is recognized as the first Vicar of Christ on Earth after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Peter’s death was both untimely and bizarre.
Like Jesus, Peter met his death through crucifixion. He met his end during the reign of Roman Emperor Nero of Rome burned while he fiddled fame.

According to persistent traditions, Peter is said to have asked to be crucified upside down. He made the request of the Romans because he did not believe he was worthy to die in the same manner as Jesus Christ.

9 Pope John XII

Pope John XII sat on the Throne of St. Peter from 955 to 964. Pope John XII became the leader of the Church at the ripe old age of 18. He died when he was but 27 years old.
Debauchery was the order of the day in the Lateran Palace during the reign of the young Pontiff. In fact, some historians maintain that many Romans of the day felt John XII turned the Papal residence into nothing less than a brothel.

Evidence suggests that Pope John XII died while having sex with a married woman. His death has been attributed to a stroke. (Some have contended he was murdered in the act by a jealous husband.)

Pope Clement I

Pope Clement I is said to have been a direct disciple of the Apostle Peter. Clement I was sent into exile to Crimea by his Roman overlords. The exile of the fourth leader of the Church evidently did not stop his passion for winning over converts.

Traditions within the Church maintain that Clement I won ever thousands of converts while in exile. He is said to have been responsible for establishing 75 churches in Crimea during his exile.

The evangelism, the building of churches, did not sit well with the Roman powers-that-be. The decision was made to execute the Pope, but not in a conventional manner. Clement the I was thrown into the Black Sea with an anchor wrapped around his neck.

7 Pope John VIII

Pope John VIII reigned for a decade, from 872 to 882. Papal historians tend to consider Pope John VIII one of the better popes of the 9^th century. However, during his lifetime, he was not without his critics and opponents, including within his own family.

One of the myths surrounding the Papacy is that there once was a female on Peter’s throne. A common corollary of this myth is that Pope John VIII was in fact a woman, mockingly referred to as Pope Joan. There is a persistent tale of the person called Pope John VIII having to pull over to the side of the road – to give birth. 

This Pontiff is said to have met his ultimate fate at the hands of a member of his family. This particular family member is said to have been concerned about the prospect of Pope John VIII distributing wealth to individuals not a part of his family. The relation wanted to ensure this did not occur.

The relative of the Pope initially poisoned him. When death proved long in coming, the family member proceeded to beat Pope John over the head with something akin a hammer, causing the leader of the Church to die.

6 Pope John Paul I

Pope John Paul I is a blip in the memory of most people. He reigned for 33 short days in 1978. Rumor had it at the time that the “Smiling Pope” intended to undertake a major overhaul of certain elements of the Vatican, particularly the Vatican Bank and the churches rules governing marriage and sexuality.

In the immediate aftermath of the Pontiff’s untimely death, more than a few Vatican observers pondered as to whether or not this potential radical reformer had been murdered by men with a vested interest in the status quo of the Church. Fingers most frequently point towards the then-head of the Vatican Bank as being the mastermind behind a conspiracy to assassinate the Pontiff.

A couple of books have been written on the subject. Each of these tomes reaches a different conclusion regarding the nature of Pope John Paul I’s death. One author concludes conspiratorial murder, the other natural causes in the form of a heart attack.

5 Pope Benedict IX

The Catholic Encyclopedia describes Pope Benedict IX as being a “disgrace to the Chair of St. Peter.” Some might argue that “disgrace” is something of an understatement.

Pope Benedict IX actually reigned as the leader of the Roman Catholic Church three separate times. He was Pope from 1032 to 1044, for about a month in 1045 and then once more from 1047 to 1048.

He left Papacy the first time in 1044, evidently having sold the office to another man for a healthy sum of money. Pope Benedict IX then somehow reneged on the deal and assumed the Papacy for a month in 1045. He seems to have departed the second time in order to marry. He returned to lead the Church in 1047, remaining in office for about a year until he was forcefully driven from Rome to permit the installation of a new Pontiff.

While in office, Pope Benedict is rumored to have actively engaged in homosexual activities and even bestiality. In reality, very little is known as to what went on in his private quarters during his reign … reigns.

The most authoritative histories suggest that he ultimately repented his wrongdoing and cloistered himself Abbey of Grottaferrata. The wayward Pontiff evidently died while engaging in penance for years of sinful living, including selling the Papacy like a commodity.

4 Pope John X

Pope John X was enthroned in 914 and served as the leader of the Roman Catholic Church for about 14 years. Generally speaking, Pope John X is regarded as a relatively effective and reasonable Pontiff, during an era where the same cannot be said of all of his colleagues.

