Cultural wars go to the couch: TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) or the politics of madness

"Trump derangement syndrome (TDS) is a neologism describing a reaction to United States President Donald Trump by liberals, progressives, and anti-Trump conservatives, who are said to respond to Trump's statements and political actions irrationally and with little regard to Trump's actual position or action taken.^[1] The term has been used by pro-Trump conservatives to discredit criticism of Trump's actions"  Wikipedia

"Derangement is the state of being mentally ill and unable to think or act in a controlled way. "   Collins Dictionary

I was recently diagnosed with "TDS" by a friend with strong pro-Trump views. 

Not being a FOX or any other cable channel regular viewer, I looked up for help in Wikipedia: "Tax Deducted at Source" showed up on top, but didn't seem the case. I kept searching until the word "Trump" appeared. Then, I was able to track its origins back to its sources: FOX channel and the self-proclaimed conservative media.

Looking at the levels of anger around the public persona of Donald J. Trump I couldn't help but to remember similar reactions towards his three predecessors: Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Presidents before Clinton (1992) were contested -Reagan being the most obvious example- but not with the intensity that the last four have experienced. 

I looked up again and noticed a revealing marker: 1993. It was the year Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes launched Fox News Channel with the explicit mission of promoting a militant, anti-liberal agenda and the candidates of the Republican Party.

Over time, MSNBC took FOX's role on the Left camp and CNN turned to what its critics (mostly in FOX) nicknamed "Clinton Cable News".

The rise of partisan mass-media combined with the populist politics of personal attacks and slander campaigns has created a toxic atmosphere that turns politics into a civil war re-fought by other means.

In such a climate, paranoia prospers and spreads -conspiracy theories, "us-versus-them", identity politics and so on- and finds constantly malignant and insane enemies in those who think, look or live differently from "us".  

The newest fashion promoted by FOX channel is the ultimate "psycho-insult": calling on others the "TDS syndrome" (for Trump Derangement Syndrome), a new epithet meant to dis-qualify any criticism directed toward Donald Trump as a mental instability problem of the critic. 

The problem with encouraging self-made psychologists to engage in drive-through psychoanalysis  is that ill-defined categories can be obviously applied back the other way around. 

Let's stop for a minute on the "D" for Derangement in TDS. 

If we follow the definition of the term:

"Derangement is the state of being mentally ill and unable to think or act in a controlled way. "   Collins Dictionary

When we think of "Derangement" we should  include "Trump-lovers" in addition to "Trump-haters". Love and hate, after all, have little to do with reason. And infatuation can turn into hate and vice versa. As it did with Hillary and Donald's views on each other before and after the 2016 election.

The good old days when Donald was a Clinton fan -and Hillary loved his jokes-

If there is such a thing as a Trump Derangement Syndrome, it seems as accurate to describe unconditional and fanatical allegiance as hate. In both cases, irrationality is on full display, and both TDS-negative and TDS-positive types can close their minds and ears to each other's views and arguments. Family and friends included. 

Psychoanalyzing others instead of discussing facts and arguments ratchets up another notch the barriers to rational discussion and communication. Both TDS-positive and TDS-negative might find comfort in saying: "after all, why bother listening to deranged people?". Mental institutions are crowded with people feeling that way.

Civility takes a serious blow each time discussions turned into personal arguments and character attacks. On this area, Left- and Right-wing extremist media -from Mother Jones to Breitbart- not only excel, but thrive as a cottage industry catering to extremism and reciprocal paranoia.

TDS is the Trumpian-intolerance equivalent to Left-wing "safe zones". It has the same uses -preventing any contact with those who think differently, enabling aggression and shutting down any criticism. 

Both forms of TDS serve the purpose of erecting walls between Americans. Walls much thicker than physical barriers and much stronger than party registration.  The Anti-Trump Far Left sets its TDS walls in the campuses calling them "safe zones". 

The Pro-Trump Far Right  has created its own version of "safe zones" with "TDS" shutdowns.

The danger of this psychological "TDS walls" is precisely that they shut down peaceful communication,  escalating the inevitable contact with the "others" into physical confrontation.

The "TDS" category is also a recycled product. 

It used to be called "BDS" for Bush when it was first invented by FOX news to use against any Bush 43 critic. 

