Impeachment: It Ain't No Bowl Of Fruit

Last week the House of Representatives announced that it was opening an Impeachment Inquiry concerning the actions of Donald Trump. This of course elicited a torrent of inflammatory partisan responses from both sides and the predicable Twitter tirades from the President. However, what I have since discovered is that while virtually everyone I know has some sort of opinion on the matter, extraordinarily few have a real understanding of what an impeachment is or, for that matter, how an impeachment works. Impeachment is an extraordinary step, it is a painful one for all sides, and it is a path filled with danger for all involved.

Should We or Shouldn't We?
At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, impeachment was a hot topic. Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, George Mason, Alexander Hamilton, and Gouverneur Morris all supported some form of impeachment for all federally elected representatives and other federal government officials. However, the proposal of impeaching the president and possibly removing him from office was not universally supported. Morris argued that subjecting the president to the prospect of impeachment could possibly render the chief executive impotent in the role of governing, making him a subject to the legislative branch and a puppet of "factions" who would wield the threat of impeachment as a weapon against the executive branch. James Mason, a delegate from Virginia, countered this fear stating "No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued. Shall any man be above Justice?" Franklin replied, as only Franklin could, that impeachment and subsequent removal from office was preferable to the traditional manner in which political leaders were removed from office in Europe- death. Others argued that the guilt or innocence of the president should be left to the voters. Let the president serve his term, if he is reelected, then the voters will have determined that either he is innocent of all wrong-doing or the alleged misdeeds were too minor and insignificant to warrant the president's removal from office. James Madison blunted this sentiment arguing that the Constitution needed to protect the nation from the negligence or incapacity of all federal officials including the misdeeds of the president, "He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation" (a fancy word for embezzlement) "or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers." In the end, the delegates at the Constitutional Convention voted 8 states to 2 that even the Chief Executive was subject to impeachment and removal from office.

Once the delegates agreed that, yes, even the chief executive was subject to impeachment the next quandary was for what could they be impeached?  Most delegates felt that only bribery and treason should result in an impeachment of federal officials. Mason disputed this asking why an official could not be impeached for attempting to subvert, ignore, or otherwise abuse the Constitution. After all, Mason continued, all federal officials pledge that they will uphold, defend and abide by the Constitution. After much back and forth, the delegates agreed that an impeachment should take place for "high crimes and misdemeanors". This is a very broad, open statement and one that has been debated by Constitutional scholars since 1787. It is generally agreed that for an impeachment to take place, a law does not need to be be broken. Impeachable offenses also include dereliction of duty, negligence to the office or the nation, or some other abuse or violation of the public trust. Again, very broad and debatable statements.

Impeachments Are As Rare As Bigfoot Sightings
Over the last 230 years impeachments have been exceedingly rare in the United States, assuaging the fears some of the Founding Fathers had that it could become a weapon of politics. Since 1789, nineteen federal officials have been brought up on impeachment with eight being removed following a Senate trial. The last official to be impeached was a federal judge, G. Thomas Porteous in 2010. He was impeached on the grounds of bribery and perjury. He was removed from office for these crimes. Of the nineteen impeachments, two have been presidents; Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.

Andrew Johnson was Lincoln's Vice President and assumed the presidency following the assassination of Lincoln. Johnson was a southerner and a former Democrat. He was chosen as Lincoln's V.P. because he was the only southern legislator to not support secession or leave the Union. In 1864, Lincoln choose Johnson as his running mate as a conciliatory sign to the south as the Civil War was winding down. Neither Lincoln nor the Republican Party or, for that matter Johnson, ever envisioned Johnson assuming the presidency. Yet, as Reconstruction was just beginning, there was Johnson, a former Democrat and a southerner, sitting in the Oval Office. Other than having just won the Civil War (a fact many seemingly are still having a hard time accepting- but that is another conversation altogether), things could not have been much worse for the Union as the Spring of 1865 unfolded.

Despite not having supported succession and not having left the Union, Johnson was not friend to the newly freed slaves, nor a staunch opponent to former Confederate officials. He vetoed virtually every bill sent to him that sought to help the newly freed slaves. He allowed former Confederate officials to return to office at an alarming rate. He opposed the 14th Amendment (which would have made former slaves citizens) and then embarked on a campaign in which he denounced and tried to destroy Republicans who opposed him. This all came to a head when Congress passed the "Tenure of Office" Act which made it difficult for Johnson to fire cabinet officials. In all reality, this was a trap, Congress knew Johnson would violate this law. Sure enough, Johnson attempted to fire Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, who was overseeing Reconstruction, and replace him with U.S. Grant. Johnson was subsequently impeached by the House of Representatives and narrowly avoided being removed from the presidency by the Senate, but only after Johnson agreed to rubber stamp all Reconstruction bills coming from Congress. 

Bill Clinton's story is well known. While an investigation was taking place into alleged fraud involving a real estate deal in Arkansas of which Clinton and his wife, Hillary, were a part. This investigation did indeed uncover fraud and other wrongdoings, but none of which could be tied to the Clinton's. The investigation had ostensibly come to a dead end. Then when all hope was lost of finding a crime, it was discovered that the president was having an affair with an intern, and was possibly using his influence to get this intern a cushy job to get her out of the White House and to remain quiet about the affair. That a president would have an affair is hardly shocking, as many presidents have had such dalliances while in the White House, and Clinton in particular, was no stranger to the affections of women other than his wife. It was Clinton's behavior AFTER the story broke that led to his impeachment.

