Compassion and Choice

Compassion and Choice is the name of a nonprofit organization that is working to establish a human’s right to determine end of life options, including doctor assisted death. Most of us think of this ending as euthanasia. However, In the United States, euthanasia is prohibited under federal law. However, physician-assisted suicide, which is often confused with euthanasia, is legal in 10 states and the District of Columbia. These states include: California, Colorado, Hawaii. Maine, Montana (allowed via court ruling), New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Washington.

Physician-assisted suicide involves a patient self-administering prescribed medication to end their life, whereas euthanasia typically involves a third party directly administering a lethal agent.

There are currently 18 states with end-of-life legislation pending: Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee.

Until the issue of death becomes a part of our lives we don’t think much about it. However, it touches us all at some point. Whether it is the loss of a beloved pet at an early age, the tragic death of a loved one, or simply the passing of someone from old age, we cannot escape the reality that life is finite. In addition, the issue of “quality of life” should be considered. Is someone actually living a good life if they are confined to a wheelchair, cannot communicate, and often appear to be disconnected from their surroundings?

What is tragic in these inevitable events is that for most of us we do not have a right to end our own life with dignity. While no one is concerned when a beloved pet must be euthanized, that ending is not an option for almost all of us.

In Illinois the End-of-Life Options Act (SB 9 and HB 1328) would authorize medical aid in dying in Illinois. The Senate version was introduced on 1/13/2025 by Assistant Majority Leader Linda Holmes, and the House version on 1/14/2025 by Majority Leader Robyn Gabel.

On April 9, SB 9 was heard by the Senate Executive Committee which advanced it by an 8-3 vote. The bill’s next stop is the Senate floor.

In a 2023 poll, 71% of likely Illinois voters supported this compassionate legislation, and the majority of Illinois physicians also support this option.

The Compassion & Choices Action Network Illinois team and the ACLU of Illinois partner in the Illinois End-of-Life Options Coalition. If you would like to get involved, you can reach out to Compassion & Choices:

Phone: Call their End-of-Life Consultation service at 1-800-247-7421. Leave a voicemail with your name, state, return phone number, and the best time to reach you.

Email: Send an email to eolc@compassionandchoices.org. Include your name, state, and details about the resources you’re seeking.
Website: Visit their official website for more information and resources.

Does History Repeat Itself?

A Brief History of the Rise of Adolf Hitler

In 1922, the Beer Hall Putsch occurred when Adolf Hitler led the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (Nazi Party) members in an attempted coup. Hitler demanded that German leaders support his cause, but the coup failed. Four police officers were killed, as were 14 Nazi demonstrators. Hitler was arrested the next day. He was convicted of treason and sentenced to 5 years. He served only 9 months.

Hitler learned that violent revolution was not easy, but perhaps a nonviolent political revolution might better achieve his objectives. Gleichschaltung, the “coordination of society” was a goal to change the state at every level. He continued to promote the Nazis. In 1932, the Nazi Party was able to earn 37% of the votes for the Reichstadt. The majority parties, The Communists and Social Democrats, were unable to form a governing coalition because the Nazi Party refused to deal with either group.

With the help of several wealthy Germans, Adolf Hitler persuaded President von Hindenburg to appoint him as Chancelor of the Weimar Republic (Germany) on January 30, 1933. Wealthy German industrialists played a significant role in supporting Hitler and the Nazi Party during their rise to power. In early 1933, the Nazi Party was facing financial difficulties, but German industrialists provided substantial financial backing. This support was solidified during a secret meeting in Berlin on February 20, 1933, where Hitler assured them that he would eliminate trade unions and communists, and maintain private enterprises. Their contributions helped strengthen the Nazi Party and facilitated Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor.

Hitler then started promoting the idea that he had a mandate from the German people. The Nazis were given 2 seats in Von Hindenburg’s cabinet.

In addition, Hitler put loyalists in other various position of power in 1933. Hermann Goring was made Interior Minister of Prussia, while Wilhelm Frick was Minister of the Interior. These two ministers began an attack on free speech, due process, referendums, and state’s rights.

Hitler’s agenda included a plan to revive the economy (because Germany was recovering from recession), reduce unemployment, increase military spending (which had been curbed following WWI), withdraw from international treaties, rid the country of foreign individuals who were “poisoning” the blood of the nation, and exact political revenge against those who opposed his Nazi Party.

Hitler could not move on his agenda without Parliamentary support. The Nazi Party had only 1/3 of the Parliament. The Communists, and Social Democrats held the other 2/3. To overcome this problem, Hitler called for new elections, citing the inability of Parliament to form a new government, since the Nazi Party would not cooperate with the other two parties.

In February 1933, the press began noting that Nazi policies were not changing anything for the average German. In fact, the economy had gotten worse. Hitler’s efforts to double tariffs to protect German production of grain were faltering.

Then on February 27, 1933, an arsonist burned down the Reichstag building. Hitler blamed the Communist Party. Even today, no one knows who started the fire. The Communists blamed the National Socialists. A Communist was caught at the scene. However, the fire chief reported seeing evidence of Nazi involvement.

Interestingly, Hitler appeared on the scene and is quoted as saying, “There will be no mercy now. Anyone who stands in our way will be cut down. The German people will not tolerate leniency.” The next day he issued a decree, Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State, which Von Hindenburg signed into law. This decree placed restrictions on political activities, including politics in the press. Over the next few months, the only authorized press was the Nazi Party’s Volkischer Beobachter. There were restrictions on the right to assembly, speech, and press. The police would arrest those who opposed the government. The central government also claimed power over state and local laws and governments.

On March 5, 1933, elections were held, and the Nazi Party earned 44% of the vote. Von Hindenburg was forced to accept Hitler’s increase in power. Hitler then created the Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment with Joseph Goebbels as Minister.

On March 21, Hitler issued a decree giving amnesty to Nazis convicted of crimes in what Hitler called the “battle for national renewal”.

On March 23, Hitler issues his Enabling Act, “The Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich.” Although all of the Social Democrats voted against it, with the Communist Party banned, the Nazi Party had enough votes to pass the legislation. This legislation gave Hitler emergency power to bypass the legislature and President. The Supreme Court did not challenge the law. Both the Parliament and Supreme Court continued to exist but became Hitler’s servants with allegiance and support.

In 1934, President Von Hindenburg died. Hitler named himself the president, Fuhrer, combining the positions of president and chancellor.

