This was essentially the message of Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts as he promised that a second Donald Trump term as President would launch a revolution, with tens of thousands of dedicated, patriotic Americans purged from their jobs simply because they happen to be career civil servants loyal to the U.S. Constitution rather than the whims and whines of one man. Suddenly, the deliberations of fifty-five level-headed Americans at the Constitutional Convention will be subordinate to the narcissistic personality outbursts of one man. But, stay in your lane and you won’t get hurt we are assured.
According to Roberts, this revolution will be “bloodless” if liberals—and anyone else who disagrees with the radical agenda—will simply shut up and keep their heads down while the country we love is hijacked, ripped apart and removed to parts unknown. But, I’m not sure why we need a second revolution. I’ve always thought that a Bill of Rights and almost two and a half centuries of peaceful change of office was sufficient. But then again, I don’t think in terms of the violent imagery that the right does. Nor had I heard of Donald J. Trump. Or, of a “List” being compiled of enemies of the state that will be “dealt with” during a Trump second term.
Not my vision for America, Steve. Sketch of a head impaled on a pike, included in a letter to Ronald Fuller. Rex Whistler (Alamy.)
For example, Steve Bannon, one time advisor to the President and lately an inmate at a federal prison in Connecticut promised that Trump opponents would find their “heads on a pike.” After his lawyer quit over that remark and as Bannon packed his bag for his stay at Danbury, CT, compliments of the taxpayers for contempt of Congress. Bannon later backtracked on this promise and says that it was only a metaphor. But then, who uses metaphors like this? Words have meaning. When I read calls for “military tribunals” where “traitors” like “Liz Cheney” and former Joint Chiefs Chairman General “Mark Milley” will be summarily tried and punished (perhaps not necessarily in that order), I take it seriously. So does Mr. Trump, apparently because he wasted no time in reposting these comments. By the way, is there anyone who does not know the penalty for treason? I don’t think I ever supported a bill that former Congresswomen Cheney voted for, but now, she is suddenly near and dear to my heart. A true patriot! The Democrats are not our enemy. The Republicans are not our enemy. We are all Americans!
We forget that the American Revolution (1) wasn’t really a revolution at all, and (2) it was powered by liberal ideas, and those of John Locke in particular. The conservatives back in the mid to late eighteenth century were loyalists. They did not want independence from England at all. Some patriots back then were so radical (e.g. Thomas Jefferson) that he would earn the admiration of the Bolsheviks when they came to power in Russia more than a century later.
A true revolution is a radical departure from the previous norms, as Hannah Arendt would tell us. In a true revolution, even the calendar is changed. For example, the latter part of July was renamed Thermidor in the French Revolution. In the Bolshevik Revolution, people were no longer addressed as сударь сударыня (Sir/Madam) but as “Comrade.” In the Iranian Revolution, blue jeans and sleeveless tops were banned and burned in favor of the hajib, while men were forced to grow beards. In the U.S. following Yorktown, some states did not need to revise their charters for decades. People dressed the same, perhaps only replacing the buttons on their coats if they contained the Royal Seal.
The notion that “all men were created equal” was a great leap in liberalism. Many conservatives in England today may still refute that notion to some degree, at least in the case of the Royal Family, the House of Lords and so on. Regretfully, many of my countrymen need to be thus reminded as well. God loves the undocumented immigrant trying to care for his family, the penniless widow, the hungry child as much as He loves me. The framers weren’t even sure when they met in Philadelphia in 1787 that we could run a country without an aristocracy. Wasn’t it Hamilton who circulated that anonymous note at the convention, polling the delegates about the feasibility of a Polish king absent a consensus?
Fifth Avenue at Saks. Is this real America? With nasty women? Suckers and losers (i.e. veterans) like myself? Cabbies from some shithole country? Aaaagh! They’re probably all Democrats anyway!Photo credit: Peter Griffin (Alamy.)
We do know that Donald J. Trump does not like rules. He prefers to do anything he damn well pleases (and often escapes the consequences.) Trump once said before he was elected: “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?” Given that I was actually on Fifth Avenue yesterday, that reckless statement took on new meaning as I looked into the faces of the people there. The majority on the Supreme Court (two of whom have serious ethical issues) ruled this week in Trump vs U.S. that the President could get involved in potentially criminal acts if he did so in his capacity as President. I understand that to mean that he “could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and [he] wouldn’t [face prosecution], OK?” Not Ok!
Violence is never the answer. Don’t even think about it. Just, don’t!
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Sonia Sotomayor who dissented summarized Trump vs. U.S. best:
The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution.
Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune.
Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune.
Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”
Hopefully, Justice Sotomayor’s name isn’t on the proscription list. God bless Liz Cheney, Sonia Sotomayor and America!
UPDATE
The Heritage Foundation has had several days in which to replace or repudiate the inappropriate term “bloodbath.” Instead, they appear to have doubled-down on the comment according to an article in “The Hill” this morning. Mr Trump, on the other hand, appeared to distance himself from the comments, though he, himself, has voiced similar comments threatening violence in the past. See for example 104 (d), p. 39 of the Grand Jury indictment of Donad J. Trump for his role in the January 6, 2020 riot.