There was, of course, also an "Obama Derangement Syndrome" (ODS) as well -used by Obama fans to shut down Obama critics as bigots and those like talk show host Glenn Beck to shut down Obama supporters:

And, of course, we don't have any moral or rational reason to listen to haters. 

We actually are told (by partisan media) that we have a moral and rational obligation not to listen to those we diagnose with TDS.

Each time we use the "TDS" argument to shut down others, we engage in cultural warfare and become part of the TDS syndrome we just tagged to others.

This rant scene of the old Network film was very popular among anti-Obama Tea Party conservatives, back when Trump campaigned on questioning Obama's birth certificate. It is a good example of Derangement Syndrome (you choose the first letter for the object of deranged passion) and it summarizes the power and the danger of "TDS" and the politics of madness:

The Wizard of Oz Presidency

"Pay no attention to that very bad man behind the curtain" 

Wizzard of Oz, Vincent Minelli

Donald Trump made a media career by playing the role of the successful businessman and executive. He sold his name and exhibited his properties as symbols of his ability to run businesses and published several ghostwritten books to foster his reputation as an expert.

His public persona as a businessman was further fostered and showcased in cable TV with The Apprentice, a show designed to present Trump as a mix of Peter Drucker and Jack Welch, mentoring young hopefuls into his own companies.

For those looking more carefully into the substance of shows, it was pretty evident that Trump Inc. looked pretty much like a mom and pop operation staged in luxury towers. With big double-stretched limos and helicopters landing on the towers' roofs. Exactly as in Hollywood.

There were no professional managers or directors around. Just Trump and his children auditioning candidates to play as if they were managers in a real business operation. There was no MBA stuff, no business plans, just the kind of operational stuff that concierges and real estate agents have to handle.

And that might be as much management as Donald J. Trump has done during his entire life as CEO, President and owner of Trump Enterprises. There is no much more to Trump Inc than there was to Kramerica Indusytries in Jerry Seinfeld's famed comedy:

Only that now, the joke is on those who voted a Wizzard of Oz into the White House expecting something like professional management. Or those -many more- who expected Trump to move from campaigning on cultural war to governing on the Constitution -like most previously aggressive and controversial campaigners (think of Reagan or Bush 43) did.

Far from that, the slim but consistent majority of moderate, independent Americans (40 percent of the electorate, check polls) who expected a return to civility and increasingly organized , professional management of POTUS office during the past two years have witnessed a White House ran as a "mom & pop" (or better said, "dad & kids") operation. 

Professional staff positions were not appointed, then gradually cut off  in any form of policy by the President. When finally appointed, those celebrated as heroes at inception ended their short tenures as career military like Secretary of Defense Mattis o General Kelly. To a staggering 65 percent turnover tracked until October (before Mattis and Kelly's departure)  by Brookings Institution.

Managing the POTUS institution has always been hard. As JFK said after a tumultuous first 100 days in office: "there is no school for presidents". 

Historians of the POTUS institution agree, but also remark that JFK called previous president Einsenhower when in trouble. And got good advice. Same did Bill Clinton with Richard Nixon first and Bush 41 later. 

Reagan called James Baker III -who's still around going strong- when things got out of hand. Bush 43 got help from Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, two old hands dating back to Gerald Ford's administration (btw, Gerald Ford was also asked for advice to both Bush and Clinton). There is also a President's Club.

The problem that makes Trump's a Wizard of Oz presidency is not only that he doesn't ask for advice to his predecessors or experienced officers, but that he assumes he knows better and engages in dangerous 'trial and error" experiments led by polls and talk-show hosts. Polls are lagging, not leading indicators. As Henry Ford explained, had he polled people before introducing the car, they would have asked for "a faster horse".

This becomes a serious problem because the office of POTUS is not -and was not- meant to operate like that of a monarch. That was precisely what George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and James Madison -the Founding Fathers and our first presidents- had in mind to prevent the United States to repeat the catastrophes and chaos of George III's madness or the excesses that turn the French Revolution into the Reign of Terror and the crowing of Emperor Napoleon to restore order.

Chaos, like Saturn, devores those who embrace it. 

 Just looking at the painful saga of the Secretaries of Press Spicer and the "Communications" chief Scaramucci tells the story of a small family business in disarray. 

Hundreds of stories, half a dozen books by and recurring post-exit testimonies (including exit interviews and open letters) from former Secretaries of State and top cabinet officers recurrently describe a one-man show kind of operation, where changes in mood and early morning musings have become M.O. 

