In the wake of the Donald Trump Presidency there is change afoot, and anyone could be fooled into thinking that any changes to the political system that permitted the craven abuse of the power of representation that has been seen over (at least) the last 4 years would be a good thing…  and yet, it would appear that at first glance the actions being taken and the declarations being made are perhaps not as well considered as they might be…

Leaving aside for the present the question of a second impeachment for Donald Trump, the last few days have seen the removal of a Republican Congresswoman from House Committees, a request from a Democratic Senator that the armed forces have their social media feeds vetted and a statement from the President himself questioning whether or not ex-President Donald Trump should be allowed to receive security briefings.

With the exception of the proposal to vet military forces, these actions are specific sanctions directed as specific individuals; actions which can all-too easily be perceived as personal attacks.  Congresswoman Marjorie Greene Taylor has been filmed supporting the views of QAnon, questioning the legitimacy of school-shootings and even the terror attacks of September 11th 2001 (not to mention the fact that she maintained the possibility that the Californian wildfires in 2018 were caused by a space laser!)  Does holding such views invalidate her as a Congresswoman?  The answer is no.  Despite the possibility that she is as mad as a bag of cats, there is no constitutional requirement that a representative not believe in conspiracy theories…  what then is the justification for removing her from the committees?

This action addresses the symptoms and not the cause…  it is neither balanced not justified per se.  To underline the point, in 2014 Senator Buschon publicly stated that he doesn’t read the scientific reports from climate scientists because he simply doesn’t believe them – he thinks they have a vested interest!!  This man was sitting on the Committee for Science and Technology at the time.  Likewise, claiming that Donald Trump shouldn’t receive the security briefings because he may let ‘something slip’ is not really a substantive argument for constitutional reform…

With governmental power now ostensibly in the hands of the Democratic Party there is an opportunity to implement changes which could help to prevent future abuses of power…  yet rather than seek deliberate constitutional reform, the push at present seems to be centred on targeting and sanctioning specific individuals – actions which, irrespective of their real motives, can look like vindictiveness.  Attacking some individuals and not others is not democratic…  if there is a desire to implement behavioural standards then do so, but apply those standards to all; equally and fairly.

The one major reform that has been raised in this area is the proposal from Senator Speier, who in a letter to President Biden indicated that “Perhaps most importantly, DoD and the U.S. Government at large are not effectively screening servicemembers (sic) and other individuals with sensitive roles for white-supremacist and violent-extremist ties”.  The Senator went on to request that “white-supremacy and violent extremism” groups be defined as a critical threat and that therefore this should be vetted as part of standard security clearances in future.

This policy, although unwieldy, at least represents an attempt at changes to the institutional mechanisms which can be applied to all – although it is fatuous in the extreme.  Linking certain political views to eligibility for government or public service is a very dangerous path.  Such a path would invalidate and disenfranchise a percentage of the population at a stroke – and who would determine where and when such discriminations should stop?  Perhaps we should also invalidate those who think homosexuality is a crime? (bye- bye Catholics and Muslisms), perhaps we should not also invalidate them from office but also from voting? Or living at all?  Such a policy, whilst seemingly reasonable on paper is the equivalent of thought control – it is the very antithesis of democracy, a state where governments tell the citizens what to think rather than the citizens telling the government what they think.

In addition to which there is the whole question of definition…  what is a white-supremacist?  What is violent extremism?

My personal thoughts on this are that the word ‘extremist’ cannot be reasonably deployed by anyone politically, since you can only be extreme in regards to each other – so if you think my views are extreme, then of course your views must be the extreme of mine – hence we are both extremists!  Aside from this dialectic point however is the question of morality.  Excluding religion, the moral codes of society can be seen to change over time – the abolition of overt slavery and the granting of the vote to women are but two examples.  The present government may well consider that white-supremacy is indeed a viewpoint that should be eradicated; but this in turn would legitimise a more right-wing government to legislate equally against the ‘unholy views that homosexuals should be allowed to live’ or the dangerous thoughts that ‘less abled humans have a right to life like everyone else’.

This government should be slow to target the symptoms of the failure of representation and democracy, but rather it should concentrate on laying the foundations of constitutional institutions which are even-handed and fair, and which can protect themselves against the abuse and corruption which is evident across the board  (and all nations…).  This process will be slow, and cannot be done without consideration for all sides.

There is always (of course) one exception… an area that needs immediate and dramatic change…

and this leads us nicely to the second part  ->