The New York Times recently published an article entitled: Should we read Huck Finn? I would have revised the title to read: Should we read arguably the most important social commentary in U.S. letters?

How could a novel about two runaways floating down the Mississippi River maintain provocative status, since its release in 1884? The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn simultaneously offers a glimpse of pre Civil War America, while raising uncomfortable questions for the present moment.

According to Ernest Hemingway, Huck is the genesis of modern American literature. It is also one of the nation’s frequently challenged texts. Many schools and public libraries remove it from its reading lists. Moreover, its author, Mark Twain possessed a worldview on race, in the 19^th century, that could be deemed progressive by contemporary standards.

Twain forces the reader to examine the absurdity of racism, while offering an uncomfortable path forward for its eradication. There is contemporary pushback against Twain’s liberal use of the N-word. But such opposition blinds one to Huck’s subversive aspects.

Twain portrays Jim, a runaway slave as possessing agency. Jim’s agency becomes key to transforming Huck’s worldview, ultimately revealing to our 21^st century understanding what’s truly required to be an ally.

There is a tendency to treat Huck with the similar quixotic conclusions reserved for most present-day conversations about race.

Huck should not be entrusted to the hands of the dilettante, who teaches the text simply because it appears on the lesson plan. In America’s sophomoric analysis, Twain’s use of the N-word stands as an impenetrable fortress of racial animus. It fuels America’s well-honed arrested development.

In the morass of linear self-righteousness, it may be easy to read Huck and see the author as a white man profiting from jargon accepted by 19^th century racial nomenclature.

It is difficult to teach Huck uninformed about its author. Twain, grew up in slave-holding Missouri. He absorbed the racist attitudes of his community. He briefly joined a local Confederate militia for two weeks at the start of the Civil War before heading west.

Twain’s evolution is important to reading Huck, as well as his subsequent text, Pudd’nhead Wilson, a dark satirical novel. Pudd’nhead is a story of two boys—one, born into slavery, was 1/32 black; the other, white, born to be the master of the house. The boys look similar but are switched at infancy. Each grows into the other’s social role.

Moreover, prior to reading Huck, students should know of Twain’s financial contribution to Warner T. McGuinn.

McGuinn was an African American Yale law student, ranked number one in his class. McGuinn worked multiple jobs to afford his law school education. McGuinn did not know Twain but appealed to his benevolence. When Twain was made aware of McGuinn’s situation, he penned a letter to the dean of the law school outlining his desires and motivation.

Twain wrote Francis Wayland, the law school dean, the same year of Huck’s release, saying: “I do not believe I would very cheerfully help a white student who would ask a benevolence of a stranger, but I do not feel so about the other color. We have ground the manhood out of them, & the shame is ours, not theirs; & we should pay for it.”

Twain financed McGuinn’s expenses until his graduation in 1887. Upon graduation, McGuinn opened a law practice in Baltimore, Maryland and mentored an aspiring law student named Thurgood Marshall.

Huck belies America’s social growth. It’s not coincidental the text was also one of the most challenged at the turn of the 20^th century. Was it due to Twain’s use of the N-word or because he gives a Black character agency—abhorrent to the nation’s delicate digestive system at the time? America’s social mores may have progressed; but have they matured?

The Twain who littered Huck with the N-word is also the person who made it possible for Thurgood Marshal to be mentored by the top law student in Yale’s graduating law class of 1887.

The controversy of Huck is America’s controversy; its inability to grapple authentically with who and what we are. The country that gave the institution of slavery constitutional legitimacy reached the conclusion, albeit violently, of the immorality of the nation’s “peculiar institution.”

Huck does not speak to the nation’s accomplishments but to its shortcomings while keeping the ambers of possibility lit. For more than a century, Huck has offered the nation a path out of its predicament. Rather than seizing that opportunity, Twain’s overtures have been castigated. As President Kennedy said of Robert Frost, Twain, wrote “not to our self-esteem but to our self-awareness.” He was not deceived by self-deception and that shines through in Huck.

Huck is indispensable because it questions American hypocrisy. Its protagonists (Huck and Jim) are marginalized by society, externally divided by race, but point the way to the better angels of our nature.

As writer James Baldwin opines, “History is not the past. It is the present. We carry our history with us.” Huckleberry Finn is a tale about an unresolved history that we carry with us. Twain’s use of the N-word, in the 21st century, becomes a well-worn excuse to leave that history roadside.

It is easier to place one of the nation’s foundational sins between the pages of a fictional text, banishing it into the literary wilderness, than to grapple with the relevance of its core message.

It’s ironic that Samuel Langhorne Clemens took on the nom de plume Mark Twain, riverboat slang for safe water. He wrote a text that has remained unsafe in the American culture for 142 years and counting.

Miller reportedly shot down four to six Japanese planes, while also dragging several wounded U.S. soldiers to safety. For his valor, Admiral Chester Nimitz awarded Miller the Navy Cross. Moreover, Miller received his distinction 23 years before the current president received his first of five military deferments. Miller’s legacy is recognized with a school that bears his name in Ennis, Texas, along with a commemorative postage stamp.

There are reports that the paper-tiger-in-chief wants to rename an aircraft carrier after himself. The ship, currently under construction, was set to be named the USS Doris Miller.

Only an individual who painstakingly sought to avoid military service could be so cavalier as to remove authentic examples of valor. His insufferable vainglory serves only as inadequate camouflage, unable to conceal that he is a petulant child who also received deferments when he was up for maturity, empathy, and grace.

The president also wants to have his name adorn the John F. Kennedy Center for Performing Arts, not because he supports the arts as did the center’s namesake, but simply “because”—because he is a vacuous soul unable to be lauded for actual achievements, nothing more than a reenactment of “Little Jack Horner” occupying the Oval Office.

Given his covert escape aboard a catering truck, while leaving members of his Cabinet and the press corps aboard Air Force One because of a credible threat, one can only assume that, had the arrogant chicken hawk been at Pearl Harbor, he would have been hiding in the mess hall while Miller was saving his brothers-in-arms.

Anyone aboard an aircraft carrier bearing Miller’s name would be reminded daily of the unique valor required to adorn the uniform. I’m not certain someone who impudently inserted his name as a replacement, with multiple military deferments, unable to support the soldiers he sends into harm’s way, elicits the same feelings.

The irony is palpable. The president, who bears the historical acumen that could fit within the contours of a 3x3 Post-it note, vows not to allow so-called “woke” teachers to erase American history as he brazenly attempts to replace Miller’s heroism with his bone spurs.

But for our collective ignorance of history, could one conceive where Miller’s bravery could be rationally usurped by presidential incompetence. But less than two years after Pearl Harbor, Miller was killed when his ship was struck by a Japanese torpedo at the Battle of Makin.

Perhaps the president believes Miller’s name could be replaced because he is but another “loser and sucker”—a term he reportedly used in 2020 to disparage service members who died in war. The president’s statement was corroborated by his former Chief of Staff General John Kelly.

Miller is acknowledged because he saved others with no concern for his own safety. Moreover, the social mores of racial segregation, prevalent in U.S. armed forces circa 1941, did not dictate his actions. One would be hard-pressed to imagine the president sacrificing personal interest for the sake of his children, let alone those with no direct ties.

Where are the legions of armchair historians, supporters of the president, routinely concerned at the hint of “whitewashing” history? They support revisionist Civil War history, are not troubled by military installations being named for those who took arms against the U.S. government, while offering the institution of slavery as an ancillary reason behind what many of that ilk refer to as the “War of Northern Aggression.” But noticeably silent about removing a bright light in one of America’s darkest hours.

Beyond the arrogance of a sitting president naming an aircraft carrier after himself, it is unconscionable to promote the idea of replacing the name of a Black man who defended a nation that at the time would not defend his civil liberties but would rename military installations after white men who promoted the violent overthrow of the nation, as did the president on January 6, 2021.

Crippled by degenerate narcissism, the president views the military, like most things within his purview, as another branding opportunity.

Miller’s actions reveal a belief that was larger than himself; it was larger than the social norms of his hometown, Waco, Texas, which is also the genesis of my grandmother’s family. The insult of potentially removing a hero and replacing him with a coward is also one of myopic ignorance and racial prejudice.

Replacing Miller’s name with the president’s would not be an example

of the meritocracy that the president champions. Miller’s legacy is one fortified by courage, sacrifice and service. That’s anathema to a president who must pathetically remove the name of an American hero because he has no chance of actually being one.

Though the current presidential administration has capitalized exponentially, the Republican Party at large bears the lion’s share of culpability. Beginning circa 1968, the GOP realized political gold by exploiting people’s fears and othering particular groups.

The Declaration of Independence and Constitution work in tandem. The former called for liberty and equality, and the latter was constructed to codify that commitment.

The incongruence between language and practices created the ongoing tension. Those outside the mainstream designation have perennially asked: “Who is included in the ‘we’ as in ‘We, the people?’”

Through what was coined by writer Anthony Conwright as “The Slaveholders Rebellion” (The Civil War), amendments to the Constitution, and court decisions, America circa 2026 is much closer to the liberty and equality edict than it was 250 years ago.

America has never found complete comfort with its commitments to liberty and equality. Over the past six decades, however, the discomfort has been exacerbated. In the aftermath of the civil rights movements of the 1960s, the Republican Party, using fear, discovered the political paydirt that it continues to cling perilously.