Clinton publicly denied the affair. Then he denied it under oath. Perjury. That was his sin. Before it was proven, due to a second deposition of Clinton, that he had committed perjury Republicans were lining up impeachment charges against Clinton. The most famous of which is Lindsay Graham taking to the Congressional floor and declaring that the president doesn't even have to break the law to be impeached. Impeachment, Graham argued, was a cleansing of the office to restore integrity and honor. Apparently the House of Representatives agreed with Graham and filed Articles of Impeachment against Clinton charging him with perjury and obstruction of justice. The House of Representatives eventually passed the charges thus making Clinton only the second president to have been impeached. The Senate by a fairly wide margin failed in securing the needed 2/3's vote to remove Clinton from office. However, the fallout from the impeachment was damaging to both sides. Clinton's legacy was forever tarnished but the Republicans failed in the mid-term election to pick up seats- in fact they lost five seats in the House- and Newt Gingrich resigned as Speaker of the House.

Richard Nixon would have been impeached and he would have been removed from office over the Watergate Scandal had he not resigned from office. Nixon, who had maintained his innocence and vowed to fight the impeachment to the bitter end, only resigned after having been visited on August 7, 1974 by Republican leaders, led by the venerable Senator Barry Goldwater who told Nixon he had lost support of the Republicans in the legislature and it was time for him to leave the presidency. Nixon resigned the presidency on August 9, 1974.

Let's Get All Trumpy!
Today we stand at the precipice of the third president being impeached. The Democrat controlled House of Representatives has opened up in inquiry into the presidency of Donald Trump to determine if there is enough evidence to impeach Trump. The charges being considered are obstruction of justice and abuse of power.

The allegations are that Trump used the power of his office to pressure foreign nations to investigate his main political rival, Joe Biden, for the benefit of his reelection campaign. It is then further alleged that Trump attempted to bury these conversations by hiding the files on a special, secret file server in the White House which is normally used to store files of top secret information and/or imperative to national security. These allegations come from a whistle-blower complaint filed in August. A report that the White House, it is alleged, also attempted to cover up. Trump maintains that the did nothing wrong, that the phone call with the nation in question, Ukraine, was in fact "perfect" and that he was not withholding defense funds earmarked for the Ukraine in exchange for dirt on Joe Biden or his son. Trump and those around him maintain that the whistle-blower should be identified and that the information within the complaint is hearsay. It is worth noting that while the information in the whistle blower complaint may indeed be hearsay, it does match with the transcript released by the White House. It is also worth noting that as of this morning, October 6, 2019, a second whistle-blower complaint has been filed by someone with first-hand knowledge of the conversation in question.

So the question becomes this; will Trump be impeached by the House of Representatives? I believe that yes he will impeached before Thanksgiving. Will Trump then be removed from office by the Senate? Unless there are some extraordinary events that take place within the next few months, I do not believe that the Senate will vote to remove Trump from office. Do I believe that Trump should be impeached? While I have never been a fan of Trump, his candidacy forced me to vote for the first time for someone other than a Republican for president and his presidency forced me to leave the Republican Party of which I had been a proud member of for over 30 years, I was never in favor of his impeachment. Until now. I fully believe that Trump should be impeached for the following reasons:

• Donald Trump appears to have withheld assistance to the Ukraine in exchange for information on his expected Democratic opponent in 2020. This would amount to inviting foreign assistance in his campaign- a serious violation of federal election laws. It would also be an abuse of the Office of the President.
• Donald Trump has asked a foreign power to open an investigation of a private American citizen, Biden's son Hunter, for his sole benefit. An act that the Founding Fathers would have found to be treasonous. 
• Donald Trump appears to have encouraged the execution of an American citizen by stating that the whistle-blower was treasonous and that he longed for the "old days when we were smart... The spies and treason, we handled things a little differently." Treason is the only crime in the Constitution for which the punishment is defined; death.
• Donald Trump has further encouraged a foreign power, China, to interfere with the 2020 election by opening an investigation of Biden and his son.

For these reasons, I believe that Donald Trump has crossed the line violating the public trust and betraying the powers of the Executive Branch as outlined by the Constitution.

The Pitfalls

This is the perilous side of impeachment. Everyone involved in this process stand at the edge of political ruin. We know what is at stake for the president; his legacy and his presidency. For the Democrats, if this inquiry and subsequent impeachment process fails to produce any tangible accusations or damning evidence they stand to lose badly in 2020 as they dishearten and disappoint their party's voters and independent's who have had enough of this administration while super-charging Trump's base.

However, those who have the most to lose and the narrowest, most dangerous path during this process are the Republicans. If this process goes badly, even if Trump is impeached but not removed from office, the GOP may emerge from this ordeal bloodied, battered, and bruised worse than they were following Watergate. Many in Trump's base may be far less enthusiastic about Trump than they were in 2016-2019 and while they may not, and probably won't, vote for the Democratic nominee it is plausible that they will vote for a 3rd party candidate or not vote at all. Many of Trump's supporters in Congress, or those who simply refused to condemn his actions, may pay the ultimate political price and lose their reelection. This fate may well befall Mitch McConnell, Susan Collins, Steve King, and our own Senator Cory Gardner.

The take away here is twofold: 1) No government official is above being impeached, not even Donald Trump. Any successes a president may have had does not shield them from impeachment. If the president fails to uphold the Constitution, abuses their position or otherwise sully's the office of the President of the United States, they should be and and need to be impeached. 2) The real tragedy in all of this is that of the American citizen. Who are once again being held hostage by political factions which seem to be more interested in their own political victories rather than the well-being of the nation and its people.

The Unwanted Child of Academia: The Most Important, Unwanted Subject in American Schools

"People will not look forward to prosperity, who never look backward to their ancestors"-Edmund Burke.

The Issue
In my professional life I have many passions, but one stands above all the rest. My true passion, my true professional love, my true professional calling is one that all too often is overlooked, ignored, disregarded, underfunded, undervalued and only begrudgingly accepted by academia: History Education. The reasons for this are many, but in today's academic world I believe the prevailing reason is the fact that history is not a tested subject on state or national standardized tests. This fact further illustrates the fallacy and damage that standardized testing has done and continues to do to American education. But that is another, longer conversation.