History, Hitler, and Trump

There have been several articles, media posts, and a book, claiming that President Trump is following the same blueprint that Adolf Hitler used in dismantling Germany’s democracy. Others claim that it is easy to make such claims, but that much of what is said about a Trump/Hitler connection is coincidence. Is it just a coincidence or are the parallels too similar to be ignored?

Ivana Trump, Donald Trump’s first wife, reportedly mentioned in a 1990 Vanity Fair interview that he owned a book of Adolf Hitler’s speeches entitled My New Order and kept it in a cabinet by his bed. Attorney Burt Neuborne, a leading civil rights advocate, said that in her divorce filings, Ivana claimed that he kept, annotated, and studied the material. However, Donald Trump has denied reading the speeches and stated that the book was given to him by a friend.

Hitler and Trump — Compare and Contrast

Trump was born into riches. Hitler was not.
Trump requested and received deferments for military service. Hitler served in the Bavarian Army with the rank of corporal.
Hitler’s academic performance was reportedly average at best. He struggled with subjects like mathematics and science and eventually dropped out of school before completing his education. His teachers described him as intelligent but unmotivated, and he often clashed with authority figures.
Donald Trump had a mixed academic journey. He attended the New York Military Academy during his teenage years, where he reportedly excelled in sports and leadership roles, becoming a cadet captain. Afterward, he spent two years at Fordham University before transferring to the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania, where he graduated with a degree in economics. While Trump has often claimed he was a top student at Wharton, records and accounts from classmates suggest otherwise. His name did not appear on the Dean’s List or among honors graduates. Some reports indicate he was a lackluster student who focused more on social activities than academics.
Hitler was interested in the arts, particularly architecture. He enjoyed painting and pursued a career as an artist. He failed to make a decent living, and so he entered politics.
Donald Trump is famously passionate about golf. He claims to also have an interest in reading, with some of his favorite books reportedly including The Holy Bible, The Art of War by Sun Tzu, and The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli. Whether true or not, we do know that he does not like to read his daily briefings or other written materials. He prefers FOX News and other electronic media. Donald Trump’s reading habits continue to be a topic of discussion. Reports suggest that he prefers brief summaries or visual aids, like charts and maps, over lengthy documents. His ghostwriter for The Art of the Deal speculated that Trump might not have read a single book in his adult life.
There have been numerous allegations and anecdotes suggesting that Donald Trump has bent the rules while playing golf. For instance, some high-profile individuals, including actor Samuel L. Jackson and journalist Rick Reilly, have claimed that Trump tends to take liberties with the rules during games. Reilly even wrote a book titled Commander in Cheat, detailing these allegations. Reilly’s book suggests that Trump has been known to move balls, take extra shots, or claim victories under questionable circumstances. However, Trump has also been praised for his golfing skills by others, including professional athletes and celebrities who have played with him. It seems opinions about his conduct on the course vary widely, depending on who you ask.
Donald Trump’s major claim to fame lies in his multifaceted career and monied influence. He initially gained prominence as a real estate mogul, building a vast empire of luxury properties– including the iconic Trump Tower in New York City. He later became a household name through his role as the host of the reality TV show The Apprentice, which showcased his business acumen and catchphrase, “You’re fired!” He didn’t enter politics until 2015.

Political Paths

In his first election victory, Trump received just over 25% of votes from eligible voters. In his 2024, victory he performed better with 33%. This is far from the mandate that he claims. Hitler received 25% of the eligible votes in the 1932 elections and became the minority chancellor.
Both men had a means to dominate the media. The Nazi Party of 1933 gave away radios that had only one channel. Thus they bypassed the mainstream media. Donald Trump has had a range of media supporters over the years, particularly within conservative circles. Figures like Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson have been prominent voices on Fox News, often defending his policies and actions. Steve Bannon, through his “War Room” podcast, has also been a significant media ally. Additionally, platforms like Newsmax and One America News Network (OANN) have consistently provided favorable coverage.
Hitler talked about the superior Aryan race and demonized Jews. Trump talks about society’s problems, from black communities, threats from undocumented aliens (and in 2025 even those that are documented), unfair treatment of the white population through DEI policies, transgender encroachment in sports, and other hate topics. Trump says that the country is infested with alien rapists, despises “shit hole” nations, believes that America is the victim of unfair trade practices, and so on.
Hitler attacked his political adversaries, calling them parasites, criminals, cockroaches, and leftist scum. Trump called for locking up Hillary Clinton and degrades anyone who opposes him. He has clearly begun a campaign to rid the federal government of anyone he believed to be disloyal.
Hitler coined the phrase Lugenpresse (Lying Press). Trump uses “fake news” as his attack on the established mainstream press. According to Trump, the New York Times is failing. His onetime Press Secretary, Kellyann Conway famously created the term “alternative facts!”
Hitler and the Nazi wanted Gleichschaltung. As noted earlier, a complete reformation of the state and society that conformed to their ideals.
Although Trump denied ties to Project 2025, the crafters put forth a plan to reform government and society that conformed to their ideals.
Hitler’s youth movement was an attempt to indoctrinate Germany’s young people.
Trump attacks on the Department of Education, with some justification. However, what does the dismantling of the department mean for programs that teach inclusion.
Trump has removed DEI initiatives, fired government employees who do not agree with his vision, and removed historical references that do not fit his view of a grand America.
Hitler attacked science that didn’t agree with his Aryan race theory. Trump dismisses the science that supports climate change, immigration, health, and economics.
Hitler used his radio messages to push his opinions over all others. Trump has successfully used Sinclair Broadcasting and Fox Broadcasting to disseminate his message. Trump has launched his own social media platform called Truth Social. It’s part of his media company, Trump Media & Technology Group, which also has plans for a news network called TMTG News and a streaming service called TMTG+. These platforms aim to cater to conservative audiences and provide alternatives to mainstream media.
Hitler loved to orchestrate mass rallies. Trump also loves to appeal to crowds of loyal followers. At times he seems obsessed with the size of crowds.
Hitler used the German strong sense of a brilliant past to promise restoring Germany to its rightful place as a world leader. Trump has his MAGA.
Hitler closed German borders to protect Germans from non-Aryan migration. He also barred Jews, and promised to free Germany from Slavs. Trump attempted to bar Muslims and sanctuary seekers. While the Supreme Court found his Muslim ban unconstitutional, Trump found a way around it using executive orders. Trump is making tremendous efforts to remove various aliens from American soil without due process.
Hitler’s efforts to shift power to German industry was supported by corporate executives. Trump’s administration is also shifting power to the executive branch of the government and is supported by many of the wealthy corporate leadership.
Hitler worked to create German power, rejecting international cooperation in favor of military actions. Using the military, he annexed the Sudetenland, and invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland, and eventually much of Europe. Trump’s administration is set on a plan to make America great. He says he doesn’t need other nations. He has withdrawn from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Paris Agreements on climate, and nuclear agreements with Iran. He has withdrawn from the North American Free Trade Agreement, abandoned our Kurdish allies in Syria, and questions the value of NATO. His most recent attack has been the imposition of tariffs on almost all our allies.
Hitler destroyed German democracy by purging voting rolls, questioning the integrity of the voting process. Trump has also attacked the voting process, claiming voting fraud when he lost the 2020 election. He has also encouraged mob violence as witnessed in video from January 6, 2021.
Hitler was able to politicize the German court system. Trump has been able to use the legal system to avoid prosecutions. He has praised President Andrew Jackson for defying Chief Justice John Marshall. He has abused his power of executive pardons. He has effectively used his powers to appoint Supreme Court Justices that may support his agenda.
Hitler loved to stage show parades featuring the German military. He imposed a order of personal loyalty on all German judges and expected loyalty from his advisors. Trump has used loyalty as a test for appointment to key positions in his administration. He fired James Comey for refusing to swear an oath of personal loyalty. He is reportedly planning a military parade to celebrate his 78th birthday.
Hitler was the final word. He was Fuhrer! He ruled by dictate. Trump has shown that he believes he is in total control. He is a “stable genius,” who knows all! Trump rules by executive order.
Following the Reichstag fire, Hitler declared a national emergency. President Trump has declared a national emergency related to trade deficits and foreign economic practices. This declaration, made under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, aims to address issues like trade imbalances and currency manipulation by imposing tariffs on various countries.