That is now what the markets and foreign leaders expect from POTUS and what they discount in their VIX swings at home and preemptive political alliances abroad. And the main reason for such wealth-destroying, dangerous volatility.

Like in a dysfunctional small family-ran operation, Donald J, Trump plays all the roles: he's the Chief of Staff, Secretary of Press, State, Defense, Budget, Fed, DOJ, Attorney General and even rescue operations director. He not only plays the roles. He thinks he can. 

The difference between the Office of the President of the United States, the one that should operate the West Wing and Trump Inc. fades more every day. It has been doing so with each firing of top officers and hiring of lower level, more docile underlings. 

Those who have some experience in small business consulting or  run one are painfully familiar with these kind of scenes. And they worry when they see them because they know that small businesses ran this way end in bankruptcy. Like many of Donald J. Trump previous ventures. 

And current ones, such as the Trump Foundation or his children's fleeting brands.

Mike Bloomberg- a real businessman- minced no words to describe how the business community sees Donald Trump's career and track record:

It's high time for this country and the POTUS office to get some help from a script doctor. The Constitution has SCOTUS and POTUS for that role. They are being tested regularly with tactics reminiscent those of burglars trying to break in during a Christmas vacation.

This two-year run would be a funny series if it only were a sequel of The Apprentice. 

But this is the Presidency of the United States.

Or it should be.

Funerals for civility

John McCain will certainly be missed. The Republic this Republican with big "R" fought for as a military and a senator is under stress test by the forces of incivility unleashed by the Trump presidency.

McCain minced no words to warn against the "half-baked nationalism" and its "blood and soil" dark undertones.

But while fighting his last battle against cancer, he scored two magnificent blows to those who have turned the Republican party against republican principles.

First, with his "no" vote on dashing the Obama healthcare act without proper debate and support -precisely the reason he opposed Obama's law as vehemently as Trump's: civility.

Civility in Congress matters maters. It's about following the original design of the Framers and a 250-year-old tradition of making key laws in a bipartisan way.

The difference between "Jacksonian democracy" or populism and a republic is precisely that. Popular vote is the ever-changing matter that must be opposed and controlled by  Republican form and rule. That's the difference between "majority rule" and rule of law, between "democratic republics" (code name for dictatorships) and "republic of laws" that apply equally to everyone. Included the President of the United States, who's not the King of the United States, even when and if acting like one.

The second blow that McCain gave to those who want to skip the rule of law and rule by tweets was his own funeral, carefully orchestrated as the old senator and formidable campaigner McCain was, into a remarkable display of civility and bipartisanship.

President Bush and Obama were selected on purpose to speak and show how the Republic stands above party and -hopefully- in good health.

President Bush made special point in condemning hatred and bigotry against Latino immigrants and non-white people, as well as vulgar personal attacks and comments that demean the offices of the US as a Republic.

President Obama joined the display of civility, reminding how his political duels with McCain in both campaign and government helped him (and president Bush before him) to rise their game and check their own mistakes.

McCain had indeed his last hurrah and also his last laugh.

Perhaps this was not a funeral but a baptism. 

Perhaps the public display of civility across the political spectrum and public officers -past and present- will help those who believe in our Constitution keep faith that the Union will prevail and come out of this uncivil war stronger than before.

Perhaps this is John S. McCain's lasting victory.

All checks, no balance: the dangerous education of Donald J. Trump

The progression of Special Counsel Mueller probe on President Trump's possible grounds for impeachment has unveiled new and troubling evidence with his personal lawyer's confession.

After months of campaigning publicly against the Special Counsel's "witch hunt", Trump has been rendered legally mute. Illegal conspiracy to hide evidence of unethical behavior that might have affected the election's results has been exposed. 

The most disturbing element of the new developments are not the accusations and probes but the fact that even those defending President Trump are assuming in fact that he has committed crimes such as to be impeached if his associates "turn on him" and reveal what they know. Or -to be more precise- what everybody already knows (conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and collusion with Russian agents) mostly because the same candidate Trump announced it during the campaign. 

This is not a horror but a suspense story. Spectators know who and how committed the crime, they just watch the unfolding events waiting for the next shoe to drop. Some with fear, other with joy. All carried away by two years of endless and mindless antagonistic and hyper-partisan politics fueled by the President that might end being victim of his own showmanship.  