The fact that history is not a tested topic on state or national tests is both a blessing and a curse. It is a blessing in that history teachers are not subject to the irrational, blistering criticisms that Math, Science or English teachers are subject to when students don't score well on any of the numerous capricious and preposterous standardized tests. Furthermore, because of this ignorance by  standardized tests on History, history curriculum's are not completely geared towards nor driven by increasing the passing rates on these mercurial tests. It is a curse because it seems to give licence to individual schools as well as entire school districts to slight or otherwise grant inattention to the subject and study of History simply because they are not tested.

I have, as a parent as well as a professional, been witness to and experienced this apathy towards the study of History. There have been times when, as the all-important "testing season" was approaching, my children had their Social Studies time in elementary school replaced with "test prep" or reading lessons. I have had students as well as teachers tell me that in Middle School, it was not unusual for Social Studies to be all but nonexistent. Certainly "Social Studies" or "History" would appear on the students schedule but they would instead receive a double dose of reading or math. The rationale for this? Because Math and Reading are tested and Social Studies or History is not.

The Start
At one time the focal points in American education were Social Studies, with an emphasis on American History, and the acquisition of and ability to use English. Certainly Math and Science were also taught and were deemed important as well, but Social Studies, specifically American History, and English ruled the proverbial roost in American education.

October 4, 1957 changes everything forever. The Cold War is in full swing. Tensions, worries, suspicions, and fears are at an all time high. Americans are fairly secure in the knowledge that they are safe from nuclear attacks from the Soviet Bloc as well as confident that American technology is far superior to anything the Soviets could produce. On that fateful October day in 1957, the USSR was about to erase the supreme American confidence. The Soviet Union successfully launched Sputnik into orbit. The first man made object sent into space. Suddenly the worst fears of Americans were realized. Were the Soviets spying on us? Might this satellite be able to deliver Soviet nuclear weapons to the United States? The Soviets have surpassed us in technology!

Since it was now seemingly apparent that the U.S. had fallen behind the Soviets in technology (in all actuality we had not) a decision was made that the US must not only catch but pass the Soviets in all things technology and especially in space. Out of this irrational fear NASA was created and the US realizing that more scientists and engineers were needed in order to best the Soviets on the technological front the focus of American education flipped from being American History and English driven to Science and Math being at the forefront.

So began the slow slide of History education in American academia.

So What and Now What
Over the past year I have read three books that have heavily influenced my thinking on this matter; The Soul of America: The Battle for our Better Angels by Jon Meacham, Why Learn History When It's Already On Your Phone by Sam Wineburg, and The American Spirit: Who We Are and What We Stand For by David McCullough. All of these books touch on the importance of historical education and knowing our past. The Wineburg and McCullough books in particular also touch on the declining interest in historical education and the inherent problems with this trend.

In order to understand who we are as a society and where we are going as a people, we must know our history. The answer to understand the present and where to go in the future lies with the past. In a society such as ours in which we get to choose our leaders, and in a larger sense, the direction of our society knowledge and understanding of our history is imperative. In his book McCullough eloquently makes this point, "History isn’t just something that ought to be taught, read, or encouraged only because it will make us better citizens. It will make us a better citizen and it will make us more thoughtful and understanding human beings. It should be taught for the pleasure it provides. The pleasure of history, like art or music or literature, consists in an expansion of the experience of being alive, which indeed, is what education is largely about...We’ve got to teach history and nurture history and encourage history because it’s an antidote to the hubris of the present- the idea that everything we have and everything we do and everything we think is the ultimate, the best."

We have to make history education just as important as Math and Science because it is just as vital to society's well being as are those subjects. History is the basis of society, it is the guardian of our future, and it is the story of our humanity. History education must be treated as it is; a separate subject whose content stands alone. It must not be used as a means to teach reading or writing or otherwise be used as a support acting as a stand-in for other subjects. Reading and writing are important to be sure, and other than English there is not another subject in academia in which you are required to read and write more than in History. However, the content of history is as equally important as is the content in a math or science class. We certainly wouldn't expect a Biology class to read an account of Florence Nightingale and her revolutionary care for wounds and the sick, then ask the students to focus on the causes of the Crimean War. To do so would be disingenuous and just plain wrong. We must hire teachers who are specialists in the content. We must leave behind the age old practice of hiring coaches who happen to teach social studies and instead hire teachers who may happen to coach. If we make the presentation of history important, then the topic will be viewed as imperative.

My proposal would be this: In high school require four solid years of social studies and three and a half of those years must be history. Currently, most, if not all, school districts require two years of history. However, my proposal would be radically different from most requirements. Three years of history would be "History" in which both World and American history would be taught. History I would span the dawn of humans to say 1700. The following year History III would be both World and American from 1700 to 1900. History III would be "Modern History". The final half credit would be state and local history, for knowledge of your community will help lead to increased civic pride.

In my district American history in high school is from 1900-present with the insistence that students learn Early American History in 5th grade, the 1800's in 8th Grade and then the rest in high school. However, as I pointed out earlier this is not necessarily the case as history education is at times relegated to the background in favor of other subjects. Furthermore, do we really expect a 5th grader to understand the importance and the complexity of the Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist debates? Why, you may ask is this topic important? Because it was this very debate that is the foundation of our government and to a larger degree our society. The prevailing argument against including American history before 1900 in high school is that there is too much to adequately teach within one school year, yet we somehow believe that we can teach all of World history (which is much more vast than American history) within the confines of one school year in high school. I believe if all of history were taught as a three year continuous class these issues would be solved. However, to do so would require academia to fully embrace history education as an equal member of the academic world.

