This week’s column: when inmates run the asylum

BOSTON – Is being batshit crazy an impediment to ‎high public office?

It is a question being much-debated, these days, down here in the Disunited States. ‎As the Unpresident continues his ever-downward descent into the darkest, dankest depths – praising neo-Nazis and white supremacists, threatening to shut down the U.S. Government if Congress doesn’t give him his wall to keep out Mexicans – many serious people are asking a serious question: is Donald Trump insane? Is he nuts? Is he now, at long last, fit to be declared unfit?

Trump represents uncharted territory for the world. But the dilemma of what to do when a politician loses his or her marbles – not so much. It’s happened before, and not just down here in the United States, the nation now fully at war with itself. 

It happens all the time, all over. What isn’t so ubiquitous is how nations deal with the madmen at the top. 

In Canada, we’ve had a leader who communed with his dead mother, and regularly talked to his dog. He thought Hitler was a saint. But ‎that man – Mackenzie King – was Prime Minister, and our longest-serving Prime Minister, no less. Many knew he was certifiable, but history does not record any successful attempts to separate him from his office. 

The 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution anticipated the madman named Trump. America’s constitutional forefathers were not so wise about everything – their idiotic Second Amendment pledge to permit citizens to maintain “militias” carrying around assault rifles, for instance, has rendered U.S. schools and ‎work places veritable shooting galleries. 

That amendment was what allowed everything from Sandy Hook to the assassinations of Dr. King and the Kennedy brothers to‎ happen. It made this country the preferred jurisdiction of every modern mass-murderer.

But the 25th Amendment, in contrast, was smart. It was prescient. It reads:

“Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.‎”

The 25th amendment is mainly preoccupied with process. As with lawyers, as with founding forefathers: the solution to process is more process. And the 25th is certainly mostly about process. 

But it is those ten slender words – “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” – that bedevil many Americans, in these dark days. What does that mean, to be “unable” to be President of the United States? What is the standard? What is the threshhold?

‎When a president brags about sexually assaulting women? ‎ When he calls other nations, allies, rapists and murderers? When he mocks the disabled? When he breaks laws, over and over? When he discriminates? When he aligns himself with the Ku Klux Klan, and – on Twitter – threatens a nuclear war that will claim the lives of millions? Then?

The 25th Amendment ‎has been used before, in real life and on TV. On the TV series ‘Designated Survivor,’ starring Canadian Kiefer Sutherland as president, the 25th Amendment is invoked when Sutherland’s character must go under a surgeon’s scalpel after an assassination attempt. It’s a big deal, taking up a couple episodes of the show.  

And in the real world – which frankly seems far less real, since Agent Orange was sworn in as America’s 45th president – ‎the Amendment has been applied only a half-dozen times since it’s adoption. When Gerald Ford succeeded Richard Nixon as president; when Ronald Reagan needed a colonoscopy, or when George W. Bush needed one, too; and so on.

Resignations and colonoscopies: that has been the history of the 25th amendment, until now. 

So, how does one go about determining that Donald Trump is unstable and therefore unable? Who determines that, and how? It is no simple thing. 

Trump is not the first lunatic to lead the Republican Party. In 1964, the GOP’s leader was Arizona’s Barry Goldwater, a far-Right autocrat who called extremism a virtue, and who wanted to use nuclear weapons against‎ anyone who disagreed with him. Goldwater was not dispatched by a constitutional amendment – he was destroyed in the presidential election by a Democratic Party ad caled Daisy (and after which I named my own firm, full disclosure). Daisy worked because it called Goldwater’s sanity into question. 

But, in the days leading up to the November 1964 vote, a few psychiatrists also decided to opine on Goldwater’s mental stability from afar. Without having examined him up-close, the psychiatrists declared Goldwater mentally ill, and therefore unable to discharge presidential duties.

That set off a huge controversy in the American psychiatric community. And it led to the ‎creation of what is called, down here, the “Goldwater Rule” – that is, a psychiatrist cannot now diagnose a person without them having first been a patient. In fairness, it is probably a good rule: if unpopular politicians could be removed from office by a stranger’s psychiatric speculation, then there will not be many politicians left in office, will there? 