As with chess, in constitutional law there are also "checks". Like in chess, constitutional checks -like a Special Council probe- announce impending doom for those who trespassed their consitutional limits and their office duties. 

As in chess, the next stop can be another check, a loss or the ending of the game.

The Constitution of the United States was specifically designed to check those in power and prevent them from abusing their offices. In 250 years, it has been tested by several former presidents and worked effectively.

James Madison wrote the famous Federalist 10 explaining that:

"No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.

With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time"

Madison warned that:

 When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.

And proposed institutions to check majorities (always circumstantial) and factions (always self-serving) from breaking or bending the law: 

To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. 

Those who think that social media and showmanship can trump (no pun intended) the Constitution have met their first check. There are evidently plenty more down this road. 

Madison had "obnoxious presidents" in his mind when he wrote: 

Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people.  

And conceived an intricate -yet not unassailable- set of rules written in the Federalist papers and then into our 1787 Constitution. The new form of government was not a democracy -democracy was already 2000 years old and had time and again turned presidents into Caesars- but a republic, a system with checks and balances between three separated powers.

Come November, the balance of power in Congress can -and probably will- swing to the opposition party, making more likely President Trump's impeachment. 

The next check can become a check mate.

We haven't had time yet to look at the consequences of a premature end of Donald Trump's presidency.

We should.

Trump's Impeachment Fright

Definition of delusion 

a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated 

• delusion

• delusions

b psychology : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary 

• delusion

; also : the abnormal state marked by such beliefs
: the act of tricking or deceiving someone : the state of being deluded

"Sic transit gloria mundi" was the inscription  at the top of the Caesar's victorious banners and in the crown wags of Popes' and monarchs. It s purpose was to remind absolute rulers that "all glory is transient", all power is passing.

It didn't help.

Even seeing how easy was to get his once powerful enemies stabbed, shot, hanged, beheaded or dismembered by an angry mob didn't prevent  Caesar, Saddam, Robespierre or Qaddafi from  falling into the delusion of thinking they would not end up like them.  Nor did the risk of public embarrassment and humiliation prevent Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton from creating a web of lies and deceit that destroyed their own careers, harmed their families and tarnished their legacies. 

The greatest danger for those with unchecked power is not corruption, but delusion. 

That's precisely why the Framers of US Constitution created checks and balances and instituted limited term, limited re-election presidencies. All that POTUS, COTUS and SCOTUS institutes, their successors can undo. That's what makes the United States the longest uninterrupted republican democracy in the world. Donald J, Trump is its 45th president. The one between Barak Obama and the 46th, who will take office either in 2 or 6 years from now.

Donald J. Trump seems to have a hard time thinking beyond his two-terms (if reelected). And yet, as a 72-year old man without a party, in a non-dynastic system, no matter how much he "wins" his political battles, how hard his hardcore believers hang to his zig-zagging definitions and decisions, Donald J Trump will be replaced by our 46th President in 2020 or 2024.

The 46th president might, like him, devote his (or her) presidency to unravel and erase each and every one of 45th's  decisions. The more Mr. Trump revels in his  conquests and in humiliating a growing number of foes, the more this is likely to happen.

Mr. Trump seems obsessed with getting rid of any charges of collusion and any opposition to his own, grandiose self-image. Paradoxically, in doing so, he's spreading insurrection among his own Republican party, his donors, staff, and even those serving in the country's Armed forces and Intelligence and Security communities. That's how deep the "deep State" actually is if we follow the delusional course charted during the almost two years of the 45th President.  

The last straw has been retired Admiral William H. MacRaven's public pronouncement against the President's behavior.

The same Admiral McRaven that gave this inspiring commencement speech and wrote a book on the moral code of Marine discipline and leadership titled "If you wanna change the world start of by making your bed" has now berated Donald Trump's handling of the POTUS office.

Admiral McRaven didn't mince words in his response to President Trump's treatment of CIA and FBI career officers that dared to testify in the ongoing probe about Mr. Trump's campaign possible collusion with Russia during the 2016 campaign and perhaps after the election.

Dear Mr. President:

Former CIA director John Brennan, whose security clearance you revoked on Wednesday, is one of the finest public servants I have ever known. Few Americans have done more to protect this country than John. He is a man of unparalleled integrity, whose honesty and character have never been in question, except by those who don’t know him. 

