uncharted territory
wisdom of an ACC reader
“Good morning. We're a Nation in new, uncharted territory this morning. And despite all the media reports from yesterday, the sun did come up this morning. Birds are singing and flowers are blooming. I'm still proud to be an American and live in a country with warts. I did find it interesting that two of my more "liberal" Facebook friends immediately celebrated yesterday's verdict in a "gloating" type way on their pages. The rest of my friends posted nothing other than the normal pics of their lunches, cats and kids. To my knowledge, there were no riots in the streets and other than the standard back and forth media pundit attacks on everything and everybody for this "travesty" and "injustice" ... we're all still here. But I digress...”
I received the passage above at the beginning of a question from an ACC reader that I will answer shortly about Harvard’s announcement they will no longer comment on controversial topics. His words above are not mine but those of an American who is, it would appear, struggling to evaluate all we see occurring, day in and day out as well as on 31 May 2024. I similarly received confirmation from my son, currently working in Canada, of his profound love of this country for all of its challenges.
My take is that we are a nation in new, uncharted territory daily. I pray it’s a good morning every single day. More directly, yes, birds are singling and flowers are blooming, all regular events that ought to occur and be celebrated more often than we do.
But, a nation operating under rule of law does not deviate from its norms when any trial ends, regardless of whether the state meets its burden or the defendant is proven innocent. That is the point of rule of law: it treats each case under uniform, predictable rules which are replicable, defendable, and open for scrutiny and accountability. No one is treated any differently than any other person in a system with rule of law. We have norms, laws, boundaries or whatever you want to call them under which we all must operate or we run the risk of anarchy and a Hobbesian existence.
Before someone starts screeching at me about supposed show trials (which is blatantly absurd except for a sound bite: show trials are televised, as Bo Xilai and his wife found out in 2014—yet this one had neither video nor audio of the proceedings) or partisan injustices, I remind everyone that Hunter Biden goes on trial in a federal case Monday. He will be subject to the rule of law like any other citizen of this amazing country. He must be held accountable under the rule of law because those are the rules. Sorry to be boring but, as a former Chief of Staff at the College used to say, ‘rules are our friends’. Same for Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey who is already in court defending himself against withering accusations (again) by the same administration that is prosecuting Hunter Biden and anyone else after 2021. No difference except both of these individuals are Democrats and yesterday’s decision occurred about a prominent Republican politician.
Anyone convicted of a crime has the right, if she/he so desires, to appeal the decision to appeallate authorities. I am confident the decision yesterday will go to appeal. I am not a lawyer nor pretend competence to opine on what would be appealable; I doubt most of you are, either. Certainly talking heads on the tele often include people no more knowledgable than me, though many good attorneys provide excellent, seemingly impartial professional assessments of procedure and the law.
But I am quite certain one of the strengths of our cumbersome, multi-layered, slow political mechanisms is they provide checks and balances against the very threats all of the theatrics are raising. If any unanimous judgment by twelve peers—defined constitutionally as citizens like the defendant—was correct, then the judgment is hardly a ‘witch hunt’ by its determination. If not true for reasons of court procedure or some other error, then the judgment would not stand up. But, appeal of a particular decision would in no way vindicate a defendant; it would merely provide reason to retry the case, if I understand the law (I know there are lawyers reading this so I welcome correction, if necessary).
Few of the screeches address the substance of the allegations but seem to focus solely on the accused. That is un-American and most certainly won’t make America great ever.
No one can be above the law if we are to have the nation that everyone, regardless of political orientation, financial status, job aspiration, creed, religion, or colour of skin, claims to desire. It’s fine to have affiliation, commitment, passion, and frustration but engaging in just plain stupid accusations only serves to undermine our respect from others while continuing to build the corrosive elements that are polarising us by the hour.
The sun did rise this morning.
After the sun rose, I went to hear thirteen students explain a sophisticated strategy to how to address the emerging Iran with nuclear aspirations problem. The morning was most worthy of my time and hope for our future with as many concerns abroad as we have at home.
But I continue wondering how we renew our nation to operate with mutual respect, rule of law, and concern for the nation. I, for one, have no interest in reviving civil war as a technique for national adjustment yet I fear too many are beginning to think that would somehow help. Are you kidding me? Inflammatory rhetoric creates dangerous actions.
No individual stands more valuable than the nation as each and every one of us will ultimately disappear from the scene but the survival of the United States of America to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare is worthy of enduring in my mind.
How about yours?
I welcome your thoughts, opinions, rebuttals, and suggestions. I thank each of you who reads this, particularly those who support it financially. If you see value, please feel free to circulate the column.
Wishing you a good summer weekend. Be well and be safe. FIN