An Earnest Facade of Lunacy: The Tragicomedy that is U.S. Domestic Politics

People interested in politics might not yet grasp the magnitude of the undignified and mortifying political spectacle in this country. 

There is no doubt that the U.S. is too mighty powerful to be destroyed from the outside. Yet, none outside power with that goal in mind needs to worry. However, there is ample evidence that the job is about to be carried out from the inside by the people of the U.S. themselves and their political representatives.  

Quite visibly, this lunacy of it all is reflected in the field of the more than 20 candidates initially running for the nomination of the Democratic challenger to President Trump in the 2020 election. Their stance on political issues is not just different but utterly unreasonable if not outright nuts and incompetent. Looking at how they try to out-left and out-Trump each other in their attempts to appear distinctive and exclusive leaves no doubt that they are unqualified for the office for which they are running. 

 

Their ideas on open borders, healthcare and voting rights for illegals, abolish ICE, Medicare for all, Green Deals for fighting Climate Change, wealth tax, to name just the major ones, are totally out of line and incompatible with a functioning and orderly society. Even more astounding is the seriousness with which media and news outlets cover the absurdity and futility of that contest. It makes one wonder at the time and effort wasted.

The overall ludicrous lawlessness of the Democratic Party, on the whole, heavily reinforces the foolish picture those candidates provide. Examples wanted? 

•  Watch Democrat Jerry Nadler abusing his role as Chairman of the House Judicial Committee for partisan agitation and the continuously unjustified attempt to impeach the sitting President;  
• Watch the Democratic Party and its head of the House Intelligence Committee, the particularly vile and depraved acting Representative, Adam' Pencil Neck' Schiff, supported by elements of the Deep State, to keep pushing the Russia collusion narrative despite the findings of the Muller Report, after two years of investigation, to the contrary; 
• Watch the Democrats and Never-Trumpers in the State Department and among the foreign relations-pundits on more or less all news stations interpreting President Trump's legitimate foreign affairs policy to improve the long-overdue betterment of relations with Russia as treasonous, even insinuating that Mr. Trump serves as a Russian agent; 
• Watch the neoconservative and neoliberal exponents trying to thrust Mr. Trump into unleashing a war with Iran. On the premise of the recent attack on the Saudi oilfields, for which Yemeni Houthi rebel claimed responsibility but didn't stop the United States from insisting on Iran being solely to blame for the incident. 
  

 

As I am writing these lines, a new chance for the Democrats to impeach Trump and get him out of office before he wins reelection presented itself. A whistleblower claims that Mr. Trump acted inappropriately in a telephone call with the new President of Ukraine. While President Trump considers this just another witch hunt to bring him down, impeachment proceedings are about to be launched, further damaging the Democrat Party. It will undoubtedly lead to nothing. Three years of irrational Trump-hatred seem to have taken reason and common sense out of the radical left. They appear incorrigible and immune to a more conciliatory approach in domestic political relations. 

   

However, the bottom line is that if the indomitable anti-Trump forces aren't able to remove Mr. Trump from office before the 2020 election, their final step for regaining the White House will be a massive, all-out decisive measure of voting fraud. It will be the subject of one of my next blog posts.

El Paso and Dayton Mass Shootings - The Foolish Blame Game Continues

As I have demonstrated in my blogs throughout the years, social and political problems require remedy at the bottom of the issues. Cosmetic touches and surface modifications might help short-term but lead to further deterioration down the road. 

The two carnages at El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio - both of which took place within 24 hours last weekend - and the expected short-sighted and factually flawed statements in the wake of it make it a moral duty to speak up. 

 

 I outlined the notions surrounding private gun ownership, gun violence, and 2nd Amendment issues in the U.S. in several blog entries. For the sad occasion of the San Bernadino massacre of December 2, 2015, see https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2015/12/guns-in-private-hands-what-to-do-with.html; on the Florida High School shooting of February 14, 2018, go to https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2018/03/amend-second-amendment.html. Aside from providing the normative criteria for private citizens' rights to bear arms in any open society, I addressed the particular challenges the U.S. faces concerning that issue. 