The Southern Strategy was a Republican Party conception campaign in the 1960s and 1970s designed to win over white conservative voters in the American South. It capitalized on racial tensions following the civil rights movement by using coded political language about law enforcement, states’ rights, and local control. The subtext was that the Republican Party was committed to returning the country to its natural order. Here’s how former GOP operative Lee Atwater described the Southern Strategy in 1981:

“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say ‘nigger’—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and these things you’re talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites.”

As uncomfortable as it may be to read Atwater’s words, it is profoundly American, indicative of the pushback when the quest to realize the nation’s commitment exceeds the comfort level of the perceived status quo.

The appeal to tribalism is antithetical to American ideals. But it has traction because it titillates by assumption.

The American ideal is not based on how far back one can trace their family lineage. It does not matter if one’s ancestors fought at Concord, Lexington, or Shays’ Rebellion. The question is whether one is dedicated to the notions of liberty and equality.

The American experiment has always been accompanied by a pop quiz testing how committed we, the people, are to the nation’s overarching commitments. On each occasion, the collective response has not showcased the better angels of the American nature.

America circa 2026 is doing exactly as it was designed. Why wouldn’t a nation based on the ideals of liberty and equality be a magnet for many who are denied such rights at home?

The country is becoming browner; the culture is increasingly diverse. This is the American experiment blossoming, as it simultaneously creates discomfort. The nation’s divisions, from the beginning, are usually driven by the erroneous attempt to portray America as a tribal nation founded on nationalistic principles. Nationalism justifies erratic departures from the national creed. The only way to justify such actions is to hold American virtue is the specific province of a uniformed dominant culture.

The nation has always possessed an offshoot, claiming to stand for the American ideal. Embracing the counterintuitive claim, they profess to protect the country by ignoring its precepts.

America has always possessed self-appointed centurions to protect the nation from moving closer to its stated goals. In doing so, they undermine the nation’s long-term commitments.

The Republican Party relies heavily on white voters, which is inconsistent with demographic trends. The fear and division they’ve promulgated for six decades may be the last stand for this recalcitrant group whose opposition is as old as the republic. Moreover, liberty and equality are not finite concepts. The expansion of these ideals does not come at the expense of those already included.

The long-term effects of the Republicans’ macabre practices were known in advance, but the short-term profits, rooted in fear and cynicism, made it worth the risk.

American values are not relics associated with a period when running water and electricity were novel concepts. They are the products of dynamic ingenuity that beckons us to keep pace.

It is the responsibility of

each citizen to hold fast to those radical concepts and not engage in the feeble attempts to orchestrate an outcome to our liking.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

This is America’s animating moral principle, the nation’s most famous sentence. But the paradox is made more obvious because the moral principle shines brightly. Echoing Lincoln’s sentiments at Gettysburg, in a larger sense, what was achieved in 1776 is far greater than any contemporary writer’s power to add or detract.

But to surgically extricate the word “men,” as in “All men are created equal,” suggesting the Declaration is gender specific, misses the larger meaning. Rather than debating from the vaunted 21st-century enlightenment perspective or defensively rationalizing that the Founding Generation were men of their times, let us consider that their statement raised an additional question that each generation has been burdened to answer: Who has agency? Who should enjoy the riches of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Though it is a question that has been revisited in myriad ways on multiple occasions, there is no commonly accepted belief. Even among many enlightened souls, there remains contention over whether American largesse is primarily for whites.

The Founding Generation were disciples of the British Empire, who desired independence but did not find fault with every aspect associated with colonization. The Declaration represents the last resort of exasperation for a group of men whose initial goal was to be treated as British citizens. They nevertheless penned a document that went beyond what they originally desired. It left space for the words “all men” to be redefined while keeping the spirit of the original document intact. Human history’s through line is a reminder that one’s ideals will invariably be morally superior to one’s limited powers of execution.

Has that culture resigned itself to limiting the Declaration to a commemorative affair that touts a flawless and inaccurate history?

The semiquincentennial milestone arrives at a time when many Americans are overcome by a rhapsodic fervor that can only see the past as a series of positive data points. It intensifies the inability to realize the nation’s greatness in an authentic manner. American greatness cannot be understood by viewing its formation without mentioning the appropriation of Native American lands, understanding the Civil War as having no relation to slavery, and touting the “Greatest Generation” while omitting Japanese internment camps.

This does not tear down America, as the sophomoric refrain offers, but suggests an honest assessment of who and what we are. The inability to achieve the latter consideration means we are trapped in a historical web of mendacity. Though it is doubtful that there can be commonly agreed-upon standards for American greatness, no standard can be realized without an honest assessment.

The nation’s most famous sentence declares there are certain truths that are self-evident, something so blatant that its validity does not require proof. Because these rights are unalienable, they are absolute and cannot be removed by personal whim.

It is indeed a radical proposition when one considers that the United States’ secession from Great Britain and subsequent journey hinges on the slender thread of an idea to enjoin liberty and equality. That idea has remained at the country’s cornerstone for 250 years, setting a high bar for itself and humankind in general. Whatever shortcomings in its implementation, liberty and equality are the radical underpinnings of its existence. Perhaps the Declaration is a victim of its success. The original vision of the 13 colonies, as the Declaration proclaims, was of nation-states that possessed “full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.” That vision, in all likelihood, could not have sustained itself for 250 years. But the Declaration was the tool that the thirteen colonies used to retrofit their project, replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution. The Declaration set in motion the transformation of British subjects into citizens endowed with unalienable rights secured by the laws of nature and nature’s God.

The flaws of the Declaration are the imperfections of the human condition. Aspiring to the natural laws of liberty and equality should suffice. But enslaving Africans and appropriating the lands of the indigenous population, while systematically annihilating them, introduces paradox into the equation. The insertion of paradox in 1776 has made it difficult in the aftermath for many not to see the Declaration’s primary beneficiaries as pertaining to a particular hue.

It is common to portray the Declaration and the Fourth of July as synonymous. Nothing could be further from reality. The Declaration is a radical document that combined nearly two centuries of Enlightenment thinking, proclaiming the inverted order that people could govern themselves on the basis of liberty and equality. The Fourth of July is the manner in which the nation commemorates its most sacred document that led to secession from British rule in 1783.

Ten days before his death on July 4, 1826, Jefferson wrote, “All eyes are opened, or opening to the rights of man.” That assertion feels to be in question. The “great revolution,” as political philosopher Edmund Burke depicted it, has lost momentum. After 250 years, many Americans, for various reasons, are finding solace in the perceived conveniences of illiberal democracy. Time will reveal whether this is a temporary or permanent shift.

The Declaration is not a panacea. For 250 years

, its meaning has been cajoled to suit behaviors antithetical to its radical mission. At times, it has been an inconvenient irritant, forcing the nation to ignore it altogether. In those situations, the Declaration has relied upon those marginalized at the nation’s founding. Since 1776, how many times has it been the valor of the marginalized, based on the Declaration’s preamble, that moved the nation closer to its foundational precepts?

Four score and seven years before Abraham Lincoln gave his brief remarks at Gettysburg, nine score and seven years before Martin Luther King told America about his “dream,” eleven score and thirteen years before Barack Hussein Obama took the oath of office as president, and twelve score and five years before America’s peaceful transfer of power came to an end on January 6, 2021, the Founding Generation placed the nation on a radical and paradoxical course—that combined high ideals with the human condition’s dark impulses.

America, as Lincoln noted, was conceived in liberty, dedicated to the proposition that all are created equal. The Declaration serves as America’s enlightened, prophetic, hypocritical, and paradoxical ethos. Its meaning is often hidden behind the immediate gratification of a few. The Declaration is not the affiliate of a single group. It represents a beacon for the nation at-large to follow in its unending pursuit towards a more perfect union.

The current President of the United States, whose loose association with the truth is well documented, selected 23 members from the tainted news agency to serve in what should be deemed as the “unfair and unbalanced administration.”

It is easier to be a well-paid talking head, pontificating in front of the camera, titillating viewers without consequence. At Fox, they could conceal their ineptitude with brash musings, vaunted claims of certainty, and arrogance. At the White House, the cavalcade of incompetence cannot hide their profound ignorance and unconcern with the nation’s civic virtue.

The latest not-ready-for-primetime player so recognized is Jeanine Pirro. The former television personality and judge may have jeopardized her license to practice law to remain in the president’s irrational good graces.

Before accepting an appointment to serve in the administration, Pirro was a panelist on Fox News’ The Five. The show recently caused controversy when panelist Greg Gutfeld conflated embracing the term Nazi with how Black Americans have defanged the N-word.

“You know what,” Gutfeld stated, “We need to learn from the Blacks [and] the way they were able to remove the power from the n-word by using it. So from now on, it’s ‘what up my Nazi?’” A voice could also be heard chiming in amidst the laughter, saying: “Nazi please!”

Pirro is not responsible for Gutfeld’s despicable discourse, but it does indicate the type of degenerate cesspool the president finds appealing.

Pirro, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, recently moved to dismiss vandalism charges against former Olympic canoeist David Hearn and several others regarding the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. Pirro’s office stated new evidence proved the pool damage resulted from a botched contractor installation and not criminal action. But this hardly tells the complete story.

After reading the motion to dismiss, what was submitted to the court was tantamount to an admission that the Department of the Interior withheld evidence. According to the motion, DOI inspected and reached the conclusion that the pool was peeling on its own eight days before Hearn was arrested.