Therefore, I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency. 

Like most Americans, I had hoped that when you became president, you would rise to the occasion and become the leader this great nation needs. 

A good leader tries to embody the best qualities of his or her organization. A good leader sets the example for others to follow. A good leader always puts the welfare of others before himself or herself. 

Your leadership, however, has shown little of these qualities. Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation. 

If you think for a moment that your McCarthy-era tactics will suppress the voices of criticism, you are sadly mistaken. The criticism will continue until you become the leader we prayed you would be.

Even if President Trump is vindicated in his claims of "no collusion", his efforts -like Nixon's in the Watergate case- in obstructing the investigation are turning the entire process into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Even tough President Trump believes his base would absolve him even if he shot someone in New York's Fifth Avenue-

his behavior might cost him the majority in Congress , the last firewall protecting him from impeachment. Moreover, Trump's growing list of enemies might increase anti-Trump turnout into a "blue wave" in spite of the good economy over which Trump presides. 

President Trump tweets and personal insults about his own disgruntled Secretaries of State, WH staff, campaign and personal lawyers show growing evidence of delusion, a problem that sent previous presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton to face articles of impeachment and lasting shame.

These later episodes might be remembered as a turning point in the Trump presidency. 

Even if President Trump survives to become a two-term president -a goal that his own behavior is pushing farther and farther away with each passing news cycle- , there will be another President after him. And certainly, there will be a retaliatory push back against his initiatives.

Delusion is thinking otherwise.

Trade Wars - Boarding the Ship of Fools

“For example, the supporters of tariffs treat it as self-evident that the creation of jobs is a desirable end, in and of itself, regardless of what the persons employed do. That is clearly wrong. If all we want are jobs, we can create any number--for example, have people dig holes and then fill them up again, or perform other useless tasks. Work is sometimes its own reward. Mostly, however, it is the price we pay to get the things we want. Our real objective is not just jobs but productive jobs--jobs that will mean more goods and services to consume.” 

Milton Friedman, Free to Choose

Back in 1929, at the onset of the Great Depression, Laurel and Hardy filmed "Big Business" ,a slapstick comedy that portrayed an escalation of hostilities, from small gestures to mutually assured destruction. (You may want to skip until 11 on the video to watch the climax that reflects what a tariff war looks like to a rational spectator and how it ends)

That was indeed what happened a few years later, when the US Congress passed the Smooth-Hawley Act and started the first global trade war.

Once upon a time Republicans listened to one of their eminent economists, Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman explain why trade wars and tariffs are self-punishment and bad economics:

That one brought Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Lenin and the Japanese fascists to power and with them, the logical next step that was World War II.

Sixty million deaths and seventy-five years later, a populist president toys with starting a tariff war with all US's major commercial partners at once: China, EU, Canada and Mexico.

The promise for the fools is the same than in 1932: jobs will come back, salaries will go up and the "unfair" competitors will surrender.

Economist Bryan Caplan explains why voters self-immolate for a second time in his educational book "The Myth of the Rational Voter"

Fool me twice...

John McCain: The Last of the Lincoln Republicans

"We don’t build walls to freedom and opportunity. We tear them down. To fear the world we have organized and led for three- quarters of a century, to abandon the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international leadership for the sake of some half- baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems is unpatriotic."    

Senator John McCain (R), 2017

John McCain was an American hero in many ways. 

He was a military POW how resisted 5 years of torture in the Hanoi Hilton, yet returned to Vietnam to make peace with his own captors and help reestablish diplomatic relations.

He followed Barry Goldwater as the senator for Arizona and championed just, unpopular and politically inconvenient causes such as campaign reform, immigration reform and lately, offended both Left and Right by supporting his rival George W. Bush's surge in Iraq and voting down President's Trump populist and popular repeal without replace of the ACA healthcare bill known as Obamacare -which he also opposed vehemently-.

His argument for opposing the latter was a call to a civility lost in the populist wave that brought Trump to the White House:

A populist wave that McCain lamented to have helped by selecting populist firebrand Sarah Palin over his democratic first choice, democratic senator Joe Lieberman.