The opposing parties on the issue are, for the most part, mistaken and have been barking up the wrong tree, as I will show further down. To lay the proper foundation for what follows, a citation from the 2018 essay above 'Amend the Second Amendment: "A gun itself – like a knife or a truck or a rock – is an inanimate object that carries no moral value whatsoever in and of itself. Only the human being using it gives it meaning and bestows ethical significance upon it. While proper legislation concerning gun ownership serves as a deterrent and certainly helps to contain potential abuse and to prevent crime, it is ultimately the human volition that decides how guns – or knives or trucks or rocks for that matter – are used."

 

Only instilling adequate regard for human life through proper socialization and education of young people can help overcome the potential pathological triggers for mass-shootings and murder sprees. To name a few of these triggers: self-indulgence, apathetic egotism, seemingly uncontrollable hatred, self-hatred, and lack of desensitization as to the ease of killing shown in video games and Hollywood movies. 

The societal deficits as to this truly human dimension of the phenomenon are ubiquitous and virtually unmissable to the conscientious observer. Is this the inevitable price any society has to pay that praises lawlessness, celebrates moral relativism, surrenders the notions of truth and justice to the dictates of political correctness? The answer to this question seems to be as sure as the observation of the phenomenon is evident. 

 

We arrived at the point where the issue of gun control enters the picture. As explained in more detail (again https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2015/12/guns-in-private-hands-what-to-do-with.html), legitimate and well-informed governments are aware that the right to self-defense and gun ownership, within clearly prescribed confines, fosters and consolidates the State's monopoly of force. Hence, both the monopoly of arms in conjunction with private gun ownership provides a synthesis for a nation's most efficient internal safety and security.

To overcome the confusion dominating the current gun debate in politics and society, an adaptation or revision of the Second Amendment stressing the law's self-defense component would appear conducive. Such clarification would also explain why no privately owned arms beyond handguns and weapons for immediate protection of one's safety and hunting purposes are needed. Dealing with the already purchased and privately owned assault weapons may require different measures, i.e., voluntary buyback or even confiscation of firearms in limited and justified circumstances of immediate endangerment. We know from the Florida incident that if law enforcement had followed through on that latter idea, the event most likely could have been prevented. 

About this aspect, the gun lobbyists and the National Rifle Association (NRA) are undoubtedly wrong. In contrast, the Democrats and many others who demand a ban on military-style assault weapons are right. It should never happen in an open society that somebody commits a mass murder-shooting with a legally acquired AK-47. Such kinds of weapons have nothing lost in private hands. However, how to grant interested people access to handling and shooting such weapons in the controlled environment of gun and shooting clubs I have explained in the essay 'Amend the Second Amendment' (see link above). I also explained why the militia clause of the 2nd Amendment no longer applies to the same degree it did at the time of the inception of the republic.

The currently ongoing blame game in U.S. domestic politics is ridiculous. Neither can President Trump's rhetoric nor existent gun-laws be blamed for the mass shootings. The dubious psychological motivations for individuals to carry out these senseless acts of mass violence owe to the extremely polarized atmosphere of the domestic debate on crucial issues (such as immigration, the rule of law, etc.) and the sheer impossibility of civilized dialogue in an environment of fake news and hateful anti-Trumpism. As violence occurs ever more frequently at demonstrations and political rallies and the bearers of opposing views get bashed and destroyed, genuinely unhinged individuals seem to carry it to the extremes of mass shootings on rare occasions. 

The fact that citizens can privately own military-style assault weapons legally in this country undoubtedly and positively contributes to the magnitude of those killings - although it doesn't cause them - and lays open a flaw in the interpretation and enforcement of the Second Amendment. 

This here approach should allow politicians and lawmakers to find common ground on this critical issue. I have to underscore again that a modification of constitutions and constitutional amendments is possible. Like any other law, the Second Amendment can either be amended or further specified by meaningful legislation. In the case of the U.S. Constitution, standard specifications should underscore the right to self-defense and relate the extent to which people may privately own certain types of guns.

Left’s War of Attrition Bears Fruit: Trump Stumbling – Three Topical Mistakes

The destructive subversion by the united political left, the bulk of the media outlets, and the GOP's neoconservative conspirators finally impact the President's policies. President Trump, surrounded by bad advisors and let down by his party, is stumbling, and erroneous policy decisions and bad 'deals' have amassed. 