Conclusion

While Trump and Hitler share many traits in their governing styles, it is important to note that dictators and authoritarian populists have followed similar plans. When there is a charismatic leader who uses the media to their advantage, it is possible to influence people to their cause. Fake and exaggerated issues are given solutions to the perceived problems. Hidden bias is allowed to rear its head.

According to Burt Neuborne, “The parallels—especially the links between Lugenpresse and ‘fake news,’ and promises to restore German greatness and ‘Make America Great Again’—are just too close to be coincidental. I’m pretty sure that Trump’s bedside study of Hitler’s speeches—especially the use of personal invective, white racism, and xenophobia—has shaped the way Trump seeks to gain political power in our time. ……Trump damn well admires—and is successfully copying—the way that Hitler got it (power).”

Draw your own conclusions. . .

It is Time to Decide

The current political and social climate has made me very concerned. I am a “boomer” who has lived through the healing process following WWII, and the turmoil created during the Korean War, Vietnam War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the civil rights movement, Watergate, Desert Storm, Afghanistan, 9/11, and other events. I was involved in the Vietnam protests, first as a student observer and later as a police officer on the front lines. In all my years living through these events, I never felt like our democracy was threatened as much as it is today. No matter what crisis the American people faced, there was always a sense that the law would prevail. In today’s Trump world, courts are defied or manipulated; many in Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, have failed to represent their constituents; long established safeguards have been removed; and executive power has increased to a level never seen in our 250-year history.

I have previously written about executive orders, restructuring our government, our president, education, and other issues. There are no simple answers to the situation that we find ourselves in today. However, it is money and the power that it yields which have contributed to the problem. While I am not a sociologist, my view of humankind is that there is a continuum of human caring (empathy). On one end are those who are so empathetic that they would easily sacrifice their own well-being for the good of the whole. On the other end of the spectrum are those who crave power and have no empathy. Our political structure mirrors this continuum with very liberal Democrats on one end and extremely conservative Republicans on the other. The difference is in the organization of the political parties and the membership loyalty to core values. Over the years I have maintained an independent attitude toward politics, although many would say I have a liberal bias. I understand the core principles that the Republican party held in the 1950s and 60s. But I also relate to the central Democratic base. So obviously, I do not subscribe to the far right MAGA philosophy. I am also wary of too much government involvement in social and personal issues.

With that said, I do believe that empathy should rule our society, not the money and the power that it brings to the political arena. Every human being should have the right to feel secure. When someone needs assistance, society should step up and help. I have been there as a young married college student, who would not have been able to survive without food stamps. On the other hand, I had the expectation that I would someday be able to support the family based on my wife’s and my income. To achieve security, a person needs to have an adequate income! As a highly educated individual, I have been fortunate to have achieved a sense of security. Do I need to earn more money? No. I really don’t know what my wife and I would do with it except to donate it to causes that we deem worthy. But for the Musks and Trumps of this world, how much is enough? I know it is not security that they crave. Rather, it is the power to control all that surrounds them.

I hope that America survives the current administration. MAGA and Donald Trump are not the Republican party of ideals that I can support on many issues. However, party loyalty for many is the only thing that counts. Why? Because Donald Trump has been able to convince roughly 33% of the American voting public that he has the answers to problems that he has either created or exaggerated. America does not need to be great again. We are great! That is until January 2025, when the Trump administration started to turn world opinion against America. Trump represents the desire to have it all. His supporters want to return to an America that no longer exists. Humanism has been on the increase for decades. Racism, gender discrimination, disproportionate distribution of resources should not be tolerated. If the 33% who sat out the election had spoken up, perhaps America would have continued to find a balance between the power that economic superiority brings and humanism. It is obvious to me, and many others (including those from other nations), that the money/power side of the continuum is currently trying to dominate. If successful, America will be much like feudal Europe– a king, princes, vassals, and peasants.

On March 31, 2025, Corey Booker began a Senate speech which lasted 25 hours, until April 1. Senator Booker took a stand for American values and the power of the people. On April 5, 2025, many across this nation took a stand for humanity over power and money. We must continue to fight the good fight. We must overcome the harm created by Trump and his followers.

Does the Department of Education Need to be Eliminated?

