Ricardo Villarreal

Think, Therefore Think Again

  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Vimeo
  • YouTube

  • Home
  • About Me
  • My Films
  • My Band
  • More
  • Contact

Trump’s Checkmate

May 8, 2017 by Ricardo Villarreal

Checkmate TrumpThe latest issue of The New Yorker (May 8, 2017) shares “Endgames” by Evan Osnos, a very comprehensive piece on what it would take to bring down Trump’s Presidency, focusing on the US Constitution’s Twenty-Fifth Amendment, the possibility of an impeachment, or even a self-imposed Nixonian exit.

While it is true that no US President has ever been immune to criticism, Trump entered his presidency having lost the popular vote by 3 million votes, in a sharply divided nation, with plenty of chaos, and fueled by a huge opposition of citizen activists and critics that so early in his term are calling for his impeachment.

His start has been everything but smooth sailing. Full of controversial executive orders, an unwillingness to release his tax returns, a questionable cabinet of incompetent loyalists, massive marches and protests all over the country, nepotism & conflicts of interest, and a federal investigation into a collusion with Russian interference of the 2016 US presidential election, among others, have gained Trump the lowest approval rating of any President in modern US history.

To make things worse, his arrogance and inability to take any negative criticism has irritated many people from his own political party. Trump is simply not interested in responding to his own actions, accountability is non-existent for him, and it’s always someone else’s fault.

But, can something really be done to take down Trump?

Yes, but the road to get there is not necessarily quick nor easy. Evan Osnos describes, for instance, how in 228 years of US political history, only one President has resigned and two have been impeached (although they were not removed from office).

One legal option to remove the President lies in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution.

This amendment was adopted on February 10, 1967 and it deals with the succession to the Presidency as well as responding to the President’s disabilities. More precisely, but not as specific as we would like, Section 4 deals with the removal of the President if he is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.”

The common denominator for using this legal instrument has to do with the possibility of Trump being mentally unfit.

Speculation about Trump’s mental health started during the presidential campaign, but it has kept growing and it remains a big concern as the US and the world rely on his decision-making abilities to deal with imperative world affairs matters.

Osnos reveals how more than 50,000 mental-health professionals have signed a petition stating that Trump is “too seriously mentally ill to perform the duties of President and should be removed” under the 25th Amendment.

The author also shares with us a revealing study by psychiatrists at Duke University concluding that about half of US Presidents they researched had suffered a mental illness. With this, he details three particular cases that are worth noting:

Pro-slave President Franklin Pierce was a heavy drinker and suffered from depression after his son’s death at a crucial time in US history, years before the start of the Civil War. President Lyndon B. Johnson was also affected with paranoia as the Vietnam War escalated.

And finally, President Ronald Reagan’s judgment, as well as his speech and decision-making abilities, changed during the last years of his presidency. Five years after leaving office, Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease.

Trump does carry a lot of baggage against him that could trigger using this amendment, and there are elements that make people rightfully suspicious of his judgmental abilities and mental health.

To name a few, his constant repeating of proven falsehoods, his use of a fourth-grade level language, his threatening rhetoric against those who criticize him, his obscene narcissism and unpredictable behavior, and his incitement of violence against protesters, are among the dangerous signs that have people very worried.

Dispensing Section 4 of the 25th Amendment on Trump is a very possible, although not immediate, scenario.

Next comes the possibility of impeachment. The grounds for it include: “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

One very important point Evan Osnos shares here comes from an interview he had with David O. Stewart, the author of “Impeached,” who told him: “impeachment is not a judicial proceeding, but a tool of political accountability.”

Among the reasons for impeachment are several undergoing investigations of Trump, including the very serious amounting evidence of collusion with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election, and his reluctance to resign from his business holdings and profiting from them while holding the office of the Presidency, plus violating the US Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause.

On this last example of using the public office for private gain, let’s not forget the State Department had to take down a website that promoted Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Resort.

But again, impeachment is not likely to happen soon. Not while Republicans hold the majority in Congress and the Senate. But Democrats have a big chance in the 2018 midterm elections to gain back political control and generate a bill for impeachment.

Finally, there is also the possibility of a Nixonian exit. One where Trump, cornered by multiple scandals, simply offers his resignation. He has expressed he misses his old life and that being President wasn’t as easy as he thought.

But as positive as it would be getting rid of an unstable and toxic President like Trump (if it ever happens before 2020), the scenario of dealing with a Mike Pence Presidency will also have its share of challenges in a country that desperately needs progressive actions to move forward.

 

Filed Under: Politics Tagged With: Donald Trump, Impeach Trump, impeachment, politics, The New Yorker, Twenty-Fifth Amendment, us politics

How plutocracy and religion are killing American democracy

February 23, 2017 by Ricardo Villarreal

Statue of LibertyIt’s happening. The guy at the very top position of power is threatening the foundations of liberal democracy in our country by paving the way for plutocracy and religion to perpetrate in the functions of the government.

We need to continuously remind people who is this enabler: a self-called billionaire who lacks all the important skills to be president, a revengeful leader, ignorant of the country’s constitution, who continuously lies to the public, who has shown no respect for minorities, who doesn’t take any criticism, and who has even singled out the media as the enemy of this country.

Sure, democracy has room for improvement. Nevertheless, it is still the best form of government and we need to protect it now more than ever.

The current administration shines not for having the smartest individuals at the top jobs, but for their wealth. Their biggest merit is certainly not a qualification at all.

It is, however, the fuel that feeds plutocracy. The ultra-wealthy people in this nation help elect those in government, and in return gain the power to secure cabinet roles and to influence political decisions that would protect their interests and businesses, rather than the interests of the general population.

Not only that, but they think money and power give them the right to impose their beliefs on others. And this is how plutocratic forces amplify the dangers of religion and the risks it represents to our freedom and democracy.

For example, the presence of religion in politics has influenced legislation that has negatively impacted the rights of women and minorities on issues like abortion and gay marriage.

In education, politicians of faith in many states have tried to impose religious subjects in public schools as alternative to science. This is a clear reflection of the fear they have that scientific knowledge presents indisputable evidence and objective truths that undermine the validity of their religion.

There is no question religion thrives in an environment of ignorance, fear, and oppression. But suppressing science, reason, and truth is not an option.

Where does religion belong? In the privacy of individuals, not commandeering the functions of government, and certainly not becoming an obstacle in the exercise of freedom in an open society.

Only in a secular government can diversity, freedom of religion, equality, and a fair rule of law can coexist, while protecting democracy from any abuse, discrimination, and corruption that would favor one religion over the rest.

Rather than imposing beliefs, it is better for a country to have a society of free-thinkers, where ideas can be exchanged freely with an open mind.

The founders of the American Constitution believed in the idea that dialogue, not force, should triumph over the decisions pertaining the prosperity of the nation.

But the current leader of this country does not believe in dialogue. On the contrary, he has prevented arguments against him, demands his opinions to be unquestionable, and has even fired those who challenge him.

The moment you impose censorship upon the opinions of others (especially minorities), you open the doors to intolerance and the creation of fanatical bigots. And unfortunately, that is exactly what we are seeing happen today.

This is not a matter of political ideology. It is a matter of preventing the rise of a dictator-like figure threatening to destroy the democratic foundations of our nation.

It is not an exaggeration, and we cannot wait to act until it’s too late.

 

Filed Under: Leadership, Politics Tagged With: American Freedom, American government, dangers of religion, education, freedom, human rights, liberal democracy, minorities, plutocracy, politics, reason and science, religion, us politics, women's rights