It is hard to assess whether bad advice and improper counseling or the weakening of Mr. Trump's leadership instincts and deal-making capabilities are to blame. But the fact is that the constant resistance to any of President Trump's policy decisions and the unyielding hatred and negativity by which his opponents harass him show effect. His judgment appears to be clouded and generates wrong choices and failed policies. Attempts to euphemistically sell them as successful can't deceive over their inherent weaknesses. 

Here a brief analysis of the most striking failures and disappointments of recent months. 

First: Government Shutdown and Emergency Declaration. 

This issue was overall poorly planned and untimely scheduled. When Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer adamantly refused to allocate a single additional dollar for the wall, it was void and meaningless to subjecting the country to a week-long government shutdown. It was clear beforehand that nothing was going to change. 

Pelosi's stubborn declaration – in apparent antagonism to her party's recent stance on border security – laid bare that the Democrat Party and the majority in the newly elected House of Representatives had abdicated their responsibility. It was no longer about efficiently governing the country and cooperating with the President; it was about denying him any policy success whatsoever and assuring his presidency's failure. 

Speaker Pelosi's apodictic refusal to collaborate on the border wall/immigration control issue was exclusively motivated by spiteful ad hominem-hostility toward the President. The conspiracy of Democrats, Never-Trumpers, and most of the media made evident again that they constitute the real emergency in U.S. politics. 

The U.S. Constitution does not allow for the dissolution of the House of Representatives – which would have been the only appropriate measure when the lower chamber of the house ultimately rejected any collaboration whatsoever with the President on the issue of a border wall. Had he received sound advice, Mr. Trump should have designated the complete rejection of cooperation from the part of the house of representatives a situation of political distress that endangered the governability if not, in the longer run, the nation's existence. 

On these grounds, he should have declared an immediate national security emergency and unleash, by Executive Order, necessary measures to resolve the crisis at the border, including allocating funds for the border wall. Instead, subjecting the nation to the most extended government shutdown and procrastinating the crisis's resolution for several weeks was inappropriate and must be considered lousy leadership. 

Second: Breakup of Trump-Un Hanoi Summit

There is substantial evidence that the Trump administration's neocons were intentionally planning to upset the Hanoi summit. A few days before the conference, unknown forces carried out a raid on the North Korean Embassy in Madrid, Spain.

The ten masked attackers were looking for documents and information on Kim Hyok Chol, a former ambassador to Spain and close confidant of Chairman Kim Jong Un. He played a vital role in preparing the nuclear talks with the U.S. Besides, on the day of the Summit, a cyber attack was carried out on the Korean American National Coordinating Council (KANCC) in New York (for more details: Wayne Madsen @ https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/03/18/trump-cia-now-unbound-and-back-traditional-hijinks.html)

Not granting North Korea a gesture of goodwill and easing up on the sanctions sure was bad deal-making. Breaking up the talks between President Trump and Leader Kim Jong Un and letting the Summit fail because of North Korea's unwillingness to denuclearize without getting sanctions lifted or at least lightened has to be designated an utter folly. 

How can a superpower demand total denuclearization and the termination of a decade-long policy without proposing any serious incentives? How easily could sanctions be reinstated, aside from the fact that they barely affect and are highly problematic if not to say unethical? Predicting the North Koreans a 'bright economic future,' as John Bolton put it, will hopefully materialize, but is indeed not enough to cut the deal.

I have explained in my blog essay of September 9, 2017, https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2017/09/why-my-north-korea-resolve-could-have.html that the crux of the negotiations with North Korea is about the issue of guarantees for non-intervention and national sovereignty. Aware that only a minimal nuclear capability serves as the great equalizer and deters even supreme powers from intervention, North Korea justifiably demands reliable and trustworthy guarantees for protecting her national sovereignty and against regime-change intervention. In the essay mentioned above, I refer to and explain Libya's case in 2011 as one of the recent and most striking examples of how a country was betrayed by the United States and "rewarded" for its unilateral denuclearization. 

I have repeatedly addressed the damage the neoconservative influence did to U.S. foreign affairs policies in previous blog entries. The breakup of President Trump's talks with the North Korean leader over upholding the entire sanctions regime is now apparently the next big blunder neoconservatism has caused, this time around perpetrated by the usual suspect warmongers Mike Pompeo and John Bolton. 