History is my story, it is your story, it is our story. Without historical knowledge and understanding, nothing else matters.

We All Come From Somewhere: An Immigration Primer

We all come from somewhere else. None of us are actually from here. When asked what we are or where we are from the standard answer for most of us is "I'm an American". However, this is problematic as none of us are actually from here. Most Americans have only been in the United States for no more than a few generations back. Even American Indians are not really from here as they immigrated here from Asia thousands of years ago. Granted, they were here long before anyone else, however, they did arrive from somewhere else.

The United States is extraordinarily unique among the nations of the world in that we are an amalgamation of people from through out the world. We are white, black, and brown. We are European, African, Latino, Asian and Hispanic. We are Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Deist, Atheist and Agnostic. Save for Canada, really no other country in the world can claim this reality. All of these people, all who look vastly different, all who have vastly different backgrounds live here and all honestly claim their identity as an American. Our present views and problems with immigration are not unique. Despite what we would sometimes like to believe or think that we know, we have always been fearful of immigrants and immigration from the very beginning of our nation. Who we fear and why we fear them changes but our reactions to them never really have.

The Poor, Uneducated, and Wrong Party
As our nation was just getting started in the late 1700's there were a couple of very vexing issues beginning to percolate. The first issue was the growing number of immigrants coming into the new nation. These immigrants tended to come here looking for a new start or at the very least a better life than where they had come from. This usually meant they were poor and uneducated. Often they came from countries we were suspicious or leery of as well. The second problem was the development of political parties (despite Washington's caution against creating political parties for fear that political parties would become more interested in their own well being, or the demise of the other party, over the well being of the nation as a whole). The Federalists, led by President John Adams and current Speaker of the House Alexander Hamilton, favored strong relations with England, an industrialized economy and a strong federal government. The Democratic-Republicans, led by principal author of the Declaration of Independence and former Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, favored strong relations with France, and agricultural based economy and states rights. These three entities; immigrants, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans would collide in an epic clash over immigration and the power of the federal government.

Hamilton, and to a lesser degree, Adams, were fearful of the underclass and uneducated ascending to power. They believed, again more Hamilton than Adams, that there were certain people who possessed the ability and intellect to lead a nation and its people. These able people, coincidentally, happened to be the wealthy, educated class. As the poor, uneducated immigrant population grew in the fledgling United States, Hamilton became increasingly uneasy. Especially when he and other Federalists began to realize that these immigrants tended to support the Democratic-Republicans far more than they did Federalists.

Fearful of the nation being overrun by a bunch of poor, uneducated immigrants as well as losing political power, Hamilton and the Federalists wrote and passed the Alien and Sedition Acts. This was a bundle of bills that gave the president and the federal government broad sweeping powers with the goal of keeping America for "Americans" and the Federalists in power. It allowed the president to deport immigrants he deemed a "threat" to the nation with little or no evidence, it outlawed anyone from speaking, or writing anything negative against the president with the penalty being imprisonment. Although Adams signed the Acts into law, they were little used, however, it did stir a massive backlash and set the once mighty Federalist Party on the path to ruin.

Thomas Jefferson, who was Adams Vice-President at the time, was so angered by these laws that he publicly began to denounce the laws as an affront to democracy and liberty. Angered by the acts as well was the powerful Federalist leader and architect of the United States Constitution, James Madison. Madison was so incensed by this move that he publicly denounced and disavowed himself from the Federalist Party, becoming a Democratic-Republican. Such a move would be akin to Ronald Reagan- were he still alive- denouncing the Republican Party and joining the Democratic Party in protest over Republican legislation. Madison denounced the Alien and Sedition Acts as being unconstitutional. Both Madison and Jefferson asserted that states should refuse to enforce such offensive laws.

Eventually the Alien and Sedition Acts were repealed but Adams and the Federalists never recovered from this moment. Adams would be a one term president, losing to his then Vice-President Thomas Jefferson and the Federalists would never again return to the White House.

We Know Nothing Except That We Hate The Irish..And The Chinese...And The...
With the dawn of the 19th Century came Manifest Destiny fueling a furious drive westward attracting settlers of all types many of whom come from the latest wave of immigration. Ireland was experiencing its Potato Famine causing many Irish to flee their homeland for in search of a better life in America. The massive influx of Irish immigrants caused many in the U.S. to become fearful and resentful of these Irish immigrants. After all they were lazy, poor, stupid, drunks, violent and, for many, worst of all they were Catholic.

In a backlash to these vile Irish immigrants, some schools began to refuse Irish students admission or teach that Catholicism was unAmerican. Cemeteries began refusing to allow Irish Catholics to be buried in their cemeteries. This discrimination forced Irish Catholics to open their own schools as well as establish their own cemeteries. Landlords began to refuse to rent to Irish immigrants and some employers refused to hire Irish immigrants. Desperate for employment, Irish immigrants would take any job that they could find. More often than not, these jobs were hard, manual labor jobs that paid very little. However, since there were many of these jobs available, this led many to believe that the damned Irish were going to destroy America and drag it down to their level.

This fear led to the establishment of political organizations and parties such as the Star Spangled Banner Party which eventually became the Know-Nothing-Party, whose sole purpose was to preserve America for Americans and to stop the flow of unwanted immigrants who were thought to be destroying American culture and society.

By the late 1800's, as always happens after the first generation of immigrants has passed, the Irish were more or less accepted as "real Americans" so a new target was found. The Chinese. And best of all, they were so much easier to pick out than were the Irish. Following the Civil War the number of Chinese immigrants has steadily increased on the west coast. They were the worst- at least since the Irish. They were lazy, they were dirty, they were all drug addicts,and they were dumb. They didn't even know English! At least the drunken Irish did!