President Donald Trump recently signed an executive order aimed at dismantling the Department of Education. The order directs the department to reduce its size and transfer many of its responsibilities to states and other federal agencies. Programs like student loans, Pell Grants, and funding for students with disabilities should continue, but their administration might be shifted to other agencies over time. The move has sparked concerns about potential disruptions in federal education funding and services, especially for low-income and special-needs students.

In addition, President Trump has withheld funding for numerous federal agencies, as well as personnel cuts that Impact the operational effectiveness of those agencies. His initiatives to eliminate DEI have resulted in threats to various educational institutions that have been deemed in violation of his desire. His major targets have been high profile schools like Columbia. However, a number of regional universities are under investigation for discrimination tied to DEI programs.

While purportedly looking for a better investment, the Trump administration has lost sight of the fact that education isn’t about return on the dollar in test score numbers, but it is about children. Cuts to food and support programs should consider what happens when a child is hungry. The impact of housing support on living arrangements also impacts a student’s learning motivation. Our system of education is broken! Many children are in fact “left behind”. Education is good for the affluent, fair for the middle class, and substandard for people struggling to make ends meet. That is why 54% of Americans function a less than a 6^th grade level. With an overall literacy rate of 79%, the United States ranks 36^th. Most developed nations have literacy rates of 96% (National Literacy Institute, 2024-2025 Literacy Statistics).

Many of our competing countries, e.g., Finland, Canada, Japan, support early education with universal health and food support programs as well as support for counselors, mental health, basic human needs. Unfortunately, the United States is focused on outcomes through money spent of developing standardized tests. We often spend money to determine outcomes without providing adequate support for actual education. We don’t invest in teachers. Salaries are poor. Requirements for licensure are often costly and frequently not reimbursed by the school districts. Attracting college students to these poor paying teaching jobs has become increasingly difficult. Differences in taxing districts impact whether a school district invests in education or barely gets by. Wealthy districts can excel. Poor districts barely make their budget guidelines.

Too often, the United States has turned what should be an investment in humankind into a business venture. Spending more money doesn’t guarantee a better product. Our founding fathers stressed the need for a literate populace if their model democracy was going to survive. America has failed to maintain the gains in education achieved over the 20th century. The amount of money spent on buildings, extra-curricular activities and mandated curriculums has changed the focus from basic skills and understanding of our system of government to looking good on paper.

Downsizing with the intent to eliminate the Department of Education is as unfounded as most other downsizing initiatives underway under the Trump administration. There is no doubt that there is waste in our federal bureaucracies. This waste should be eliminated. However, the chainsaw approach offered by the Trump administration can do only what a chain saw does. The cuts are crude and dangerous. What is needed is a careful review of programs by independent experts. The recommendation then needs to be reviewed by Congress and their determination passed on to the Executive Branch.

The United States is not a business being run for profit. Although, in recent years it often looks like our elected representatives are there only to make money for themselves. The United States government is a service funded by the taxpayer for all American citizens.

Money and the VOTE

Election laws in the United States are designed to ensure fair and transparent voting processes. They cover aspects like voter registration, accessibility, campaign finance. States have the primary authority to set election rules, but federal laws, like the Voting Rights Act, provide overarching protection. These election laws strictly prohibit voter buying, which refers to offering money or other incentives to influence someone’s vote. Under 18 U.S. Code § 597, it is illegal to make expenditures to influence voting, whether to encourage someone to vote or refrain from voting, or to vote for or against a specific candidate. Violations can result in fines or imprisonment.

State laws vary, but no state allows payments to vote for or against a particular candidate or ballot measure. Some states, like Wisconsin, even prohibit payments for simply turning out to vote.

There have been allegations that Elon Musk may have violated campaign finance laws by offering monetary incentives to registered voters in swing states during the 2024 presidential election. These payments were tied to signing a petition supporting the Constitution. You could argue that such payments were intended to influence voter registration and voting behavior. If this is the case, such actions could potentially breach federal laws prohibiting payments for voter registration or voting.

In addition, Musk also has been a major donor to political campaigns, such as the current Wisconsin Supreme Court race. Here his donations and advocacy have sparked debates about the ethics of such involvement. Musk also has ownership of the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) which has allowed him to amplify his political views and influence public discourse. His financial backing and public endorsements have positioned him as a key figure in certain political movements.

Musk’s interactions with senators and representatives have also sparked significant debate. Reports suggest that Musk has used his wealth and political action committees to exert pressure on lawmakers. He has reportedly threatened to fund primary challengers against Republican senators who oppose certain agendas. With his involvement in federal government restructuring, he has drawn criticism from both parties, with some senators expressing concerns about his unelected authority and its impact on their constituents.

However, it’s worth noting that legal experts are divided on whether these actions constitute outright violations or merely exploit loopholes in the law. The situation underscores the complexities of campaign finance regulations and the influence of wealth in politics.

Yet buying votes is strictly illegal. It involves offering money or resources to voters in exchange for their votes. This practice undermines democracy and as noted earlier, is punishable by fines or imprisonment under U.S. law.

The influence of money in politics has been a long-standing concern, and it raises tough questions about fairness and representation. When financial power overshadows the voices of everyday citizens, it can appear that the democratic process is being undermined. Since 2010, The Supreme Court Case, commonly referred to as Citizen’s United, has caused a major political upheaval. However, that is a topic for another blog.

But democracy is resilient. Grassroots movements, campaign finance reforms, and public awareness can all push back against these challenges. What measures do you think could help restore balance?

What Can I Do?

A well-known parable or anecdote, often attributed to various spiritual or philosophical traditions, illustrates the progression of focus and priorities through the different stages of life, highlighting a journey toward inward reflection and personal peace. The story doesn’t have a singular or definitive source; instead, it appears in various adaptations, often within the context of personal growth, wisdom, or spiritual teachings. It tells about a man in his youth, who had a lot of energy to devote to making the world a better place. Then in his middle age, he only had enough energy to focus on those around him. And in his old age, he was happy just to focus on peace within himself. While this journey is common for many of us, we don’t have to abandon the goal of making the world a better place!

I recall when friends were totally devoted to the antiwar effort and civil rights movement in the 60s and 70s. However, after a few months went by, some friends quit, saying that they just wanted to focus on inner peace. And recently, when someone commented on a FB post about how we all should be more devoted to world peace, someone commented that she just tries to be nice to those around her.