These hawkish counselors' bad advice found its immediate continuation with the third failure Mr. Trump had himself talked into – the policy toward Venezuela. 

Third: Interventionist policies vis-à-vis Venezuela

No doubt, the domestic situation in Venezuela and the country's economic demise is alarming. While the desire to help is understandable, we must not forget that the U.S.'s economic sanctions and embargos contributed to the malaise. 

As much as a conservative U.S. administration might deride the Socialist President of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, and wants to see him gone, the premature support of the opposition candidate Juan Guaido was a failure. Guaido dared to declare himself the rightful President, and Washington's blessing sets another awful precedent in the long history of illegitimate U.S. interventions. 

Unfortunately, the regime-change operation is in line with the U.S.' unilateral interventionist policies dominating three decades since the end of the Cold War. With overt and covert interventionist policies (i.e., Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine), U.S. administrations have compromised the U.S.' reputation within the international community. While this interventionist imperialism ended in horrible failures, no lessons seem to be drawn by the American foreign policy establishment. 

On the occasion of Libya's intervention, I explained why all nations' equal sovereignty and the ensuing non-intervention principle is not only a meaningful stipulation of international law (Article 2/4 of the UN Charter and U.N. Resolution 2131 of December 21, 1965). It is, even more, a morally valid norm for the interactions within the global society and its members (https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2011/03/us-and-european-foreign-policy-blunder.html).

 

Although candidate Trump in his presidential campaign promised to end such policies, this dangerous course of U.S. foreign affairs continues under the pressure of neoconservative elements in the U.S. government. 

We will soon find out if President Trump will override the adversarial influence and fulfill his promise to retreat the U.S. from the disastrous policy of waging interventionist wars. Interventions in foreign countries that neither directly impact U.S. strategic interests nor represent a national security threat. 

President Trump's domestic policies (economic, regulatory, cultural, legal) are undeniably successful. It is now high time to align U.S. foreign affairs and national security with this path of achievement.

The United States of America – A Doomed Republic?

The last two and a half years of politics in the United States presented us with the turmoil of hitherto unknown and unprecedented variety in Western democratic republics. The situation has reached a point where the question raised in this essay's title no longer appears far-fetched or inappropriate, as indeed it looks as if the doom of this Republic might be imminent unless something decisive happens reasonably soon.
 
When has anybody seen the political opposition, in utter disbelief over losing a presidential election, engrossed in a policy of destruction against the winner? When has anybody seen the radical political opponent so vehemently and lopsidedly supported by nearly all societal interaction pillars, including print and electronic media outlets, commentators and pundits, academia and education, political representatives at all government levels? When has anybody ever seen such destructiveness and devastation in the wake of democratic elections in an established Republic?

Here is why: A total corruption of the minds and hearts – in other words, want for proper erudition in civic affairs and moral decency – across vast parts of society. The subtle and yet – in its psychological impact – radical cultural-Marxist subversion of society that has been going on for decades claims stunning success.

In the wake of Donald Trump's victory, whoever expected the usual political business continuation must be disappointed. The regular competition between Democrats and Republicans, the typical antagonism between the political left and right as they operate within the conventional boundaries of mutually shared constitutional and civilizational principles, turned out to be much more. It has turned out to be an existential struggle over our entire Western civilization's future, a battle over essential values and principles for Western societies, quite naturally spearheaded by the West's most potent and influential lead-nation, the United States of America. 

This circumstance alone can explain the sheer incomprehensible hatred President Donald Trump faces from significant media outlets and the bulk of the political establishment in Washington D.C. Make no mistake. There is a relentless war going on, not yet waged primarily with lethal weapons, but one in which the Democrat Party and the vast majority of its sympathizers want to bring down this President. 

A significant number of so-called never-Trumpers and RINOs in Mr. Trump's party, assisted by a broad spectrum of globalists and economic and military-industrial profiteers, reject this President and his Christian-conservative policies. They are not only bent on beating him politically; they intend to get him out of the office and utterly destroy him and his family personally. 

It sure appears to be quite an asymmetric kind of warfare. Trump and a relatively small nucleus of government supporters around the White House are waging this cultural war. A few hardcore conservative fortresses in society (such as Ben Shapiro and his Daily Wire) fight against a colossal overload in ill-will and malevolence that reaches far beyond the usual clientele of the Democrat Party and the political Left. 