A woman named Marozia is said to have started a chain of events that ultimately led to the mortal demise of Pope John X. She was married to the Margrave of Tuscany and believed that Pope John X threatened her power and that of her husband.

Marozia arranged to have the Pope captured and incarcerated. Not long after being imprisoned, it is believed that Pope John X was smothered in bed in his cell with a pillow, likely at the direction of the woman who believed her position was threatened by the Pontiff.

3 Pope Celestine V

Like Pope John Paul I, Pope Celestine V reigned for a but a short time. Celestine eked out five months, compared to John Paul’s one.

The only real edict issued by Pope Celestine during his reign was one in which he mandated that a Pope had ability to abdicate the Papal throne – which he did directly after issuing the proclamation.

Pope Celestine wanted to return to a simpler life as a monk (and hermit). Nonetheless, his successor, Pope Boniface VIII, evidently felt rather threatened by the humble Celestine. Boniface has Celestine arrested and apparently murdered. He was never permitted to return to his simple life as a monk and hermit.

Celestine left a job he never wanted in the hands of a successor who he would never challenge and nonetheless seems to have lost his life in process. Yet, some years after his death, he was canonized a saint of the Church.

2 Pope Benedict VI

Pope Benedict VI reigned from 973 to 974. Not long into his pontificate, he was captured and imprisoned by forces opposed to his papacy. Pope Boniface VII. (Boniface VII most often is considered a pretender to the Chair of St. Peter, or an Anti-Pope.)

The Holy Roman Emperor, Otto II, was less than pleased when he heard the news of Benedict’s seizure and incarceration. Thus, he sent an emissary to demand the release and reinstallation of Benedict VI to the papal throne.

Boniface evidently was not one to readily remit to such a demand. He arranged for a dutiful priest called Stephen to visit the erstwhile Pope Benedict in prison, which he did. Following the directives of Pope Boniface, the priest strangled Pope Benedict to death.

1 Pope Formosus

Pope Formosus, said to have been an octogenarian when he died, had a short reign as Pontiff of about five years, beginning in 891. In fact, next to nothing is really recorded about the death of Formosus. However, what happened following the elderly Pontiff’s passing is one of the most bizarre moments in Church history.

Formosus was followed in office by Boniface VI, who reigned for 15 days. Boniface was succeeded by Stephen VI, who concluded Formosus should be put on trial for alleged misconduct while leader of the Church.

The body of the deceased Formosus was removed from his sarcophagus and redressed in full Papal vestments. He was seated on the Pontiff’s throne. And he was put on trial.

In the end, the dead Formosus was found guilty of the charges leveled against him. He was stripped of the garments and the three fingers on his right hand used for Papal consecrations were cut from his dead hand.

Once the process ended, Formosus’ body was taken to a common graveyard and buried for a short time. The body then removed and thrown in the Tiber River. The body was pulled from the Tiber by a monk and reinterred elsewhere.

The Birth and Death of the 24-Hour News Channel by Mike Broemmel

Founded in 1980 by business mogul Ted Turner, CNN was one of two 24-hour news outfits that went into operation before and during the early years of the Ronald Reagan presidency. The other was SNC, the Satellite News Channel, a joint venture of ABC and Westinghouse, which launched in 1982 and died 18 months later.

Several years ago, I attended a luncheon hosted by the father of around-the-clock news, Ted Turner, to benefit bison preservation. The main course: bison steak. But, I digress.

I cut my teeth in the realm of media relations when CNN was in its infancy. By 1983, I was a low-ranking Munchkin in the White House Office of Media Relations. Our shop was charged with acting in the place of producers for television appearances by President Reagan.

The people responsible for crafting the television appearances of the President were well in-tune with the importance of the toddling 24-hour news organization in the form of CNN. A good deal of the proverbial message was tailored around the needs of CNN, even during its early years in business.

I think noting that one of the reasons Ronald Reagan was a highly successful President (winning reelection by the largest landslide in modern American history) was because his team understood how to play to CNN. So did President Reagan himself. Folks like to say Barack Obama is a great communicator. He is a good one. Bill Clinton is a great one. But, there is a reason why Ronald Reagan is still called The Great Communicator.

Thing is, throughout the Reagan era and throughout the presidencies of successors to The Gipper, CNN and its siblings in the form of Fox, MSNBC, and lesser-known others, mattered.

I watched the one and only news conference held by President-elect Donald Trump. As a person who cut his chops watching politicians like Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole, and Tip O’Neill communicate with the media, I cringe when I see the President-elect perform before the press.

