It’s doubtful that M. C. Escher (the Dutch graphic artist known for his minutely detailed pictures with staircases and bridges going nowhere and other fantastic images) ever crossed paths with Donald Trump, but Escher’s comments about chaos seem to mirror Trump’s actions as both a businessman and a president.  Escher said “we adore chaos because we love to produce order.”  He added that “chaos is multiplicity without rhythm.”  That last quote seems to sum up the first year of Trump’s second term.  

With all the gasp and grift, gold and goofiness in Trump’s White House, governance is lost and it feels like we have lost our national rhythm. Our Constitution is under attack by our elected and appointed leaders – all who swore oaths to preserve, protect, and defend that august document.  Our democracy is shaky, and tyranny edges closer, aided by multiple cabinet members whose allegiance appears to be not to the nation, not to the public, not to their oaths, but to one man.  The latest example is the appalling performance by Attorney General Pam Bondi before the House Judiciary Committee last week.  Summoned to discuss the laggardly release of the Epstein files by the Department of Justice (DOJ), Bondi was rude, arrogant, and argumentative with Republicans and Democrats alike.  Rather than respond honestly to questions, Bondi consulted a binder full of opposition research more suited to a campaign debate than a congressional hearing and refused even to look at the Epstein survivors seated behind her. The DOJ’s duty to protect and defend democracy didn’t appear to be part of her portfolio.

So what can we do?  What can we, as ordinary citizens, patriots, and concerned human beings, do to protect and defend democracy?  Asking hard questions is not being disloyal or obstructive.  It’s asking for, and expecting, accountability.  One approach is something that my first Capitol Hill employer, Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon, discussed in his May 1, 1967 speech on the Senate floor, “The Right and Responsibility to Dissent.”  Morse was one of only two votes against the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that gave Lyndon Johnson permission to escalate the war in Vietnam. Morse argued that the function of dissent is to keep the government and its institutions open to better and fuller consideration of its own doctrines and actions.  To quote Morse: “The dissenter is a person who feels or thinks differently.  I venture to suggest that to allow dissent is to foster difference; to criticize dissent is to penalize difference, and to ban dissent is, in the extreme, an attempt to eradicate differences in thinking and feeling.  It seems to me that a society’s attitude toward dissent is a pretty good barometer of its regard for the private individual human personality, as well as the public institutions of democracy.”

Morse made full use of his debate skills and broad knowledge of people.  He said “parties to a debate should attempt to be responsible.  They should respect the truth and make every effort to obtain all the facts which are available to them.  They should make their criticism logical and germane and propose constructive alternatives…and stay within the bounds of law and order…. I believe we are helped rather than hindered by the dissenter who keeps alive the conscience of the nation.”