The gloves began to come off in this 'ad hominem' campaign of destruction about two and a half years ago when Mr. Trump was elected candidate for the presidential race. Since elected and in office, the offensive against him has increased continuously in intensity and wickedness. It has now, at the time of a government shutdown where Democrat leaders apodictically refused to move even one inch toward the fulfillment of Mr. Trump's election promises, reached a new peak. 

How could anybody who has a grain of moral decency left who watched the Senate Minority Whip Chuck Schumer making his hateful statements against the incumbent President still support this Democrat Party? How could anybody bolster a political force led by such a disingenuous and utterly loathsome human being!

But the old ploy of reversing cause-effect relations and blaming the political opponent for one's wrongdoing and devilishness is being pulled off quite successfully by the left. They project their disgraceful personality traits and behavior onto President Trump. When he is rightfully fighting back and setting things straight, they accuse him of being the initial aggressor, evildoer, and disparager of the Presidential office.

It is mind-boggling to imagine what some measure of critical, yet 'constructive' and decent cooperation with the President from the part of Trump-opposing forces could have accomplished for the benefit of this nation and the entire world. Alas, instead, the hatred of Mr. Trump appears to trump all considerations for successful governance and the common good of this nation. If only they can bring down Trump, the left, and their henchmen (and –women) in all kinds of societal strata appear willing even to destroy this country. 

Is there an immediate solution to the ruinous state of political affairs in this country? The same will of the people who elected Mr. Trump and his policies into office must be the will that now ensures that he can implement them. It is on 'We The People' to become proactive, break up the deadlock in Washington D.C. and lead the country back into a productive and constructive social and political discourse.

The Destructiveness of Unfettered Progress - How the Moral and Intellectual Bankrupcy of the Left Destroys this Nation

The idea that change and progress can be potentially destructive and represent decline and decadence goes back to Plato. In essence and applied to our time, outlined mostly in his dialogue 'Timaios,' the underpinning thought is that social and political evolution must always be tempered and corrected by the ideal ontological concepts of man and the various manifestations of his coexistence.

 

 The ancients also made us aware that a democratic republic is in constant danger of perishing due to the inability to deal responsibly with the core element of its political system - liberty. They showed us clearly that once a democracy transforms itself into an OCHLOCRACY, the reign of the mob, it is on its best way to coming apart.

 

When the mob of a society floods the streets, negates the laws and the order their elected representatives have stipulated for that very society, the state of political affairs has reached the eleventh hour. When the proletariat attempts to intimidate the government and openly threatens to overthrow it, the social community is about to descend into chaos and ungovernability. What awaits is tyranny!

 

This development is precisely the reason why so many commentators speak of an imminent civil war in the U.S. I felt compelled to point out that more than a year ago when the country faced the hatred and nasty obstructionism of the left in the wake of their loss in the presidential elections (https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2017/07/a-sick-republic-yeah-dude-im-talking.html).

 

 As I pointed out, the stunning fact in the U.S.' case is that the societal mob does not only consist of disgruntled blue-collar workers or angry hordes of jobless people but rather recruits from all strata of society. It is made up and even led and represented by elected officials of the Democratic Party, supported by many neoconservatives and so-called Never-Trumpers and a considerable portion of the mainstream media and exponents of academia the world of arts and culture.

 

Examples of the rants of renowned people who have apparently lost their minds and probably never had morals are aplenty. They prove how unhinged and utterly unacceptable the discourse on the political left has become:

• Democrat Congresswoman Maxine Waters, who encouraged violent harassment of Trump supporters and White House Staff.
• Republican Senator Jeff Flake, Trump back-stabber and open-border advocate.
• HBO show host Bill Maher wished the economy to crash and the country to fail to get rid of Trump.
• Hollywood actor Robert de Niro, talking in front of high school kids of the elected president as a 'soulless, amoral, abusive, con-artist SOB.'

 

A significant part of the electorate shows disrespect for political institutions, offices, and regulations. Even worse, many elected representatives of both parties in executive and legislature at federal and regional levels do the same. They negate one of the prime features of democratic republics: that governing regimes alternate due to periodic electoral decisions. Without a doubt, ill-education and wrong morality have penetrated all strata of society.