My initial response to the President-elect’s press conference was: “Good Christ, if President Reagan had done this, he would have been ridden out of town on the horse he came in with, together with Bonzo.” (For those of you younger folks who miss the reference, Trump isn’t the first President to have a past in the entertainment industry. President Reagan was a product of Hollywood, and once starred in a movie called Bedtime for Bonzo. Bonzo? He was a monkey.)

Lest anyone think I am equating the President-elect with the former-President, I do paraphrase Senator Lloyd Bentsen in responding to Senator Dan Quayle during the Vice Presidential debate of the 1988 campaign season. “President-elect Trump, you’re no Ronald Reagan.”

Back to the Trump press conference. The President-elect went after CNN in an unabashed fashion. Truth be told, unhinged might be a more apt description.

The President-elect refused to take questions from the CNN pool reporter (unthinkable in the past). He called out CNN as a propagator of “fake news” (totally beyond anything imaginable at a press conference of any of Trump’s predecessors).

As an aside, CNN does appear to have been one of two entities that spewed out a story about the President-elect that appears to be groundless. The other entity is the routinely questionable BuzzFeed. Even MSNBC has taken CNN to task for not doing its due diligence.

And then I got it.

I was one of many folks who were around at the birth of CNN. And, now we are around to witness the death of CNN and its cohorts as the premier outlets for news and opinion in the United States.

I have heard more than a few communications experts state unequivocally the past two election cycles that television has lost its hegemony when it comes to politics, news, and associated communication. They are correct. 

Indeed, it dawned on me while watching the Trump news conference that since I abandoned watching any of the three 24-hour news networks before the election, I am far better informed.

Yes, the President-elect is brazen to the point of vulgarity. But, in this case, his assault on CNN is like kicking the dead horse that other Presidents would have been ridden out of town on. CNN and company, the 24-hour news networks, are no longer the behemoths of American political discourse they once were. In fact, CNN and company are barely relevant. 

No, the troika of CNN, MSNBC, and Fox will not disappear overnight. But, all three have now crossed the line into ever increasing irrelevance as reliable resources for news. The trend is irreversible. 

Despite its unseemliness, the President-elect’s assault on CNN at his press conference was not an attack on freedom of the press. Rather, it was an attack a thing that has such diminished relevance in the marketplace of news, opinion, ideas, and information, that a person like Trump can *spit* all over it without real consequence.

Farewell, Carrie Fisher ... And Let’s Grab a Coffee Sometime by Mike Broemmel

I can remember what I was doing when I heard Elvis Presley died. Same with Ronald Reagan. But, beyond that, I don’t get overwrought about the passing of a celebrity, even an untimely death. I am not one of those people that feels a close connection with famous folks merely because they are in my living room on the television.

In hearing today that Carrie Fisher died, my reaction is not what I normally experience. I am deeply saddened by the truly untimely passing of this writer and actress. (I relate to her more by a vocation I share … shared … with her.) I feel a hole in my tiny world right now. It is completely unexpected, and yet it is profound.

I remember Carrie Fisher from when I was very young. She is not much older than I am, although I incessantly lie about my age. I lie so much, half the time I don’t know how old I really am.

The first movie I ever saw, when I was five or six, was The Singing Nun, starring Ms. Fisher’s Mom, Debbie Reynolds. I knew Carrier Fisher as Debbie Reynold’s daughter. The Singing Nun is based on a real Catholic nun, who recorded a song that both she and Ms. Reynold’s popularized – Dominique. I can still hear the tune today. Sadly, the real life Singing Nun, also known as Sister Smile, ended up taking her own life in the 1980s.

And then came the summer before my freshman year in high school. The first ever installment in the Star Wars franchise, with Carrier Fisher as Princess Leia. For generations since, and for generations to come, the iconic role of Princess Leia will be something as close to immortal as anything on our frail planet can be.

But, her acting career is not really what causes me to feel a loss … to feel lost … today. Ms. Fisher’s own life journey has served as an inspiration to me, and to others as well. As happens, Ms. Fisher’s life went off the rails, as did my own.

Postcards from the Edge is a compelling look into her own struggles. Her honest efforts to confront the circumstances of her life, and right the ship, is something that I know has inspired many, many people … including me. I didn’t realize how important Ms. Fisher’s journey through the good and the bad is to me, until I learned she was gone.

And a word directly to Ms. Fisher … when my time comes to depart life on this planet, one of the first things I want to do is have a coffee with you in the great beyond. (I am sure coffee is available. It has to be.) In that we will have all of eternity lying in front of us, please squeeze me in. That would be an amazing moment for me.

Democratic Party on Course for Another Major Electoral Disaster in 2018

At the same time many (but not all) Democratic activists were damn certain Hillary Clinton was going to be elected President of the United States by a landslide, they were also shouting from the mountain tops that the Democrats would regain control of the U.S. Senate.