He ran a uninspiring campaign against Barack Obama in 2008 and damaged his reputation with an uncharacteristic surrender to populist pandering. It was perhaps an example of his fighter jet pilot tendency to quick judgement that, like others on the USS Forrestal and over Hanoi, backfired badly. He somehow took distance by standing against deranged birthers that hated his rival more than any Republican principle.

McCain never hesitated in working and voting across the partisan divide, engaging in lively debates and lifelong friendships and collaboration with rival Democratic leaders such as Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden and Russ Feingold. He is and will certainly be admired and missed by the best  of both parties. And certainly reviled and insulted by the worst. 

Thanks to John McCain's dedication to fight partisanship, he will remain a healthily divisive figure between those who put country over party and those who don't. The former will remember him fondly, the others will hate him stronger as time goes by. He would probably relish keeping such friends and foes.

McCain made one notorious exception to his civility. His widow asked that the sitting president, Donald J. Trump, was not welcomed at his funeral. 

McCain's contempt for Trump was just the latest rejection of his populist views and unpresidential behavior by most of the moderate Republican leaders, a long list that included a similarly embarrassing absence at Barbara Bush's funeral -where his wife Melania sat and chat with president's Bush, Clinton and Obama- and public denunciations by all of the living former presidents (including Bush 41 and Carter), 2012  and presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

In any case, what caused Cindy McCain's request was not just Trump's disrespect and incivility towards him, but toward the very American values and principles McCain fought for as a soldier and as a senator.

The best farewell to John McCain is following his advice and his example of civility and honor.

Republicans will have a lot to do and a lot to change to meet John McCain's standards.

Can US Republic survive populism? - Joseph Ellis and the pessimistic wisdom of John Adams

A new populist wave is sweeping the Western world. It's fueled by the same combustible than others before: global economic crises and their discontents.

Historian Joseph Ellis has dedicated part of his notable career to explaining why our Founding Fathers didn't want a democracy in the mold of the French Revolution. Moreover, they saw the 20,000 killed on the name of the "people" under the Terror period as a stern warning for us, the stillborn Brittish colonies trying to become the United States.

Adams warned presciently against putting much hope on democracy per se:

“Democracy… while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”

Adams saw executive power and human condition as a menace for freedom and the nascent Republic:

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.

– John Adams, Notes for an oration at Braintree, Spring 1772.

He believed on giving full power to the people, but thought people as individual citizens with individual rights, no majorities or mobs getting beyond the law nor governments and presidents reigning beyond it:

“The way to secure liberty is to place it in the people’s hands, that is, to give them the power at all times to defend it in the legislature and in the courts of justice.”– John Adams

Adams stood against the majority almost all his political life and particularly eloquently when he defended British soldiers charged with the Boston massacre in 1770:

“The law no passion can disturb. ‘Tis void of desire and fear, lust and anger. ‘Tis mens sine affectu, written reason, retaining some measure of the divine perfection. It does not enjoin that which pleases a weak, frail man, but, without any regard to persons, commands that which is good and punishes evil in all, whether rich or poor, high or low.” 

– John Adams, Argument in Defense of the British Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials, Dec. 4, 1770. 

Against the prevalent fashion of idolizing Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, Ellis leans towards the more clear judgement of his rival John Adams, our second president.

Adams never thought much of democracy, the "people" or the American people for that matter. He saw the country as a motley crew instead of an Ethnic nation as Europeans' republics were.

There was a revolutionary summer when all the rather practical ideas of the framers came together, in a lasting collision as our 1787 Constitution is. 

Unlike Madison -who thought the division of powers and states rigths would prevent the tyranny of any eventual majority-, Adams dreaded that the US Constitution and its institutions would not be enough to control people's lowest passions if excited by demagogues.

"Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

These days are putting Madison's controls and Adams' fears against each other. 

A recent article on the very Republican National Review argues from its title that "Our government was designed to protect us from the Trumps of the world". 

Demagogues and populists always test the limits of existing institutional restraints looking for ways to circumvent them. From Mussolini to Hugo Chavez, that has been a constant trait. 

Democracies, however, elect populists and demagogues now and then and set the stage for erosion of the rule of law and the republican checks and balances. 

Hopefully, Adams will be proven wrong once more. But that will not happen without a return to civility.

Lets leave the last word on this subject to Adams himself:

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation.”

    (Quoted from page 406 of The Political Writings of John Adams, Regnery Publishing, 2000.)