 

 I gave an account of how immoral the political dialogue has become shortly after President Trump took office. Once the desperation of the far-Left had shown its real fascist face (https://edwinseditorial.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-tyranny-of-left.html), I made clear what brought about this sheer ubiquitous political illiteracy. I blamed the lack of classical art instruction as the primary cause for the utter lack of philosophical depth and wisdom in many areas of US-American politics.

 

 Let's make no mistake. Despite rapid technological advancements and the globalized connectedness of nations and peoples, only against the backdrop of a century-old and even millennia-old can the core elements of our civilizational social and political arrangements be understood appropriately. The condition of the human being per se – aside from driving cars, using smartphones, and moving in airplanes from continent to continent – has not changed.

 

We avail over the same faculties. We face identical physical and emotional needs. Besides a more substantial oeuvre of historical experience and scientific knowledge, human reasoning and the capacity for moral judgment have not improved. The hubris of progressivism is not only unwarranted but dangerous if developing unfettered and immune to the eternal wisdom of human efforts generated in philosophy, religion, and the fine arts.

 

 The most recent and still ongoing proof to that effect is the widespread ignorance regarding open borders and the bias in extending constitutional citizen rights onto not only foreigners who come to visit or temporarily work here but even onto individuals who entered and remain in the country illegally. It culminates in calls for abolishing ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, as the new battle-cry of the radical left.

 

 In their desperation over Trump being president and, in several policy areas relevant to people, quite successful at it, the progressives move ever further to the left. But as we know, in these times of deranged minds and hearts, hateful obstructionism, and fabricated false news and accusation, there is no limit as to how far the left can go. And the further the left moves leftwards, the more space is being built for blaming even the most reasonable political stances as far-right.

 

While the lunacy of the radical left seems to know no bounds, quite a few people recovered their senses and fled the Democratic Party. New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind of Brooklyn went public and told Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in an open letter that he will support President Trump and Republicans until "sanity and honesty to the Democratic Party" have been restored. Hikind accuses Schumer of launching "hard-right attacks" in a recent mailer while ignoring President Trump's "multiple policy victories." Hikind particularly mentions the unemployment at its lowest in decades and economic confidence at a 17-year high, including a record low for minorities.

 

 But these encouraging signs cannot deceive over the fact that for the left – including the neo-liberals and large cohorts of the neo-conservatives – the political struggle has become genuinely existential. As they are looking at the wreckage of their failed policies - pernicious globalist imperialism of interventions and regime-change operations in international relations; deconstruction of Christian values and weakening of the Westphalia Nation-State System domestically - they become ever more desperate. By the way, their policies' apparent failure was the actual reason why Donald Trump and conservative political administrations in Europe got elected.

 

The left claims that they occupy the moral and intellectual high ground in politics. In reality, they are only moralizing without having morals. Life's reality denies their social and political theories the only real proof for any intellectual concept's correctness – validation by success and improvement of human living conditions continuously at any level of coexistence.

 

 But the left's minds and hearts are neither troubled by the constant falsification of their theories by the chaos they create in real life, nor are they disturbed by the moral depravity of their positions. If it suits their goals, they disparage the sensible as reprehensible, the good as bad, and the American (or civilized) as un-American (or uncivilized). Their existential instinct to survive at all costs makes them relentless in their pursuit to bring down political opponents and whoever and whatever else might stand in their way. It also hinders them from acknowledging the deprivation their progressive policies have brought over the U.S. and the entire Western civilization.

 

Indeed, Plato was right when he envisioned that progress must not be confused with improvement and betterment. If progress is pushed at all cost and develops unrestrained, without constructive criticism, and without being gauged against the backdrop of the timeless notions of justice and morality, it becomes a destructive and evil force. We have witnessed this development in recent years, if not decades, but it has accelerated to unsavory dimensions ever since Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential elections.

 At least intuitively, the silent majority of Americans and people who live in western countries seem to be mindful of the wicked ways of the left and the damage caused to our societies' fabric. They voted accordingly and will continue to do so. But the struggle reached existential significance as to the future of our civilizational development – in this country and beyond.