Like the Irish, the Chinese were willing to take any job they could find,a s finding anyone to hire them was very difficult. As a result, they began to be employed in large numbers in mining and on the railroads. Both hard, dirty, backbreaking work for little pay. Seeing large numbers of Chinese working in these industries and almost all of them speaking little if any English led many to become concerned that the very fabric of America and American culture was under assault. This led to the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 which effectively stopped ALL immigration from China and this remained in effect until 1943.

Bring Me Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Huddled Masses Yearning To Breath Free. Whooops, Except You, Not You
With the dawn of the 20th Century came new realities and old problems for the United States. The US was a burgeoning world economic, political and military power. Immigration continued to increase but we now kinda liked the Irish. They had given us St. Patrick's Day and introduced us to a host of potato recipes. What wasn't to like? Sure there was still that pesky issue of Catholicism, but that, for the most part could be overlooked. Now the Italians who were arriving in increasing numbers as we entered the 1900's that were feared and disliked. After all, they were dirty, lazy, Catholic, and dumb. Like the Chinese, they didn't speak any English either! The Irish always had that going for them at least.

Like the Irish, the Chinese and other large immigrant groups that had arrived earlier, the Italians found themselves to be the target of harsh discrimination and disdain. It was hard for them to find decent places to live as well as employment. With the end of WWI, things were about to become even more difficult for the Italians and other eastern European immigrants.

As the 1920's began there was an alarming uptick in immigration to the United States as hundreds of thousands of immigrants from across Europe- especially Southeastern Europe- fled to the United States, escaping a war ravaged Europe. This sudden, massive surge of immigrants convinced Americans that, for the first time ever, we would need sweeping immigration laws.

The Immigration Quota Act of 1921 restricted immigration into the US annually to 3% of immigrants from each country based on 1910 immigration numbers. This greatly reduced the number of immigrants coming into the country- a win- but it heavily favored the "bad" immigrants as there were A LOT more Italians and other Southeastern Europeans coming into the US in 1910 than there were of the "good" immigrants who were arriving from Northwestern Europe. To rectify this problem, a new immigration bill was passed. The Immigration Quota Act of 1924 reduced the percentage to 2% immigration annually from each nation but now used the immigration numbers from 1890, which favored the "good" immigrants.

The Bolshevik Communist victory in Russia and the increasing possibility of similar Communist revolutions taking place around Eastern and Southern Europe following WWI scared the bejesus out of many Americans who were increasingly finding themselves surrounded by immigrants from Southeastern Europe. In response to these fears, Attorney General Mitchell Palmer began a series of purges in the country to rid the nation of these radical, communist, immigrant insurgents. The raids known as Palmer Raids saw a number of "front" organizations raided and the "radical" immigrants rounded up and deported back to their country without cause or due process. Obvious "radical" organizations such as the Sons of Italy were frequent targets.

Capitalizing on the wave of xenophobia the KKK had a resurrection of sorts during the 1920's, becoming a fairly "acceptable" organization. During the first half of the 1920's, the KKK became an equal opportunity hate organization as they opposed far more than former slaves trying to become fully free people. Oh no, the KKK now opposed everyone they saw as "unAmerican" or threats to the American way of life and culture. Essentially this was everyone who was not a WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant). Elected officials now proudly proclaimed on campaign literature that they were card carrying members of the KKK. In 1925, 30,000 Klansmen and women marched down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington D.C. In my hometown of Arvada, Colorado the Klan was especially active because of the large number of Italian Catholic immigrants in the area. Thankfully, by the end of the' 20's the power and influence of the Klan had waned.

Where Do We Go Now
The United States is not unique in its fear of and discrimination against immigrants. Pretty much every other country in the world that attracts immigrants for some reason or another experiences similar issues and feelings. And in pretty much every other country, once the immigrants have been there for a generation, the feelings against them tend to dissipate. Just like in the United States. What makes the U.S. so unique, is that we are the only nation in the world comprised wholly of immigrants.

We are all aware of the issues surrounding immigration today. Some of the issues are very real and some of the issues are very imagined. I think all of us agree that the immigration system in the U.S. is very flawed if not completely broken and needs attention. What is the solution? I'm not sure. I can say that the solution is somewhere between Open Borders and No Immigration.

What we should remember is that we've been here before. Immigrants have always been looked at with the side-eye and suspicion. And they have always integrated into American society, in fact American society has expanded thanks to immigrants in the way of new foods, new holidays, and new traditions. Take heart America, this present "crisis" will pass, they always do. We will survive, we always have. America adapts. We have to, we're a nation of immigrants.

Socializing With Socialism

There has been a lot of talk in the media, society, and politics recently about the "dangers of Socialism".  Indeed, many in the GOP seem willing to embrace a new round of the Red Scare as they warn that the Democratic Party is really nothing more than the Socialist Pary in sheep's clothing who are willing to sell the US down the river to a Soviet-style version of Socialism. Liberal Democrats are quick to call out other, less-liberal Democrats as being barriers to true social and economic progress. A recent poll found that 74% of Americans would not support a "Socialist President". The poll also found that 63% of voters want a president under the age of 70, the top current presidential candidates are all over the age of 70 - Trump (72), Sanders (77), and Biden (76). What is interesting is that the majority of young people (ages 15-25) view Socialism favorably. Is this a harbinger of things to come in future elections? Is Socialism a real threat to the American economic system? Is Capitalism soon to be placed on the Endangered Species List? To all of these questions, I would say No. However, probably not for the reasons that you would suspect me to say no to those aforementioned questions.


Those Darn Liberal, Commie Loving, Socialist Kids!
As referenced in the poll above, more young people now have a favorable view of socialism rather than capitalism. Is this cause for alarm? Depending on your personal point of view; maybe. From a historical point of view, probably not.