The arrest of Hearn and others was part of a cover-up to mask incompetence. The Reflecting Pool repair has cost taxpayers more than $14 million, a price tag that exceeded the president’s public promise of $1.5 million. Moreover, the contract was awarded on a no-bid basis, which, according to federal guidelines, is allowed only when a single provider has unique capabilities or proprietary technology, during urgent public emergencies, or when authorized by express federal statute.

Rather than admitting error, the president opted to reveal his emotional fragility that views the need for admitting an error as an existential threat. Such weakness is antithetical to the job description of the President of the United States, but it also requires assistance of sycophants with similar infirmities. Pirro is no heroine in this scenario. Though she realized a kowtowing line she couldn’t cross, she had already conducted enough malfeasance to warrant having her name removed from Notable Albany Law School Alumni.

I’m quite certain there is not an accredited law school in the country that supports withholding evidence that could exonerate an individual. In the CYA portion of the motion to dismiss, Pirro et al wrote, “Had the Department of Interior been forthcoming with the information already in its possession, the government would not have sought a grand jury indictment.”

But this runs counter to Pirro’s press conference upon the arrest of Hearn; she stated, “The evidence shows, and we will prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that Hearn willfully destroyed property at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.” One wonders what became of the evidence that was so clear only to become the work described in the motion as botched?

How many lives must be disrupted by a petulant commander-in-chief and his merry band of minions who blindly follow to remain in good standing? Though Pirro stopped short of complete submission, she has done enough to be considered for disbarment. Potential disbarment is the occupational prerequisite to serve at the pleasure of the president.

How many unnecessary arrests and deaths; how many murders; how much wrongdoing at taxpayer expense must the nation endure? Knowingly arresting innocent people sounds like the work of Soviet leader Josef Stalin, but it’s occurring in the United States. Only a soulless collection of unbridled ambition could serve under such vapid conditions.

Pirro is hardly the sole participant as a Fox News performer turned administrative official. Once again, the disciples of the unfair and unbalanced news agency serve at the peril of the people of the United States, has shown that

their performative propaganda on air is detrimental in a country committed to the ideals of liberty and equality.

George Washington led the Continental Army in its successful war of attrition against the British Empire. He went on to serve as the nation’s first president, thereby defining the office. When the Civil War tore the country asunder, the steady hand of Abraham Lincoln became the nation’s healing balm.

America benefited by having Franklin Roosevelt as its president during its greatest challenges in the 20^th century, the Great Depression and the Second World War. Lyndon Johnson was the right person to shepherd the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

But in the nation’s 250^th year, it has lost some of its serendipitous mojo. The Republican Party controls all three branches of the federal government and has shown itself to be the worst option at the worst moment.

The Republicans’ oft-repeated talking points of individual freedom, limited government, the rule of law, peace through strength, fiscal responsibility, free markets, and human dignity have not worn well.

Limited government became limited accountability. The rule of law turned a blind eye to the president’s malfeasance. The fiscal responsibility added more than $4 trillion to the federal deficit. Peace through strength is currently bogged down in Iran. Human dignity overturned Roe v. Wade and, according to the Wall Street Journal, the current presidential administration is reportedly holding $2 billion in AIDS medication hostage to Zambia in return for access to mining rights.

Unable or unwilling to effectively address the issues that many Americans face, the Republicans opted to relitigate the COVID crisis. The Republican Senate’s parade of righteous indignation levied toward Dr. Anthony Fauci was a national embarrassment. Watching the hearings led by Kentucky’s Junior Senator Rand Paul, one would have thought Fauci’s actions rose to the level of evil perpetrated by Dr. Josef Mengele. They pored through Fauci’s private diary, with a vigor that should be reserved for the Epstein files.

The president, with Congress’ blessing, has run roughshod over democratic norms, using the Office to monetize his wealth. And four members of the Supreme Court upheld the president’s desires to use the line-item veto for aspects of the 14^th Amendment he found objectionable.

We do, as writer James Baldwin opined, carry our history with us. Nuancing Baldwin’s critique, we carry our version of history with us, gifting it with unimpeachable validity.

Too often, it is a version of history that elicits director John Ford, rather than Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, or Alexander Hamilton, to write the screenplay. It is a disjointed melodrama that carefully delineates between good and evil. This approach invites self-righteousness into the democratic equation. One justifies his or her actions, not on the broad spectrum of the nation’s commitments, but on the terse terrain of personal comfort.

Disentangling this menagerie of incompetence will require more than changing the majority party in the Midterm Elections. The important question, as Hamilton raised in Federalist 1, “Whether societies are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force?”

Good government is not the desired outcome but an adherence to a process. The Republican leadership is marred by systematically eschewing obedience to the process. They have instead used fear and othering, corrosive aspects of the human condition, to justify their existence.

For as much as we need to safeguard our rights, there must be equal vigilance to accentuate our responsibilities. Representative government, as practiced in the United States, does not mean our civic responsibilities suffice by voting. Moreover, only 64 percent of the eligible population achieved this minimal requirement in 2024. Fifty percent may find something more engaging than casting a ballot in November.

The gateway to America’s current malaise began when then Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell decided against holding hearings for Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

With 10 months before the 2016 General Election, McConnell arbitrarily decided that the outgoing president should not nominate the next Supreme Court Justice. McConnell’s desperate gambit was viewed largely as hardball politics. Four years later, with a Republican president in office, McConnell saw no problem confirming Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett one week before the General Election, giving conservatives a 6-3 majority on the Court.

The failure to hold Republicans accountable for this chicanery led to a Supreme Court rendering an array of decisions inconsistent with the contemporary reality of many Americans. The challenge that American democracy can present, the short-term desired outcome may run counter to the nation’s long-term interests, especially if it were achieved in an unhealthy manner.

No political party should be granted exclusive receivership to manage our democratic norms. Unlike other scenarios in American history, where the right individual came forth at the right time, it would appear the right individual that America needs is standing in the mirror

.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that the teleprompter had been put on unpaid administrative leave. Leavitt also said she spoke with the president, who reportedly described the actions as a “disgrace” and made the decision himself to place the teleprompter on unpaid leave.

It would appear the “disgrace” that the White House teleprompter exhibited did not apply to the practices of the commander-in-chief, who recently announced on his Truth Social platform a plan to sell access to information before it goes public.

The president’s Media & Technology Group plans to launch “Truth API,” a data feed that provides what it calls the “fastest” real-time access to posts “from the highest-ranking Truth Social accounts.” In other words, the President of the United States announced plans to launch an insider trading scheme to the highest bidders. It was reported that premium subscribers would pay a monthly fee of $100,000. The president’s family, owns roughly 41% of the company through a revocable trust.

According to a company spokesperson, the licensed data service will deliver posts from Truth Social’s 10 most influential accounts to customers significantly faster than the usual push notification. Given the president has nearly 13 million followers on his Truth Social account, he would most likely be among those providing information.

Within the week that four soldiers were killed in the conflict with Iran and the 22nd victim died while in ICE custody this year, the president announced publicly plans to grift more money. Wall Street firms and other financial businesses will have access to the president’s posts milliseconds before the posts are public. According to the Media Group, the early access “is intended to allow subscribers the ability to make stock trades and similar deals to profit off the subsequent moves in the market once (the president’s) post goes live.”

It does not require a law degree from the ACME Evening Law School (apologies to Wile E. Coyote) to know this is illegal and unethical, conditions that are impervious to this White House’s amoral coating.

In addition to the direct financial benefits, the President of the United States is being incentivized to make decisions that move markets in a particular direction. Under this climate, the president’s statements on the conflict against Iran could be determined by who stands to benefit financially.

Imagine momentarily, if the White House teleprompter operator had not gone rogue and included the president in his scheme, under the new Truth Social premium package, those paying, say, $100,000 per month would also be able to cash in on the prediction market.

If the classical definition of insider trading is buying or selling a company’s stocks or other securities using important information that is not yet public, wouldn’t any advance information, even a millisecond, constitute knowledge not yet public? Moreover, wouldn’t this scheme place every subscriber in legal jeopardy?

The president’s unprecedented financial scheme exceeds the wide berth provided by the Supreme Court’s wayward 2024 ruling in Trump v. United States that presidents have absolute immunity for constitutional acts, presumptive immunity for other official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts.

One would be hard-pressed to conclude that promoting an insider trading scheme on Truth Social qualifies under the guidelines of absolute or presumptive immunity. Following through with this plan should land the president in jail after the requisite impeachment and conviction.

But that’s unlikely to happen because of the vertebrae removal that the majority of the Republican-led Congress willfully endured to remain in the president’s favor. As much as I find the president’s behavior since returning to office reprehensible, it is made possible by a neutered Republican-led Congress that views itself as an adjunct wing for the president’s vile and self-serving desires rather than a co-equal branch of government.

The key to American democracy has been adherence to a set of ideals. Those ideals are reinforced by each branch serving as the primary defender of their respective institution.

The republic collapses under the weight of its hubris when it places the short-term interest of party affiliation over what best serves the nation long-term.

In less than two years, America is less respected internationally, weakened by the self-induced actions of starting an ill-advised war with Iran, the U.S. military airstrikes against civilian vessels suspected of drug trafficking violated international law, irresponsible economic tariffs, the Congressional Budget Office projects that roughly 7.5 million people will lose Medicaid coverage by 2034 due to deep funding reductions and strict new work requirements, the federal government is engaged in murder on the streets, while the president enriches himself and his family by billions.

Except for Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republicans who voiced concern about the president’s latest scheme

are either in a tough re-election battle (Susan Collins) or will not be returning to the Senate (Bill Cassidy). Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah) said: “There are several layers to that question. … Is it illegal? Is it unethical? Is it something that I would do?” How many layers does Curtis require before answering in the negative?