Most of these prognosticators swore that the Senate breakdown would be 52 Democrats (including two independents who caucus with them) to 48 Republicans, after the election. In fact, the breakdown is the exact opposite ... 52 Republicans to 48 Democrats.

But here is the major rub. 25 Democratic Senate seats are up for reelection in 2018 ... only 8 GOP seats are up in the next cycle. Of that number, 10 Democratic seats are in states Donald Trump won.

Thus far, the leadership of the Democratic Party, and the yapping class on social media, have demonstrated a complete unwillingness to engage in introspection about the most recent electoral disaster -- from the top of the ballot on down to state legislatures across the nation. The Blame Machine is on high -- blaming a myriad of things for the major losses of 2016, just like what occurred in 2014.

The net effect of this will be the Democratic Party will run the same type of campaign across the country in 2018 that was run in 2014 and 2016  ... and the Democratic Party will take a historic, mid-Presidential-term shellacking in the next election cycle.

Some folks will argue that there is plenty of time for the Democratic leadership and others to get their acts together. That's a nice sentiment, but ... there was a full two years after the disaster of 2014, and yet nothing was done.

The reality is most Democratic leaders will continue to believe they don't need to change a thing. They will jabber that the Obama Administration was a grand success, using Orwellian arguments along the way. They will pontificate that Hillary Rodham Clinton was the most splendiferous presidential candidate in history. And they will attack and insult those who disagree with them in a way that makes Donald Trump look positively saintly.

There is nearly no indication that any person in a position of party leadership is willing to wake up and accept the reality that the message and the strategies of the Democratic Party are failing. (The only possible exception is New York Senator Charles Schumer. But, in the end, if anything at all, he will be a voice in the wilderness.)

I called the conduct of the Democratic Party in 2014 political malpractice. The party lost U.S. Senators that should never have gone down to defeat, including my own U.S. Senator, Mark Udall.

Words alone cannot begin to describe what I think of the Democratic Party powers-that-be in the aftermath of the 2016 election cycle. I can say this ... I envision the entire executive committee of the DNC pulling up to party headquarters, crammed in a small auto. They all pop out of the vehicle, one after another, wearing rubber red noses and over-sized shoes.

And then, they spend the remainder of the day squeezing each others' rubber noses because it feels so good.

In the final analysis ...

The U.S. Senate headcount after 2018:

Democrats - 38

Republicans - 62

Mike Broemmel Takes on Life Story of Truman Capote in New Play

Playwright Mike Broemmel is slated to pen the life story of iconic author Truman Capote in a new play simply called Capote. The most recent play by Mike Broemmel, entitled Stand Still & Look Stupid, premiered in Colorado in December 2016. Capote is slated to premiere in South Beach, Florida, in 2018.

"I have read Capote's In Cold Blood several times through the years. I became highly interested in the period of Capote's life that he spent in Kansas researching In Cold Blood. I became particularly intrigued by Capote's relationship with one of the killer's of the Clutter family as well as the role Harper Lee played in helping Capote with his work, Broemmel explained.

When asked why South Beach is designated as the city to premiere Capote, Broemmel made it clear that he has always loved South Florida. I have great memories of the times I spent in South Florida. Plus, I think the art scene in South Beach provides a perfect backdrop for the premiere of Capote," Broemmel said.

Capote is part of a five play series that Broemmel has been commissioned to create that focuses on the lives of a group of unique and disparate men. The series includes plays about Al Capone, Jeffrey Dahmer, Buffalo Bill Cody, Truman Capote, and Clark Gable. "It's a strange mix of men, but they are all interested for different reasons. I know the least about Bill Cody, although he spent a great deal of time in Colorado, which is my current home," Broemmel said.

Other plays by Mike Broemmel that have been produced include:

The Row

The Baptism

Goddess People

Kiss

Six Joan Crawfords

Taking Tea with the Ripper

The Hours of Anne

The Bonfils Girl

La Primera Mujer: The True Story of Eva Peron

Stand Still & Look Stupid

Call Me Mrs. Evers

Escort Me

River'd Inn

More information about Mike Broemmel is available at:

www.mikebroemmel.com

Capote by Mike Broemmel

Mike Broemmel

The Framer’s Got It Right: How the Electoral College Can Save the Nation from the Major Political Parties

Introduction

A friendly reminder as we prepare to vote in the 2016 election. When a registered voter casts a vote “for president,” that individual is not voting for a presidential candidate. In all of U.S. history, a citizen of this nation has never voted for a presidential candidate.