It is a well known, verifiable fact that young people tend to be far more liberal than do their older counterparts. As people progress through their lives, our political views tend to take on a bell-curve shape if we were to place "Liberal Political Beliefs" at the bottom of the scale and "Conservative Political Beliefs" at the top end of the scale. The younger people are the more they advocate for and support government intervention and action to right the wrongs of the world. As people begin to progress in their lives, experiencing life as well as acquiring more "things" they begin to lean towards less government intervention and presence. Then, as they age and their incomes begin to decline while their health costs begin to increase people tend to welcome more government. As we look at past polls throughout modern American history we see this play out. During the Great Depression young people were very much in favor of the idea of a Socialist government or additional Socialistic government programs, however, following WWII, these same people who 20 years prior stated their preference for some sort of Socialist presence, were now vociferous in their opposition to this type of government intrusion. During the 1960's and into the 1970's, young people advocated for a more active government in order to right the wrongs in American society. Many of these young people openly advocated for the capitulation of capitalism. However, during the 1980's and 1990's these same young people embraced capitalism even its excesses. A look at historical polls of these people from the 1960's and then again in the late 1980's support this fundamental shift in the role of government. Knowing and understanding this historical political movement ideology, we can reasonably assume a similar shift will occur with today's young people. However, there is a caveat with these shifting political ideologies; each generation will end up being a little more liberal than the generation before and the function of government reflects this shift to the left. Indeed the generation of the 1840's as a whole would have never supported the notion that slavery should be outlawed. The generation of the 1920's would have never supported the idea that the government should provide some sort of financial help to the poor, unemployed or elderly. And the generation of the 1950's would have found the suggestion that perhaps the government should provide some sort of national healthcare insurance repugnant. Each generation, although they lose much of their youthful radicalism as they age, does nudge, ever so slightly, society and our government towards increased liberal notions.

Another reason for people to check their alarm for the strong leftist sentiments of the young is that historically speaking, young people rarely vote. There are a variety of theories out there that attempt to explain why this is: apathy, protest against the "system", frustration with the slow march of progress, not a priority, etc. Whatever the reason, this much is true- and has been true for many generations going back- young people enjoy protesting, enjoy rally's, enjoy bucking the system, and relish criticizing the inequities and shortcomings of the government but they rarely vote in a substantive way. It usually is not until they are in their late 20's or early 30's that people begin to vote in large numbers and in a consistent manner. As such, any radical notion's that young people tend to gravitate towards are rarely implemented with any fidelity. Seeing this lack of progress towards their ideals tends to drive young people towards more radical, often revolutionary ideas, never realizing that it is, in large part, their own fault for this lack of progress towards their own ideas. However, as they move into their late 20's and early 30's, as they now probably have their first "real" job, and begin settling down getting married and having kids of their own. It is only then that these "radicals" begin to vote and in doing so, in conjunction with the sum of their lives to that point, they lose much of their radicalness and begin to effect real change within the country. We have seen this very scenario play out time and again throughout American history.

The Fallacy of the "Creeping Socialism" Argument
The United States has really never had a pure capitalist system. And for good reason; pure, unadulterated capitalism is as bad, brutal, and dangerous as is pure, unadulterated socialism. If we are to understand socialism as the government's presence in society and the economy in order to protect and defend its citizens from the dangers of those who would otherwise prey upon them, as well as providing some sort of "social safety net" for people in difficult times, then there has always been some elements of socialism in America. Indeed it was the lack of nationalized military and the fear of a privatized military during Shay's Rebellion that helped lead to the creation of the American Constitution. In a pure capitalistic society, national defense would be left to the will of the free market meaning that those with the most money and resources would be able to raise the most formidable militaries. Rather than a nation protected by a nationalized military, we would be a nation ruled by the wealthy elite for their sole benefit or a nation that bends to the will of the economic powerhouse states such as California because its military was stronger than that of Illinois. Like it or not, accept it or not; the military is a function of socialism where all are expected to submit to and subjected to group-think rather than embrace individualism. There is certainly the opportunity for advancement based upon ability (a hallmark of Capitalism) but that advancement comes with the expectation that you will conform within the needs of the group and your self-worth is less than the well being of others.

There are several other examples of socialism "creeping" into American society that has never really crept in but have in fact always been present without a thought. We, as a society say we value public education. Public education is funded by taxes and is directed by a bizarre mixture of the federal government, state governments, and quasi-independent government entities as school districts. Every poll on the matter shows strong public support for tax-funded, public education. Every major Founding Father saw the need for and the value of some sort of public education. Public education, a field I am happily employed in, is a prime example of American Socialism being very present, protected and often defended in American society. Perhaps ironically, one of the charges of American public education is to help preserve the American economy and democracy for future generations. American police and fire districts are other examples of ever-present Socialism. Both are tax-supported, both are government agencies, and both are designed to provide service, ostensibly free of charge, to the citizens of their communities. Indeed, the case can be made that the police and fire departments are more socialist in nature than is education since there are not any private police or fire departments from which citizens can receive service, unlike education which does allow for private institutions to operate alongside the public schools. Furthermore, American society has not only embraced but expects its government to provide roads, streetlights, water, and sewer, as well as build and maintain parks and open spaces. All of which fall under the purview of "Socialism" far more so than the auspices of "Capitalism." People in colder climates complain when those socialist snow plows don't get out early enough to clear the roads. In my hometown of Arvada, there seems to be increasing support and momentum for the city to contract with one trash hauler for the entire city rather than allowing the individual citizens to choose their own trash hauler.