Curtis and his cohorts could easily answer these and other questions regarding the president’s malfeasance by simply reading Article 1 of the Constitution.

Maher’s use of tired cliches to reach strident positions, though effective on his HBO show, makes him appear uninformed in the public discourse.

Maher’s political analysis juxtaposes Vance with the positions held by members of Democratic Socialist of America (DSA). Maher has long established deft skills at debating defenseless straw persons. DSA is not the Democratic Party.

Maher told ABC News’ Johnathan Karl that his decision to be open about his potential vote in 2028 did not come without costs, “I did lose fans — because I wasn’t gonna go along with some of this crazy stuff on the left too,” Maher said. “I didn’t change really on what I thought about the right. But I can’t sit and just not notice stuff, which people seem to want to do because it’s all about my team or your team. But yeah, there’s some crazy stuff.”

Maher conveniently commingles the Democratic Party with DSA to substantiate his claims. What he considers “crazy stuff” includes some within the DSA who have called for defunding the police; he cites Democrats, when he should be citing DSA, as “cheering for the intifada,” which refers to the Arabic word for “uprising” which suggests Palestinian resistance against Israel. DSA has also staked out an anti-capitalist position.

The DSA voice has gained traction as economic divide in the U.S. has widened since the president regained office. Wealthy households accrue trillions in paper wealth from soaring stock markets and asset values, while lower- and middle-income families face intense cost-of-living pressures, reduced safety-net benefits, and the impact of inflation and tariffs.

Could Maher be using inflammatory words such as “socialism” and “communism” to mask his real concerns, which is to maintain as much of his wealth as possible?

Maher’s latest diatribe bears similarity to his campaign against “woke.” Without the burden of defining the concept of “woke,” Maher offered examples of what he defined as wokeness to fit his narrative.

Listening to Maher, one would not know America has an abiding tradition of wokeness. To be “woke” was a term that originated in African American culture. Its lineage can be traced back to the Jim Crow era. Given the historical plight of African Americans from enslavement to legalized second-class citizenship to civil rights movements and Black Power to the cries of Black Lives Matter, there was never a time when it was not incumbent upon African Americans to be “woke” in the face of injustice in myriad forms. Wokeness became a response to remain aware that governments (federal, state, and local) were not neutral onlookers.

Since 2016, the historical legacy of wokeness has been subsumed under the weight of right-wing propaganda, which Maher has embraced. Some offer that wokeness is a function of “socialism,” another nondescript pejorative frequently used by Maher. Eschewing the original meaning, woke was co-opted to define something as other, outside the mainstream.

From socialism to cancel culture to political correctness, wokeness was redefined as a hodgepodge of objectionable behaviors condensed into a one-size-fits-all container.

Maher acknowledges the American economy incorporates many socialist principles. But without a clear definition he merely attacks the boogeyman de jour.

The ideals that spawned the Declaration were rooted in the Enlightenment. Therefore, wokeness spawned the American creed. Can anything in the American lexicon be more woke than, “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal?” Since its inception, given its original definition, when has America experienced meaningful change that did not begin with someone being “woke?”

One can only assume Maher’s complaints about the Democrats are greater than the political party representing the majority in every branch of the federal government, who have rendered the Constitution at best a secondary consideration.

Calls for defunding the police, whatever that means, must be a greater concern in Maher-world than a political party who abets the current president to act with impunity when it comes to the rule of law.

It is unfortunate that Maher’s inquiries to locate examples that support his unexamined suppositions about Democrats do not extend to the 11 individuals who have died in 2026 at the hands of ICE. Does Maher trust the party that has looked the other way as the president has enriched himself by billions?

Some of the proposals championed by DSA bear the quality of certainty, which can render one blind to the shortcomings of the position held. But Maher’s analysis equates the worst-case-scenario of tomorrow, with the grim reality of today, which includes Vance who recently described, the Watergate scandal as a “12-hour news story” in today’s media landscape.

Maher vacillates between a political party he says champions “crazy stuff” that still must garner the 218 votes in the House of Representatives, 51 votes in the Senate that can withstand a presidential veto, assuming they were part of the Democratic Party; versus a party who at present controls of all three branches of the federal government systematically undermining the American ethos.

It’s Maher’s right to support whomever. But insufferable arrogance cloaked as righteous indignation is rarely the makings of a judicious choice.

Byron Williams is the author of Liberty and Equality in America: Examining the Radical and Paradoxical Legacy of the Declaration of Independence

.

It is a rhetorical question, until it isn’t. Sure, political character matters when discussing a member of the opposition party; but does it matter, truly matter within one’s own house? Does political character endure beyond the restrictive sphere of partisan politics?

The best case for Platner to remain in the Senate race was the Republican Party. The current president’s reality suggests political character is a verbal device void of any real meaning.

Though Maine Democrats may have reached the amoral decision that Platner could not defeat Susan Collins, they reached the moral outcome. Platner’s malfeasance felt unresolved, which, assuming he was elected to the Senate, would most likely exacerbate.

Former football coach Vince Lombardi famously said, “Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing”. Lombardi would later revise his statement: “Winning isn’t everything; the will to win is the only thing”. Either way, American politics has transmuted Lombardi’s sentiments to justify winning at all costs. Character, therefore, is secondhand virtue—a participation trophy, at best.

Democrats may have allowed the Platner train to remain on the tracks longer than warranted, but they had the good sense to derail it before an imminent disaster occurred. Did it cost them the opportunity to unseat the most vulnerable senator running for reelection? Perhaps. But continuing with Platner would muffle character as an issue for the foreseeable future.

The White House is currently the epicenter for blatant character violations. Never before has a president’s judgment, integrity, and ability to govern effectively placed the nation in such jeopardy. His tepid understanding and/or concern for America’s public morality skews the nation’s credibility.

In 1962, U.S. envoy Dean Acheson dispatched by President Kennedy, flew to Paris to present French President Charles de Gaulle photographic evidence of the Soviet Union’s culpability during the Cuban Missile Crisis. De Gaulle famously refused to review the photos declaring, “The word of the president of the United States is enough.” It is difficult to imagine America’s core NATO alliances granting the current president similar leeway.

Seldom does an individual with a checkered background, prior to being elected to office, realize a moral center once the oath is taken. Every candidate, like every private citizen, is endowed with flaws in their character, but do those flaws impact their potential ability to serve the common good?

Character still matters in the abstract but in the practical considerations of elected politics it takes on a subjective tone. Moral relativism, an ends-justify-the-means approach, erodes democratic norms over time, heightens apathy and nihilism, enhances distrust, and incubates cynicism.

While Maine Democrats have disentangled themselves of Platner, Texas Republicans hope to make Ken Paxton the Lone Star State’s next Senator. Paxton’s ethical leniency is well-documented. He has faced a series of high-profile ethical and legal controversies, including a 2023 impeachment trial over allegations of bribery and abuse of office, and a 2024 State Bar of Texas professional misconduct lawsuit tied to his 2020 election challenges. He was recently spotted in London scurrying from cameras leaving his mistress—whom his wife mentions in divorce proceedings—to fend for herself.

At the time of this writing, poll numbers have Paxton and his Democratic opponent James Talarico within the margin of error. Maybe character doesn’t matter.

In 2017, Democrat Doug Jones defeated Republican Roy Moore by less than one percent in the Alabama Senate election. Moore, who served as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, had been removed from office several times largely due to his insistence on using religion in the public sphere, coupled with allegations of sexual assault, including while in his 30s trolling high schools in pursuit of teenage girls.

Has character been truncated to fit within the contours of tribal affiliation? If character in politics is beholden to a specific group’s understanding, would it not carry the value of Confederate currency circa 1866?

Character is the victim when party affiliation becomes preeminent in public discourse. In Federalist No. 10, James Madison defined a “faction” as any group of citizens united by a shared passion or interest adverse to the rights of others or the public good. Madison argued that a large, representative republic is the best defense against the “mischiefs of faction.” Ironically, it is the representatives that he held as the best defense are now the troubadours leading the parade that touts the irrelevance of character in the public arena.

American politics, since its inception, has been ensconced in an amoral paradigm. It is neither guided predominantly by moral nor immoral considerations. This is the slippery terrain where political character exists. Therefore, the candidates sent to represent the people reflect the importance one places on character at any given time.

Character in politics is foundational; but it is not self-executing. Its appearance, or lack thereof, is reflective of what we, the people, are willing to accept.

Byron Williams is author of Liberty and Equality in America: Examining the Radical and Paradoxical Legacy of the Declaration of Independence.

.

Absolute liberty or equality have never been the nation’s goal; it’s unrealistic. Absolute liberty is chaos; absolute equality fuels mediocrity, stifling creativity.  America’s ultimate tension is the path of affirmation vs. the road that informs.   

The strict reliance on affirmation leads to the systematic dumbing down of the nation.  In an informed society, this skirmish would be over before it began were it not for the fact that the affirmation path has several decided advantages.

The nation has always been beset with challenges between being affirmed in one's beliefs and being informed.  Being affirmed is where one’s work ends, while being informed is where it begins.

With the advancements in technology and human complacency, the problem has become more pronounced in recent decades.   Each day most Americans are conscious whether to be affirmed or informed. It is much easier, and frankly, more enjoyable, to use one’s phone to play Roblox than to understand the underlying premise of a recent Supreme Court decision.