On the contrary, we should all try to be as active as possible, (even considering old age, health problems, family, and job commitments). There are many ways to fight injustice, war, and inequality, not only in our own country (which is BADLY needed), but in the world as well. Consider the unjust war in Ukraine, genocide in Gaza, and the starvation in Southern Sudan.

You do not have to march in protests or carry signs to be heard. You can write letters to, send emails to, or call your elected representatives. You can donate to organizations that represent your views. Many are highly rated for their effectiveness. They should be spending their money on lawyers or lobbyists who fight for your views. You can discuss (not argue) issues with others. Push back is good if you have factual information to back your position. Don’t be afraid to ask questions.

In other words, it behooves us as human beings to not just settle for peace within ourselves. This is especially easy considering how economically well off most of us are compared to the rest of the world. It is easy when you live in a town that is relatively peaceful and not threatened by disease or terrorism. We must continue to fight against injustice and inequality. We must work to bring peace throughout the world. This is even true in today’s America where, most recently, there is a fight to defend victims of Trump’s acts of injustice. For example, consider the college student who has a green card but was recently arrested and charged with a criminal act even though he was simply exerting his right to free speech and assembly – to protest the genocide in Gaza. Or consider the arrest of Venezuelans with no habeas corpus rights, using an old and obscure law and executive power. There needs to be a pushback against what appears to be the deliberate destruction of our Constitutional Democracy!

“When injustice become law, resistance becomes duty.” (a quotation attributed to Thomas Jefferson)

Where is the Pushback?

Where’s the pushback from Congress in response to President Donald Trump’s defiance of the courts and disregard for the Constitution? While actual Republican pushback has come from Elizabeth Chaney and Adam Kinzinger, and a few active Senators, most elected senators and representatives in both parties appear to have little appetite for pushback. Democrats, where are your leaders? OAC, Pete Buttigieg, a few others, and independent Bernie Sanders should be supported by more of you. Where are the real Republicans? Your party has been taken over by Trump supporters. The executive power that Trump claims is not real. His “MANDATE” is far from a mandate. A full 36 percent of eligible voters did not cast a ballot. That is a larger percentage than either Trump or Harris received. Push back!! Don’t let the judicial branch attempt to carry the load! Trump’s actions are not something new. Consider Andrew Jackson, known as the people’s president, and the pushback from his political opponents.

In 1834, Henry Clay led a revolt against President Andrew Jackson. President Jackson had started defying court directives and Congress. In 1832, Jackson defied Chief Justice John Marshall in the case of Worcester v. Georgia. In this case the state of Georgia attempted to impose laws on the Cherokee Nation. The Court upheld the sovereignty of the Cherokees. Jackson did not like the decision and refused to accept its directive. Most often Jackson is quoted as saying, “Jon Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” Jackson personal stance was part of his broader Indian policy which eventually led to the Trail of Tears.

Then in 1834, Jackson opposed the Second Bank of the United States as presented by Congress. Jackson viewed the bank as unconstitutional and corrupt, favoring state banks and a decentralized financial system. His stance led to the infamous “Bank War,” where he vetoed the renewal of the Bank of the United States’ charter and redirected federal funds to state banks, often called “pet banks.” Jackson claimed that as president he could judge the constitutionality of a central bank, ignoring the 1819 Supreme Court ruling in McCulloch v. Maryland, which held that the Bank of the United States was legal. This was a defining moment of his presidency. Senator Henry Clay viewed Jackson’s actions as outside his executive authority. Clay moved to have Jackson censored by Congress. In 1834 the Senate formally censured Jackson. In 1837 the Senate, now dominated by Jackson supporters, voted to remove the censure from the Senate record. Although Clay’s efforts failed, his argument helped shape limits on executive powers. Jackson’s personal beliefs regarding the central bank are the likely cause of the Panic of 1837, our first major depression.

Where is the Henry Clay or Daniel Webster of our generation? Webster said, “I am committed… to the Constitution of the country…. And I am committed against everything, which, in my judgment, may weaken, endanger, or destroy it…; and especially against all extension of Executive power; and I am committed against any attempt to rule the free people of this country by the power and the patronage of the government itself.” Which Senators today will protect the separation of powers as enshrined in our Constitution?

President Trump’s Executive Orders—Why?

Part 2

Introduction

During his first days in office President Trump signed over 50 executive orders. As of this writing there are now over 100 orders! While new presidents start their terms with executive orders, the extent and direction of President Trump’s orders is “Trumpian.” In Part 2 I will continue to discuss selected executive orders, consider why they were signed, present the positives and negatives of each order, and consider the unforeseen consequences, good and bad. With over 100 orders to choose from this will take some time!

Federal Hiring Freeze

Signed January 20, 2025, this executive order is similar to the order President Trump signed on January 23, 2017. This executive order is aimed at reducing the size of the federal workforce. The order is aimed at halting the hiring of federal civilian employees across the executive branch. Agencies can hire no more than one new employee for every four who leave. Immigration enforcement, public safety, military, and law enforcement are exempt from the hiring restrictions. Agencies are directed to develop plans for large-scale reductions in force, and identify nonessential functions including diversity initiatives for cuts. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, oversees the efficiency measures and coordinates with agency heads. Federal employees have been offered incentives to resign.

The order also directed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to develop a plan to reduce the federal workforce through efficiency improvements and attrition.

Why?

President Trump signed the 2025 hiring freeze order to reduce the size of the federal government’s workforce and cut down on government spending. Candidate Trump had regularly made statements promising to reduce government spending and waste. This order fulfills his promise to his political base. This hiring freeze is part of a broader effort to improve efficiency and reduce costs within the federal government.

Positives

The primary goal of the hiring freeze is to reduce government spending. By not filling vacant positions, the government can save on salaries and benefits. The hiring freeze could streamline government operations. The freeze may lead to better utilization of current employees and potentially uncover inefficiencies. With fewer resources, agencies may be encouraged to find innovative solutions to maintain service levels. This can lead to the adoption of new technologies and processes that improve overall efficiency.

Negatives

While these potential benefits exist, it’s important to consider the broader implications and challenges that may arise from such a policy. The freeze has had various impacts, including staffing shortages in agencies like the IRS and the National Park Service, which rely heavily on seasonal workers. Critics argue that such measures can disrupt agency operations and potentially increase costs in the long run.