A citizen’s vote is cast for a slate of electors identified with a particular candidate. Although ballots neatly set forth the name of the presidential candidates, that reality is the ultimate misnomer. Again voters vote for electors, plain and simple.

The people on the winning slate of electors in each state in turn cast their ballots for an individual they desire to become President of the United States, doing so in December. If an individual garners 270 votes via the Electoral College, he or she will be sworn in as the President of the United States in January 2017.

The Major Party Nominees

Despite the utterly blind allegiance some individuals who support Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton demonstrate, the objective bottom line is that neither major party candidate in the 2016 race for the presidency is fit to occupy the White House. I am not going to belabor this essay with a recitation of the very real shortcomings of these two individuals. I have written extensively on why electing neither Trump or Clinton is in the best interests of the American people.

I will not vote for either Trump or Clinton. I cannot, in good faith, support either of these candidates because they have both consistently demonstrated they are more concerned with their personal self-interest than in honorably serving the needs of the American people.

Some voters are gravitating to the candidacies of the Libertarian or Green Party candidates. There is something positive to be said about people who will vote their conscious and not kowtow to demands by Trump or Clinton partisans that they must vote a certain way.

State Laws Governing Voting by Electors

No federal law requires an Elector to vote a certain way. The Electoral College was established in the U.S. Constitution to amass a group of people who would exercise thoughtful judgment in the selection of the nation’s head of state and head of government. Over the years, the Electoral College has become a mere rubberstamp for voter preference on a state-by-state basis. (There are two exceptions to the winner-take-all structure of electing Electors. Nebraska and Maine proportion electors based on the popular vote.)

Some states have laws on the books that purport to require Electors to vote for the candidate of the party to which the initially pledged support. 29 states and the District of Columbia have these laws, the remainder do not. In those states that do have these restrictive laws, the penalty typically amounts to a fine in the amount of about $1,000.

Keep in mind that most legal scholars maintain these laws could never meet constitutional muster anyway. They have never been challenged and if they were, it is quite likely they would be struck down as unconstitutional. In other words, Electors either are not or cannot be bound by any initial pledge to support a particular presidential candidate.

Keeping Faith with the People

Nearly every presidential election cycle, when the Electoral College votes are cast, one or two Electors are dubbed “faithless.” By that it is meant that such an Elector does not vote for the pledged candidate. In 2016, I strongly suggest that any Elector that does not vote for Trump or Clinton is keeping faith with the American people.

I have no illusions about Electors actually exercising their constitutional duty this election year in a serious, thoughtful manner. I have no illusions about Electors coming together to elect outright someone who is not Trump or Clinton President of the United States. I am suggesting, however, that I hold out hopes that at least a percentage of Electors are thoughtful, individuals who truly have the welfare of our country at heart. (Of course, I perfectly understand that most of these folks likely are the most blind partisans of all.) Since I started working on this essay earlier in October, one Clinton Elector announced defection and will not vote for the former Secretary of State during the Electoral College process.

In the final analysis, if enough Electors abstain, or vote for someone else that is not Trump or Clinton, the presidential race turns to the House of Representatives. (The vice president is selected by the Senate.)

I freely admit this is not a perfect solution. However, after weeks of reflection, I finally concluded stopping both of these two individuals objectively unfit for the presidency from assuming the highest office in the land was worth the risk of what might come out of the House of Representatives.

The House is not required to elect one of its own members to the presidency. Perhaps, just perhaps, these elected officials might rise to the occasion and consider the benefits of selecting someone to be President of the United States who actually would preside over a true national unity government. Perhaps, just perhaps, the Senate would follow suit in the selection of a vice president as well. Although typically in a parliamentary system, unity governments in time of crisis have been formed, to the benefit of the nation and its citizens.

I’m not some political Pollyanna. I understand that harsh realities of where we have fallen as a nation when a serious assessment is made of both major party candidates. Both of them. The state of the presidential election, and the conduct of partisan extremists supporting both candidates, has become incomprehensible to me.

Conclusion

The United States is not, and never has been, a democracy. Our nation was established as, and remains, a democratic republic. The founders had a sound rationale for establishing a democratic republic. Specifically, they envisioned the possibility that the majority could take action in the name of democracy that actually works against the best interests of the nation and its people.

In the 2016 election, a majority of Americans are hell-bent on electing one or another individual objectively unfit to serve as President of the United States. If ever a time existed to put the brakes on imprudent conduct by a majority of Americans, that time is now and the tool is the Electoral College. The Electoral College was created for a reason. And I sincerely think the reason exists in 2016.

October 12, 2016

www.mikebroemmel.com

Mike Broemmel