Affirmation is the seductive influence that robs one of self-reflective impulses.  By removing “I don’t know” from the vocabulary, one is free to roam unabated in the fields of self-inflicted ignorance. Having unproven assumptions validated, the burden rests only in locating the source that will support one’s notions.  Under this rubric, assumptions, no matter how nonsensical, are legitimized.  All that is required is to have someone who possesses the requisite public platform to repeat how one feels.

Expertise on a given subject is irrelevant; the number people aware of said individual is what counts.  We cling fervently to watchwords, shibboleths, and simplistic slogans to fortify our position. Our feelings are superior to the country’s interests. The affirmation path grants us the arrogant power to place the Founding Generation on our lap as we masquerade as patriotic ventriloquists.

How many individuals, pursuing office can be elected by stating, “I don’t know” about a particular question?  Give us the assurance of one’s convictions; nuance be damned. It is difficult to be elected without having at least one foot in the waters of affirmation.

The informed path is, as Robert Frost offered, the road less traveled.  Frequently found in the minority opinion, at least in the beginning.  The informed path values critical thinking, does not view the contrarian perspective as an existential threat, and does not view difference as a deficiency.  America’s current morass (political, economic, and social) is the result of affirmation gone awry.

Dissent, the hallmark of American democracy finds its genesis on the informed path. Dissent is the oxygen of American democracy. Dissent crossed the Atlantic with those who sought a better life free from religious persecution and found a permanent home among the 13 fledgling colonies beginning in 1620. By 1776, it would become a hallmark in a country vying for its independence.

One shouldn't assume that dissent equates to being correct, any more than the majority opinion represents the path forward. Lest one forgets, slavery, prohibiting women from voting, and the denial of civil rights at one time enjoyed majority approval in America.

Specifically, it is informed dissent that abets our democratic values. Rarely, if ever, has informed dissent enjoyed the initial support of the status quo. It is informed dissent, however, that moves the needle of change.

The history of humankind's social progression includes a narrative of informed dissent. In a country whose origins were rooted in an obligation to seek life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, informed dissent becomes a patriotic duty.

The fundamental differences between the affirmation and informed paths are the need for the former to be correct.  There is little need to pursue the affirmation path if it does not feign possessing “THE” answer to critical questions.

The saga of former Democratic senate candidate Graham Platner was the result of being blinded by affirmation.  Just as many couldn’t understand how the salacious 2005 Access Hollywood recording didn’t derail the political fortunes of the current president, Democrats became perilously close to accepting as their senate nominee an individual who adorned a tattoo that symbolized the overt commitment to the Final Solution.

The affirmation path maintains the belief that America, in spite of its documented commitments, harbors a homogenized underbelly.  The path of affirmation is one paved with self-righteousness and hubris, while the informed path is one of doubt and uncertainty.  Affirmation beguiles one into acceptance without consideration for the unintended consequences.  

The informed nation affirms citizenship for everyone, is inclusive not divisive, accepting complexity and discomfort as the organic part of growth. Being affirmed is amenable to our comfort; being informed is the path toward becoming a great nation.

Byron Williams is author of the recently released Liberty and Equality in America: Examining the Radical and Paradoxical Legacy of the Declaration of Independence.

His initial video announcing his senate bid in 2025 received 2.5 million views in its first 24 hours, sparking national media attention. The campaign raised $1 million in its first nine days, and reported amassing nearly 3,000 volunteers.  Platner’s homespun appeal—a cross between Gary Cooper in Meet John Doe and Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington has been countered by his adorning a Nazi tattoo to sexting other women while married to rough sexual behavior to the latest allegation of sexual assault.  

I have no idea if Platner is guilty of the aforementioned charges. At this point, it doesn’t matter. Each day he remains in the race reflects the amoral selfishness that can render the two major political parties indistinguishable.

His benefit-of-the-doubt cup has runneth over; Platner cannot win this election. His populist persona seemed like a breath of fresh air cutting through the stench of Collins penchant to vote against the so-called independent voice she has portrayed while in the Senate.  

As I previously opined, the argument for replacing Collins in the Senate is obvious.  As much as she has portrayed herself as an independent voice in the Senate, her support in key votes for the current occupant of the White House shows her to be but another sycophantic enabler, willing to undermine the fabric of American democracy for the crumbs of immediate gratification. 

Would Platner have made it this far if the Maine senate seat was not key to Democrats becoming the majority?   If the answer is negative, wouldn’t that suggest political ambition is superior to human decency? 

The charges levied against Platner demonstrate the fluidity of “whataboutisms.”  A favorite tool of the MAGA ilk, “what about (fill in the blank)” became a way to sophomorically ignore, if not justify, the current president’s wrongdoing.  Many Platner supporters offered the allegations against him were not as serious as the president, who was found liable of sexual abuse against writer E. Jean Carrol.

Though an accurate statement, it is one that appeals to the human condition’s worst impulses.   Harkening on the Machiavellian notion that the ends justify the means, it is a rationale that further corrodes our democratic mores.  

If one must be MAGA to beat MAGA, is there anything worth fighting for?   Did the glare that Platner could win blind supporters to the steady stream of drops that would have readily disqualified most candidates? 

For those that cling to the notion that the American ideals are worth preserving, that lofty goal cannot be achieved in a race to the bottom. What is the price one is willing to pay?

When the Founding Generation were pledging their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor in pursuit of a more perfect union, they decided enslavement, subjugation of anyone who was not a white, male property owner, and maintaining the desires of empire were the fissures within the American experiment that would be addressed at a more opportune time.

It was understandable, given the enormity of the undertaking, but history proves it was morally indefensible.

As Democrats discovered in the 2024 General Election, swapping out candidates post primary season is not a viable path toward victory.  How do you win those enthralled with Platner’s message who view any replacement as a mainstream retread. There will be those who will embrace the “whataboutism” arguments asking, “Republicans stood by the president, why can’t Democrats do likewise?”

Platner was appealing to many because of his ability to run from the outside.  Whoever replaces him will most likely be an insider—someone more like Collins, which plays to her advantage.

As Harry Truman offered, “If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.”

Platner appeared to be the genuine article until he wasn’t. His career is not over neither is his message, but 2026 is not his time. His presence is too much for Democrats to carry.

Democrats cannot be the political party that holds the placard, “Believe Women” only to write at the bottom in invisible ink, “Except when we have a chance to retake the Senate.”

The four dissenting justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh are beholden to an originalist philosophy in a wayward and destructive manner.  The ruling in Trump v. Barbara indicates the danger to democracy when originalism is combined with the Unitary Executive Theory (UET).  

While originalism has variations, it is largely understood as interpreting the Constitution based on the original public meaning of its text at the time it was ratified. The Unitary Executive Theory is a concept asserting that Article II of the U.S. Constitution grants the President total, uncontrollable authority over the entire executive branch, including all federal agencies, regulatory bodies, and executive officers.

 If the meaning of the Constitution is fixed and should not be altered by modern interpretations or societal changes, as originalists hold, is that not arbitrarily holding the nation’s progress in arrested development?

Though originalism has infiltrated constitutional interpretation, it is to jurisprudence what the Lost Cause of the Confederacy myth is to America’s historical canon, an inaccurate belief that the nation’s governing document could be cryogenically frozen by an 18th century worldview.

 The problem for originalists, it is impossible to maintain a rigged ideology against the mores embedded in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  Justice Thomas argued that the 14^th Amendment was narrowly written for the formerly enslaved and should not be applied broadly in a contemporary context.

 The legitimacy of Thomas’ thinking holds until one takes the time to read the 14^th Amendment.

 Section One reads:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Thomas’ narrow interpretation is countered by the first word of the text, “all” as in “all persons.”  Aside from conveniently ignoring the most inclusive word in the English lexicon, Thomas seeks to enter into the minds of the artisans of the 14^th Amendment.

There’s little doubt the 14^th Amendment was the result of the Civil War.  It addressed Lincoln’s call at Gettysburg for “new birth of freedom” by placing language of the Declaration of Independence into the Constitution.  What Thomas cannot reconcile was that it was not until the 13^th Amendment that slavery was mentioned.  Given it was the next amendment, wouldn’t enslavement have been mentioned if the 14^th Amendment held the narrow focus that Thomas subscribes?

Alito, in his dissenting opinion opined that conferring citizenship on anyone who is born here is a “serious mistake.”  Alito’s rant seems better suited prior to the 14^th Amendment’s adoption in 1868 or some right-wing cable news program, but it hardly seems appropriate for a member of the Supreme Court.

The Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, not a passive arbiter that renders decisions based on feelings.  Alito’s analysis runs against judicial review established in Marbury v. Madison (1803). 

Kavanaugh found the president’s executive order did not violate the 14^th Amendment but a federal statute that grants citizenship to immigrants’ offspring. Kavanaugh also suggested Congress could “amend” the existing statute.

For the 44 percent of the Court that, in various ways, found subjectivity in a core principle of the 14^th Amendment, all roads lead to UET.   This muscular understanding of the presidency, which has been a conservative stalking horse for decades, is a veiled attempt to transform three co-equal branches of government into one tenured branch (the presidency) and two adjunct branches (congress and judiciary). 

The 14^th Amendment fundamentally changed the nation.  It was created in response to enslavement, but in order for the nation to move closer to what it committed in 1776.  By expressly stating the Declaration’s key principles (liberty and equality), the birthright citizenship clause affirms the American ideal.  