Within the last 100 years, the U.S. has implemented a number of government safety nets to prevent its citizens from experiencing a catastrophic economic disaster. Unemployment insurance, WIC, Medicare, Medicaid, and among the most popular and cherished government program- Social Security. The U.S. has very recently financially bailed out businesses and banks it deemed "too large to fail". Even Donald Trump has employed some of these socialist safety nets to protect himself financially by declaring bankruptcy most notably then his casino empire collapsed threatening to leave him literally penniless. Sidenote- if you want to learn about some of the most egregious abuses of the socialistic and capitalistic structures in the American economic system, research Donald Trump and the collapse of the Trump Taj Mahal and Trump Castle in Atlantic City as well as how he paid off those crushing debts. INSANE!!!!!!
All of these are examples of not-so-creeping socialism, but socialism that is alive, thriving and fully embraced in the United States.

The Future of American Socialism
As someone who sees a lot of value in the American free market, capitalist system, I do not believe that the collapse or overthrow of the American capitalist society is imminent or likely in the near future. Americans are by nature, fiercely independent and protective of their basic economic rights afforded them by the capitalist economic structure in the U.S. Americans love being able to claim property as their own and to do with that property as they wish. The dream of owning their own home and live where they would like is still a hallmark of the American Dream, even among the young. For many Americans, the prospect of being their own boss and owning their own business is a significant driving force in their lives and the vast majority of Americans still believe that those with more education, more ability, more experience, increased responsibility should be paid more than those who do not possess those qualities. Americans still believe that success should be gained through hard work, perseverance, and a little bit of luck rather than being granted or guaranteed by a government entity. Furthermore, as we witness the collapse of heavy socialist economies throughout history and around the globe such as the USSR and the Soviet bloc, North Korea, Cuba and now Venezuela makes it even more unlikely for the U.S. to become a more socialist nation than a capitalist nation in the near future. However, I can see more socialist ideas being implemented within the U.S. within the next decade or so because of some of the failures and abuses of capitalism.

Healthcare is the most obvious candidate for some sort of significant overhaul. I have yet to meet one person who has said 'Ya, know. I think our healthcare system is appropriately priced.' Healthcare costs continue to skyrocket due to increasing malpractice insurance costs, rising pharmaceutical costs, increasing insurance rates, and a seemingly insatiable appetite for an increased profit margin. These spiraling costs are untenable and there will eventually be a breaking point. I personally find it immensely offensive and predatory that unscrupulous people would seek to make obscene profits from the pain and misery of people who are simply seeking a way to heal and feel better. If ever there was a validation of the Social Gospel theologian Walter Rauschenbusch's argument that capitalism reduces people to be more like hungry lions on the African savannah rather than civilized human beings it is the American healthcare system. It is because of this that I can see tremendous changes about to take place within the American healthcare system. I'm not sure that I, or the majority of Americans for that reason, are ready to embrace a European socialized healthcare model, but I can see Medicare For All becoming a reality within the next 10-15 years. The current system is simply unsustainable and as a result, monumental changes will take place.

Another area where I can see fundamental changes about to take place is within higher education. Like healthcare, the costs of acquiring education beyond high school has inexplicitly skyrocketed within the past few decades. If it is true that modern society and indeed the future of the American economy relies upon and needs an educated workforce, then it seems that the costs to acquire that education must be within the means of most Americans. Sadly, this is increasingly not the case. It is becoming increasingly more difficult for Americans especially those Americans who need and could benefit the most from a college education. One of the hallmarks of American society is that all people are given an equal opportunity to succeed. In order for that goal to be realized the playing field must also be equally level, but with the rising costs of higher education, the field is being slated in favor of those who already have the added benefit of financial stability. When this becomes the norm rather than the exception you have the makings of a plutocracy and pseudo-caste system that flies in the face of the nation that was envisioned by our founders where "all men are created equal" and have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Granted America has at times failed to live up to these lofty ideals, however, the true beauty of America is that we recognize when we fail in this task and then take steps to rectify that shortcoming. Thus, in our continuing pursuit to realize the dictates given to us as a nation, I can see the American government adopting a format that at least reduces the cost of an education beyond high school or outright guaranteeing public education from Kindergarten to a Bachelor's.

Donald Trump proudly proclaimed a few weeks ago that America will never be a socialist nation. While it will probably be true, at least for the foreseeable future, that America will not become a socialist nation along the lines of western Europe, it is equally true that America already has embraced elements of socialism within its society. While it is also true that the majority of our youth today view socialism more favorably than capitalism, it is also equally true that these same youths enjoy many of the fruits of capitalism and will, at some point, seek to defend those advantages. The United States is not barreling towards a society that resembles Denmark but will in the future continue to adopt more socialist type reforms in order to maintain basic American concepts. Pure capitalism is brutal, unrealistic, and unsustainable. Pure socialism is dangerous, too idealistic, and overly burdensome. It is the marriage of the two beliefs that most countries have adopted, some more capitalistic and less socialistic (the U.S.) and others less capitalistic and more socialistic (Nordic Europe), that seems to strike the perfect balance of maximum freedom and maximum security. The U.S. has always had and embraced institutions with socialistic traits. The U.S. will no doubt continue to adopt more socialistic reforms in the future in an attempt to realize a "more perfect union". The threat is not the moderation of capitalism or socialism. The threat is the excess of either.

The Kids Are Alright.

"Kids these days." We have all heard it at one time or another. Kids today just are not what they used to be. Right? Kids today are too soft. Kids today just don't have a clue. Kids today wouldn't have made it back in my day. We have all heard at some point these criticisms of the youth of today. We have all been privy to someone deriding today's young people worrying about what is going to happen when these kids grow up and take over society.  It's not going to be pretty is it? Nope, the good times really are over for good. They don't have any respect and they are just so entitled. These kids can't handle responsibility and everything is going to go to hell in a handbasket. I mean just look at them. Good God! They just do not get it! I fear for our future. All of this is a very common refrain that is oft repeated, so it has to be true if so many believe this, right?