The hiring freeze has also led to the rescinding of job offers for many candidates, including those who had already received offers from federal agencies like the IRS. This creates uncertainty and financial instability for those affected. Agencies like the IRS and FDIC are facing challenges in fulfilling their duties due to the hiring freeze. The IRS, for example, may struggle to process tax returns efficiently, potentially leading to delays in tax refunds. The FDIC’s ability to ensure the stability of the banking system is also compromised, increasing the risk of bank failures and weakening consumer protections.

The hiring freeze has led to a decrease in efficiency and morale among existing federal employees. With fewer staff members to handle the workload, employees may experience increased stress and burnout, which can negatively impact their performance and overall job satisfaction. The freeze may have long-term consequences for the federal workforce, including a potential loss of institutional knowledge and expertise as experienced employees retire or leave for other opportunities. This can hinder the government’s ability to effectively serve the public and address emerging challenges.

Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid

Signed January 20, 2025, this directive mandates a comprehensive review of all U.S. foreign assistance programs to ensure they align with American interests and values. The order includes a 90-day pause on new obligations and disbursements of development assistance funds while these reviews are conducted. The reviews are to be carried out by the department and agency heads responsible under guidelines provided by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

The executive order aims to assess the efficiency and consistency of foreign assistance programs with U.S. foreign policy. Based on the review recommendations, the department and agency heads responsible, in consultation with the Director of OMB, will decide whether to continue, modify, or discontinue each foreign assistance program. The Secretary of State has the authority to waive the pause for specific programs if necessary.

Why?

President Trump believes that the U.S. foreign aid programs are not aligned with American interests and values. He has argued that these programs often destabilized world peace by promoting ideas contrary to harmonious and stable relations within and among countries. The executive order aimed to ensure that U.S. foreign assistance was fully aligned with the President’s foreign policy and provided a value return for the American people. The administration emphasized the need to review and realign foreign assistance to protect America’s investment and focus on national interests.

Positives

The order is designed to ensure that foreign aid programs are aligned with American interests and values, promoting a more coherent and strategic approach to foreign assistance. By pausing new obligations and disbursements for a comprehensive review, the order aims to improve the efficiency and accountability of foreign aid programs. This helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent effectively and provide a return for the American people. The order emphasizes the importance of focusing on national interests and protecting America’s investment in foreign assistance. This approach aims to make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous.

Negatives

The 90-day pause on new obligations and disbursements of development assistance funds has caused significant disruptions to ongoing aid programs. This has affected millions of people worldwide who rely on U.S. funds for essential services such as food, healthcare, and economic development. The executive order has led to job losses for tens of thousands of Americans and non-Americans working in the international development sector. This includes employees of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and private contractors.

Private contractors working with USAID have faced financial burdens due to unpaid invoices and the sudden halt in funding. This has affected their ability to sustain operations and fulfill commitments to subcontractors, suppliers, and employees. Contractors and organizations that rely on their proven track record of reliability to secure future government contracts face reputational risks due to the uncertainty surrounding funding and the potential cancellation of contracts.

The pause in foreign aid has had severe consequences for vulnerable populations in developing countries. The executive order has led to the cessation of programs that support the rights and well-being of these communities. The disruption of aid programs and the potential withdrawal of U.S. support from international development efforts could lead to increased instability in regions that rely on U.S. assistance for stability and development.

Thomas Paine and Common Sense: A Revisit

Robert J. Fischer

Introduction

Thomas Paine was a man who greatly influenced many of our early colonial leaders and the fathers of our nation. Arguably his most significant writing is Common Sense, which was published in 1776. The following quote from his introduction sets the tone of the piece. Although over 250 years have passed, his statements still hold true in 2025.

“The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances have, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all lovers of mankind are affected, and in the event of which their affections are interested. The laying a country desolate with fire and sword, declaring war against the natural rights of all mankind, and extirpating the defenders thereof from the face of the earth, is the concern of every man to who nature hath given the power of feeling, of which class, regardless of party censure.”

Paine was born in Norfolk, England, the son of a Quaker businessman. His maternal grandfather was a lawyer. His early career was a blend of working with his father and holding positions in the English government. In 1772 he met and became friends with Benjamin Franklin, America’s Colonial agent for Pennsylvania. With Franklin’s help he immigrated to Pennsylvania in 1774. He became the editor of Pennsylvania Magazine, where he wrote articles condemning British tyranny in the American Colonies. In January 1776, he published Common Sense, a pamphlet supporting colonial independence. He is often remembered for the quote, “These are the time that try men’s souls.” Because of his support for the American and French revolutions, the English Parliament found him guilty of treason. In 1793, Robespierre, a leader of the French Revolution, believing Paine to be a threat to the new Republic, had Paine arrested as an enemy of France and sentenced to death. With the intervention of his friend James Monroe, then American minister to France, and in lieu of the death of Robespierre, Paine was released in late 1794. In 1802 he returned to America with the help of his friend Thomas Jefferson, who had just been elected President of the United States. He died peacefully in 1809.

Thomas Paine had a prolific writing career which included famous and still read pamphlets and books, including:

Common Sense
American Crisis Papers (1776-1783)
Rights of Man
The Age of Reason
Agrarian Justice

A Time to Revisit Common Sense

The following presents Paine’s thoughts on government. A good summary of Common Sense comes directly from Paine. I will then comment on the statement in terms of 2025 politics. My comments are in bold type. It seems clear that Paine viewed government as a necessary evil. If he were alive today, he might be a Libertarian!

“Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”