 American citizenry is not riveted to familial lineage but to ideals; not to blood but soil.  Citizenship is affirmed by jus soli, or right of the soil.  As the 14^th Amendment’s inclusive language states, those born or naturalized and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The 14^th Amendment became the catalyst to America's diverse demographic; it fuels the nation's creativity, propels its innovation, profoundly impacts the culture, and contributes to its economic vitality.

Four members of the Court believed it possible that the president of the United States possessed the power to return to a portion of the infamous Dred Scott decision with a stroke of his pen.  It is an attempt to rob the nation of its memory—the most egregious infraction to a free people.

Though the outcome was what most expected, the country was one vote away from being permanently hamstrung by jingoism masquerading as constitutional acumen.

Byron Williams is author of the recently released Liberty and Equality in America: Examining the Radical and Paradoxical Legacy of the Declaration of Independence.

Having recently authored a book on the enduring legacy of the Declaration of Independence, there was no other place I would rather be than at the Old State House for the 250^th public reading of the Declaration of Independence, read from the balcony.

I was aware that I was standing at the place where the event, commonly referred in American lore as the Boston Massacre took place.

It was quite noticeable that an applause went up among the crowd when the reader said: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”

But what made the day magical was not political but social, the sample size of individuals in attendance.  Thousands delineated by race, ethnicity, gender, religion, orientation, countries of origin, as well as other differences, to hear the words uttered 250 years ago that began what Benjamin Rush declared was, “The first act in a great drama.”

Individuals from all over the globe, descended on the epicenter of the war for independence.

The day was a moving and joyous tribute to the radical and paradoxical legacy that is the United States.  So many emotions permeated my soul.

From the radicalism declaring that the people could govern themselves on the basis of liberty and equality to the hypocrisy of owning people and appropriating the lands of indigenous peoples, America is a potpourri of high and low moments. There’s little debate that the fissures, dating back to the nation’s inception are becoming more pronounced.

It was nevertheless a great day-a historical data point on the amorphous quest toward a more perfect union.

Byron Williams is author of the recently released Liberty and Equality in America: Examining the Radical and Paradoxical Legacy of the Declaration of Independence.

Note: This offering is for entertainment purposes. This piece is the work of the writer’s imagination along with the assistance of the Founding Generation. Any resemblance to any real, living person is merely a coincidence. Declaration’s original language in italics.

When in the Course of human events, after 250 years, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands of a single political party that represent a minority interest, and to assume among the powers of a free, critically thinking, and empathetic people, which the laws of nature entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of humankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (and women) are created equal, that they are endowed by the laws of nature with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among (the people), deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.  Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish that government, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Governments should not be changed for light and transient causes.  But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, ignoring the interest of the people it claims to represent evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new representation for their future security.

The history of the current leadership is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over the 50 states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has attempted to commingle the nation’s 250^th anniversary with personal vainglory an aggrandizement.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has repeatedly ignored the legislative body, opting instead to attach the Constitution’s Article 1 responsibilities with those designated in Article 2. 

He has constricted the pursuit of happiness to apply exclusively to a narrow well-healed sect of the American population.

He has ignored the Constitution’s Emoluments clause maintaining ownership in several business enterprises, refusing to make his tax returns public.

He has used his office for financial gain, giving the appearance that any decision made in an official capacity is subject to a conflict of interest.

He has ignored representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for the purpose of obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has attempted to make the judiciary dependent on his will alone, for the sole purpose of his remaining free from legal jeopardy.

He has ignored due process as he attempted to glue his name onto the Kennedy Center for Performing Arts and destroyed the East Wing of the White House, which the people of these United States will ultimately pay the bill.

He has paved over the Rose Garden and decorated the “people’s house” with an array of gold leafing that could only be defined by reasonable persons as “gauche.”

He has bypassed competitive bidding processes to award multiple federal contracts under "emergency" exemptions, making a mockery of the Reflecting Pool.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislature that led to multiple unconstitutional arrests and detainment, and the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pritti.

He has conducted a months-long military campaign involving deadly airstrikes against boats suspected of smuggling drugs, violating international law in the process.

 For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us in targeted areas that did not support his 2024 presidential campaign.

He ignored due process, illegally deporting Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador.

He deprived those he deemed “illegal” in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury.

He engaged in an ill-advised war that has proved only to make the United States, less respected globally, while increasing negative pressure onto the U.S. economy.

He imposed tariffs, which is a tax on the people, without our consent.

He has transported many of us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences.

He has suspended our own legislature, to avoid releasing the Epstein files, and coercing the Republican-majority to declare themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He is at this time transporting large armies of mercenaries in the form of ICE to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages.

In every stage of these oppressions, we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A commander-in-chief, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define an authoritarian, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

We have appealed to the Supreme Court for justice and magnanimity, asking that they might disavow these usurpations. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity that our repeated injury can only be resolved by the people of the United States by holding all who aided and abetted the aforementioned malfeasance accountable.

We, therefore, the people of the United States of America, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, solemnly publish and declare, that we are free and independent people who have no desire to be ruled under a pseudo authoritarian who has no intellectual curiosity nor concern for the 250-year journey that brought us to the present moment.

As free and independent we have full power to exercise our constitutionally protected rights to speech, assembly, press, religion, and petition our government.  We further maintain that as people of a post 14^th Amendment America, due process and equal protection of the laws are the cornerstones of our national creed.  And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Byron Williams is author of the recently released Liberty and Equality in America: Examining the Radical and Paradoxical Legacy of the Declaration of Independence.

Now that 250 years rests comfortably in the country’s rearview mirror, has the "mind" that Jefferson referred shifted?  The 13 colonies initially enjoined liberty and equality as the cornerstones of the republic.   It subjugated all but white male property owners.   Thus, the “American mind,” since its inception, is one committed to radical notions infused with paradox.

Nothing could be more paradoxical than the spectacle taking place on the White House Lawn on June 14, 2026.  UFC Freedom 250 is a mixed martial arts event produced by the Ultimate Fighting Championship.

I’m guessing there were not enough Christians and lions to fill the card.  Perhaps bespoke togas were in short supply. Given the White House’s longstanding tradition of inviting individuals that represent the culture, why have Pablo Casals, Leornard Bernstein, Paul McCartney, or other notable artists perform, when the nation can be entertained by barbaric expressions of the mind?  What better way to commemorate the nation’s 250^thanniversary than by having gladiators battle at the White House for public consumption?

The President of the United States has embroiled the nation in a war of his choosing that could only be described as an unmitigated disaster.  His economic policies have many Americans in a financial vise grip, as he regales himself in a televised display of violence oblivious to the damage he has caused.  Has anyone noticed that the nation is 100 days into what was supposed to be a two-week war, along with the president's 30 proclamations of an imminent deal that has yet to materialize?

The president performs his self-absorbed violin concerto under the ash pile of the nation’s democratic mores.  His narcissism notwithstanding, the president is aware that being infamous is his only path to being remembered.  He demands fealty, while he takes a sworn oath to greed at the public’s expense.

He crashed the NBA finals so he can take a nap at Madison Square Garden.  His brazen disregard for law propelled the president to have his name illegally glued to the Kennedy Center for Performing Arts.

No commander-in-chief, including Richard Nixon, has so blatantly disregarded the ethics of the Office of the President.  The president has relied on a concoction of unexamined quixotic solutions to complex problems concealed in the protective coating of mendacity. 

He takes responsibility for nothing.  If the outcome is perceived good, he takes full credit; if negative, it was someone else’s fault.  So much for the idiom, “The buck stops here.”  Never has America endured such a petulant executive, lacking in intellectual curiosity.

The president uses the office as an ATM?  He has made billions of dollars during his second term. In just under 18 months, the president's net worth has reportedly increased by an estimated $3 billion.

As Forbes reported, the majority of the presidents’ wealth since returning to office is tied to his crypto venture. This includes millions of dollars in trading fees from memecoins and over $1 billion generated from his family's cryptocurrency platform, World Liberty Financial.

He has secured tens of millions through legal settlements and payouts from major tech and media companies involving defamation and media lawsuits. That he has donated his taxpayer-funded presidential salary is negligible compared to his combined business revenues and investments.

UFC Freedom 250 is but another lucrative venture for the president.  He profits by trading stock in its parent company, TKO Group Holdings, and through the sale of commemorative UFC coins and merchandise by his family business.

The president, who only has transactional genes in his narcissistic DNA, does not possess the bandwidth to concern himself with how the nation arrived at its semiquincentennial milestone. 

The president’s mismanagement of the Executive Office has been supported by the Legislative Branch’s dereliction of their constitutionally mandated responsibilities.   Inspired by French philosopher Montesquieu, the Founding Generation made the separation of powers a constitutional doctrine that divides government responsibilities to prevent any one group from holding absolute power.  They did not foresee that the Legislative Branch would acquiesce to the Executive Branch, undermining the nation’s global standing as well as its democratic norms.

After 250 years, might we be experiencing a reimagining of the American mind?  One not based on liberty and equality but beholden to transactional relationships and megalomania.

Civic virtue is the notion that one should put the needs of society before their own. “What are the values that citizens coalesce around in order to move society forward?”  It is difficult to believe the response to the aforementioned question is another shameless money-making scheme for the president.  

Under the rubble of higher prices, a needless war, unprecedented corruption, tax cuts that stimulate those already financially stimulated, and an increase in financial bankruptcies, the president, with the help of the Republican-led Congress, choreographs a moral bankruptcy symbolized by barbarism on the White House Lawn.   