For the 75 per cent of Americans who want Trump gone, the Goldwater Rule is a dilemma. Donald Trump’s regime, enveloped in crisis and scandal as it is, is unlikely to offer up their “president” for examination by anyone’s head shrinks, anytime soon. If he is to be removed, the 25th Amendment to the Constitution won’t be the methodology. 

Besides, it is not enough to call Donald Trump crazy. He is far worse than that. He is a serial liar and a cheat, a swindler and a con man. And, by his own admission, he is a “man” who sexually assaults women. 

My favourite poet is Theodore Roethke. In one of his masterworks, In A Dark Time, Roethke writes:

“What’s madness but nobility of soul
At odds with circumstance?”

There is nothing noble about Donald Trump’s soul. He may be a madman, but he does not belong in an asylum. He belongs somewhere else. 

Jail. 


Sometimes emulating Neville Chamberlain doesn’t work so well



From my talk wth CBC this morning: the growing racist menace

Here:

People in positions of power need to use it. We have hate laws on the books, they should use them. All of us have a role to play and what happened in Manitoba is really important — God knows what would have happened if those two bystanders had not intervened. But when they did it scared off this racist creep and it prevented a bad situation from getting potentially far worse. All of us — if we take a position, if we write a letter to the editor, if we raise our voice — can have an impact. I’ve been following the far-right for over 30 years in Canada and the thing that scares them away more than anything else is community action. When a community rises up against them they disappear. They’re cockroaches. If you shine a light at them, they will scatter.


United Nations calls on United States to act against hate groups – in the United States 

Here’s something you don’t see every day. Usually, such United Nations committees are preoccupied with violent hate in remote corners of the world. This is the first time in more than a decade that the United Nations has issued such a warning to the United States – and the first time it has ever done so about the possibility that the President of the United States is encouraging the growth in hate group activity here in the US. Incredible. 


X: Recipe for Hate gets five out of five stars!

My publisher Dundurn has (smartly) arranged for teachers to read the book, since it’s (partly) aimed at a YA audience. Here’s what one teacher in the U.S. had to say:

I really enjoyed this book and I know I have students who would as well. I think the characterization is nicely done and the characters feel genuine. The pacing seems to really keep a nice pace too, I think it could have veered off into wasted pages, but the author really managed to keep a building pace until a pretty wild crescendo. The book is very action packed and has some rather graphic and violent parts, and also contains more than a few choice words. These could be a problem for some people, but the curse words are used for effect and not dropped every sentence and the violence, while graphic was not gratuitous. I would definitely recommend this book to some of my students, I have already told some of my junior and senior boys about it and that I think they would enjoy it.

Nice. you can pre-order multiple copies right here!

  


About that Hamilton PC “criminal” investigation, and credibility 

On August 8, I linked to a QP Briefing story that claimed that police had launched a criminal investigation into the Ontario PC’s candidate selection in Hamilton, here.

Two days later, CBC reported that – contrary to what QP Briefing had reported, there was no criminal investigation, here. I apologized for passing along what looked like erroneous information. 

I subsequently heard from very senior Ontario Liberals, and QP Briefing, who insisted CBC had it wrong and QP Briefing had it right. Here’s what the reporter said to me:

In the interest of accurate, accountable journalism — and for your readers’ sake and mine — I’d appreciate if you offered a correction that the criminal investigation is ongoing and QP Briefing reported the story correctly. 

Um, no. 

I told them that I was a lawyer and a former cop reporter and I would be happy to help out, if they promised to pay for my resulting legal bills. I said so.

Now, this week, QP Briefing quietly appended this at the end of a story on their web site:

“This story has been updated to remove the phrase “criminal probe.” Hamilton Police spokesman Claus Wagner told QP Briefing on Aug. 22 there’s an open investigation into a complaint concerning the nomination, which concerns whether or not a criminal offence has taken place. However, police have not yet determined yet if an offence has occurred, or not, so police do not consider the probe a “criminal” investigation, said Wagner.”

Among other things, I am not impressed. (And I’ve yet to hear from the reporter who insisted I publish a “correction.”) 

So, two things. 

You don’t win elections by promoting falsehoods, Ontario Libs. 

And you don’t help your journalistic reputation by getting things this wrong, QP Briefing – and also by chastising writers (like, say, me) who are interested in being accurate. And not getting, you know, sued. 

A bit of partisan spin is fine. But insisting others echo what is false, and getting irritated when they don’t? 

That’s a good way to lose all credibility.