“Governing has always been monopolized by the most ignorant and the most rascally individuals of mankind.” I don’t agree with Paine. Government is not always monopolized by bad people. We have had and continue to have elected and appointed government officials who are dedicated to serving the people of the United States. Early leaders such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson come to mind. And, as I write this, Jimmy Carter also was such a person. However, Paine was correct that there have been many since 1776 who desired power for their own benefit. Arnon Burr is a good example of an early leader who attempted to establish his own country at the expense of the United States. Today, we might question what Donald Trump has in mind! Keeping the rascals out of office is the job of an educated electorate! Based on the past decade, we haven’t been doing a very good job. In fact, it appears to me that the government is headed toward an oligarchy.
“Some writers have confounded society with government… but Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The first is a patron, the latter a punisher.” I agree with Paine that society should be the power behind good government, as it is produced by our needs and wants. The government should work to fulfill those needs and wants. When the wrong people are elected, the government can become wicked. When dreams are fulfilled, society is happy. When wants or basic needs seem to be neglected due to government operations, society rebels. MAGA became a movement where those who feel disenfranchised by their government look for a way to gain power over the existing government.
“An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws.” While laws exist in a civilized society, they can be used by those who have grudges or seek power to punish or control the people who disagree with their positions. This observation has not changed! Over the past decades our government has changed laws to favor the far-right agenda. Voter rights have been curbed in many states. Court appointments have moved to the conservative side of the pendulum. Citizens United has given power to wealthy corporations. To make the situation worse, President Elect Trump has promised to use our legal system to punish those who he perceives as his enemies.
“[G]overnment…perverts the abundance which civilized life produces…It affords to them pretenses for power and revenue, for which there would be neither occasion nor apology, if the circle of civilization were rendered complete.” Life is simple. According to Abraham Maslow there are five basic needs which include: physiological (basic survival, food, clothing, shelter), safety, love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization. The first is a must for survival. Other needs can be more difficult to attain. Still humans strive for more. There are wants, and through our capitalist system, these wants are often met. Government, which is controlled by the people, helps us meet these needs. Companies and individuals prosper. That is the goal of capitalism. Throughout history, government has stepped into free capitalism, using taxation and regulation to control business and provide funding for the government. But government often devolves into overreach! The power and the stated need for funding can lead to corruption of the system. Donald Trump has promised to reduce government involvement in our capitalist system.
“[W]e still feel the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping at the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without a tribute.” In my view, Paine shows his libertarian bias. Left unchecked, government often goes beyond its mandate. Paine believed that people should be able to make their own decisions. The American Revolution was about capitalism free from English control, and taxation imposed by England on the colonies without adequate representation. In the present era, there are many, both conservatives and liberals, who feel that government has gone too far in regulating private enterprise and individual decision making. The Republican Party, in particular, has stood for less government. President elect Trump has said he will reduce government spending and regulation. However, the question might be, “What is the cost in terms of protection for those who do not have a voice and safety from environmental deregulation if government regulation and spending is curbed?
“All power exercised over a nation…must be either delegated, or assumed…All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation.” This statement is still true today. When power is delegated, it is through trust given by the people’s vote of confidence in their elected representatives. The people must trust that the system is fair and that their elected representatives represent their interests. Any other power assumed by elected officials is taken without public authority. Representatives, who focus on their own or solely on party agenda, corrupt the system. It appears that many of today’s elected representatives might fit into this category! Representatives like Matt Gates, Marjorie Taylor Green, and George Santos come to mind. The most egregious is January 6, 2021, which stands as an example of our President using has office for his own purposes!

“He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression.” This is a simple statement of what is good for you is good for all. In 2016 and again in 2024, the freedom to express opinions was supported as a Constitutional right. However, with the abundance of information, our current ability to know what is true and what is a fabrication has become difficult. Many Americans do not take the time, or have the time, to FACT check what they read or hear. However, there are NO alternative facts. There can be only one truth based on evidence. It is important that ever American learns how to determine what is FACT!
“Government…[has] no other object than the general happiness. When, instead of this, it operates to create and increase wretchedness in any of the parts of society, it is on a wrong system, and reformation is necessary.” (See number 4)
“The American constitutions were to liberty what a grammar is to language: they define its parts of speech and practically construct them into syntax.” The Constitution is a building block for good government. America has thrived under the guidance of the Constitution for 250 years. However, over the past few decades, there has been an intentional erosion of Constitution guardrails. For example, one of the worst Supreme Court decisions was Citizens United, in essence giving corporations the same status as human beings. Giving the power of being a citizen to Corporations who can now influence elections has taken the representative democracy out of play. Corporate monied interests buy elections, and thus representation. Court decisions have given power to where power was never intended by our founding fathers.
“The original principles upon which [America] resisted…to remember them rightly is repossessing them.” As a nation in 2025, we need to remember the basic principles on which this nation was founded. Americans across all levels economic and social status need to engage in their right to vote. Corporate money should not determine who represents human interests! Corporate America and big money can establish PACTs that buy advertisements to support their designated candidates. Can you believe what you read or see? As stated earlier, Americans need to demand a means to determine what is fact and what is political fiction.
“What are [other things] to the inestimable blessings of ‘Liberty and Safety!’” Today, we need to remember that our freedom is more important than economic achievements. Wants are vastly different from basic needs! It is important that Maslow’s basic needs are met. Government has and can help Americans meet these needs. But.in 2025, it appears that big money and corporate interest will fare too well. The average American may not be so lucky. In addition, while most Americans have not engaged in their civic duties, efforts to diminish the ability of those who do engage, have resulted in stricter election laws, and the erosion of individual rights. The rights gained over the last decades by racial minorities, women, persons with alternative lifestyles, and many others are being threatened.
“I become irritated at the attempt to govern mankind by force and fraud, as if they were all knaves and fools.” This statement could have been made by me. I am concerned that many Americans have allowed this nation to come under the leadership of a person who is not what he presents to the American public. President elect Trump while speaking of caring about Americans, has openly challenged the Constitution. It is apparent to me that he does not seek a balance of federal power. Rather, he will, if left unchecked, develop an imperial presidency. If this democratic system is to survive, Americans need to challenge the information that is presented on public platforms. Fraudulent information needs to be labeled as such. Since America is a representative democratic republic, Americans need to elect only the best educated and honest people to the offices that represent American value and views.

We the People: Our Founding Fathers—How Would They View MAGA and President Elect Trump?

Robert J. Fischer

Introduction

Through analysis of writings and other historical documents, it is possible to predict what historical figures might think of current events, but it is important to remember that their views were shaped by the events of their times. However, while much has changed over the past 250 years, a person’s character will likely remain unchanged. The following is a brief study of what a select number of our early historical figures may think about our soon to be Trump presidency. These suppositions are based on a review of the opinions of these historical figures. As I examined their views, I was at times surprised by their positions.