Maine’s Democratic senate candidate Graham Platner may be the latest to embody the president’s impact. 

Platner, an oyster farmer and Marine Corps veteran appears on the surface right out of central casting as the prototypical senator Mainers are known for sending to Washington. He echoes independent lineage that harkens back to former Maine Senator Margaret Chase Smith. Platner seems well suited to defeat Senator Susan Collins in the upcoming General Election. That was until the drips became a slow running faucet. 

It began with his tattoo resembling the Totenkopf, a skull emblem historically used by the Nazi SS. Platner stated he was unaware of its hateful meaning when he drunkenly got it in 2007. Totenkopf is an elite division linked to the “Final Solution.” Platner has since covered up the tattoo. 

Recent allegations surfaced that Platner engaged in what the New York Times characterized as “unsettling” behavior toward women he dated, including one claim that he was physically abusive.

Whether Maine voters should reward or punish Platner for the aforementioned allegations is not for me to opine.  But their decision could illustrate the impact the current president has on American politics in the 21^st century. 

The argument for replacing Collins in the Senate is patently obvious.  As much as she has portrayed herself as an independent voice in the Senate, her support in key votes for the current occupant of the White House shows her to be but another sycophantic enabler, willing to undermine the fabric of American democracy for the crumbs of immediate gratification. 

In explaining her vote to acquit the president during his first impeachment in February 2020, Collins stated she believed the president had “learned his lesson.” She later walked back the comment, clarifying that her belief was “more aspirational.”

 The president subsequently rewarded Collins' “aspirational” hopes by orchestrating the January 6 riots on the Capitol, which led to the deaths of several law enforcement officers protecting the “people’s house.””  The president has used the pardon power to grant clemency to wealthy white-collar offenders, along with thousands of January 6 rioters.  In doing so, the president erased billions in restitution to victims of infractions, and bypassed the normal Justice Department vetting process.  

 Collins did vote to convict the president in the second impeachment, but the belief that a brazen narcissist would learn his lesson is less aspirational than it is delusional.  To support the president in any capacity leaves a stench that is not easily removed. This is not a smorgasbord where one can pick out the things they support, while leaving behind what they find abhorrent. 

 Platner presents different challenges for his supporters. The infractions, accused and substantiated, invoke the reflexive “whataboutism.”  A favorite tool of the president and his supporters, “whataboutism” is the sophomoric manner of obfuscating wrongdoing by pointing out what others have done.  Platner’s malfeasance may not rise to the level of Texas’ ethically challenged Republican Senate candidate Ken Paxon, but that misses the point.  If Platner were a member of the opposition party would Democrats be as understanding?

 Elections are not referendums on the Homecoming king.   How much should one overlook to cast a vote for Platner?  How much of the arguments championed by the president’s supporters should Platner’s cohorts embrace?  Does “believe women” only apply to the opposition or is it a standard that should be exacted universally?

 What is the likelihood Democrats would be as understanding and circumspect about a Republican candidate for office who bore a tattoo popularized by the dreaded SS and several women coming forth with allegations of sexual misconduct?  Is decency something that should be factored in 21^st century American politics?  

 The president has effectively altered the role of decency in politics, transforming it to a subjective rather than an objective consideration.   Is the rationale for supporting Platner, in spite of the plethora of allegations along with the self-righteous luxury of supporting women when it’s convenient, mitigated by the necessity that the ends justify the means?

If the response to the latter question is in the affirmative, then the president has effectively lowered our collective standards.   But we do ourselves a disservice by placing America’s current democratic state specifically on the president.  

The president did not start the democratic downslide; he merely capitalized on existing circumstances made possible by his political forebears. Should Democrats be held to a standard that Republicans have abdicated for decades? 

Maybe support for Platner and the ultimate defeat of Collins is part of the path that leads the nation back to normalcy.  If true, the damage has been done and the president’s impact is complete. 

“Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

While this nation is on the brink of a major milestone, we are still at the very beginning of a long, challenging journey. This is especially true when one considers the nation’s original commitment of liberty and equality to all citizens.  

No other nation in human history fast-tracked its way from fledgling disparate colonies to a unified global power. The American project is a disciple of empire.

Once independence was achieved, putting aside certain complaints articulated in the Declaration, the 13 fledgling colonies embraced an empire persona.    This may be the ultimate paradox—the attempt to coexist with liberty, equality, and pursuits of empire. Though the Louisiana Purchase represented America’s official foray in its pursuit of empire, there were indications the vestiges of the British Empire remained after independence was secured in 1783.

How can a nation that fast-tracked its way to superpower status be riveted to the historical crossbeams of unhealthy idealism? The nation has become acutely uncomfortable with the discomfort associated with change, which is the counterintuitive prerequisite for progress.

We have reached a peculiar impasse, whereby the victimizer assumes the role of the victim. Innocent Americans gunned down by federal employees for the preservation of democracy. The First Amendment is no longer a deterrent that prohibits the government from abridging the right of the people to peacefully assemble. Nativist impulses justify the unjustifiable. In real time, Americans are collectively failing a national civics exam.

Hatred of the “other” is fueling the unintended consequences of America falling behind on recruiting foreign-born students, scientists, engineers, and other skilled workers.  High-skilled immigration has been central to American innovation and economic growth.

The current presidential administration has systematically squeezed the immigration talent pipeline.  Student visas, Optional Practical Training (OPT), H-1B visas, and employment-based green cards have become substantially more restrictive. America, inflicted with the cataracts of division, has morphed from a beacon of possibility into a barren wasteland that relies on false and corrosive nostalgia.

No longer is the nation buoyed by curiosity.  Difference, a hallmark of the American experiment and key to the nation’s transformative moments, is a pejorative.  An increasing number of Americans have realized the fool’s gold of homogenization, eschewing elements that have long made the country dynamic.   Ignorance of the nation’s mores is transmuted into virtues.  

 Unexamined reactionary impulses are viewed as contemporary solutions to complex problems decades in the making.  Utilizing the Great Man Theory for Dummies, America has regressed as a global leader. It must be acknowledged because of its economic and military prowess, but its world respect meter has declined precipitously.

As Benjamin Rush opined in 1787:

“There is nothing more common than to confound the terms of the American Revolution with those of the late American war. The American war is over: but this is far from being the case with the American Revolution. On the contrary, nothing but the first act of the great drama is closed.” 

For 250 years the American Revolution, as Rush defines it, has enjoyed an improbable run that began as a poorly financed off Broadway production that became the world’s longest running and most successful democratic performance.

But America’s current path is fueled by the arrogance of empire—a historical and political recurring pattern where dominant global powers overextend their reach, believing their supremacy, infected by hubris, is permanent and inevitable.

How is this not the end of the beginning?  As the country organically seeks to move forward, there is a recalcitrant minority faction that holds firmly to an unrealistic past. Like the initial 13 colonies, united primarily in its opposition to the British Empire, the minority faction, ensconced by the toxins of greed and ignorance, are willing to undermine the nation’s ethos for the perception of its different understandings of immediate gratification.  

Clinging to the preposterous notion that certain leaders are born with inherent traits like superior intellect, heroic courage, and divine inspiration that allow them to alter the course of civilization, America elected an individual who boldly professed possessing all of the aforementioned characteristics minus the actual evidence.

After 250 years it might be the end of the beginning, as a majority of Americans knowingly overlooked the blatant racism, misogyny, deranged narcissism, pandering to white supremacists, boasting about being a sexual predator, openly cheating his employees, mocking the disabled, calling fallen veterans “suckers,” praising dictators, the pathological lying, the petty vindictive cruelty, the staggering ineptitude, the corruption, provided a failed coup d'etat legitimacy, the total ignorance and disregard for American democracy, the demonization of immigrants of color, to elect an individual they believed held the answer to America’s future.   

The president recently announced a $1.7 billion fund to compensate people who claim that the government weaponized the legal system against them.  It was announced that the Justice Department would establish the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to “provide a systematic process to hear and redress claims of others who suffered weaponization.”

My question: Is there a statute of limitation on who can apply for taxpayer sponsored funds?  If there is no statute of limitations, I’m not sure $1.7 billion will suffice. 

Could the fund, adjusted for inflation, include those seeking redress for the Continental Congress’s decision to grant the institution of slavery constitutional legitimacy, specifically the Three-Fifths Compromise, which counted the enslaved as 60 percent for census purposes, and the fugitive slave clause, which mandated that enslaved people who escaped into free states had to be returned?

The Compromise of 1850, with the Fugitive Slave Act, placed the federal government on the side of the slaveholders aligns with the president’s claim.  Didn’t victims of that policy suffer weaponization from the federal government?

This can be tricky because $1.7 billion won’t cover the land appropriation of indigenous people.  Would land grant colleges and universities be forced to relinquish their holdings because their institutions of higher learning sit on stolen land?  Eight of the ten largest public universities have land grant designation, meaning they were established on land seized from Native Americans.  That has to exceed $1.7 billion in damages.

Red Summer of 1919 described indiscriminate white supremacist attacks on Black communities nationwide.  The federal government’s specific involvement during the Red Summer was minimal. President Woodrow Wilson ignored pleas for federal protections against white supremacist mobs.

The Red Summer violence does not constitute the weaponization by the federal government per se, but it was a dereliction of duty.  Given its failure to uphold legal and moral responsibilities to its citizens, could the fund be used to include the times when the federal government un-weaponized itself?