Well, I've got news for everyone; None of this is true. Not one word is true. There is not one sliver of truth in any of the above statements. How do I know this? One, I work with teenagers every day and have done so for the past 20 years and I can assure you, for the most part, teenagers are pretty good, thoughtful people who want to do well, are very concerned about the future and want to make things better. Two, every generation looks at the next generation and is convinced that the younger generation are the harbingers of the Apocalypse. It has ALWAYS been like this. And when I say ALWAYS, I truly mean ALWAYS. I like to tell my students that teenagers have always been teenagers and they always will be. Teenagers have always thought about essentially the same things, worried about the same things, wanted the same things, felt the same way, and were interested in the same things. Really the only things that change with teenagers are the way they dress, the music they listen to, and the lexicon that they use. Other than that, the teenagers of today are really not all that different from teenagers 100 years ago. Furthermore, the opinion that adults have today of teenagers is not all that different from the opinion of adults towards teenagers 100 years. As the old saying goes, "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

We can see this very phenomenon play out in documents from the 14th and 15th centuries which express the concern of adults because teenagers seemed to be more interested in "frolicking" and "slothfulness" than they were in working the fields or learning a trade. When the Puritans made their way to the New World, they were often shocked and dismayed at the "youthful exuberance" that teenagers seemed to employ. Often it seemed as though the teenagers were so willfully disobedient and woefully disinclined towards industriousness that the Puritans believed that it was the Devil himself who was taking advantage of the young people's minds. During the latter half of the 18th century, there was a young musician who was turning the music world upside down, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. He was crafting music that was unlike anything before. Because it was "different" from anything before older people looked upon this music suspiciously. Then there was the matter of Mozart's decadent and seemingly depraved lifestyle, after all, he wrote a piece of music extolling the virtues of licking someone's...ahem.....backside (Leck mich im Arsch). All of this, coupled with the fact that it was predominately younger people who were drawn to Mozart's music was all the proof the older generation needed; these young people could wreak havoc on society. "Proper" society at the time became increasingly convinced that these young people were morally adrift and would never be fit to assume the reins of society. In all of these instances, these young people eventually did assume the reins of society and tended to do better than their predecessors had done despite their moral and social shortcomings.

During the 1920s, when Jazz was all the rage, a speakeasy was the place to go, and cars gave Americans freedom the likes of which they had never known before, older generations tisk-tisked the teenagers of the day. Young girls began to cut their hair short, much shorter than any previous generation ever had. The hemlines on their skirts came up- way up, exposing their calves. Why they were pretty much naked! Young girls tried to flatten their chests and wore loose-fitting skirts! The horrors of it all! These same girls had the audacity to smoke and drink! IN PUBLIC NO LESS! And worst of all, was that young girls and boys began to go out....alone...away from the house. Shocking behavior. To top it all off, these young people danced a thinly disguised mating dance called the Charleston. The older generations were aghast at this lewd, shocking. It was obvious that the Charleston was basically having sex with your clothes on. Some communities went so far as to outright ban the dancing of the Charleston because it so offended publically decency. During the 1950s teenagers once again proved to the older generations just how unfit they were to assume the leadership of the nation. Rock and Roll burst onto the scene and with it a new round of rebelliousness. Teenage boys grew their hair long and slicked it back with a lil' dab of Brylcreem. Dungarees began to overtake pleated slacks and penny loafers. Adults across the nation sat dumb-founded, horrified, shocked, and outraged as images of  Elvis swiveling and gyrating glowed in living rooms across the nation. It was pretty clear to many adults; Rock and Roll was the seventh sign of the apocalypse. Rock and Roll was making teenagers unfit for adulthood as they most assuredly were going to spiral down the social drain due to rampant drug use, delinquency, and teenage pregnancies. America was certainly doomed. It was a good ride, but these young people just will not be able to guide this nation any longer. Just look at them! The 1950s gave way to the 1960s, and if adults were shocked by the youth of the 50s the youth of the 60s would pretty much kill them. Music became louder, faster and now carried social messages rather than songs about teenage love. Young people grew their hair long- real long. They ushered in the drug culture. They openly mocked and challenged the social system. Now these young people, adults would proclaim, are way too soft intellectually, morally, and physically to lead this society. These young people were going to destroy everything great about this nation. It was absolutely true! I mean, just look at those...those.....hippies!!!!!! They just don't have a clue. These young people grew into adults and helped us achieve some of our greatest triumphs; they fought a war and saved us from the horrors of unbridled bigotry, they found a way to get us to the moon and back, and they figured out how to thoroughly transform society into one that is more connected with access to more information than any human ever thought possible. Despite the misgivings adults had about them, these young people rose to the moment.

Today we now know that none of these predictions of moral decay, societal collapse, and dereliction of duty ever happened. Young people have always grown into adults and, at the proper time, assumed the stewardship of humankind flawlessly. I dare say each generation has helped improve society to be better than the generation before them. Today we are more accepting and tolerant of others than we were 30 years ago and the generation of 30 years ago was the generation of the Civil Rights Movement. That's saying something. We are improving and moving forward ever so slightly every single year. At times it may not feel like it, but trust me, we are. Having been around teenagers all my adult life I can honestly say they have never changed; teenagers are just teenagers. They do not ever change. They will grow up. They will cut their hair or change their hairstyle. They will eventually wear better clothes. Their unbridled idealism will eventually give way to well-rooted realism. They will eventually act "normal". Teenagers will grow up into adults and eventually have teenagers of their own. They will shake their heads with disdain and know in their heart of hearts that these teenagers are too soft and will be the downfall of all that they have worked for. And of course, they will eventually be proven wrong...again.  It will happen, it is the way of the world.