George Washington

Our first President had strong views regarding the Presidency and politics. He made a clear choice not to be elected as a king. He did not support political party affiliation. As the first President, he was not part of any political party! He believed that political parties created division. This division was detrimental to the goals of the nation, often serving party goals over national well-being. Washington believed in individual liberties and national freedom. These values would be best protected by a strong central government. It is likely that Washington would have been supportive of President elect Trump’s plans for economic growth and a reduction of government overreach. On the other hand, it is likely that Washington would have found Trump’s attempt at greater centralization of power in the executive branch as an overreach of presidential power. Washington was a strong supporter of checks and balances, as well as protection of civil liberties as expressed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Washington would likely have been opposed to the elimination or reduction of power in the Department of Education. Washington, along with many others, believed that if democracy was to survive, the nation needed an informed electorate. Therefore, informed voters would demand accountability with a focus on real concerns. Politicians would need to be more responsive to the electorate’s concerns rather than focusing on self-preservation and the party line. A good education is about empowering voters to think critically. Education can empower citizens to make informed decisions and then hold elected officials accountable.

Benedict Arnold

While considered a traitor to the American Revolution, General Arnold was one of Washington’s top military leaders. Arnold’s betrayal was motivated by his personal feelings of a lack of recognition and personal ambition. It is likely that he would find some aspects of Trump’s nationalist and populist rhetoric appealing. Trump’s portrayal as a strong leader and outsider would likely be appealing to Arnold based on his own experiences. Still, it would be difficult to know how Arnold would view Trump’s efforts to centralize power in the presidency.

Benjamin Franklin

Franklin was an intellectual who valued reason, liberty and civil virtue. He was known for his pragmatic approach to governance. He had a strong belief in a balance of power to protect individual freedom. As with Washington’s view, Franklin would have supported Trump’s economic vision and desire to reduce government overreach. Both goals fit with his belief in individual enterprise and a government focused on protecting citizen’s rights. Like Washington, it is likely that Franklin would have been concerned about Trump’s possible overreach with an emphasis on centralized power. Franklin, as exhibited in his support of the Constitution, was a strong advocate of checks and balances and the protection of civil liberties. In addition, Franklin’s experience in diplomacy and international relations would probably cause him to be concerned about Trump’s America First and isolationist policies. Franklin would also have been concerned about the intense party loyalty not the interests of the nation.

Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson’s views are enshrined in what we now call Jeffersonian Democracy. Jefferson believed in individual rights, a limited federal government, and the agrarian community. State’s rights were paramount over the rights of the federal government. Jefferson would likely appreciate Trump’s state rights views and his focus on economic development. However, like many of his contemporaries, he would be troubled by Trump’s focus on centralized power with executive overreach. As seen in his words in the Constitution, Jefferson was a firm believer in checks and balances.

Aaron Burr

Aaron Burr is a unique figure in early American politics. He served as the third Vice President under Thomas Jefferson. Burr was ambitious and often challenged the status quo of his time. It is very likely that Burr would appreciate Trump as an outsider who has challenged the status quo. His own alleged attempt to form an army and seize control of portions of America within the new Louisiana Territory would likely provide a positive view of Trump’s January 6 demonstration.

Alexander Hamilton

Hamilton is considered one of the Founding Fathers and was the first Secretary of the Treasury. Unlike Jefferson, Hamilton favored a strong central government with a powerful executive branch. Some of his views may have come from serving as George Washington’s chief aid. He believed that a strong government was necessary to control the nation’s finances and support its economic growth. In his view he would likely support Trump’s focus on economic growth and reduction of government restrictions on business. Still, he would also find Trump’s belief in centralized power as an executive overreach. Hamilton believed in a balanced government. He may also have been concerned with Trump’s policies that could increase national debt and undermine the government.

John Jay

Jay was a Founding Father who was responsible for much of the Bill of Rights. He was also the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Jay believed in a strong central government, diplomacy, and the rule of law. His views on Trump would likely be mixed. Jay would probably support Trump’s nationalism and economic protectionism. However, Jay would likely have concerns for Trump’s rhetoric and the potential he has shown for undermining democratic institutions– particularly the Supreme Court.

James Monroe

Monroe was the fifth President. His presidency was known for its strong stance on American sovereignty and his efforts to limit European influence in the Western Hemisphere. His strong stance created what has become known as the Monroe Doctrine. While given Monroe’s strong feeling on national sovereignty and protectionism, he would likely support Trump’s positions in these areas. However, like his predecessors, Monroe would find Trump’s divisive language, and his statements undermining democratic institutions, a major concern. Monroe valued unity and stability of government over party.

James Madison

Madison is often called the Father of the Constitution. It is evident from his writings that he was a strong advocate of a balanced government, using checks and balances of power. He believed in individual rights and a healthy federal system. Again, Madison would likely have a concern over Trump’s rhetoric. The divisive nature of his dialog and his willingness to attack democratic institutions, would be counter to his belief in unity and stability in government.

Thomas Paine

Thomas Paine was perhaps one of the most significant figures in America’s history. As John Adams said: “[W]ithout the pen of Paine, the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain.” Adams was probably correct. Paine published Common Sense in 1776. Over 500,000 copies were produced in a time when the population of the British colonies was less than 2.5 million. The percentage of readers is greater than the percentage who watch our Super Bowl! It is likely that Paine would not approve of much in Trump’s proposal for governance over the next four years. He would find Trump’s desire for a leaner and less intrusive government a positive position. However, he would likely be vehemently opposed to Trump’s focus on centralized power. Every American should read Paine’s Common Sense. It is as applicable to today’s world as it was in his. This champion of liberty would view Donald Trump and MAGA as a force to be resisted.

Synthesis

As I stated in the Introduction, it is difficult to know what any historical figure might think of modern society. However, personal values probably would not change. Of the ten early American leaders, it is interesting that all ten might support Trump’s general assumptions regarding protection of American sovereignty and his economic positions. However, at least eight would all be concerned about his apparent disregard for the democratic foundations of this country. Of course, this is a logical conclusion since these men were instrumental in creating the United State of America. Burr and Arnold would more likely be supportive of Trump. However, their own ambitions were their downfall. Both were concerned about their own well-being and legacy. It is no wonder that given Trump’s personality, they would likely find much of his agenda palatable.

Conclusions

It would serve us all well if we took time to reexamine the materials left behind by our early leaders. They did not agree on many things but were able to find common values. These men wrote some of the most enduring pieces of literature in our historic time. Thomas Paine’s works were widely disseminated and read by other prominent Americans. The Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights carry their message in precise language. Over the years our own institutions of government have often failed to live up to the vision that was behind the written words. America needs to focus more on providing an education that includes lessons on our early history, not just rote memorization, but an engaged dialog that allows for evaluation and individual interpretations.