Facts and Fiction in Media and Politics – The Moral Aspect of Truth

People seem fascinated by facts! Journalists ask for facts. Politicians ask their opponents to present them with facts. However, there are no facts; there is only the perception of facts! Nobody can provide facts per se, just their interpretation of facts. This stipulation is why any observation, aside from the sensational correctness, requires the moral inclination for honesty and truthfulness.

Both the most real and the most fabricated fact have to be perceived by and must pass through a human being's consciousness, which entails two inevitable consequences. One relates to the observed fact's material correctness; the second pertains to judging the context within which it appears. Thus, the representation of any reality inevitably involves two chances for arriving at a wrongful explanation of a perceived detail – misconception and misjudgment. Either an actual image/fact or a manipulated or fabricated image/fact is not – intentionally or inadvertently – recognized as such, or an original and authentic image/fact is – deliberately or unintended – misjudged in the context within which it happened.

As an example, let's look at the recent alleged chemical weapons attack on the rebel stronghold in Douma/Syria on April 7. The footage of children suffering from exposure to chemical substances was played over and over by Western media. The evidence presented was taken for granted, and nobody seemed to question the motives. The power centers in media and politics suppressed any judgment that would examine the strategic context and whose side the attack benefited. However, while there existed no meaningful incentive on Bashar al Assad's side to carry out the attack, the Douma rebels had all reasons to launch the attack and blame the government. They were facing imminent defeat in early April and wanted to turn the tides of war at the last minute.

 Their criminal rationale worked out. A week after the incident, which turned out to be a false-flag operation, the US and its British and French allies released more than one hundred cruise missiles on Syrian government installations. Political expediency, but not love for truth, dictated both the perception and interpretation of a so-called fact in international politics. Meanwhile, the OPCW (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) verified that neither the government nor the rebels had used chemical weapons. There had been no victims either. The insurgents staged the whole attack to demonize the Syrian Assad regime further, have a pretense for an air attack, prolong the regime-change efforts, and push the US further toward military confrontation with Russia and Iran. The media has fallen silent and remains complicit with their governments covering this distortion and pretense for war.

With constant and almost ubiquitous media presence, not to speak of a camera in the hands of virtually every individual with a smartphone, one might assume that facts of life are more or less unmistakably verified in real-time. However, quite frequently, the opposite is the case. The blessings of modern communication technology and the sheer omnipresence of the media are misused. Ours praised open democratic societies will turn into a parody of themselves if the disregard for the truthfulness, the blatant corruption of politics and media, and presenting false realities molded according to preconceived notions of ideological expedience continues. Most news outlets, but even more frightening, intelligence services, and law enforcement authorities, as well as governmental investigative boards, have lost their credibility. They are in urgent need of winning back the trust of the people they serve.

As I have mentioned in an earlier blog-essay https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2016/06/truth-in-life-and-politics.html, citizens must use sound intuition and good judgment, in combination with inclusive and critical reflection, when dealing with so-called facts presented by political and societal forces. As sad as it is, nothing can be taken cum grano salis anymore in a dishonest environment dominated by practical convenience and seems to condone lying and cheating and the denunciation and demonization of diverse political opinions.

The moral aspect, namely the human volition to seek the 'truth and nothing but the truth,' must again become part of the reasoning of how we perceive and interpret facts. It will be the task of well-educated, critical, and truth-loving, and honest citizens to demand actual truthfulness from representatives of media and politics.

Amend the 2nd Amendment!

As far as the right to bear arms for private citizens is concerned, the U.S. finds itself in an incredibly exclusive and delicate situation. 

When it added its Second Amendment to the Constitution in 1791, it did not explicitly mention the natural law-based individual right to self-defense. Still, it was somewhat tacitly hidden behind if not buried under the collective right to bear arms for the sake of ensuring the security of a free state. In the peculiar grammar of the time, the Second Amendment says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Today, however, conditions have drastically changed. The United States is a developed and stable republic with the most powerful military force in the world. Its fifty States maintain their own National Guard as a quasi-modern type of militia. The legislation of Posse Comitatus regulates and limits the federal government's powers vis-à-vis the political state entities. It appears that the collective aspect of the Second Amendment, to secure a free state, is no longer critically relevant under the current political circumstances.