Shouldn’t the descendants of the 1921 Tulsa Race Riots be entitled to compensation?  When violent white mobs attacked the affluent Greenwood district in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Known as "Black Wall Street", destroying black owned banks, homes, hotels, cafes, clothiers, and movie theaters as local authorities sat idly by, did the federal government have a role to play to squelching the violence; or is that a matter for local authorities and the states, not applicable to the 14^th Amendments equal protection clause?

If such possibilities are beyond the scope of the fund, surely the unequal administration of the G.I. Bill should warrant consideration. On June 22, 1944, President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, commonly referred as the G.I. Bill.  

The legislation, which did more than any other federal legislation to create a permanent American middle class, helped returning WWII soldiers, through government backed home loans, educational opportunities, and loans to start businesses move into civilian life as compensation of gratitude for military service.   There was nothing in the wording of the G.I. Bill that specifically excluded Black soldiers from its benefits, but the manner it was structured effectively posted a “No Admittance” sign for roughly 1.2 million Black soldiers, who endured segregated units and the evils of fascism only to return to second class citizenship.

The possibility of Black social and economic advancement, Representative John Rankin of Mississippi, saw it as his appointed duty to block the possibility of Black veterans receiving the full benefits of the G.I. Bill.  Rankin possessed virulent racism as well as political influence to impact generational wealth for many Black families.   How is this not weaponization of the federal government against its citizens? 

Anyone who can make a cogent claim that the federal government has been weaponized against them is eligible. I’m confident the president’s initial omission of the full gamut of the nation’s historical malfeasance was a temporary oversight.

As the Declaration portends, prudence dictates that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.  But the argument that president and his cohorts appear to put forth, humankind is disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable.   The administration displayed no intention to right itself, which under ordinary circumstances would justify the right of the people than to right themselves of this government. 

But this belief may require recalibration, now that the president has demonstrated the audacity to do what his 45 predecessors failed to do.

I am thankful for this president courageously acknowledging the federal government’s long train of abuses and usurpations designed to create absolute despotism. As for the jealous ne’er-do-wells who do not share my enthusiasm, unable to appreciate the president’s courage, history will remember their opposition.  It’s not like the president is creating a slush fund for tyrants and terrorists.

Abraham Lincoln

Though America is approaching its semi-quincentennial milestone, it is a nation delineated between pre and post-Civil War.  The Post Civil War era, beginning in 1865, marks the “new birth of freedom” that Lincoln referred in the Gettysburg Address.

In the post-Civil War period the United States became a singular noun.  It was when America became a destination spot for the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free."  The “new birth of freedom” was the moment equality was given its rightful place alongside liberty as part of the American experiment.  The new birth of freedom was codified by the ratification of the 14^th Amendment. 

Section 1 of the 14^th Amendment reads:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” 

The 14^th Amendment is considered by many the most significant addition to the Constitution. It expressly placed the Declaration of Independence’s ethos of liberty and equality into the language in Section 1.  It made the Bill of Rights applicable in each state, and it emboldened federal power by universally guaranteeing civil liberties.  The 14^th Amendment, along with the Declaration became the moral touchstones by which the new birth was ushered.

Are the civil rights movements of the 1950s and 60s, women’s suffrage, or marriage equality possible without the 14^th Amendment?Would America’s audacious quest to be a multi-racial democracy conceivable without the 14^th Amendment? 

There is a systematic attempt to abort the nation’s new birth.  A cabal at the federal and state level have leveraged their minority perspective to reshape the nation into their own image. In a yarn that combines the Stepford Wives with Gone with the Wind, these regressive thinkers, politicians and judiciary have seemingly taken a blood oath to destroy the new birth of freedom, returning to a normalcy closer aligned with the pre-Civil War era.  This minority faction wishes to maintain the veneer of America’s commitment to liberty and equality, while simultaneously suggesting some are more equal than others.

In 2022, in Dobbs v. Jackson, when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which protected women’s rights to an abortion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his majority opinion, “The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions.”

This statement is right out of central casting for proponents of the pre-Civil War era.   The right to equality, which includes women’s right to bodily autonomy, is a deeply-rooted tradition in the post-Civil War era.

I suspect future legal scholars will look back on Alito’s statement and conclude this is one of the most egregious legal opinions since Justice Roger Taney invalidated the possibility of citizenship for those of African descent in the Dred Scott decision by stating Blacks “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”

Was Alito unaware of the existence of the 14^th Amendment when he made his baseless historical claim?

Having already gutted Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act in 2013, in Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court recently provided a return engagement in Louisiana v. Callais, weakening Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, making it harder to challenge voting maps for racial discrimination. The ruling requires challengers to show a “race-based motive” rather than just the outcome of the action.

According to the second half of the 14^th Amendment’s Section 1: “Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  How do the aforementioned rulings square with the language in Section 1.    

Where did they locate a “race-based motive” justification? Where is the “deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions” exception?

The Court has morphed into a midwife that justifies regressive policies that seek to return to a pre-Civil War era where white male property owners are relieved from the discomforts brought on by organic change.  Contemporary America is the product of the post-Civil War world.  It is one in perennial pursuit of a more perfect union forged by liberty and equality.

The post-Civil War era is more dynamic because of the 14^th Amendment.  No amendment to the Constitution has contributed more to "who" and "what" we are than the 14^th.  It is what allows citizens to reimagine the commitments made in 1776.  The significance in the lives for all Americans from free speech, free press, and free assembly, to speedy trial, and the right to bear arms, et al. exist because of the 14^th Amendment.

The 14^th Amendment transformed the Constitution from a document that protected states' rights to a national creed that supports individual liberties.  For a misguided faction with the aid and comfort of the Supreme Court to intentionally sidestep the meaning and purpose of the 14^th Amendment is to ignore the Lincolnian call for a new birth of freedom.

In 2000, without adjusting for inflation, Ralph Nader made similar comments in his third-party presidential bid, asserting Democrats and Republicans were beholden to corporate interests. In 2026, there are areas of similarity that both major parties share, but there is substantially more than a dimes worth a difference between Democrats and Republicans.

The Republican Party has become a recalcitrant lot, having pledged fealty to nativism and bigotry, along with a coating of self-defined Christianity to conceal its dark impulses.

In the sophomoric public discourse, the “whataboutism” coalition raises its simplistic head to ask “What about the Democrats?”

This question assumes equal culpability, thereby justifying support for Republicans. I have often said Democrats hardly qualify as paragons of virtue, but Republicans have abdicated the virtues with governing.

The Republican Party has not enjoyed effective governing in the White House since the presidency of George H.W. Bush (1988-1992). Only subjective feelings can conclude that from 1988-2026, Republican presidential leadership has been more effective than their Democratic rivals.

Though Republicans have cornered the market of irresponsible supply side tax cuts, which wreaks havoc on the deficit, GDP, stock market, job growth have been higher under Democratic presidential administrations since WWII. Republicans offer a message whose benefits directly support the interests of a few.

Acting as self-appointed centurions, the Republican Party presents itself as the last best chance to save America from permanently becoming a “browner” hue. They are a vacuous party that bows to the golden calf of aggrandizement. They seek power for the sake of power, even if it includes running roughshod over democratic guardrails.

In the same region of the country that brought Jim Crow segregation into the nation’s living rooms has been granted a green light by the U.S. Supreme Court and Virginia Supreme Court to once again disenfranchise voters.

Democratic leaders in Virginia asked the Supreme Court to allow the state to use a congressional map drawn by Democrats and approved by voters in a referendum in April. The Virginia Supreme Court found such voter approved maps violate the state constitution. This decision is viewed major as a setback for Democrats locked in a battle over which party will control the U.S. House.

I don’t have a problem with the Virginia Supreme Court ruling in the abstract. The midterm elections are becoming a contest about who can pick their voters more so than a battle of ideas. Using the democratic process as a cover to garner more seats harkens back to the stench of the three-fifths compromise. This is hardly an abstract situation.

In justifiable fear of being crushed in the midterms, the president came up with a scheme for his party to conduct targeted gerrymandering so that Republicans could pick up additional House seats without the burden of attracting additional votes. Virginia voters approved of a proposal that would have given Democrats additional seats in the House.

None of this is good for democracy, but to stop it midstream, as the Virginia Supreme Court did, rewards Republicans for its malfeasance, while punitive to Democrats for reacting. This risk creating a cyclical trend whereby the primary objective of whichever party is in power is retribution.

The U.S. Supreme Court, by a 6-3 margin, in Louisiana v. Callais weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), making it harder to challenge voting maps for racial discrimination. The ruling requires challengers to show a “race-based motive” rather than just the effect of vote dilution.

The Court’s ruling is accompanied by the disgusting odor of intent, which is the dominant culture’s false refuge of protection. The fallacious supposition assumes if there is not a race-based motive, racism is not at play.

The far-reaching effect of the Court ruling threatens to diminish minority voting power nationwide. The Court ruled harm alone did not suffice; one must climb inside the minds of the artisans to uncover the true motive. This is a ruling that Jefferson Davis would have approved.

Republicans know their policies are unpopular. They also know chicanery is the only way they can maintain power. Since the president resumed office in 2025, he has corralled Republicans at the federal, state, and even the judiciary to foster, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, “a long train of abuses and usurpations.”

Systematically gutting the items that move the nation closer to its original commitments is to offer the nation had it right, when white male property owners were the sole executors of the nation’s best interest.

Whether Wallace or Nader were correct in their analysis is something that historians can debate for posterity. The present moment suggests the difference between the two parties is far greater than the purchasing power of a dime.