So are they all, all honorable men

I know it is ironic that on the day that the Senate voted to acquit Donald Trump of abusing the power of his office for personal gain that the actor Kirk Douglas died. Douglas had refused to accede to the McCarthy era blacklist and he insisted that the blacklisted Dalton Trumbo be given credit for his screen play of the movie Spartacus, a film about a slave revolt in ancient Rome. Douglas himself played the role of Spartacus. AT the time Howard Fast was a writer on the left wing and was responsible for such books as Spartacus, Freedom Road, Citizen Tom Paine, and My Glorious Brothers. I cannot imagine a single Republican who would approve of Fast’s politics. And Douglas also insisted that Trumbo’s real name appear on the credits for the film rather than the pseudonyms under which he had been forced to write. Trumbo was a member of the Hollywood Ten who refused to name names during that heinous era in American history. Douglas’ stand put at risk his whole future for the sake of honest democratic values. That sense of value was nowhere present in the Senate this week, nor has it been evident during this whole sham procedure. Interestingly. Trump’s actions were never quite the Republican issue: they anguished not about his abuse of power but about the process the House engaged in bringing forward the Articles of Impeachment. In the Republican focus they ironically acknowledged that the Trump’s behavior was indeed, indicative of abuse of power and a blatant disregard for the Constitution and American interest. 

     Prior to the Senate vote at least five Republican Senators described Trump’s behavior regarding withholding the Ukraine foreign aid as ‘inappropriate,’ but only Mitt Romney had the courage to vote to remove Trump from his office. Inappropriate? Trading foreign aid for favors on unearthing dirt on Trump’s political rival and thereby trading national security for personal gain? Inappropriate? Defying the will of Congress which had appropriated those funds in order to seek foreign aid to help with his reelection? (Dershowitz actually claimed that in the interest of his reelection Trump should be able to do anything: his reelection was in the public interest, this so-called lawyer announced. There are strongly different views on this perspective). Inappropriate? Violating the separation of powers as defined by the Constitution? That alone should be evidence of abuse of power and require removal from office.

     Trump may be a revolting specimen of civility and social grace, who has spawned a culture of public incivility and social vulgarity. I am appalled and embarrassed by the vituperative language that spews from his mouth, though I suspect he would not know that meaning of that word. I am terrified that there are people for whom that language is not only acceptable but welcome, and cheerfully would vote again for him. I am frightened that Republican senators are such craven sycophants that they would act not out of principle out of fear of that horrible bully putting at risk under his reign an already fragile democracy.

     What is ironic about this confluence of events: Douglas’ death and Trumps acquittal?? At least this: one man with values has died and another without values has claimed victory. The world has lost someone with integrity  but in the process, Trump seems to have assumed a mantle of respect and esteem.  The whole notion of values has been corrupted. Of course, this demanded increase of value is only illusory: as evident in his post-acquittal rally he remains the same vulgar, bad-mannered horrifying man that perpetrated the high crime and misdemeanor. On the whole, as a society we have experienced a loss.  And though Trump has said that he has done nothing wrong, the evidence shows clearly that he has committed offenses that require his removal from office. We are now being led by a man who has apparently traded the nation for a favor. He has committed an abuse of power. In the acquittal the blindness of justice is not that of impartiality but of a willed ignorance. Out of fear and dubious loyalty the Republican senators have entered their verdict uncritically and without concern for the country and the Constitution that they had sworn to serve. The headline of the papers Trump waved declared Trump Acquitted, but that information was hardly headline news since the outcome from the start was beyond a doubt clear: the Republicans even declared that the trial was a formality they would reluctantly suffer but had no intention of ever giving ear to the evidence. Trump’s acquittal by the Republican senate reminds me of the duplicity that attaches to the deliberations of all-white male juries in the South. Looking at the Republican majority leader I thought of the photos of the trial of the guilty murderers of Emmet Till, or that of the of the Mississippi law officers who sat chewing their tobacco and joking at their trial for the murders of Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney. Then there was no honest trial and certainly no jury of their peers though the ceremony was called still a court of justice. Today, though it might be called a Senate it has spurned its authority and does not deserve the respect that should accrue to the Senators. Sworn to uphold the Constitution, Republican senators tore up the document for the sake of their jobs that have now become somewhat meaningless because the occupiers of the seat have rendered it so by their ignorances.

     Kirk Douglas’ death takes from this world a standard of integrity and honest value, even as Trump’s acquittal reduces these measures. It might seem that the events are equivalent—both represent loss--but they represent a dramatic difference in degree and direction. Douglas’ presence ennobled us even as we are degraded by Trump’s presence. His loss is our loss even as the failure of the Senate represents our loss, but the one makes us stronger and the other weakens the social fabric.