 

In our day and age, deterring a "tyrannical" government or repelling invasion does not appear to be serious challenges anymore. Not to mention that government nowadays avails over weaponry that cannot possibly be matched with any form of private gun ownership, whether or not the latter includes assault-type or any other military-type of rifles.

 

The apparent emphasis of the Second Amendment on the collective right to arm citizens for the sake of building a well-regulated militia resulted from the specific historical circumstances under which the founders established the new republic. In other words, and as far as private citizens' gun ownership was concerned, the timeless and enduring natural right to individual self-defense was combined with, if not overridden and superseded by the temporal necessity to incorporate and emphasize a militia clause. Given the empirical circumstances, the founding fathers considered the right to possess arms for the collective reason of securing liberty within a fledgling republic more critical than the explicit authorization for individual self-preservation. It most likely happened because the innate right to self-defense had been a perennial element of the Anglo-Saxon Common Law tradition for centuries and was considered a granted right. 

 

Consequently, and to overcome the confusion dominating the current gun debate in politics and society, an adaptation or revision of the Second Amendment stressing the individual self-defense component of the law would appear conducive. Such clarification also explains why private citizens do not need to own arms beyond handguns and weapons for immediate protection of one's safety and hunting purposes. Dealing with the already purchased and privately owned assault weapons may require different measures such as a voluntary buyback or even confiscation of firearms in limited and justified circumstances of immediate endangerment. Had law enforcement followed through on the latter aspect, the recent Florida shooting incident with 17 people killed would not have happened. However, proper socialization and education should provide the primary solutions to this challenge, and arguments to this effect follow at this essay's end.

 

As I explained in the wake of the San Bernadino massacre in my 2015 essay on Guns in Private Hands (https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2015/12/guns-in-private-hands-what-to-do-with.html): "Legitimate and well-informed governments are aware that the right to self-defense and gun ownership within prescribed confines, fosters and consolidates the monopoly of force [of the State]. Both the monopoly of arms and private gun ownership provides a synthesis for most effective internal safety and security of a nation."

 

I also made clear that due to the country's vastness and the remoteness of specific areas and settlements, the United States had to authorize private citizens to own firearms generously from the inception of its nationhood.

 

Against the backdrop of an adequate political philosophy for private gun ownership, as briefly outlined here and in the blog essay mentioned above, the current debate's ideological prejudices and misconceptions become evident.

 

Constitutions and constitutional amendments can be modified and adjusted so that lawmakers maintain the founders' spirit and the underlying ideas and principles under the ever-changing conditions of earthly existence. Like any other law, the Second Amendment can either be amended or further specified by meaningful legislation. Such legal specifications should underscore the right to self-defense and relate the extent to which private citizens may own certain types of guns. Guiding principles should be the need to defend one's own home, and safety and the legitimate hunting of wildlife is concerned.

 

As shown, to argue for the possession of military-style assault weapons by reference to the Second Amendment's militia clause can no longer be justified. However, since there is no conscription for military service in the U.S., and soldierly service in federal and national guard forces is voluntary, citizens interested in military assault weapons should be introduced to them in the regulated and safe environment of shooting clubs. This support could well be done in close civil-military cooperation and help foster the bond between military and civilian communities, which is crucial in open societies.

 

On the other hand, to argue for the disarmament of private citizens or even the Second Amendment's termination in light of recent school shooting incidences demonstrates nothing but ill-education and misjudgment regarding the importance of private gun ownership in a developed society. Those stances are neither philosophically nor politically tenable. And history confirms that the more totalitarian a nation becomes, the more the rights to self-defense and to bear arms become restricted.

 

A gun itself – like a knife or a truck or a rock – is an inanimate object that carries no moral value whatsoever in and of itself. Only the human being using it gives it meaning and bestows ethical significance upon it. While proper legislation concerning gun ownership serves as a deterrent and certainly helps to contain potential abuse and to prevent crime, it is ultimately the human volition that decides how guns – or knives or trucks or rocks, for that matter – are used.

 

In the end, it is the proper socialization of young people and the continued efforts to provide adequate education and character building that instill proper regard for human life. Responsible social formation helps to overcome self-indulgence and apathetic egotism and to withstand the desensitization of the ease of killing shown in video games and Hollywood movies.

 

A comprehensive and unbiased grasp of private gun ownership and the true meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment should be part of the mindset of an informed citizenry.