CNN polling discussed last weekend shows the overwhelming number of Americans are tired of President Trump lionizing himself, especially by sticking his name on buildings while he remains in office. The data was called “clear as glass” by CNN’s Chief Data Analyst, Harry Enten.
The Surve found one in five Americans think it’s okay to name buildings after Trump—but only after has left office (and, we add, after time and more open evaluation of his behavior is possible).
Only NINE PERCENT say it’s okay for him to stick his name on government buildings while he’s still in office.
How strong is that feeling. Enten looked at some other ridiculous ideas for comparison. Nine percent is even lower than the 12 percent of Americans who think the moon landing was a fake.
It is even one point lower than the number of Americans who think the Earth if flat—ten percent.
Enten said, “On this issue, the rock core, that core Republican base that Trump has relied upon, that stick with him through thick and thin, even on this issue, though, just 17 percent, just 17 percent of Republicans say that, yes, it is. Three percent, not really so surprising, of Democrats say the same thing. So, you get rare bipartisan unity on this issue.
But is he fixated on himself, as if we need to ask? He plans to the celebration of our nation’s 250th birthday in Washington into a celebration of himself, which should remove any doubt, underlining the sentiment of only 29% of Americans in the CNN survey who think he is focused enough on issues that really matter. More than two-thirds (68 percent) say he is not.
As we have noted in a previous blog, the polarization of America this man is causing is staggering in its scope. In this issue—focus—only THREE PERCENT of respondents seemed to have no opinion.
Because our current occupant of the White House has so clearly violated or ignored all previous written and unwritten standards for the office, it is time for Congress put serious limits on the presidency, written standards with severe penalties for their violations. Some of these standards must be applied also to those who enact them.
These proposals are based on the proposition that the higher people rise in our political system, the more they must reveal of themselves as a matter public honesty with those who elevate them to those positions.
In short, the higher you rise, the less private your life becomes and the more you “belong” to the public because you are entrusted by that public with increasing levels of power that must be exercised with responsibility beyond personal interest.
To begin with the current example, these laws of the powerful should require:
—The name of no President shall be affixed to any government building, park, military equipment or other federal holding while in office. Such naming shall remain the province of the Congress and its usual process for such designations which shall not be made until the president has been out of office for one election cycle.
—No image, signature or other representation of a sitting or living former President shall appear on any United States currency or coinage used in general public circulation.
—Within two weeks of an individual achieving a nomination for President, or achieving the office through succession, the Internal Revenue Service shall make public the tax returns of the individual for the previous five years and shall release them for each year the individual is in office.
—The same standards shall apply to appointees to the United States Supreme Court, to cabinet positions, and to members of Congress upon their elections. .
—The President and incoming Vice-President, not later than two weeks prior to inauguration, shall transfer all assets, including but not limited to personal financial holdings and property to an independent blind trust established by the Congress to manage those assets during the time they are in office. No transfer of assets within the families of the President and the Vice-President during the two years before the inauguration date shall be recognized as legal and such assets shall be seized and placed into the trust if so made.
—Failure to place assets into such a trust will delay the inauguration until such time as the obligation is met. The sitting president shall serve as a President Pro Tempore until such requirements are met. If the sitting president is incapable of serving under provisions of the 25th amendment or chooses not to continue service, the sitting president shall be replaced according to the line of succession established in the Constitution and that person will continue serving until all trust requirements are met. Impeachment shall be mandatory if it is determined later that these standards have not been met intentionally.
—Within two weeks of all annual physical examinations, the detailed results including (for lack of a better term) “beyond basic” tests of cognition, shall be released.
—No President shall order the unprovoked attack of or invasion of another independent nation without the approval of Congress.
—No President can claim, annex, or purchase any independent nation or territory of an independent nation without approval by Congress and a proven willingness by the inhabitants of such lands to become part of the United States.. “Proven willingness” shall mean a positive vote by the general population of the area proposed.
—No President unilaterally can withdraw this country from international bodies dedicated to the health, safety, welfare, financial stability, and peaceful coexistence with others without approval by Congress.
—No President may interfere with the orderly elections of the states nor with the standards of institutional of higher learning within those states.
—All revenue outside of campaign donations that would personally benefit a sitting President shall be applied against the national debt (ending the pay for play philosophy that seems so prominent in today’s presidential dealings).
—All campaign donations to presidential and congressional candidates shall be listed according to the name of the individuals making them. Organizations aggregating campaign funds must identify the individuals contributing to such aggregated donations.
—No president shall establish independent political action committees to influence elections at the state level during the term of the presidency.
Nothing in these suggestions prohibits a president from making recommendations nor do any of them limit the president’s constitutionally protected freedoms of speech and expression nor his ability to associate with others who might advocate a cause on his behalf. But they will go far to prevent future presidents from taking the powers of the people from them.
Expecting Congress to enact any of these protections for the nation’s general welfare seems to be quite a reach. But we should know by now that failure to do so only invites something worse, if it is possible to envision something worse, than the inattentive but self-absorbed figure we have now.
Recall that on September 18, 1787, the last day of the Constitutional Convention. Elizabeth Willing Powell, a Philadelphia social leader we today would call “an influencer,” asked delegate Benjamin Franklin as he emerged from the final meeting, “What have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin’s answer is well known: “A republic, if you can keep it.”
These recommendations are designed to keep our republic and have been created to respond to the excesses of the current holder of the presidency. You might have modifications to these ideas or additional limits that Congress could and should impose. Feel free to share them in the “comments’ section at the end of this posting. No snark please. This is too important for that.
In this campaign year, those seeking federal office should be asked by the media and the voters if they would support limits such as these on the most powerful single person in our government and for those seeking high federal positions. If yes, why? If not, why not?
We citizens have obligations to ourselves and to our families as well as to our neighbors—known and unknown—to protect ourselves and to protect our nation. Some might argue that the Constitution already protects us enough. Your correspondent does not believe that it does, and we have seen demonstration after demonstration of that inadequacy, especially with President Trump.
These issues need to be part of the national dialogue in this election year. If you would like to begin this discussion with others by distributing these ideas, feel free to do so. If you have a chance to speak of these things with your congressional candidates, do not miss it.
A republic is a terrible thing to be wasted.
-0-